Israel was behind 9/11
-
Deleted User 104
Re: 911 Tower 7 / Cover-up thread
I'm kind tight to time today, but I at least wanted to start responding. I realize I need to go back to your first post as well, as I will soon.Paul1 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:06 pm"Impossible"lobster wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:26 pmThe conspiracy part is with the idiots that think planes did not hit the towers and pentagon, or that missiles were used. Thermite might also be untrue as well. The twin towers might have fallen due to the plane damage alone, but there were explosives inside the buildings. Tower 7 on the other hand, could not have fallen the way it did due to fires on one side of it. Impossible. Thousands of scientists and physicists confirm it.
What was true was that there were additional explosives in the towers. There were several vans carrying huge amounts of TNT that were stopped by the police / FBI. You never heard much about it afterwards because it didn't fit the narrative.
Also, why is it you think all that steel that remained was shipped and sold to China and India immediately after the attacks? They wanted the evidence gone asap.
* Really? Has it ever happened to that building before to deem it "impossible"?
"Thousands" of scientists may "confirm it" but there are plenty who claim it is/was possible.
Who exactly is claiming that it was fire alone that brought down Tower 7? There was structural damage (that was not caused by fire) that was known before the building came down.
Once again I'll say, thousands of scientists claim global warming is a hoax and thousands claim it's not. Who is right and who is wrong? Both can't be right and both can't be wrong.
"There were additional explosives in the Tower".
* Really? What type of explosives exactly? As I said before, things explode when they are ignited/heated. Many things in the building could have exploded. You know for a fact there were explosives planted in the towers? According to whom?
"There were several vans carrying huge amounts of TNT that were stopped by the police / FBI".
* Really? "STOPPED"? Who was driving the van/s and who's TNT was it? If they were STOPPED then why/how were they involved in explosives being responsible for taking down the towers?
"ALL that steel"?
Really? "ALL"? No.
"They wanted the evidence gone asap".
Who is/are "they" exactly?
"Impossible"
* Really? Has it ever happened to that building before to deem it "impossible"?
"Thousands" of scientists may "confirm it" but there are plenty who claim it is/was possible.
Who exactly is claiming that it was fire alone that brought down Tower 7? There was structural damage (that was not caused by fire) that was known before the building came down.
Once again I'll say, thousands of scientists claim global warming is a hoax and thousands claim it's not. Who is right and who is wrong? Both can't be right and both can't be wrong.
Buildings have collapsed from fire before, but it's very rare. And when it does happen, it doesn't fall symmetrically. Tower 7 should have tipped over to some degree if it was really caused by fire.
Tower 7 was completely omitted from the 911 report for obvious reasons (they would have no way to explain that the building came down from fire alone). So they did not say it came down from fire alone, but also didn't give any explanation of what happened. There are various other “science” sources trying to sell the public on the idea that Tower 7 collapsed from fire alone. It's the laws of physics – a building cannot fall the way it did from a fire on the edges on one side of the building. This tower housed important CIA documents that were destroyed, which is easy to figure out why they demolished it.
In regards to global warming, it's tough to say who is right. I would argue that there is definitely a strong evidence that the world is getting warmer, but whether or not it's because of people is tougher to figure out.
"There were additional explosives in the Tower".
* Really? What type of explosives exactly? As I said before, things explode when they are ignited/heated. Many things in the building could have exploded. You know for a fact there were explosives planted in the towers? According to whom?
It remains unknown what type. Some people think it was thermite was used, I have my doubts that it was such. Lots of people (too many to list) believe there was some kind of explosives placed on certain areas of all 3 towers that went down. I obviously don't know the who, but there's a lot of evidence that there were people involved with elevator maintenance that were responsible for putting them inside the towers. Please watch some of the video links I posted, and I can supply more on the theories of was behind it.
"There were several vans carrying huge amounts of TNT that were stopped by the police / FBI".
