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.

 

Poor debunker illogical generalisations - why?

page: 13
21
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Oh me bad, my apologies, here`s some SE`s for you - want names of the other 600 plus?.


Wrong. Plus, as I've noted, none have produced any paper that contradicts NIST or Bazant.

Is it beginning to sink in yet? They will not commit to that, cuz they know it would be a lie, or demonstrate their incompetence.




Murl S. Jones, MS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Washington
Added July 14, 2009


Civil engineer. Worked for the transortation dept in Washington. No building experience listed.



Melanie Brethauer, BS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of North Carolina
Added July 14, 2009


civil engineer. worked in land development. no experience with buildings listed.



Matthew Grush, BS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of New Mexico
Added July 14, 2009


civil engineer. traffic engineer. specialized in bicycle and pedestrian projects. no experience with buildings listed.



Mark R. Dodds, MS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
States of Washington and New York
Added July 14, 2009


civil engineer. foundation engineer - soils. worked on foundations for wtc complex. no experience with buildings listed.



Lester Jay Germanio, B.Arch, BS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Texas
Added July 14, 2009


architect and civil engineer. designs and builds bridges. no experience with buildings listed.



Leslie A. Tyson, MS Eng, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Colorado
Added July 14, 2009


structural engineer!! no experience with buildings listed.



Kirk L. Pape, BS Eng, PE, PLS
Licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Land Surveyor
States of California, Iowa, and Minnesota
Added July 12, 2009


land surveyor. no experience with buildings listed.



Jonathan Smolens, BS, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Colorado
Added July 12, 2009


civil engineer. workes on bridges. no experience with buildings listed.



John S. Lovrovich, MS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
States of California, Idaho, Montana and Washington
Added July 12, 2009


civil engineer. claims to have knowledge about how buildings are built, but also admits to not know about hi rise structures.



Harvey A. Hansen, BS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Alaska
Added July 11, 2009


civil engineer from a mining school. no experience in buildings listed.



Harry B. Brown, MS ME, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Pennsylvania
Added July 11, 2009


mechanical engineer. worked on ships, robotics, forensics. no experience with buildings listed.



Gregory C. Yust, BS Aero Eng, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Connecticut
Added July 11, 2009


retired aero engineer.no experience with buildings listed.



Donald Steward MacMillan, BS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Connecticut
Added July 11, 2009


retired civil engineer.public works. no experience with buildings listed.




posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

No, it doesn't, besides the fact that not all of them do automatically go to the internet to waste energy arguing with people like you, who can do nothing about any of it anyway. And not all of them do.


That would be the last place I would expect to find them. If there were any, they'd publish, and not waste time on the WWW.




The problems with that work is in broad daylight for anyone to see for themselves


no, there's nothing.



And neither can you lie and say no SEs think the NIST investigation was bogus.


I said that I'd hazard a guess that none have written a paper that contradicts NIST. I personally haven't seen one. Gordon Ross is the only one close AFAIK.



It's not a popularity contest anyway,


not for the general public, I agree. But virtually no SE's says something to me.



and basically stick to a narrow agenda when you post


yes, I'd like to see someone actually address the fact that my opinion, and the TM in general's opinion means nothing, since we are all not schooled nor experienced in tall building design. Hence why I mentioned the CTBUH. I listen to what the pros have to say, and go with that, unless I see other qualified pros opposing them.What do they say?



everything we say is 100% wrong


Nearly 100% wrong. Ver few things that the TM says has any validity. And again, I base that off of what the pros have to say.


and we are all retarded.


Nope, just gullible and/or politically motivated to lie.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I appreciate all the time you spent trying to debunk my post, but you still haven't changed the fact that not all SEs or other professionals with problems come to the internet to talk to you.

And no, not all of them must necessarily publish scientific papers regarding their opinions, either.

Next time you want to complain about the lack of peer reviewed papers discounting the official investigation, remember that I can also count the number of scientists/engineers constantly publishing papers against "truthers" on one or two hands (and it seems like they all post at JREF, go figure
), and that excludes NIST's work which was not peer reviewed.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli


The problems with that work is in broad daylight for anyone to see for themselves


no, there's nothing.



Of course there is nothing to see for someone who is blind.

For everyone else with eyes, I'll mention one example I'm aware of just to prove my point.

