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.

 

What exactly is the problem with architects and engineers for 9/11 truth?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Apart from the fact that architects and engineers for 9/11 truth are not the only professionals and Ph.Ds. who found fault with the NIST report, what exactly is the problem 911 deniers have with architects and engineers for 9/11 truth? Each one of them pretty much claimed they are not trustworthy, they are liars, charlatans, they have a dark, twisted agenda and hate america and applepie and are looking to evoke the antichrist.

I havent been around long on this particular board, maybe I missed the discussion on the topic, at any rate the search function did not help.

So dear 911 deniers, please elaborate, why do you think architects and engineers for 9/11 truth is not trustworthy? Why do you think the lie and are charlatans and what exactly do you suspect their dark and twisted agenda is that motivates them to conspire against everybody?
edit on 8-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Well sir...I assume many folks laugh at speculations on 911, and assume themselves to be more knowledgeable on the subjects of physics and science than these architects and engineers.

I also assume people who assume that are silly and ridiculously holding on to their opinion because they are either-

1) Absolutely brainwashed by the media.

2) Completely swayed by lies and more comfortable in siding with lies.

3) Unable to even phantom that something "unknown" conspired on that day.

Anyway you look at it, if you do not have a degree in any field that would give you a good understanding of the physics of this event, than you probably don't know anything about what did or did not happen, and are just blindly regurgitating the words said by the side you "hope is right" more.

That goes for both sides of the argument.

MM



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


AE9/11t has about 1400 members. If you consider the individuals you will find electrical engineers, software designers, landscapers etc. The number with relevant expertise and experience to high rise construction must be very small.

On the other hand the American Society of Civil Engineers, which supports NIST and whose members contributed, has about 120.000 members. Every developed country has a similar professional body; in my country it is the Institution of Civil Engineers. They also do not dispute NIST.

Can you point to any professional engineering association in the world disputing NIST ?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Sometimes I have to sit back and re-read your posts, cause its often hard to determine which side you are actually argueing for.. with that said.. I look forward to discussing this topic, but as for me, I appreciate the efforts put forth by the A&E for 9/11..

enjoy



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


I assume you understood it by now. In this case I am not arguing either side I merely would like to know by the 911 deniers (as opposed to truthers), what exactly the problem with A&Efor911truth is. They dont get tired to mention we cant use anything they say (well they say that about anybody they consider a twoofie really) and I would like to know why they are not trustworthy in their opinion.
edit on 8-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


www.ae911truth.org...

well heres their site so now they have something to view to get their ammo ready.
we'll have to wait for them I suppose. they got their own OS thread going though, that they keep recycling alive



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
i guess one of the big thiongs is that they believe that these workers only deal with the building, and dont realize that we build things that may require controlled demolition, so they also have to be the architecht of its destruction too. the wtc, just like all the others were built to be destroyed eventually, with high explosives, and to see the same carnage mirrored by a single plane per building rose the red flags for builders, as it would if you had their knowledge too.

either way, i think both sides are wrong, but the truth is somewhere in the middle



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Richard Gage can get in front of an audience with his silly cardboard boxes but he can't talk about the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings. I asked him about that in May of 2008 at Circle Campus in Chicago.

He gave this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity works the same way all over the planet. How the strength of the support steel and therefore the weight must be distributed should be pretty consistent world wide. So considering how much computers have advanced since the WTC was designed his group of supposed professionals should have been able to come up with decent numbers long before now.

But it is like they just expect to be BELIEVED because they can wave degrees in people's faces. They don't want to actually EXPLAIN the simple physics.

www.youtube.com...

Where is the engineering school that can build a self-supporting model that can completely collapse?

psik



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Could you point out to me where the American Society of Civil Engineers says they support NIST's 9/11 analysis?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Cassius666
 


AE9/11t has about 1400 members. If you consider the individuals you will find electrical engineers, software designers, landscapers etc. The number with relevant expertise and experience to high rise construction must be very small.

