What brought down WTC7

[event8horizon]

A colony of Ants might have significantly more than them... it only matters if one or the other contributes in some way to the debate.

good point....

 

[LunarRay]

im guessing that you havent looked at the "data" from their website yet?

You'd be guessing wrong.. I have viewed the data and their explanation of it. The question is: Am I able to determine they are correct... do I have an expert opinion or is my bias controlling what I accept or reject? In my case, I'd hope I'm open minded enough to use what little expertise I have to say... 'Bunk' to what is 'Bunk' and say... OMG to what might fit that criteria.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

According to their site they have verified the 952 and those awaiting verification are significantly more.. They have about 6000 total.. They are not going to count a person who does not meet the academic or professional standing they profess to have. (a quote sort of... )
I think the only way to be fair in what you propose is to list who agree and who disagree and who have not provided an opinion for what ever reason.

If they managed to bring their membership to 99.95 percent I still won't be impressed. Nor does answer whether or not ae911truth is accepting retired "architects" and/or students. Nor does their membership list indicate the experience of their members.

btw, the reason they are finally "vetting" their membership is because so many "falsers" showed that their membership ranks were a joke for the last two years. Anyone could join and claim to be an engineer or architect. The guys at JREF has a blast with that.

 

[event8horizon]

double post. trying to get the hang of this new layout

 

[LunarRay]

If they managed to bring their membership to 99.95 percent I still won't be impressed. Nor does answer whether or not ae911truth is accepting retired "architects" and/or students. Nor does their membership list indicate the experience of their members.

btw, the reason they are finally "vetting" their membership is because so many "falsers" showed that their membership ranks were a joke for the last two years. Anyone could join and claim to be an engineer or architect. The guys at JREF has a blast with that.

Yeah... that sure does undercut their claim to expertise... heheheheh although I'm sure some do have the expertise..

I really really really think that most folks are driven first by a bias then find the science to support it... or find the evidence to support a theory.. that is the wrong way...!!! First you gather the evidence then you develop the theory... Least ways that is how I'd do it..

Science should say... I've no idea who did what or why... They should say or opine only that this is WHAT, IMO happened and beyond that I have no expertise...

 

[event8horizon]

You'd be guessing wrong.. I have viewed the data and their explanation of it. The question is: Am I able to determine they are correct... do I have an expert opinion or is my bias controlling what I accept or reject? In my case, I'd hope I'm open minded enough to use what little expertise I have to say... 'Bunk' to what is 'Bunk' and say... OMG to what might fit that criteria.

well, ya know we got up, down, top, bottom, charm and strange SPIN on all available intel!!

your a trip lunar. so are you still going into law? i remember somewhere back in the tread that you stated you went/ or going to law school. dont answer if ya think im getting too personal...

 

[BeauJangles]

A colony of Ants might have significantly more than them... it only matters if one or the other contributes in some way to the debate.

Considering not a single member of the ASCE has taken issue with the NIST report and consider that none of the numerous publications the ASCE puts out have published an article about the WTC, their silence is a contribution to the debate and is highly indicative of their support of the NIST report.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Again, that is a matter of one's opinion that a debunkation has occurred. Two equally expert scientists postulating opposing argument on any topic will result is both sides claiming 'victory' (global warming :+) ).
ATM, is the peer reviewed Thermate paper... both sides see it differently...
So, just cuz some NASA kid says "xyz" about some professor's work don't make him right or her right.. but someone may be right... It is all about how it is viewed... Dark Energy must be there... so must a tenth planet then... ... That is my point.

What expert scientists are on the truther side? Prof Jones? His craziness got him ousted from BYU and his claims to fame are cold fusion and a paper which posited that Jesus visited American Indians. Richard Gage? His archtectural experience extends to shopping malls, school buildings, and Mike's Garage. He has never designed a high-rise. Research the scam that called themselves "Scholars for 9/11 Truth." I wouldn't be surprised to find that some of them are now members of ae911truth.

I'm a skeptic by nature. I love alternative scientific theories. Here's to super-string/super-gravity/M-theory. Those have a potential ground in real science. Truthers have no ground. It's all smoke and mirrors on their part.

 

[First]

If they managed to bring their membership to 99.95 percent I still won't be impressed. Nor does answer whether or not ae911truth is accepting retired "architects" and/or students. Nor does their membership list indicate the experience of their members.

btw, the reason they are finally "vetting" their membership is because so many "falsers" showed that their membership ranks were a joke for the last two years. Anyone could join and claim to be an engineer or architect. The guys at JREF has a blast with that.

Haha, nice. Further pokes holes in these HS adolescents' theories.

 

[First]

I'm a skeptic by nature. I love alternative scientific theories. Here's to super-string/super-gravity/M-theory. Those have a potential ground in real science.

