lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 4, 2007 9:41:53 GMT -4
Too bad for you that the only structural engineer in the world to publicly agree with you never worked on buildings of any sort but rather spent his entire career working on deep sea oil rigs. Actually, it's too bad for you that there are (currently) 155 architectural and engineering (including structural and civil engs) professionals, who do dispute the official account, just on this website alone... www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php Architect and Engineers for Truth’s “structural engineers” Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer Lafayette, CA He seems legitimate and is a licensed civil and structural engineer and architect. He is listed as verified but doesn’t have a bio or statement. I couldn’t find any 9/11 related statements by him on the Net. Mike Swenson, PhD., Structural Engineer * Structural Engineering - Florida A&M Uni Tampa, Florida On his “profile page” it says that he is an architect but his verification is “pending”. There are no Mike or Michael Swensons who are engineers or architects licensed by the state of Florida*. He could be licensed in another state but I doubt it. There is a Mike Swenson from Tampa who is the webmaster of a truther site but his bio says nothing about him being qualified in architecture or engineering or even having gone to college**. In an article he wrote he said temps at the WTC were not hot enough to melt steel among other stupid errors***. There is however a Michael J. Swenson in Tampa who is applying for a real estate broker’s license*. www.myfloridalicense.com/wl11.asp?mode=2&search=Name&SID=&brd=&typ= truthorlies.org/swensonbio.html truthorlies.org/911trutharticle015.html Charles N. Pegelow, PE, Civil Engineer. lic Calif CE 26344 (Structural Engineer) Duly licensed, our friend the deep sea oil platform specialist John Blacklebee, Structural Engineer * Ph.D. Structural engineering Pasadena, CA There are no engineers with that last named licensed by the states of California or Wisconsin, no J Blacklebee in Florida in fact Googling or Dogpiling “blacklebee” only returns hit referring to ae911truth’s members list Verizon shows no one by that name anywhere in the US. Presumably fictitious Dennis J. Kollar, P.E., Structural Engineer West Bend, WI Seems legit he is a P.E. (Wisconsin doesn’t distinguish between types of P.E.) and works for a structural engineering firm (Ambrose Engineering in Cedarburg, WI). He is listed as verified but doesn’t have a bio or statement. I couldn’t find any 9/11 related statements by him on the Net. His firm seems to work mostly on low rise buildings like small town Wisconsin schools.. Michael Voschine, Dr., PhD., Structural Engineer * Miami, Florida There are no M Voschine’s licensed to do anything in the states of Florida, California and Wisconsin www.myfloridalicense.com/wl11.asp?mode=1&SID=&brd=&typ=NNo Voschine’s listed with Verizon. And I got no Google hits for Voschine that didn’t refer to him. He seems to be another fictitious person. Since they have two fictitious people listed as engineers and a real person who is listed as an engineer but isn’t it’s not entirely certain that the two real structural engineers really are members. But to give them credit the fake ones are shown as having verification “pending” while the real ones are verified. It’s possible they simply did a license look up and didn’t contact them. Richard Gage the founder of AE911truth gave a talk at Akol firm so he is probably is a truther. I will try and contact him and Kollar. Akol is 83-4 years old (he was 80 in 1/2004 but still a good chess player) www.chessclub.org/OldNews04A.html Though he apparently earned structural and civil engineering licenses before most of us were born he seems to have worked as an architect. The name of his firm is AKOL & YOSHII ARCHITECTS His son refered to him as “an architect who came from Istanbul in 1945.” www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=386453870 No references to him on the Net as a structural engineer not referencing his membership in ae911truth www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-49,GGLD:en&q=%22haluk+akol%22+%22structural+engineer%22+%2dwinterton+%2dpegelow+%2dstopes+%2dtso SO AE911T lists 2 legit structural engineers who MIGHT have expertise with high rises as members. None has made any public statements I could find about 9/11. let alone the collapses of the towers. We only have evidence that one of them who is quite elderly is a truther but we have no evidence he actually worked as an engineer.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 5, 2007 0:48:01 GMT -4