On the other hand the American Society of Civil Engineers, which supports NIST and whose members contributed, has about 120.000 members. Every developed country has a similar professional body; in my country it is the Institution of Civil Engineers. They also do not dispute NIST.

Can you point to any professional engineering association in the world disputing NIST ?



Have ALL the Societies you reference conducted a poll of all it's members for you to make that assumption?
I await the results of such polls..



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Simply being an architect or engineer does not give anyone special knowledge or insight as to all the details of 911. Belief that it does is a logical fallacy called the appeal to authority.

Pitting this congregation of architects and engineers against an NIST report brings up the issue of peer review. The NIST report is published, and though not perfect, is widely accepted as being fairly accurate. The A&E group, as far as I know, has not published any scientific, peer reviewed papers that demonstrate the "truth" of 911 as they see it.

At best, such groups can only arrange themselves into a mob, all with the similar viewpoints, and hope that their titles of pilot, architect or engineer can legitimize their opinion (which is simply "I don't believe it"). If they are experts and have any degree of scientific literacy then they should be encouraged to publish their science and subject it to the normal channels of scientific methods and peer review, etc. Otherwise, no rational and reasonable person will take them seriously.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Simply being an architect or engineer does not give anyone special knowledge or insight as to all the details of 911. Belief that it does is a logical fallacy called the appeal to authority.

Pitting this congregation of architects and engineers against an NIST report brings up the issue of peer review. The NIST report is published, and though not perfect, is widely accepted as being fairly accurate. The A&E group, as far as I know, has not published any scientific, peer reviewed papers that demonstrate the "truth" of 911 as they see it.

At best, such groups can only arrange themselves into a mob, all with the similar viewpoints, and hope that their titles of pilot, architect or engineer can legitimize their opinion (which is simply "I don't believe it"). If they are experts and have any degree of scientific literacy then they should be encouraged to publish their science and subject it to the normal channels of scientific methods and peer review, etc. Otherwise, no rational and reasonable person will take them seriously.


Correct me if I'm wrong please..
I thought the NIST report could NOT be peer reviewed because they refuse to release all the data they used to reach their conclusions...



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


The NIST report was not peer reviewed. It does not need to be peer reviewed, it is not a scientific paper it is just an...report, released for the public, not for their peers.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by backinblack
 


The NIST report was not peer reviewed. It does not need to be peer reviewed, it is not a scientific paper it is just an...report, released for the public, not for their peers.


Sorry, but the poster before me sort of made out like it was..

BTW, how convenient for NIST.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


It gets even better.

I entered NIST peer reviewed in " in google and on the first hit I stumbled upon another forum (it meant nothing to me ats
) and on this link .

www.opednews.com...

James Quintiere, Ph.D. former chief of nist wants a peer review of the NIST report. Now to bash a twoofer, the 911 deniers would have to bash the former head of NIST.

Can you imagine what that will do to them?

2.bp.blogspot.com...


edit on 8-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Strange link..All I got was a pic of an idiot..
Another link to blog.?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
There are 2 links, the first one is about the former boss of NIST calling for a peer review of the NIST report.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I have no agenda to defend the NIST report, It's not really the topic anyway. The topic was the problem with A&E for 911 truth. They have no science published supporting their viewpoint and rely solely on their perceived authority to legitimize their opinions. On what basis should they be taken seriously?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I have no agenda to defend the NIST report, It's not really the topic anyway. The topic was the problem with A&E for 911 truth. They have no science published supporting their viewpoint and rely solely on their perceived authority to legitimize their opinions. On what basis should they be taken seriously?


If NIST is not a peer reviewed paper then I'd say any reasonable opinion carries just as much weight..

The decision of what to believe remains with the reader..



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
If NIST is not a peer reviewed paper then I'd say any reasonable opinion carries just as much weight..


How is "I don't believe it" considered a reasonable opinion with nothing in particular supporting it other than a job title? If the question is "what exactly is the problem with architects and engineers for 9/11 truth?" then the answer is that from the organization's title downward their merit relies solely on an appeal to authority; a conspicuous fallacy.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join