It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NIST Declines Debate with American Taxpaying Public

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Which 16 credits are you talking about? If the credit system is the same as here, the difference between me (studying Electrical Engineering) and Structural Engineer is ca. 250 credits out of 330, in case I count Maths and Physics as common (not true, but let's suppose so). The credit amount for Magister degree in SE is the same. Does that mean I can do offhand Structural Engineering and SE can do electrotechnology? Doubt so.

Let's ask another question. Would you accept results of plane crash investigation performed by a commitee of physicians, chemists, automobile designers and cruise ship captains? All are after all highly trained.
Or would you accept a surgery by a dermathologist?
Would you like the jet you're travelling flown by an airplane designer with an ultralight craft pilot license instead of a porfessional pilot?


In the US you need aroun 120-124 credits (generally) for any particular engineering degree depending on the university of course. Generally only the 300-400 level courses vary. We all take Calc I, II, Dif. EQ, Multi Var. Cal, Phys I, II, Chem I, II, Thermo, Statics, etc. We all have the ability to interpert evidence in eachothers specialty with some amount of confidence.

The difference you are all pointing out here is that you have NO CONFIDENCE in the abilities of physicists, MEs, EEs, CEs, CSEs, etc. to form ANY SORT OF VALID OPINION.

This is an irrational notion meant to silence all but a VERY small and select group.

[edit on 7-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]




posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Nope, I have confidence in them. In their specialities. But I won't think they'd produce better results investigating case of Structural Engineering than people trained in SE. And the system seems strange - isn't that only the basic degree, Bachelor? I won't expect too many Bc's in the investigation team.
And again, would you want a surgery performed by an dermathologist? Not sure how over the pond, but here all medics except the stomathologists receive EXACTLY the same education and specialise later. So in that case, the dermathologist would be as good as a surgeon for you, no?



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
You are making the GROSS ASSUMPTION that the assumptions in the NIST report were solely related to one specialty and I am making a lesser assumption that they involved MANY specialties to be truly undestood and deconstructed:

Applied Mathematics (understanding the NIST computer models)
Computer Scientists (same)
Physicists (Energy calculations of the collapse, etc.)
Civil Engineers (Large structures + natural/erratic forces)
Mechanical Engineers (Heat Transfer from fires, Mechanical power of collapse)
Materials Scientists (Steel quality, 'other' material strengths/deficincies, etc)
Structural Engineers (Load Capacities of the system PRIOR to collapse, design intricacies)
Demolition Experts (Interpertation of collapse dynamics)

The list goes on and on and yet it is denied that ALL of these fields are required plus MANY more and that ALL of their scientific opinions ARE VALID and need to be brought to bear to find the truth or refute the NIST report.

[edit on 7-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I would also like to note that regardless of the arrogance of some with certain specialties, it does not take too much time and information absorbtion for many of these "experts" to cross fields very successfully.

To answer your other question... I would rather have the WORLDS GREATEST general practitioner diagnose my medical condidions of the skin than even a great dermatologist.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Nope, I have confidence in them. In their specialities. But I won't think they'd produce better results investigating case of Structural Engineering than people trained in SE. And the system seems strange - isn't that only the basic degree, Bachelor? I won't expect too many Bc's in the investigation team.
And again, would you want a surgery performed by an dermathologist? Not sure how over the pond, but here all medics except the stomathologists receive EXACTLY the same education and specialise later. So in that case, the dermathologist would be as good as a surgeon for you, no?


Actually the people who's opinions I'd value the most is those with a Bachlor's Degree with about 20 years experience in their field. Once you get past a Bachlor's Degree you are starting to deal more with theory than applications. I just finished my Bachlor's in ME and the biggest thing I learned was how much I don't know and I have over 20 years experience in the field of mechanics. A friend of mine has a saying that I think applies. The only thing college does is to show that you can be taught.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I thought you disliked the trait of posters who don't answer questions put to them and instead just make a statement.

Heres 4 questions you avoided in the last post. care to answer them?