I doubt the objectivity of the first website you showed us. CT sites are notorious for being one sided, quote mining, misinterpretations, ect. Reading the article you supply that featurs the quotes, the doctor is either being misquoted, misinterpreted, or not fully aware of the whole story. And again, I question the website you directed to. No, the only sound you heard was your own desperation to seek sites that support your view, and people that do not wish to see the truth, not to mention holding double standards. You could only find what you wanted on CT sites. In summery, the response is "Nice try". If you had actually read the entire article before posting, you'd never have written this claptrap. Page 2 of the article has a link to Dr. Quintiere’s statement to the Science Committee two years ago.... THE INVESTIGATION OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE: FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND NEXT STEPS
HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
OCTOBER 26, 2005commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0f.htmScroll down to pg.258/259 for the STATEMENT BY JAMES G. QUINTIERE His statement to the Committee includes the exact same points as his quotes included in the article I cited earlier. Uh oh. Can't resort to the usual tactic - Blame the notorious "CT" sites that misquote and misinterpret everything!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 5, 2007 2:10:06 GMT -4
First you are wrong. Dr Quintiere was NOT part of the 9/11 report he left NIST well before that. I know that he left NIST before the 9/11 report. I was referring to the fact that he contributed his expertise (comments & suggestions) to NIST for their investigation, both prior to and after the 9/11 report... Prior to the report - June 24, 2002 wtc.nist.gov/media/agenda.htmI've already noted his post-report role. As he stated... “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”Secondly are you aware of Dr Quintiere's opinions? Yes. In other words, even if we accepted his work (personally I don't as he makes a num,ber of mistakes in his claims about what NIST did and didn't do) it actually makes the Official story stronger because it removes the need for the loss of the fireproofing, something that NIST had to guess at. Nonsense. He has called the entire report into question! By entering Quintiere into the argument you actually damage your own claims of a CD because Quintiere refutes that and shores up the holes in NIST you could be using. So how about it Turbonium, since you reference he here, you obviously agree with his conclusions. More nonsense. He has his own theory, which would lead to a different conclusion than NIST's. I cited a few of the same criticisms he had about the NIST investigation (fire modeling result validation, etc.) which I had raised here long ago. The same points you and others kept on "getting frustrated" with me about, because I couldn't 'grasp' your 'facts' on the matter. Being in agreement on certain points with someone does not automatically require being in agreement on everything! That's among the most boneheaded arguments ever proposed. If so shall we agree he was right and determine that the Towers came down from Impact and Fire? Or do you not agree with him anymore now you know what he really thinks? Oh, and don't try the "I don't agree with his conclusion, but I agree with his attacks on NIST." His attacks on NIST were based on his conclusions differing from NIST's conclusions. Without one, the other is worthless. As I said, this is a dumb argument. A logical fallacy.... Because I agree on points A, C, and E with Mr. Jones, I am therefore required to agree with him on every one of his points, from A-Z . Otherwise, I am unable to be in agreement with him on even a single point. That's what you're trying to shovel my way. I won't say exactly what you're shoveling, but I will say that it has a very foul smell. I agree with him on the points I raised earlier, among others that I haven't mentioned. This does not require me to 'agree' with him on everything else I may or do disagree with him about.!You think it does, however, by claiming that... "His attacks on NIST were based on his conclusions differing from NIST's conclusions."That's pure rubbish. He has attacked both the processes employed by NIST during the investigation (as I cited with examples) and their conclusions. The only one shooting himself in the foot with shoddy work is yourself, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 5, 2007 2:25:07 GMT -4
I am totally SHOCKED that anybody would claim Dr. Quintiere's issue with the NIST constitutes a former member of NIST 'coming forward' to support an inside job conspiracy. Well, probably not as shocked as he would be, but shocked nevertheless. Franky, anybody who would do that has no business investigating anything, much less accusing people of mass murder. I haven't heard of people making that claim. He is criticizing NIST's investigation, report and conclusions. And he is calling for an independent review of the report.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 5, 2007 2:45:23 GMT -4
The number of structural engineers who dispute the official account, and/or believe the buildings were CD'ed?
That's far from being determined. There are many on board who are still being verified. I think the numbers will grow significantly after that process is completed.
And more important than that - the numbers are continuing to grow, and will keep growing.
Not just in that area, but with all the other aspects of 9/11.