Same here. Here's hoping supersymmetry is observed by particle accelerators in the next few years.

 

[LunarRay]

well, ya know we got up, down, top, bottom, charm and strange SPIN on all available intel!!

your a trip lunar. so are you still going into law? i remember somewhere back in the tread that you stated you went/ or going to law school. dont answer if ya think im getting too personal...

Actually, I'm 63 or 64 :+) and don't much plan to get into anything else academically speaking... hehehehe

I studied law but that is not my profession.. I'm not an attorney nor did I at the time of my studies want to be.. that evolved as I grew older... I love the law. The thinking process is applicable to anything you can name. I functioned as a CFO/Controller for most of my life and later embarked on teaching at Univ but with out any publications the best I could muster was Adjunct Asst Prof. Today, I simply play chess and read and mess about.

The above is why I question without authority WTC7 but, feel I've a grasp of what my eyes see and what my mind conjurs... I can do what ever math is required but don't know what to apply that talent to. I figure a person with a bias and expertise in this 9/11 batch of science is a danger... to us all...

 

[event8horizon]

I'm a skeptic by nature. I love alternative scientific theories. Here's to super-string/super-gravity/M-theory. Those have a potential ground in real science. Truthers have no ground. It's all smoke and mirrors on their part.

does wallboard and the "corrosion" of 15.9 mm of a36 steel in 8 days have potential ground in real science?

 

[LunarRay]

Considering not a single member of the ASCE has taken issue with the NIST report and consider that none of the numerous publications the ASCE puts out have published an article about the WTC, their silence is a contribution to the debate and is highly indicative of their support of the NIST report.

That is a good point... but, apathy does figure in too... I know lots of folks who care less and have the expertise to opine.. but don't..

 

[kylebisme]

Yeah... that sure does undercut their claim to expertise...

How do you figure TLC's handwaving does anyting of the sort?

Considering not a single member of the ASCE has taken issue with the NIST report and consider that none of the numerous publications the ASCE puts out have published an article about the WTC, their silence is a contribution to the debate and is highly indicative of their support of the NIST report.

Here is a member of the ASCE who has taken issue with the official story, which provides an indication of your lack of respect for reality. As for silence, that isn't indicative either way, particularly when you are bound to be counting people who never even looked at the evidence.

 

[Fear No Evil]

So Cheney did it?

 

[kylebisme]

That is a good point... but, apathy does figure in too... I know lots of folks who care less and have the expertise to opine.. but don't..

You can see a notable example of that here.

 

[LunarRay]

What expert scientists are on the truther side? Prof Jones? His craziness got him ousted from BYU and his claims to fame are cold fusion and a paper which posited that Jesus visited American Indians. Richard Gage? His archtectural experience extends to shopping malls, school buildings, and Mike's Garage. He has never designed a high-rise. Research the scam that called themselves "Scholars for 9/11 Truth." I wouldn't be surprised to find that some of them are now members of ae911truth.

I'm a skeptic by nature. I love alternative scientific theories. Here's to super-string/super-gravity/M-theory. Those have a potential ground in real science. Truthers have no ground. It's all smoke and mirrors on their part.

There are a few more than Jones... He was tenured, I think. I think he retired but his and that Dane Assoc Prof in Chemicals did get their paper published.
I find another fellow... a Ship damage guy.. Andres something to be interesting... His position, as I understand it, suggests that 1/10 of a structure can't collapse the 9/10 portion from gravity alone... I guess cuz of the equal and opposite force when they met would destroy the top bit or it would bounce off or just sit there... eventually. But the French technique sorta does that albeit to itty bittier buildings.. but he maintains it to be true.. Wish I understood the difference. There is a Dr. Wood who thinks laser beams from someplace did it. She taught at Clemson... is quite brilliant and equally insane... There are all manner of theories out there..
I'm stuck with knowing.. the top 15 floors of the WTC Tower had 2 gjoules of potential energy and needed only 230 or so mjoules to pulverize the first floor below concrete.. that is fact as far as I'm concerned but is that enough to sustain a crush down without itself being torn up? It looks to be undergoing destruction in the initial meeting... What I know to be true is the buildings did collapse... AND, Moonbeams termites did not cause it... They were in Afghanistan eating caves!

 

[LunarRay]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LunarRay
Yeah... that sure does undercut their claim to expertise...

How do you figure TLC's handwaving does anyting of the sort?

If TLC says something is true I've no reason to not believe it to be so... I respond to the statement as it is written.. and if they had folks misrepresenting themselves as professionals in the field it seems to me to undercut the credibility of the organization..

 

[LunarRay]

You can see a notable example of that here.

In the Academic world if you ain't tenured (and in some cases even if you are) you better not bring 9/11 stuff into the class...