. The credit amount for Magister degree in SE is the same. Does that mean I can do offhand Structural Engineering and SE can do electrotechnology? Doubt so.



Let's ask another question. Would you accept results of plane crash investigation performed by a commitee of physicians, chemists, automobile designers and cruise ship captains?



Or would you accept a surgery by a dermathologist?



Would you like the jet you're travelling flown by an airplane designer with an ultralight craft pilot license instead of a porfessional pilot








The difference you are all pointing out here is that you have NO CONFIDENCE in the abilities of physicists, MEs, EEs, CEs, CSEs, etc. to form ANY SORT OF VALID OPINION.


You're going to have to connect the dots in that line of reasoning in order to have it make any sense at all.



This is an irrational notion meant to silence all but a VERY small and select group.


How does that work?



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
You are making the GROSS ASSUMPTION that the assumptions in the NIST report were solely related to one specialty and I am making a lesser assumption that they involved MANY specialties to be truly undestood and deconstructed:

Applied Mathematics (understanding the NIST computer models)
Computer Scientists (same)
Physicists (Energy calculations of the collapse, etc.)
Civil Engineers (Large structures + natural/erratic forces)
Mechanical Engineers (Heat Transfer from fires, Mechanical power of collapse)
Materials Scientists (Steel quality, 'other' material strengths/deficincies, etc)
Structural Engineers (Load Capacities of the system PRIOR to collapse, design intricacies)
Demolition Experts (Interpertation of collapse dynamics)

The list goes on and on and yet it is denied that ALL of these fields are required plus MANY more and that ALL of their scientific opinions ARE VALID and need to be brought to bear to find the truth or refute the NIST report.

[edit on 7-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]


Your list is bogus.
You are making the gross assumption that these things were not part of the investigation. Where did you get that info?

I remember reading a few posts past that the list of scientists involved in the investigation take up almost 10 pages.
Did you miss that post?
(2 more questions to avoid.)



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I would rather have the WORLDS GREATEST general practitioner diagnose my medical condidions of the skin than even a great dermatologist.


Even an average general practitioner would find it foolish to attempt to do so and you would get a referral to the proper specialist.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
You are making the GROSS ASSUMPTION that the assumptions in the NIST report were solely related to one specialty and I am making a lesser assumption that they involved MANY specialties to be truly undestood and deconstructed:

Applied Mathematics (understanding the NIST computer models)
Computer Scientists (same)
Physicists (Energy calculations of the collapse, etc.)
Civil Engineers (Large structures + natural/erratic forces)
Mechanical Engineers (Heat Transfer from fires, Mechanical power of collapse)
Materials Scientists (Steel quality, 'other' material strengths/deficincies, etc)
Structural Engineers (Load Capacities of the system PRIOR to collapse, design intricacies)
Demolition Experts (Interpertation of collapse dynamics)

The list goes on and on and yet it is denied that ALL of these fields are required plus MANY more and that ALL of their scientific opinions ARE VALID and need to be brought to bear to find the truth or refute the NIST report.

[edit on 7-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]


Your list is bogus.
You are making the gross assumption that these things were not part of the investigation. Where did you get that info?

I remember reading a few posts past that the list of scientists involved in the investigation take up almost 10 pages.
Did you miss that post?
(2 more questions to avoid.)


I was responding to being repeatedly told that we need a list of SEs that are against the NIST report Vushta SO no, my list is not bogus, it is there to make a point.

Sorry if I missed your post Vushta... I have been responding as fast as possible as I do not get paid for this. I PROMISE I will get to the questions that are ON TOPIC. Unfortunately, the 'debunkers' in regular form have drawn me away from the main point successfully. Good tactics.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Heres 4 questions you avoided in the last post. care to answer them?


. The credit amount for Magister degree in SE is the same. Does that mean I can do offhand Structural Engineering and SE can do electrotechnology? Doubt so.



Let's ask another question. Would you accept results of plane crash investigation performed by a commitee of physicians, chemists, automobile designers and cruise ship captains?



Or would you accept a surgery by a dermathologist?