In contrast, the official story supporters/experts have continued to dwindle.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Sept 5, 2007 8:44:18 GMT -4
The number of structural engineers who dispute the official account, and/or believe the buildings were CD'ed? That's far from being determined. There are many on board who are still being verified. I think the numbers will grow significantly after that process is completed. And more important than that - the numbers are continuing to grow, and will keep growing. Not just in that area, but with all the other aspects of 9/11. In contrast, the official story supporters/experts have continued to dwindle. Just keep telling yourself that. You want to believe that, because it supports the beliefs you have in your little world. A world of double standards and non-reality. The CT idea requires beliefs in many things for which their is no evidence for. This usual tactic holds true more often than not, because it's what CTs normally do. Any CT site, from 9/11 to Moon Hoaxes, do this. PhantomWolf already covered your misinterpretation of the quote you provided, so I needn't go over it. Amazing how your stuff can be dissected each time, by multiple board members, huh? That should say something.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 5, 2007 14:16:49 GMT -4
The number of structural engineers who dispute the official account, and/or believe the buildings were CD'ed? That's far from being determined. There are many on board who are still being verified. I think the numbers will grow significantly after that process is completed. And more important than that - the numbers are continuing to grow, and will keep growing. Oh yeah the number is growing by leaps and bound in 6 years it's gone from 0 - maybe 3. The only one who said anything publicly never worked on buildings. Another probably is a truther but he is quite elderly, never made any public statements about 9/11* and seems to have worked as an architect rather than engineer . There is no evidence he ever worked as an engineer or worked on buildings in either capacity The third works for a structural engineering firm but doesn't seem to have made any public statements*. We can't be sure someone else didn't him sign him up. His company seems to work mostly on low rise structures. There is no evidence he ever worked on tall buildings So the number of structural engineers with experience related to buildings who have made public statements indicating they though the WTC collapses were due to CD has plateaued at ZERO for the last 6 years. *No statements that I could find presumably if they had they could be found on the AE911T site
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 5, 2007 19:31:27 GMT -4
I know that he left NIST before the 9/11 report. I was referring to the fact that he contributed his expertise (comments & suggestions) to NIST for their investigation, both prior to and after the 9/11 report... Prior to the report - June 24, 2002 wtc.nist.gov/media/agenda.htmI've already noted his post-report role. As he stated... “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”And yet one of his major complaints was that NIST didn't listen to those comments. Besides, merely sending them comments and following the investigation (which as I plan to show below he did very poorly) is not truly "contributing his expertise" in any meaningful way in the investigation, in fact he himself, as you noted in the quote you supplied, and I will complete below, stated that he was only an observer. Quintiere had no more to do with the Report than any other outsider, and to suggest that he did is duplicitous. In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”
Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”If you are aware of his opinions and theories, then you know that he does not agree in any way shape or form in a controlled demolition, in fact he deliberately states that it wasn't one. How then does using him help you in any way? Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”Boloney. He called for a review because NIST and he don't agree on a fundamental position, that the Buildings would have survived the fires if the Fireproofing was intact. As such he gives a number of points, some have merit, some are just out and out wrong and shows that he hasn't followed the NIST report as well as he claims. Here are his points… 1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault?This is his major beef. He believes that the fire-protection in the buildings was faulty, that it was applied poorly and that this is the major reason the buildings were able to collapse. NIST disagrees. They tested the fire proofing, beyond the industry standard. Here's a passage from a paper I have just been reading (though it's in response to DRG) that covers this very issue. (pg 18) 2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?Quintere is wrong here. Other hypothesises were considered, in fact one of the early criticisms of NIST were that they kept changing their minds on what the hypothesis was. They started with the FEMA hypothesis and then through a number of revisions developed their own as they eliminated each of the competing hypothesises. Quintiere seems to believe that since they didn't reach the same conclusion as he did, that the Fire-proofing was faulty, that they never considered it as a hypothesis. This is just plain wrong. In fact NIST did extensive testing on the fire-proofing to determine if it was correctly applied and would have worked, including fire-testing mock-ups of the trusses with the original fire-proofing levels to determine if they were up to the standards they were supposed to be. Even poor researching CTs know about these tests (though often misunderstand their use.) Why didn't Quintiere who was supposed to have followed the report so closely? 