In the paper Bhazant, Greening, etc. did on energy losses, and whether there was enough PE available, they had to assume at least 50% of the total mass of each tower stayed within the footprints until the collapses were completed. That means about 55 floors worth at least of debris should have still been within each towers' footprint, which was clearly and obviously not the case. They assume this because when they adopt more realistic figures of 80-95% of the mass of either building landing outside of its respective footprint during the collapse (based on all available photos of GZ and excavations), suddenly they don't have as much energy as they need to work with anymore. And on that reason alone do they adopt inaccurate data to maintain their model.

Ok, another example: Greening used a 1-dimensional energy model based on a very simple algebraic algorithm alone (no independent data at all) to try to prove the validity of a progressive collapse model. Ie no supporting lab data or even references to structural geometries, moments of inertia, etc., but just a number-crunching exercise that he later admitted himself was grossly inadequate, and had no bearing whatsoever on any argument of what actually happened to the buildings.


And Greening was involved with both of those instances of worse science trying to cover NIST's already-bad science. Just goes to show what I was saying about me being able to count these "pros" on my hands. Oh yeah, and it was Greening that was trying to push the theory that thermite naturally formed from rust and the planes, and also that the construction must have cut illegal corners. So you can cheerlead for guys like this all day if you think you are accomplishing something, but they are only so famous to people who spend unhealthy amounts of time arguing about them on internet forums, they are JREF'ers, and there are as few of them as there are people pushing for re-investigation, if not less (actually, now that I think of it, there ARE many less of them than engineers listed on websites pushing for re-investigation). And you might also secretly care to know that the first time I came across Greening's work it didn't take me long personally, an electronics engineering major myself, to conclude that he was and remains an idiot, based on his work only. I just take it that you don't even understand what he has said, which also tells me something about yourself and anyone else that is so confident associating with him academically (not to have faith in any of your opinions).

[edit on 15-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Civil engineering is the form of engineering structural engineers study.


In the US, most practising structural engineers are currently licensed as civil engineers, but the situation varies from state to state.


en.wikipedia.org...

So you don't actually know that those civils are NOT professional SEs within their work environment, and you especially can't assume that they are retarded and don't have any clue what they are talking about. They have infinitely more going on for them in the "expertise" category than YOU do, meaning they do more in this field of study than post on internet forums cheerleading JREF'ers and federal agencies.

I notice you also started moving goal posts already. From SE, to SEs with building experience listed. I guess they should go ahead and put their addresses and personal phone numbers so you can follow up with any other questions you might have for them in the future before considering that they *might* have a brain in their skulls. Or else it's absolutely impossible to consider anything they suggest seriously. But you never know; I mean, civil engineers DO apparently know more about structures than you do, and you're a genius, right?

[edit on 15-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Now, can you prove that 757 flew into the pentagon or do you just want to yell flyover some more?


I've already reminded you that the burden of proof is on your shoulders, evil incarnate:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

NOW, present the evidence of what the wreckage was from inside the Pentagon that over 1,000 people saw, handled, removed, and/or sorted openly on the Pentagon lawn in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11.

If you continue to evade doing that, and this is only your first exercise, then you will be on record of not being able to support any claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Get to work.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
















I've already reminded you that the burden of proof is on your shoulders, evil incarnate:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

NOW, present the evidence of what the wreckage was from inside the Pentagon that over 1,000 people saw, handled, removed, and/or sorted openly on the Pentagon lawn in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11.

If you continue to evade doing that, and this is only your first exercise, then you will be on record of not being able to support any claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Get to work.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
[edit on 8/16/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
[edit on 8/16/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

not all SEs or other professionals with problems come to the internet to talk to you.


what kind of strawman is this? I've never stated that they should even be on the WWW. To the contrary, I've said that I wouldn't expect them to waste time here. Guess you missed that...




And no, not all of them must necessarily publish scientific papers regarding their opinions, either.


You mean none have. There's a reason for that.



I can also count the number of scientists/engineers constantly publishing papers against "truthers" on one or two hands


Any paper that counters truthers, with perhaps 1 or 2 exceptions, are done by those with interest in 9/11, but without the quals. Anyone with any real quals don't bother countering Gage, or DRG, or Szamboti, or bjorkman, or any other of those guys.

It's cuz their work is garbage, and why would a serious professional give garbage any validity by countering it...



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

For everyone else with eyes, I'll mention one example I'm aware of just to prove my point.


And yet, what you call an obvious flaw passed peer review, is accepted by peers that have read the paper, and hasn't been challenged by any peers.



In the paper Bhazant, Greening, etc. did on energy losses, and whether there was enough PE available, they had to assume at least 50% of the total mass of each tower stayed within the footprints until the collapses were completed.