* Really? "STOPPED"? Who was driving the van/s and who's TNT was it? If they were STOPPED then why/how were they involved in explosives being responsible for taking down the towers?
Here's a short video source on a van that were stopped that day. The exact number of vans is somewhere between 3 and 5. I can try to get other sources if you want more later.
The goal was that these vans were going to explode at the base of the towers (just like in 1993). In combination with the plane attacks, the goal was to trap over 50,000 people inside the towers. There were dozens of witnesses who heard and saw explosions at the base of the towers before they collapsed, including firefighters. See below for one of dozens of examples:
Of course, the greater concern is, why was this not brought up again after 911?
"ALL that steel"?
Really? "ALL"? No.
Okay, not all of it, but we're missing the bigger point here. Why was is so quickly shipped off and sold? Any other crime scene would have required they not destroy the evidence. The most obvious answer would be that they didn't want the steel examined before it was recycled.
"They wanted the evidence gone asap".
Who is/are "they" exactly?
The persons who had prior knowledge of the attack before it was coming. All signs indicate it was a combination of high-level CIA workers and other high-level government employees. Others who knew were from Israel, some of them, “our” terrorists.
There were 5 Israelis that were arrested at Lincoln Park on 911. They were out filming the attack on the towers before it happened. They were seen celebrating the attacks. Even more disturbing is that our government just sent them back to their country and Bin Laden was blamed instead. This answer is just the tip of iceberg. I encourage you to research more about this.
http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/moss ... ts-911.htm
Re: 911 Tower 7 / Cover-up thread
So did we figure out who did it yet?
Re: 911 Tower 7 / Cover-up thread
It was the guy on the grassy knoll.
Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-
Deleted User 266
Re: 911 Tower 7 / Cover-up thread
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Now it's my turn.
You said - "Buildings have collapsed from fire before, but it's very rare. And when it does happen, it doesn't fall symmetrically. Tower 7 should have tipped over to some degree if it was really caused by fire".
* Unless you know how every single building has fallen, I don't think you can say for sure that a building doesn't fall symmetrically from fire. The Tower 7 "structure" was compromised from the WTC collapse. Fire or not, explosive/s or not, I don't think anyone can say for sure how the building was "supposed" to collapse.
You said - "In regards to global warming, it's tough to say who is right. I would argue that there is definitely a strong evidence that the world is getting warmer, but whether or not it's because of people is tougher to figure out".
* Global warming was used as an example of how "experts" claim they "know for sure" and yet "experts" who claim "they know for sure" often contradict other "experts" who claim they "know for sure".
I find it interesting that you listen to / read what "experts" have to say about Global warming but are uncertain about global warming - and yet you listen to / read what experts say about 9/11 and you are extremely confident what some claim to be true is in FACT true.
You said - "It remains unknown what type. Some people think it was thermite was used, I have my doubts that it was such. Lots of people (too many to list) believe there was some kind of explosives placed on certain areas of all 3 towers that went down. I obviously don't know the who, but there's a lot of evidence that there were people involved with elevator maintenance that were responsible for putting them inside the towers. Please watch some of the video links I posted, and I can supply more on the theories of was behind it".
* Again, it's possible explosives were used to bring down the buildings. I find it interesting if "elevator mechanics" were cleared to have explosives in a building that was bombed years early and another building in which housed facets of the CIA. Even if it was a "government insider".
I'll watch the video links you provided at some point but for now I will simply offer my own thoughts without being swayed by people with an agenda who make videos.
You said - "Here's a short video source on a van that were stopped that day. The exact number of vans is somewhere between 3 and 5. I can try to get other sources if you want more later".
* Again I say, "stopped". I watched the CNN video you provided. So according to the video you provided, a SINGLE van with explosives was stopped.