3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?Again this is just plain wrong. As to NIST's requirements… NCSTAR1, Pg 87 – Over a period of about 18 months, 236 pieces of steel were shipped to the NIST campus, starting about six months before NIST launched its Investigation. These samples ranged in size and complexity from a nearly complete three-column, three-floor perimeter assembly to bolts and small fragments. Figures 6-3 through 6-5 show some of the recovered steel pieces. Seven of the pieces were from WTC 5. The remaining 229 samples represented roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers. …How could a man who claims to have followed the NIST report so closely not have know this? 4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.Again Quintiere is wrong. The NIST tools used for structural and impact modeling are SAP2000 and LS-DYNA, both of which have had long use in the industry and were validated with tests on a "undamaged" building under wind load, that was then compared to actual test data done on the buildings with accelerometers previous to the attacks as well as comparing the results of the impact tests to images of the actual impacts. The fire models were validated against both the test samples which were used to determine if the fire temperature in known points agreed with the what the computer models predicted (they did) and with photos and video of the fire progression through the buildings. He is also wrong in that a timeline was not established, again from the paper on DRG's book (pg 25) So far he isn't doing very well at following NIST's report. 5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done?This is a typical "If I ran the Zoo" argument, and he makes a few of them in the article. NIST ran the tests they determined were the best for what they wanted, and for what they were able to do. They ran tests on scale and full sized truss mock up and fire tests on content loads. They also ran fire test simulations for all the floors in a computer and validated that as shown above. Just because they didn't do things exactly as Quintiere would have liked, doesn't make them wrong. 6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"This is absolutely nothing to do with WTC 1 & 2, in fact he's criticizing them for taking the time and getting the report right. First he complains that NIST didn't do a though job on WTC 1 and 2 and now he is moaning that they are doing a too though job on 7. Talk about never being happy. Yes he does have his own theory, however, as I have shown above, he is wrong in his opinions about NIST. He claims that the Fire-proofing was shoddy and that NIST is covering that up for the PANYNJ because their lawyers say that if it's learned that the buildings would have fallen regardless of the fire-proofings removal. He believes that the PANYNJ is liable and that to prevent themselves being sued that they have pressured NIST into covering up the faults in that fire-proofing. That is the cover up and conspiracy he believes in. This doesn't help your beliefs at all. Quintiere says that the fireproofing was inadequate, that the fire would have caused the building to come down anyway and that there was no explosives. Backing him and his conclusions leads you nowhere fast. Yes, and he is just as wrong as you were. I pointed that out and have greatly expanded on that above. Just because he gets it wrong as well, doesn't mean that your waving him about well work. Especially when the reason he gets it wrong is so he can support his conclusions. If he didn't have his own conclusions to back up by claiming that NIST was covering up what he claims to have found, then he likely would have looked deeper into the NIST report and found out he was wrong about a number of things. He even makes the following erroneous claim: Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”This is not true. NIST state that the cause of the exterior column bowing then buckling was the sagging of the floor trusses. Again, how can a guy that claims to have followed the NIST report so closely get things so wrong? By the way, his own theory (other than the fireproofing issue) is almost identical to NIST's (if he actually knew what that was) Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.The difference here is if the fire-proofing was intact or not. If it was then there is liability with the PANYNJ, if it wasn't, there isn't. While certainly true in most case, not in this one. The parts you want to agree with Quintiere on a direct result of the parts you want to disagree with him on. If you say that he is wrong in his conclusions, then his reasons for disagreeing with NIST vanish. Okay depending on what you use for disagreement they might just change, but either way once his conclusions are removed the objections he made becomes groundless. Since his conclusions and his objections are so tightly linked, accepting one and rejecting the other is pure folly. If points A, C and E rely on all of points A-Z to be correct, then yes you do. You can't separate them. You can't agree with Hoagland that the Face on Mars is an artificial structure, unless you agree with him that there was at some stage intelligent life living on Mars. You are trying to agree with Quintiere's position, even though you are in total disagreement with how he got there. You are basically disagreeing that 3 + 4 = 5 but at the same time saying that it proves that arithmetic is wrong. Can't you see the problem here? I'm not shovelling anything at you, I'm pointing out that you're standing in something smelly. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too by standing on both sides of the fence. All that's going to do is get you splinters in your butt. But how can you agree with his position unless you agree with how he arrived there? If you claim that his method of getting to where he is, is wrong, then how can you support his position when it is groundless? This is the problem I'm trying to get through to you. His attack on NIST is based on his conclusions about the fireproofing. If you claim that his conclusions are wrong, then he has no grounds to attack NIST (ignoring that his attacks are incorrect anyway.) You can't support his position without his conclusions. Bollocks. The feedback he gave was after their conclusions where released as reports, draft and final. He states so himself Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions.He was also more concerned about the fact they didn't respond to his feedback, not the things he was responding too. “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”As to his actually concerns, perhaps if he spent some time reading the final report properly he'd know the answers (as I have shown above.) I think you need to go back to school Turbonium, you still have a lot to learn about reading comprehension, and supporting Quintiere is a lost cause for the "Truth" Movement. Others have already figured that out and fled from him, you're on a slow boat to nowhere. Truly. He doesn't support your position, he makes a bunch of incorrect claims that are easy to refute, and in the end all you are left with is a hollow sounding "but he said…" You'd do better spending your time reading up on real facts about 9/11 from real researchers.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 6, 2007 0:55:08 GMT -4