It'd help if you cited the paper you're talking about. But I'll just say this : after sufficent mass is collapsing onto lower floors - and I'll just throw out a number and say 1000 tons to use an example - even if mass accumulation = mass lost over the side, then collapse will continue. IOW, only 1000 tons is needed at any time during the collapse to strip off the floors.



Ok, another example: Greening used a 1-dimensional energy model based on a very simple algebraic algorithm alone (no independent data at all) to try to prove the validity of a progressive collapse model.


Is this Szamboti's missing jolt garbage? His paper is a gross misrepresentation of what Bazant was saying. No where does Bazant say that a square column-to-column 'hit' happened in real life. What he did was skew the collapse analysis to the maximum to favor collapse arrest, using something that couldn't and didn't happen in real life.



And you might also secretly care to know that the first time I came across Greening's work it didn't take me long personally, an electronics engineering major myself, to conclude that he was and remains an idiot, based on his work only.


Another strawman regarding Greening. I've never cited him as an authority I would trust. Bazant. members of the CTBUH. Article contributors to The Journal of Mechanical Engineering. Those are the some of the first folks I would personally turn to to get a professional opinion of the events.

But go ahead and use whomever you like.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Yet I have asked you to provide any evidence whatsoever that a plane hit the pentagon from the first 5 minutes of the alleged crash and you have also been able to do so.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So you don't actually know that those civils are NOT professional SEs within their work environment, and you especially can't assume that they are retarded and don't have any clue what they are talking about.


Do YOU know whether or not they have sufficent experience? None of the guys listed above shared that they had any experience designing building at all, never mind tall buildings. So the TM are the ones making a leap of faith that they're qualified. And again, there is no clear indication that they've even any kind of analysis at all. Their comments usually run something like - I just don't believe it, etc. Not exactly what I'd call a rigorous analysis....



I notice you also started moving goal posts already. From SE, to SEs with building experience listed.


Well, maybe it's just me, but I'd like to see some experience in this area before I'll accept anyhting from them.



But you never know; I mean, civil engineers DO apparently know more about structures than you do


Sure they do. I've never said anything that indicates otherwise. Again, it's just that id like to hear from those that specialize in this field. Doesn't that make sense to you? If you needed a heart valve replacement, wouldn't you want a doctor that has specialized in doing just that? Wouldn't he be the most qualified to do the surgery? What the TM is doing is getting a general practitioner as their surgeon.

No thanks, I'll stick with the specialists....



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
You only defer to "specialists" because you don't feel satisfied with your own ability to critique the data. Except when it's a "truther" scientist, then the genius hat comes on, right? I don't give a damn if someone went out of their way to publish a peer reviewed critique of the fact that the Bhazant, etc. paper used baseless, made-up numbers for real phenomena.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You only defer to "specialists" because you don't feel satisfied with your own ability to critique the data.


I'm not critiquing anything that truthers have written, since I'm not qualified to. I thought I made that clear.

I base my views on what these specialists say.

Do you agree that this is best?



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't give a damn if someone went out of their way to publish a peer reviewed critique of the fact that the Bhazant, etc. paper used baseless, made-up numbers for real phenomena.


Now who's wearing the genius hat?

You're an EE student.

Would you feel confident in putting your family in a tall building that YOU designed?

If not, then why not?



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

Only when you start to accept that the two groups are not mutually exclusive good sir. If you believe SE's but not truthers that leaves you in bad place when many SE's become truthers, which has happened.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Only when you start to accept that the two groups are not mutually exclusive good sir. If you believe SE's but not truthers that leaves you in bad place when many SE's become truthers, which has happened.


I never doubted that it has happened.

But I also stated 2 things.

1-that they will question things like the intel, or that planes can't fly that fast, etc.

2- that NONE will attempt to write a good technical paper that refutes the engineering principles that NIST used to explain the collapses. So far, I believe I'm correct on this account.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Do you agree that this is best?


Not always. I can think of several examples where expert opinion was shown to be wrong in the end, so many years down the road of some "official" theory developing against it. So in the end I trust in my own judgment, and I'm pretty good at grasping the limitations of others' theories and models.


Would you feel confident in putting your family in a tall building that YOU designed?


Maybe, maybe not, but I am confident in my judgment on these issues.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Not always. I can think of several examples where expert opinion was shown to be wrong


It would be an interesting study to find out just how often that expert opinion was right vs the opinions of non-experts. And to see a ratio of nonexpert opinion that has fallen to the side of the road vs experts. My guess is that experts are right FAR more often than non-experts. I guess that's what makes them expert....



Maybe, maybe not, but I am confident in my judgment on these issues.


IOW, no.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join