Could have been international terrorist, could have been domestic terrorists, could have been a demolition crew that was hired for something completely unrelated to 9/11. MANY DIFFERENT reports of who the people were. Whoever they were, they didn't blow anything up so I am unsure why you originally said - "There were several vans carrying huge amounts of TNT that were stopped by the police / FBI" and felt that had something to do with explosives INSIDE the buildings. Were these guys late to the party?
You followed that up with - "The goal was that these vans were going to explode at the base of the towers (just like in 1993). In combination with the plane attacks, the goal was to trap over 50,000 people inside the towers. There were dozens of witnesses who heard and saw explosions at the base of the towers before they collapsed, including firefighters".
* How do YOU know what the "goal" was? Those explosions that were heard and seen could have been electrical related, water related, or just sheer power of parts of the building collapsing.
The 1993 bomb/s were UNDER a Tower. I am not going to argue semantics but to me under is different than at the base. Regardless, were any trucks/vans actually at the base that we know for sure exploded?
* I watched the video of the firefighters. They talk about "explosions". Once again I say, an "explosion" doesn't necessarily mean a "bomb" exploded. Heck, one of them even referred to the planes causing "explosions". Something else unrelated that I found interesting is that whoever released the video didn't feel a need to edit/bleep out the phone numbers the firefighters gave.
You said - "Okay, not all of it, but we're missing the bigger point here. Why was is so quickly shipped off and sold? Any other crime scene would have required they not destroy the evidence. The most obvious answer would be that they didn't want the steel examined before it was recycled".
* I don't have the answer/s but I do know there was plenty of steel left behind for a long time. Investigators were present but I agree it it seems the steel was removed quickly. It wasn't immediately sold to China (and other countries) after it was removed and I have read (true or not) portions were actually housed for investigators to investigate.
You said - "The persons who had prior knowledge of the attack before it was coming. All signs indicate it was a combination of high-level CIA workers and other high-level government employees. Others who knew were from Israel, some of them, “our” terrorists".
* How do we know anyone other than the terrorists had prior knowledge of the actual date, time, method, etc. of the attack before it was coming? I would have to assume if anyone did they would have been CIA, Israelis, "our terrorists". It's of course possible but I find it hard to believe something that elaborate that included the removal of a major "crime scene" could have occurred without a single leak when so many different entities (including NYC cops, firefighters, etc.) were present and involved.
* I have read about the "5 Israelis". I have read they were truly Israelis, I have read they were Palestinians, I have read different accounts of the same people.
You are actually using todayscatholicworld.com as a source for your information and feel what was written is factual? Did you bother to read a single different "article" than the one with the link you provided? Did you read their "purpose" statement? Come on lobster! As Plano would say, JFC.
Now it's my turn.
You said - "Buildings have collapsed from fire before, but it's very rare. And when it does happen, it doesn't fall symmetrically. Tower 7 should have tipped over to some degree if it was really caused by fire".
* Unless you know how every single building has fallen, I don't think you can say for sure that a building doesn't fall symmetrically from fire. The Tower 7 "structure" was compromised from the WTC collapse. Fire or not, explosive/s or not, I don't think anyone can say for sure how the building was "supposed" to collapse.
You said - "In regards to global warming, it's tough to say who is right. I would argue that there is definitely a strong evidence that the world is getting warmer, but whether or not it's because of people is tougher to figure out".
* Global warming was used as an example of how "experts" claim they "know for sure" and yet "experts" who claim "they know for sure" often contradict other "experts" who claim they "know for sure".
I find it interesting that you listen to / read what "experts" have to say about Global warming but are uncertain about global warming - and yet you listen to / read what experts say about 9/11 and you are extremely confident what some claim to be true is in FACT true.
You said - "It remains unknown what type. Some people think it was thermite was used, I have my doubts that it was such. Lots of people (too many to list) believe there was some kind of explosives placed on certain areas of all 3 towers that went down. I obviously don't know the who, but there's a lot of evidence that there were people involved with elevator maintenance that were responsible for putting them inside the towers. Please watch some of the video links I posted, and I can supply more on the theories of was behind it".