The number of structural engineers who dispute the official account, and/or believe the buildings were CD'ed? That's far from being determined. There are many on board who are still being verified. I think the numbers will grow significantly after that process is completed. And more important than that - the numbers are continuing to grow, and will keep growing. Not just in that area, but with all the other aspects of 9/11. In contrast, the official story supporters/experts have continued to dwindle. Just keep telling yourself that. You want to believe that, because it supports the beliefs you have in your little world. A world of double standards and non-reality. The CT idea requires beliefs in many things for which their is no evidence for. There is only one world, and the indisputable fact is that more and more engineers, architects, and experts in other fields related to 9/11, are continuing to come forward to dispute the official story. I don't have to avoid this reality, or the world - you do. Amazing how your stuff can be dissected each time, by multiple board members, huh? That should say something. Sure - if you were right, it would say something. But you're not right, so it means squat.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 6, 2007 1:51:32 GMT -4
Oh yeah the number is growing by leaps and bound in 6 years it's gone from 0 - maybe 3. The only one who said anything publicly never worked on buildings. Another probably is a truther but he is quite elderly, never made any public statements about 9/11* and seems to have worked as an architect rather than engineer . There is no evidence he ever worked as an engineer or worked on buildings in either capacity The third works for a structural engineering firm but doesn't seem to have made any public statements*. We can't be sure someone else didn't him sign him up. His company seems to work mostly on low rise structures. There is no evidence he ever worked on tall buildings So the number of structural engineers with experience related to buildings who have made public statements indicating they though the WTC collapses were due to CD has plateaued at ZERO for the last 6 years. *No statements that I could find presumably if they had they could be found on the AE911T site Let me remind you of what you were asking for, back in November of 2005... Re: 9/11, for the heck of it
Reply #906 on Nov 4, 2005,Foxx - One question of mine, that you have not answered yet is, if you can name a civil or structural engineer or architect who supports you theories about the failures of the WTC towers. Numerous engineers and other experts participated in the NIST/ASCE reports and countless others reviewed their findings. If the science of these reports is so wrong why haven't ANY people with the requisite technical training raised any questions? Corollarily there are very few scientists who believe what you do. The few exceptions ALL have degrees in unrelated fields. This should really make you wonder if your ideas are anything more than bunk based on ignorance [No offence I don't have enough knowledge about structural mechanics to speak authoritatively either] Since you love talking about unprecedented events, tell me about one time in history when ALL the scientists in a particular field were wrong and were proven wrong by a group of laymen This is a classic case of "moving the goalposts", if there ever was one!! In late 2005, you were asking for any "civil or structural engineer or architect" who supported a CD theory. Now, you're asking for "structural engineers with experience related to buildings who have made public statements indicating they though the WTC collapses were due to CD." One of the structural engineers "doesn't seem to have made any public statements". But even if he had, it's obvious that you're already prepared to move the goalposts yet again.... "His company seems to work mostly on low rise structures. There is no evidence he ever worked on tall buildings." So, what you're really asking for is this.... "Structural engineers with experience related to HIGHRISE buildings who have made public statements indicating they though the WTC collapses were due to CD." How do you expect to be taken seriously when you keep on narrowing down and revising the standards and qualifications you "require" us to meet in your requests? What are you going to ask for next? Maybe the structural engineers will need experience related to "WTC-style" highrises? Eventually, you'll only accept people who were senior structural engineers involved in the planning and construction of the towers themselves! You had to move the goalposts, didn't you? Because you know that you'd look ridiculous if you still asked for any "civil or structural engineer or architect" who supported a CD theory.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 6, 2007 2:21:46 GMT -4
"Structural engineers with experience related to HIGHRISE buildings who have made public statements indicating they though the WTC collapses were due to CD." I'm sorry. Is this some kind of unreasonable request?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Sept 6, 2007 7:39:07 GMT -4
And an even worse consequence of asking for any expert is that conspiracy theorists will scour the Earth for anybody who even has a remote claim to 'expert', no matter how tenuous and no matter if this 'expert' is even remotely qualified to make his statement or even sane for that matter, and the hold him up against the NIST contributor list (a list which you seem to totally ignore yet represents the cream of the crop as far as REAL experts go) and say, "see, told you I could find an expert".
