Re: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Letter to Congressman Robert

Day Brown wrote:

> Al Dykes wrote:
> 
>> In article <487f9b05$0$2929$ec3e2dad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> Day Brown  <daybrown@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> Al Dykes wrote:
>>>
>>>> A long list deleted and irrelevant to the fact that nobody with
>>>> relevant expertise says that anything but 4 hijacked commercial jets
>>>> caused all the destruction on 9/11.  Anyone that claims otherwise
>>>> refuses to make their case in front of any group with relevant
>>>> expertise.
>>>
>>> Al, can you explain why we must accept your definition of "relevant 
>>> expertise"? I have seen presentations by architects, engineers, and 
> 
> 
>> Prof.  Jones has to speak to and answer questions from chemical
>> metallurgists and demolition experts. Richard Gage speaks to
>> structural engineers and demolition experts.  The "pilots for truth"
>> speak with people that know aviation.  The IT guy that claims a power
>> down at WTC talks to people like me that ran floor-sized IT operations
>> and participated on construction projects in big Manhattan buildings.
>>
>> This doesn't seem like rocket science.  Speaking to crowds of ignorant
>> people doesn't clarify anything.
> 
> Jones is a demagogue; I understand that. I've seen many others besides 
> him. Debunkers always cite Jones, he's an easy jackass strawman.

Perhaps the "truth" movement shouldn't try presenting him as an expert 
on everything then.

Morgan Reynolds, David Griffin, Jim Fetzer, Kevin Ryan, Kevin Barrett, 
Jim Hoffman, Alex Jones, Richard Gage, and Dylan Avery aren't relevant 
experts either, but those are the people the "movement" chooses to 
combat structural engineering analyses.

> I've seen others who didnt claim the divine revelations Jones does, who 
> merely point out certain facts from the video and other sources we have 
> to forgo the dramatic career, but make perfectly clear the official 
> re****t is deceptive and inadequate.
> 
> You still have not defined what "relevant expertise" is. Merely 
> debunking Jones is not an adequate definition. I have said, and this 
> dont have jack schitt to do with Jones, that Lee Hamilton of the 911 
> commission said they were lied to. So, I conclude I do not know how 
> reliable the official re****t is.

The Commission didn't produce an engineering re****t.

> If I did not understand how group think works, I'd wonder why a new 
> official investigation has not been established. But since I do, I can 
> see that 911 will remain under the rug until there is economic panic, 
> and they need scapegoats. Altho, and we've started to see this, as 
> people retire, they come out from under the group think of the military 
> and bureaucracy, out of academia and office, and have time to think 
> about what they witnessed. And some of them have begun to re****t other 
> details which do not fit the official re****ts.

You don't agree with the "official" re****t, so you want the government 
to produce another "official" re****t? Why? Do you really think they'd 
come up with something other than "19 guys from al Qaida..."?
Would you then demand yet another re****t until you get the answer you 
want, rather than the actual answer?