* Again, it's possible explosives were used to bring down the buildings. I find it interesting if "elevator mechanics" were cleared to have explosives in a building that was bombed years early and another building in which housed facets of the CIA. Even if it was a "government insider".
I'll watch the video links you provided at some point but for now I will simply offer my own thoughts without being swayed by people with an agenda who make videos.
You said - "Here's a short video source on a van that were stopped that day. The exact number of vans is somewhere between 3 and 5. I can try to get other sources if you want more later".
* Again I say, "stopped". I watched the CNN video you provided. So according to the video you provided, a SINGLE van with explosives was stopped.
Could have been international terrorist, could have been domestic terrorists, could have been a demolition crew that was hired for something completely unrelated to 9/11. MANY DIFFERENT reports of who the people were. Whoever they were, they didn't blow anything up so I am unsure why you originally said - "There were several vans carrying huge amounts of TNT that were stopped by the police / FBI" and felt that had something to do with explosives INSIDE the buildings. Were these guys late to the party?
You followed that up with - "The goal was that these vans were going to explode at the base of the towers (just like in 1993). In combination with the plane attacks, the goal was to trap over 50,000 people inside the towers. There were dozens of witnesses who heard and saw explosions at the base of the towers before they collapsed, including firefighters".
* How do YOU know what the "goal" was? Those explosions that were heard and seen could have been electrical related, water related, or just sheer power of parts of the building collapsing.
The 1993 bomb/s were UNDER a Tower. I am not going to argue semantics but to me under is different than at the base. Regardless, were any trucks/vans actually at the base that we know for sure exploded?
* I watched the video of the firefighters. They talk about "explosions". Once again I say, an "explosion" doesn't necessarily mean a "bomb" exploded. Heck, one of them even referred to the planes causing "explosions". Something else unrelated that I found interesting is that whoever released the video didn't feel a need to edit/bleep out the phone numbers the firefighters gave.
You said - "Okay, not all of it, but we're missing the bigger point here. Why was is so quickly shipped off and sold? Any other crime scene would have required they not destroy the evidence. The most obvious answer would be that they didn't want the steel examined before it was recycled".
* I don't have the answer/s but I do know there was plenty of steel left behind for a long time. Investigators were present but I agree it it seems the steel was removed quickly. It wasn't immediately sold to China (and other countries) after it was removed and I have read (true or not) portions were actually housed for investigators to investigate.
You said - "The persons who had prior knowledge of the attack before it was coming. All signs indicate it was a combination of high-level CIA workers and other high-level government employees. Others who knew were from Israel, some of them, “our” terrorists".
* How do we know anyone other than the terrorists had prior knowledge of the actual date, time, method, etc. of the attack before it was coming? I would have to assume if anyone did they would have been CIA, Israelis, "our terrorists". It's of course possible but I find it hard to believe something that elaborate that included the removal of a major "crime scene" could have occurred without a single leak when so many different entities (including NYC cops, firefighters, etc.) were present and involved.
* I have read about the "5 Israelis". I have read they were truly Israelis, I have read they were Palestinians, I have read different accounts of the same people.
You are actually using todayscatholicworld.com as a source for your information and feel what was written is factual? Did you bother to read a single different "article" than the one with the link you provided? Did you read their "purpose" statement? Come on lobster! As Plano would say, JFC.
-
Deleted User 266
Re: 911 Tower 7 / Cover-up thread
Who did it? Maybe. All depends if you want to believe our government. I'd be a bit hesitant. Lobster is probably more in the know.
Who orchestrated it and was involved behind the scenes? See my answer to "who did it".
I think the only person who knows for sure is Tuby. Where is that guy from Chicago when we need him?
Re: 911 Tower 7 / Cover-up thread
Illuminati ordered it.
Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-
Deleted User 266
Re: 911 Tower 7 / Cover-up thread
The both of them? And maybe the Dynamic Duo? If so, Alfred and Commissioner Gordon were probably the orchestrators.