Would you like the jet you're travelling flown by an airplane designer with an ultralight craft pilot license instead of a porfessional pilot


Vushta, I am already on "double secret warn" so sure I will answer these mostly rethorical and assinine questions:

1. I never said that the fields were the same, just that ALL were involved and ALL opinions in their respective fields are valid. Limiting the investigation to SEs opinions is flat out retarted. The crossover in the fields is GREAT.

2. Purposely unrelated fields are suggested that are no where near what I am implying. No answer to poorly worded/assinine question.

3. Sure. If I had a wart or if he was a GREAT general practitioner prior to specializing i would let him operate.

4. does not apply. Sure in a situation where you need ONLY a pilot you choose the correct pilot. this situation requires the whole flight team, ground crew, plane mechanics and passengers (witnesses).

Vushta, I do not know if anyone will agee with me here and I am probably going on "triple warn" but your arguments suck. You always go after the WEAKEST thing you can, then in broken English, proclaim you know EVERYTHING about the skillset of the NIST group. All you do is latch on to the arguments of others like a little puppy following it's big dog friend around and say "YEAH.... TAKE THAT". Try some ORIGINAL thought and debate. I do not see you as the pinnacle of intelligence to say the least.

Finally, vhusta or whoever you are, what are your qualifications?

[edit on 7-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Even an average general practitioner would find it foolish to attempt to do so and you would get a referral to the proper specialist.


What kind of CRAP generalization/guess/BS is this? Man, your input is so uselss to the topic at hand.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
As it was said, they're trained to design building that can stand reliably. This OTOH means they have the best knowledge and training to search for whatever went wrong.


Whatever theoretically went wrong, assuming the collapses were natural.

They couldn't tell you squat about why they collapsed so fast, or what those expulsions were or why WTC2's angular momentum disappeared. That's why so much emphasis is being placed upon them.


In fact, I actually contacted the SE that headed off one of the preliminary WTC investigations (Astaneh-Asl) and asked him why he thought WTC2's angular momentum abruptly disappeared.

Guess what he told me?

He hadn't looked into the issue and really couldn't tell me.

. . .

That's because it's not a structural engineering issue to begin with.

I'm telling you guys, chasing SE's is pointless unless you want to talk about NIST's truss failure theory. If you want to try to debate natural collapse vs. demolition, ie gravity alone vs. extra energy in the system, a physicist really would be the relevant expert.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Well I understand the 'double warning' and would not like to see your posting suspended for any time so if you don't respond to this I won't take it as 'not defending your position'.

But it is not the people responding to you that pulled things off topic.

The anologies and seeming to think that crossing areas of expertise is valid just begged to be rezponded to.

An anology is only useful if it works both ways..you said that you would have no problem have a GP remove a wart and in doing so exhibit competence in the field of dermatology. Does it work in the inverse?..would you trust a dermatologist for a second opinion on pancreatic cancer...let alone do the operating?.



Vushta, I do not know if anyone will agee with me here and I am probably going on "triple warn" but your arguments suck. You always go after the WEAKEST thing you can, then in broken English, proclaim you know EVERYTHING about the skillset of the NIST group. All you do is latch on to the arguments of others like a little puppy following it's big dog friend around and say "YEAH.... TAKE THAT". Try some ORIGINAL thought and debate. I do not see you as the pinnacle of intelligence to say the least.


Well I hope you don't get a triple warn because you're just stating what you think and I am not in the least offended.

I think you're mis representing me here.
The posts that I respond to usually only have one point...maybe stated in a couple of ways but the same point none the less.

I don't claim to know ANYTHING about the skillsets of the people involved in the various reports. I simple state that THEY know what they are doing. If I gave the impression that I know these things, I didn't mean to..because I don't but that doesn't mean that I can't grasp basic concepts and restate them to the best of my understanding..if someone can clear up my misunderstanding...well all the better. That is what discussion and debate is all about.

I'm using original thought in my expression of how I understand things. Point out my mistake...but back them up with something believable..if they are not believable, provide some evidence to back it up and help piece it all together.

TOO much 'original thought' is being nuts. BOY some of THOSE guys are REALLY original.


