reply to post by seethelight
The only reason I'm responding to this submitter's post is to highlight what I think is more "ploy" than an honest point being made. So often,
people start with an agenda, and then FIND something to fix it to. I'm not trying to READ MINDS here -- but I've responded to enough of this
person's points to see a pattern.
Russia Today is NOT a credible source.
That might be valid if the bulk of the legitimacy hung on Russia Today -- but it doesn't. The credentials and degrees of the engineers should be the
significant data point. But, this might appear to be the WEAKEST link. Instead of approaching the STRONGEST SUPPORT, or argument, the most
inconsequential and lowest hanging fruit is attacked.
In the UN's Climate Report, of 3000 pages, one comment about the Himalayas melting by 2032 was attacked -- it was not part of the peer reviewed and
supporting evidence -- just a side conclusion. Yet it is the basis and spun in the media as a "conspiracy" and evidence of bad science.
So 1/10th of 1% of the worlds engineers think 9/11 was a demo, that isn't actually very impressive.
Einstein was less than 1 Millionth of the people who took physics in college. Does this mean his theory of General Relativity had to be wrong because
it challenged the scientific consensus of the time?
A scientific CONSENSUS on peer review is important -- like in the Global Warming Models from many scientists in the world -- raw numbers MIGHT matter.
But the point of PEER review is to challenge the THEORIES and show evidence that can be proven or disproven. Peer review can't just "vote" on how
many think this or that -- the facts that theories are based on, and the proofs have to be challenged with actual reproducible evidence.
When a steel beam shoots 600 feet to be buried in a wall of another building from a FALLING building, and this has never happened before without some
detonation driving it -- that's something that can be proven or disproven with history, physics and engineering models.
Russia Today = Fail
Statistically insignificant number of engineers = fail
And on and on...
That's just two anecdotal points with logical fallacies. A report about Russia Today wasn't used as evidence for the Engineers points or their
legitimacy. And a million engineers isn't better than 10 engineers if they cannot show a basis for their points. This is getting close to the
"Chewbacca Defense" in that the person trying to discredit throws in hyperbole, and then references the hyperbole to say how ridiculous it all
So often, I see someone debate the 9/11 posts by pointing to the weakest and strangest THEORIES, that someone else might have posted a year ago on
another blog. PROVING, how a building can collapse THEORETICALLY, from a fire, requires claims that steel has a lower melting point, because there was
kerosene and a plane involved -- without showing proof from the smoke and fire we say, that it was any hotter than office fires that get JUST AS HOT
AS JET FUEL, and yet, do NOT collapse steel structures -- as if this were something that we should just believe without evidence.
Constantly, ANY THEORY, EVER PROPOSED is attacked, without answering the UNANSWERED questions, or supporting their theory; a theory that fire can
bring down buildings at DEMOLITION SPEED. Free-fall speed should not be the consideration, since buildings that get demolished, have some resistance
and then fall nearly at free-fall speed -- exactly like all three WTC buildings. When the floors turn to dust, and almost keep up with debris falling
a couple stories ahead -- that's showing NO RESISTANCE -- and as the engineers point out; THE BUILDING STRAIGHT DOWN IS THE MOST RESISTANCE.