Have to figure Rudy G played a major role in some capacity.
Heck, might as well thrown in The Donald, Howard Stern, Felton Spencer, and Woody Allen as suspects for good measure too.
-
Deleted User 266
Re: 911 Tower 7 / Cover-up thread
amazing
Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-
Deleted User 104
Re: 911 Tower 7 / Cover-up thread
@Paul1, here's another interesting source about the 5 Israelis.
https://21stcenturywire.com/2015/09/11/ ... -israelis/
https://21stcenturywire.com/2015/09/11/ ... -israelis/
-
Deleted User 104
Re: 911 Tower 7 / Cover-up thread
On one of the vans...
Other videos worth taking a look at...
Other videos worth taking a look at...
-
Deleted User 104
Re: 911 Tower 7 / Cover-up thread
Paul, I'll get back to you soon on your questions. Keep in mind though, I don't know everything (obviously), and some of what I'm arguing is definitely theory and not fact. The only thing I can say with 100% certainty is that Tower 7 could not have fallen the way it did by that fire on the side of the building. You can even see the explosives popping out the windows when it it being taken down.
I want to do you justice and will write a longer response. Thanks for keeping an open mind even if you don't see eye to eye. My goal with this all is to get people to question the events on that day.
I want to do you justice and will write a longer response. Thanks for keeping an open mind even if you don't see eye to eye. My goal with this all is to get people to question the events on that day.
Re: 911 Tower 7 / Cover-up thread
Facts, logic and opinions. This is for those of you out there who want to understand. With regards to professional technical services and legal opinions, if you do not have a good understanding of the principles and standards of practice and experience working in the field you really don’t have a logical opinion. You have a belief based upon other’s opinions and you chose between them based upon…..I can’t say. But it is not technical knowledge, experience and application of engineering mechanics and standards of practice. Even among engineers there are levels of understanding.
Study case; a wrongful death lawsuit has been filed regarding a building collapse that resulted in a death. The plaintiff’s attorney hires a principal registered engineer from a large national firm. The case hinges on two issues, one is an interpretation of the Code of Conduct (ethics) which is something every registered engineer must attest to uphold when they are licensed; and standard practice for a very specific kind of building structure repair and investigation.
The facts are that a defendant structural engineer was hired to look at a localized failure due to water and rot in a masonry and timber building that is about 100 years old. The firm and the engineer have 20 plus years of experience working on this type of project. They put together drawings for repair of the area and work is done and the repairs completed. 3 years later the adjacent structure collapses and a progressive collapse mechanism causes three buildings to fall including the one the defendant engineer had helped repair three years earlier, killing someone inside.
The plaintiff’s expert states in their deposition that their experience on this specific type of building includes one such project that fits this type of structural system, they talked to another principle in their NY office who does a limited amount of similar work, and they have read multiple articles on the internet to bring them up to speed on particulars of the materials involved. The engineer’s primary experience is design of long span roofs for stadiums and arenas. This engineer concludes that in their opinion the Code of Conduct was violated and also that the standard of practice/care was not followed. With regards to Code of Conduct they believed that regardless of whether or not the engineer in question was hired/paid to look at the adjacent building, due to the self interest clause of Section 3A below, the engineer was required to look at the entire block and the adjoining buildings without compensation because they should hold public safety as the highest priority. They also stated that selective demolition should have been done to reveal concealed conditions in the adjacent buildings.