"What are my 'qualifications?".....for what??



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Well I understand the 'double warning' and would not like to see your posting suspended for any time so if you don't respond to this I won't take it as 'not defending your position'.

But it is not the people responding to you that pulled things off topic.

The anologies and seeming to think that crossing areas of expertise is valid just begged to be rezponded to.

An anology is only useful if it works both ways..you said that you would have no problem have a GP remove a wart and in doing so exhibit competence in the field of dermatology. Does it work in the inverse?..would you trust a dermatologist for a second opinion on pancreatic cancer...let alone do the operating?.



Vushta, I do not know if anyone will agee with me here and I am probably going on "triple warn" but your arguments suck. You always go after the WEAKEST thing you can, then in broken English, proclaim you know EVERYTHING about the skillset of the NIST group. All you do is latch on to the arguments of others like a little puppy following it's big dog friend around and say "YEAH.... TAKE THAT". Try some ORIGINAL thought and debate. I do not see you as the pinnacle of intelligence to say the least.


Well I hope you don't get a triple warn because you're just stating what you think and I am not in the least offended.

I think you're mis representing me here.
The posts that I respond to usually only have one point...maybe stated in a couple of ways but the same point none the less.

I don't claim to know ANYTHING about the skillsets of the people involved in the various reports. I simple state that THEY know what they are doing. If I gave the impression that I know these things, I didn't mean to..because I don't but that doesn't mean that I can't grasp basic concepts and restate them to the best of my understanding..if someone can clear up my misunderstanding...well all the better. That is what discussion and debate is all about.

I'm using original thought in my expression of how I understand things. Point out my mistake...but back them up with something believable..if they are not believable, provide some evidence to back it up and help piece it all together.

TOO much 'original thought' is being nuts. BOY some of THOSE guys are REALLY original.


"What are my 'qualifications?".....for what??



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
Even an average general practitioner would find it foolish to attempt to do so and you would get a referral to the proper specialist.


What kind of CRAP generalization/guess/BS is this? Man, your input is so uselss to the topic at hand.


Thats not crap---thats a fact.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   


asked him why he thought WTC2's angular momentum abruptly disappeared.


How did you determine that the 'angular momentum' was lost beyond natural limits?



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted byHarteYou are aware, are you not, that Hawking is perfectly capable of forming a scientific opinion on the issue.


BANG!
So, in the group of those able to form an opinion we have Hawking, SEs and construction engineers BUT NOT physicists, MEs, Civil Engineers or anyone else.
Got it.

Slapnuts,
I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth to further some sort of weird idea of yours. And further, I do not remember anyone saying that anyone at all is not able to form an opinion on this matter. It's the value of the opinion that matters.

Regarding Hawking, would you drop this silly tirade if he were to tell you that he'd rather not speculate and that perhaps you should ask a Structural Engineer?


Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by tuccy
Which 16 credits are you talking about? If the credit system is the same as here, the difference between me (studying Electrical Engineering) and Structural Engineer is ca. 250 credits out of 330, in case I count Maths and Physics as common (not true, but let's suppose so). The credit amount for Magister degree in SE is the same. Does that mean I can do offhand Structural Engineering and SE can do electrotechnology? Doubt so.


In the US you need aroun 120-124 credits (generally) for any particular engineering degree depending on the university of course. Generally only the 300-400 level courses vary. We all take Calc I, II, Dif. EQ, Multi Var. Cal, Phys I, II, Chem I, II, Thermo, Statics, etc. We all have the ability to interpert evidence in eachothers specialty with some amount of confidence.


More like 180 or 190 total.

You pulled that "16 credit hours" right out of thin air, it's completely bogus.

At many schools, 16 credit hours is only 3 or 4 courses. That's a great big ole load of crap your foisting around there.

You list here a bunch of freshman and sophomore classes. The 300 - 400 level coursework makes up about 80 credit hours at most schools. Some of it overlaps, yes, but certainly nowhere near 80% of it, as you claim.

Any E.E. that takes thermo takes a different thermo class that the ME one, anyway.