The moment you support an alternative theory you are labeled with that pejorative term 'Truther'. I suspect in all walks of professional life that is to be avoided until it is safe to come out of the closet. When a person's decision making process is in question by folks who control one's future that future is bleak. It is the American way... hehehehhehe

 

[kylebisme]

I find another fellow... a Ship damage guy.. Andres something to be interesting... His position, as I understand it, suggests that 1/10 of a structure can't collapse the 9/10 portion from gravity alone... I guess cuz of the equal and opposite force when they met would destroy the top bit or it would bounce off or just sit there... eventually. But the French technique sorta does that albeit to itty bittier buildings.. but he maintains it to be true.. Wish I understood the difference.

Whether or not one faction of a structure can crush the other depends on the integrity of both portions of the structure, but the French technique generally goes at it from the middle, as that is what it takes assuming both portions of the structure are of equal integrity. You can see this in the video I linked in the OP, and at about 36 seconds in you can the bottom story of the first structure they show still standing, apparently having been reinforced well beyond the rest of the structure.

If TLC says something is true I've no reason to not believe it to be so... I respond to the statement as it is written.. and if they had folks misrepresenting themselves as professionals in the field it seems to me to undercut the credibility of the organization.

You know TLC incessantly misrepresented me as having copied math, and even misrepresented himself as having proved as much, yet you take him at his word making claims of others lacking creditability?

 

[kylebisme]

In the Academic world if you ain't tenured (and in some cases even if you are) you better not bring 9/11 stuff into the class...

The moment you support an alternative theory you are labeled with that pejorative term 'Truther'. I suspect in all walks of professional life that is to be avoided until it is safe to come out of the closet. When a person's decision making process is in question by folks who control one's future that future is bleak.

I know this, but I'm at a loss as to how to get it though to those who insist silence is proof of support for the official story.

It is the American way... hehehehhehe

Seems more like a perversion of the ideals our nation was founded on to me, and not rightly funny at all.

 

[LunarRay]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LunarRay
If TLC says something is true I've no reason to not believe it to be so... I respond to the statement as it is written.. and if they had folks misrepresenting themselves as professionals in the field it seems to me to undercut the credibility of the organization.

You know TLC incessantly misrepresented me as having copied math, and even misrepresented himself as having proved as much, yet you take him at his word making claims of others lacking creditability?

As I carefully said... "I responded to the statement as it is written" That followed the ellipse and "If TLC says something is true I've no reason to not believe it to be so".
The English language is a useful tool to convey the mind's intentions.. I do it reasonably well, I think.
'Belief' is the holding that something is true with out evidence that would go to proof that it is.

 

[LunarRay]

I know this, but I'm at a loss as to how to get it though to those who insist silence is proof of support for the official story.


Seems more like a perversion of the ideals our nation was founded on to me, and not rightly funny at all.

How do you say... 'You can't' without saying it? I don't know.
You don't need folks to agree to make a valid point valid nor do you need to argue the point once it is made. IF folks don't agree then they don't. That is about as far as you can take a point you are trying to make.
I suppose there are exceptions and while I may think it is axiomatic others may not. That is life... AND, The American way... You may not like finding the American way as I see it humorous, but I do... So, there it is.. hehehehehehe
I also find it funny that women didn't get to vote until 1920... Why you ask...? Cuz we had to give up liquor first then we got the 20th Amendment ratified... hehehehehehe

 

[LunarRay]

Well one can claim anything he wants, but one can't prove the official version true, as it is flagrantly false.

It might help this and any thread if you accept the basic premise that evidence that points to truth or away from it is seen by the individuals who makes that decision. These folks make that decision based on the tools they bring to the chore. Think of it like a hung jury. Some folks see beyond some threshold of reasonableness that something is true while at least someone does not. To each of them truth is in their grasp. Same facts often but seen differently or some evidence accepted and some rejected.
You call something 'flagrantly false' cuz you have reason to while others find it compelling cuz they have reason to too. The idea is for one side to convince the other to adopt their view which requires a lot more than math... it requires defeating the bias that most non-science minded folks hold. heheheheheheh It is why some folks hold credible Movie Actors who portrayed Md's in their career when it comes to the field of medicine... Assuming they liked the movie.
So, one can prove the official version true and they have to those who accept that for all the collateral reasons as well as the statement of NIST and/or their own expertise on the matter. You are not among them... I'd guess.

 

[kylebisme]

As I carefully said... "I responded to the statement as it is written" That followed the ellipse and "If TLC says something is true I've no reason to not believe it to be so".

Right, and I responded by pointing out the carelessness of not acknowledging his previous inaccurate and false statements as good reason to consider his claims suspect.

So, one can prove the official version true...

No, no one can, just like no one can prove the claim "the Earth is flat" true, because both are flagrantly false.