Political Talks Archive

1st page | 2nd page | 3rd page | 4th page | 5th page | 6th page | 7th page | 8th page | 9th page | 10th page | 11th page | 12th page | 13th page | 14th page | 15th page | 16th page | 17th page | 18th page | 19th page | 20th page | 21th page | 22th page | 23th page | 24th page | 25th page





Subject:
Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11

investigation !!

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:43:09 -0700 (PDT)

Organization: http://groups.google.com

Lines: 27

















On Mar 30, 12:10 pm, "P. Roehling" wrote:

> "Rob Kleinschmidt" wrote

>

> > Fair enough. I suppose everyone mustr have one stab at trying to invent

> > perpetual motion ;-)

>

> I think we`ve already discovered it. Now we could

> only figure out a useful application for Henry.

>

> We have.

>

> Entertainment.





U.S.A. is providing the entertainment.

I especially like George`s statement that

when he saw the first plane hit- he doesn`t

remember exactly where, but thinks it must have been

somewhere in the school while he was waiting to

see the kids (what a fatherly figure)- when he *saw*

the

first plane hit, he thought it was `pilot error`.



U.S.A. seems to have a little of that.

Pilot error, I mean.



John









Next Topic

SUBJECT: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
GO >>>

From: john
Subject: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
investigation !!
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 21









On Mar 30, 4:10 pm, "P. Roehling" wrote:
> "john" wrote
>
> > U.S.A. is providing the entertainment.
> > I especially like George`s statement that
> > when he saw the first plane hit- he doesn`t
> > remember exactly where, but thinks it must have been
> > somewhere in the school while he was waiting to
> > see the kids (what a fatherly figure)- when he *saw*
> > the
> > first plane hit, he thought it was `pilot error`.
>
> > U.S.A. seems to have a little of that.
> > Pilot error, I mean.
>
> Was Earth your first planet, John?

As in, if I don`t shut up
it will be my last?

John


Next Topic

SUBJECT: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
GO >>>

From: Rob Kleinschmidt
Subject: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
investigation !!
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 69








On Mar 30, 9:32=A0am, ady...(at)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> In article ,
> Rob Kleinschmidt =A0 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 30, 5:36=3DA0am, Henry wrote:
> >> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> >> > When somebody makes a really moronoic assertion
> >> > about experts agreeing with them it`s worth maybe
> >> > one post to explain to them that they`ve just said
> >> > something really stupid.
>
> >> =3DA0 Speaking of exactly that, do you still stand by
> >> your claim that "Absolutely nobody in the structural
> >> engineering community seems to find the collapse difficult
> >> to believe"?
>
> >1 golf course engineer (Phelps), 2 guys who worked on
> >buildings in the 1970s (Rice and Pegelow), 2 more
> >(Bachmann and Schneider) who have never publicly
> >acknowledgedthe quotes attributed to them, one
> >retired surveyor (Doyle) with an expired engineer in
> >training license and one idiot, (you) who never bothered
> >to check the credentials of his "experts".
>
> >Which of these guys do you find most credible ?
> >Which of them is in the structural engineering
> >community for that matter ?
>
> >These appear to be Phelp`s credentials
>
> >http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Phelps_Joseph_4276043.aspx
>
> >Joe, who has Bachelor of Science and Master of
> >Science degrees from the California Institute of Technology,
> >has held a number of positions in the fields of golf
> >and engineering. Those positions include Vice President
> >- Engineering of Turnkey Golf Projects, Inc., Director
> >of Golf Technology Consultants, and Commissioner of
> >the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
> >Conservation District.
>
> >How `bout them credentials ?
>
> Gage`s (founder of ae911) own credentials don`t give him the
> qualifications to make his claims on his own.
>
> Here`s Gage`s resume.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Resume:http://members.shaw.ca/loudstudios/GageCV.pdf
>
> It appears he`s never been in charge of any project. =A0He has no
> structural engineering background and on his list of software he is
> familair with, none of CAD/CAM/FEA tools that NIST and the engineers
> use are listed.

But his credentials include postiions of great responsibility
in the construction of not only the main and auxilliary gyms
at San Ramon High School, but also a Baskin Robins, a
TOGOS sandwich shop, an entire SPCA facility and several
other equally important landmark buildings.