Originally posted by Slap NutsThe difference you are all pointing out here is that you have NO CONFIDENCE in the abilities of physicists, MEs, EEs, CEs, CSEs, etc. to form ANY SORT OF VALID OPINION.

This is an irrational notion meant to silence all but a VERY small and select group.

I believe that, in an earlier response, I posted something quite different than this notion you are attributing to me (again!) here. I mentioned that forensic engineering involves several engineering disciplines, did I not?

Harte



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Here are my thoughts on the matter. I am not being facetious or obtuse, merely providing you my thoughts and answers to your perfectly valid questions.


Originally posted by Slap Nuts
A few questions:

1. If you wrote a 20,000 page report... Wouldn't you jump at the chance to defend and answer questions regarding said report?


Nope. I said everything I wanted to say in those 20,000 pages. I don't need to answer questions.


2. If the "conspiracy theorists" asking for an open forum with the NIST are so easy to debunk, wouldn't the NIST JUMP at the chance to prove them wrong?


Nope. Again, I already said everything I had to say. Plus, if I start debating everyone who disagrees with the report I will never get anything else done. Just like if I started talking with everyone who agreed to the report I would never get anything done.

Not to mention that it will set precedent that I am willing to debate resolved issues with people who don't agree with it, thereby setting things up for me to never be able to feel comfortable with filing a report.


3. Is their report the only deliverable/accountablility that they believe they owe the American tax paying public?


Yep. And not only they believe. It's the way that it is. Do you have to talk with every person and explain every aspect of your job to just anyone? I know that I don't.


4. Do they fear something or are they far to elite to answer to meager old scientists?


Can't speak for them, but I would say personally, again, everything I had to say I said in the 20,000 page report. If you disagree with my findings, rather than just challenging them, why don't you do your own research as I did and publish your own 20,000 page report? It is always easier to criticise than to do.


5. Does academia, white and blue collar America not deserve a few question and answer sessions with the guys who investigated the crime of the century?


Nope. You don't "deserve" anything.


6. Are we too dumb to understand so they refuse to tell?


Again, I said everything I had to say in that 20,000 page report. All of your questions should be answered. If they aren't answered, well, you are free to do your own research.


Please answer ONLY the questions posed and stay on the topic.


Those are my answers if I were them. Although I answered in the first person I had nothing to do with the report. I was merely giving you the answers that you would be given if they deigned to reply.

Marid



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Regarding Hawking, would you drop this silly tirade if he were to tell you that he'd rather not speculate and that perhaps you should ask a Structural Engineer?


Are all structural engineers of the opinion that the collapse of the towers was caused by fire? If not, then it really doesn't matter what the hell any one person has to say. Who cares what Stephen Hawking believes anyways? He still believes in black holes and dark matter.
I'm a person, I'm capable of having intelligent thoughts. My intelligence tells me most of the fuel burned up in the fireballs and the first ten minutes, leaving only office furniture and crap like that as the cause of the fire-related collapses. Care to disagree? Then I don't care what you think.

What happened that day is largely in the the eye of the beholder, and many of those beholders are idiots and should not be allowed to share their opinions. They think they can see how the fires caused those towers to collapse.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

asked him why he thought WTC2's angular momentum abruptly disappeared.


How did you determine that the 'angular momentum' was lost beyond natural limits?


Please look up angular momentum before you comment, lol.


The reason angular momentum is important in physics is that it is a conserved quantity: a system's angular momentum stays constant unless an external torque acts on it. Torque is the rate at which angular momentum is transferred in or out of the system. When a rigid body rotates, its resistance to a change in its rotational motion is measured by its moment of inertia.


Source.

Btw, all of it was lost. Goes without saying, a lot of inertia. Tilted out about 17 degrees in roughly 2 seconds, accelerating as it moved outwards. Then it just stopped.



It should tip you off that a Professor of Structural Engineering couldn't answer my question, not to mention one that's been studying the collapses since they occured. But more power to you if you think you're one up on this guy.






[edit on 7-7-2006 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join