The defendant’s attorney engages a structural engineer from another large national firm to review the deposition and opinions produced by the plaintiff’s expert. They ask for experience of this individual who states they have done reviews, modifications, renovations and forensic collapse reports on roughly 400-500 buildings of this specific type over the course of the last 30 years. They have also reviewed 35-40 buildings in the specific town square where the collapse occurred and were involved in saving the remaining structures to prevent further progressive collapse of the entire block. The defense’s engineer concludes that the standard of practice for this type of building was followed and investigation proposed by the plaintiff’s engineer would not be advisable because it could cause possible structural damage to the existing buildings and gives a couple of examples of collapses that were caused in this way. They also give an example of a very low tech alternative to the proposed selective demolition proposed by the other expert which is indicative of the condition of concealed conditions in buildings of this type but does not require demolition and repair. The investigation proposed could be considered a conflict of interest because as damage was done in the investigation; the structural instability caused would require the Owners to hire the engineer to prepare drawings to repair the issues they caused. This is kind of like the analogy of a fireman starting a fire. With regards to the Code of Conduct violation the second engineer says they read the specific phrase in question as a statement about “conflict of interest” not “standard of practice/care”. They state that Code of Conduct as such does not go into specifics on “standard of care” that is covered for the most part in other codes that we apply to our work. They clarify by noting that they are not an attorney and that this might legally be interpreted differently in a Court, but this what they have believed to be the gist of this clause. But they tell the defense counsel, if the plaintiffs are going to have their expert reading parts of the Code of Conduct to the jury; please have them read the section ( 3B ) directly below the one they are quoting ( 3A) out loud in front of the jury and have them interpret this other section as well. The defense attorney reads Section 3B out loud and starts laughing loudly.
For reference here is the specific section of the Code of Conduct:
(3) In practicing architecture, professional engineering, professional land surveying, or professional landscape architecture, a licensee shall—
(A) Act with reasonable care and competence and apply the technical knowledge and skill which are ordinarily applied by architects, professional engineers, professional land surveyors, or professional landscape architects of good standing, practicing in Missouri. In the performance of professional services, licensees hold their primary responsibility to the public welfare which should not be compromised by any self-interest of the client or the licensee.
(B) Undertake to perform architectural, professional engineering, professional land surveying, and professional landscape architectural services only when they are qualified by education, training, and experience in the specific technical areas involved.
In this case study the plaintiff’s attorney dropped the lawsuit shortly after reading the report from the defense expert and talking to plaintiff’s attorney.
How is all of this relevant? Why do you bring this shit up you say? Here are the firms and resume’s of two of the participant’s in the “debate” over whether or not the NIST WTC reports are somehow faked.
For reference here is the website for the firm of one of the “Expert” structural engineers who represents the 9/11 truthers.
https://www.landtech.com
Here is the website for the firm of one of the experts hired by NIST to work on the WTC collapse reports.
https://www.mka.com
You should check out the "projects" section of the websites to see the representative work of the people involved. If you are going to trial in a case involving the collapse of a large building who do you bring in as your expert? Is this post merely a hit job on the reputation/knowledge of the engineer who is spokesperson for the 9/11 truthers? No, but it does make me wonder if there is an engineering ethics violation going on here. All "experts" are not created equal nor should their opinions be given equal weight.
Study case; a wrongful death lawsuit has been filed regarding a building collapse that resulted in a death. The plaintiff’s attorney hires a principal registered engineer from a large national firm. The case hinges on two issues, one is an interpretation of the Code of Conduct (ethics) which is something every registered engineer must attest to uphold when they are licensed; and standard practice for a very specific kind of building structure repair and investigation.
The facts are that a defendant structural engineer was hired to look at a localized failure due to water and rot in a masonry and timber building that is about 100 years old. The firm and the engineer have 20 plus years of experience working on this type of project. They put together drawings for repair of the area and work is done and the repairs completed. 3 years later the adjacent structure collapses and a progressive collapse mechanism causes three buildings to fall including the one the defendant engineer had helped repair three years earlier, killing someone inside.