Yet you`re still insisting that he may not be the most
qualified person on the planet to analyze the World Trade
center collapse ? :-)




Next Topic

SUBJECT: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
GO >>>

From: Rob Kleinschmidt
Subject: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
investigation !!
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 55








On Mar 30, 5:41=A0pm, Henry wrote:

> =A0 So, I have two questions for you.
> 1. How can you accept as credible or believable, a reference
> who so grossly represents both evidence and basic physics?
> Eagar`s disinformation was broadcast on millions
> of TVs all over the globe, yet, attempts to expose his errors
> and reveal the truth and facts get little notice by the same
> corporate media. That too, should tell you something.

And that`s exactly the point that you don`t get. I don`t
have to. The analysis has been reviewed and will continue
to be reviewed by engineering departments all over the world
including Cornell, MIT, Cambridge and BYU.

Some of the things you learn to trust in engineering are
peer review and collaberative efforts pooling expertise
in different fields.

People like Quintierre will find problems with parts of the
analysis and sugest alternatives.

Start with the credentials of the nist team

http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

and compare them with this guy Gage, whose
career seems to be building sandwich shops
and gymnasiums.

> 2. What =A0falling blocks and sticks have to do with the tilting
> of a tall narrow structure that`s resting on the ground?

I would not attempt to explain the exact causes of the
collapse, though perhaps somebody in the Cornell
school of engineering might walk you through it if
you asked nicely.

What I have concluded is that the thermite demolition
theory is stupid enough that I can conclude with certainty
that it is not in any way possible.

That pretty much leaves a plane crash and fire, as
virtually every qualified expert in the world suggests.

If you can find a published technical analysis by Bachmann,
or Schneider I`d be genuinely curious and will read it.
If you can`t find such an analysis, then perhaps
you guys should stop claiming them as being
your active supporters.

Anyway, Gage, Phelps, and Winterton look pretty
bogus. the other two, Rice and Pegelo don`t look
very current, and of you other engineers, I`ll bet
a significant number of the drive a choo choo.




Title: The government, fees and such stuff: some last comments
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:36:04 +0000
Author: universitydiary

Of course the dust will settle over the past few days, and normal business will resume. But when that happens, we will need to know how to plan for a future for higher education that is sustainable and that delivers acceptable quality. Right now it seems to me that the government parties have entered into a commitment – i.e. the commitment not to introduce higher education tuition fees – that is really about protecting people from a cost, but they have not considered what that will mean for the higher education sector and how it can remain viable.

This was brought home to me strongly in listening to both John Gormley (Leader of the Greens) and Mary Hanafin (Fianna Fail, and former Minister for Education) on RTE’s This Week today (you can hear the interviews here). John Gormley described his party as the ‘party of education’, and stated that the country needed to ‘invest in education’ – but from the uncertain nature of his answers it became clear that he had given no thought whatsoever to the implications for higher education of the removal of fees as an option and that he had no formed opinions as to how the sector might be funded. Curiously he implied that the universities might lessen the impact of the decision by raising the registration charge, though he hoped they wouldn’t.

Of course before yesterday none of us knew whether the government would drop the ‘free fees’ scheme. But we understood that as part of the discussion about the future national strategy for higher education the option of including student contributions to the cost of education was being considered. The revised programme for government has resulted in this option being removed from the table. John Gormley’s emphasis on the need to ‘invest’ in education might suggest that increased funding will be considered as an option, but we all know it won’t. Realistically the government really couldn’t do that, the national finances won’t allow it. But in any case, we know that higher education is always an early casualty of national budgetary problems, and as a result the state has been an increasingly unreliable funder, combining funding reductions with a desire to impose ever greater controls. This is not unique to the current government and the parties that make up the coalition: I recall the Fine Gael/Labour coalition of the 1980s doing exactly the same thing.

What we have is a political system that claims to want world class higher education but which is prepared to do very little to help bring that about. Only in developing a programme for high value research have politicians in recent times shown some imagination and innovation. But even that imposed pressures on the system because the full costs of research were never wholly met.

And now, as part of an attempt to justify budget reductions, we are subjected to criticism and innuendo that suggests that we are wasting resources and perpetuating inefficiencies, and that only government control can improve this. We are a sector in peril. This will be the time for the university sector to show decisive and strong leadership, not just in our interests but in the interests of the country and future generations. Higher education quality, on which our economic prospects depend, is easily destroyed and only very laboriously restored over a lengthy period of time. Let us hope we don’t now produce the evidence for that proposition.


More on: http://universitydiary.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/the-government-fees-and-such-stuff-some-last-comments/











Powered by Lv501.com