That's why it's a mistake to say "find one expert, just one" to a CT; there is a fundamental difference of opinion as to what constitutes a valid expert between the two camps which is totally irreconcilable.
(Edited for clarity)
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Sept 6, 2007 19:09:18 GMT -4
Just keep telling yourself that. You want to believe that, because it supports the beliefs you have in your little world. A world of double standards and non-reality. The CT idea requires beliefs in many things for which their is no evidence for. There is only one world, and the indisputable fact is that more and more engineers, architects, and experts in other fields related to 9/11, are continuing to come forward to dispute the official story. Yes, as was pointed out, that number has grown to three. Is that the best you can do? Penn and Teller have an excellent response for this sentence, so I'll leave it to you to figure it out. I DO NOT require a belief in conspiracy theories. I DO NOT require a belief in controlled demolition of the WTCs. And I certainly DO NOT make up theories trying to explain things I don't understand. No, YOU are the one that does these things. And THAT is avoiding reality. Amazing how your stuff can be dissected each time, by multiple board members, huh? That should say something. Sure - if you were right, it would say something. But you're not right, so it means squat.[/quote] You're so sure of that statement, aren't you? PhantomWolf, who has more patience in this subject than I, truly dismembers your claims. So, explain how I'm not right that your claims leak like a net.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Sept 6, 2007 20:52:42 GMT -4
Perhaps as more data is assembled, many are looking at the details of the collapse and finding alternative explanations and modes as to how things failed. If this is "questioning the official story", so be it. However, I haven't seen waves of structural engineers coming forward calling it controlled demolition or an inside job. They are debating the details of a building collapse caused by structural damage and fire. If they have come forward calling it CD, do you have the names, and evidence of their "truther-ness"? (we're talking about "more and more...continuing to come forward"...how many are calling it a CD conspiracy? This is your implication.) I don't think it's happening.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 7, 2007 1:10:37 GMT -4
And an even worse consequence of asking for any expert is that conspiracy theorists will scour the Earth for anybody who even has a remote claim to 'expert', no matter how tenuous and no matter if this 'expert' is even remotely qualified to make his statement or even sane for that matter, and the hold him up against the NIST contributor list (a list which you seem to totally ignore yet represents the cream of the crop as far as REAL experts go) and say, "see, told you I could find an expert". That's why it's a mistake to say "find one expert, just one" to a CT; there is a fundamental difference of opinion as to what constitutes a valid expert between the two camps which is totally irreconcilable. (Edited for clarity) Even now, after I've shown how the GCT camp has moved the goalposts over the past two years, the point seems to have gone in one ear and right out the other. "there is a fundamental difference of opinion as to what constitutes a valid expert between the two camps which is totally irreconcilable".Hmm. Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that one camp keeps revising their opinion? Less than two years ago, the common GCT opinion of a "valid expert", was a "civil or structural engineer or architect" who believed the building collapses were CD's. However, the common GCT opinion has (apparently) changed quite significanty. It now seems that a "valid expert" is narrowly 'defined' as a "structural engineer with experience related to HIGHRISE buildings who has made public statements indicating he/she thinks that the WTC collapses were due to CD." The GCT goalpost moving is the real problem. Why have you moved the goalposts? That is, why have you narrowly revised your so-called 'qualification requirements' for "valid experts"? Do you no longer consider civil engineers and architects to be "valid experts"? Why not? But more important - what makes your 'required qualifications" any more credibile than the 'requirements' concocted by any other Tom, Dick or Harry? From a 2005 post by JayUtah.. Re: Architect says the WTC towers fell to quickly « Reply #17 on Oct 18, 2005, 6:13pm » "A civil or structural engineering would indeed be much more qualified. But as an engineer who has nevertheless descended from a long line of architects, I have to defend that profession somewhat. Architects learn the same principles of mechanics and structural analysis as engineers. They just don't delve as deeply into the whys and wherefores as structural engineers do. But a graduate of an accredited architectural program would be expected to understand the behavior of structural systems such as those in the WTC."AFAIK, he hasn't changed his opinion on this matter - which is good, because there should really be no valid reason for him to do so. I also believe that civil engineers and architects (certainly licensed architects, with training and experience in structural analysis/mechanics) should be considered "valid experts". Unless you can provide valid reasons they should not be, then you should admit that you do accept them as valid experts, just as you had previously.
|
|