The plaintiff’s expert states in their deposition that their experience on this specific type of building includes one such project that fits this type of structural system, they talked to another principle in their NY office who does a limited amount of similar work, and they have read multiple articles on the internet to bring them up to speed on particulars of the materials involved. The engineer’s primary experience is design of long span roofs for stadiums and arenas. This engineer concludes that in their opinion the Code of Conduct was violated and also that the standard of practice/care was not followed. With regards to Code of Conduct they believed that regardless of whether or not the engineer in question was hired/paid to look at the adjacent building, due to the self interest clause of Section 3A below, the engineer was required to look at the entire block and the adjoining buildings without compensation because they should hold public safety as the highest priority. They also stated that selective demolition should have been done to reveal concealed conditions in the adjacent buildings.
The defendant’s attorney engages a structural engineer from another large national firm to review the deposition and opinions produced by the plaintiff’s expert. They ask for experience of this individual who states they have done reviews, modifications, renovations and forensic collapse reports on roughly 400-500 buildings of this specific type over the course of the last 30 years. They have also reviewed 35-40 buildings in the specific town square where the collapse occurred and were involved in saving the remaining structures to prevent further progressive collapse of the entire block. The defense’s engineer concludes that the standard of practice for this type of building was followed and investigation proposed by the plaintiff’s engineer would not be advisable because it could cause possible structural damage to the existing buildings and gives a couple of examples of collapses that were caused in this way. They also give an example of a very low tech alternative to the proposed selective demolition proposed by the other expert which is indicative of the condition of concealed conditions in buildings of this type but does not require demolition and repair. The investigation proposed could be considered a conflict of interest because as damage was done in the investigation; the structural instability caused would require the Owners to hire the engineer to prepare drawings to repair the issues they caused. This is kind of like the analogy of a fireman starting a fire. With regards to the Code of Conduct violation the second engineer says they read the specific phrase in question as a statement about “conflict of interest” not “standard of practice/care”. They state that Code of Conduct as such does not go into specifics on “standard of care” that is covered for the most part in other codes that we apply to our work. They clarify by noting that they are not an attorney and that this might legally be interpreted differently in a Court, but this what they have believed to be the gist of this clause. But they tell the defense counsel, if the plaintiffs are going to have their expert reading parts of the Code of Conduct to the jury; please have them read the section ( 3B ) directly below the one they are quoting ( 3A) out loud in front of the jury and have them interpret this other section as well. The defense attorney reads Section 3B out loud and starts laughing loudly.
For reference here is the specific section of the Code of Conduct:
(3) In practicing architecture, professional engineering, professional land surveying, or professional landscape architecture, a licensee shall—
(A) Act with reasonable care and competence and apply the technical knowledge and skill which are ordinarily applied by architects, professional engineers, professional land surveyors, or professional landscape architects of good standing, practicing in Missouri. In the performance of professional services, licensees hold their primary responsibility to the public welfare which should not be compromised by any self-interest of the client or the licensee.
(B) Undertake to perform architectural, professional engineering, professional land surveying, and professional landscape architectural services only when they are qualified by education, training, and experience in the specific technical areas involved.
In this case study the plaintiff’s attorney dropped the lawsuit shortly after reading the report from the defense expert and talking to plaintiff’s attorney.
How is all of this relevant? Why do you bring this shit up you say? Here are the firms and resume’s of two of the participant’s in the “debate” over whether or not the NIST WTC reports are somehow faked.
For reference here is the website for the firm of one of the “Expert” structural engineers who represents the 9/11 truthers.
https://www.landtech.com
Here is the website for the firm of one of the experts hired by NIST to work on the WTC collapse reports.
https://www.mka.com
You should check out the "projects" section of the websites to see the representative work of the people involved. If you are going to trial in a case involving the collapse of a large building who do you bring in as your expert? Is this post merely a hit job on the reputation/knowledge of the engineer who is spokesperson for the 9/11 truthers? No, but it does make me wonder if there is an engineering ethics violation going on here. All "experts" are not created equal nor should their opinions be given equal weight.
Nero is an angler in the lake of darkness
Re: 911 Tower 7 / Cover-up thread
good job, good post
