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: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
3) Unable to even phantom that something "unknown" conspired on that day.


'phantom'?

do you mean 'fathom'?





posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Does anyone ever think that this 9/11 business is just going to PROVE to everyone that the entire

PEER REVIEW

process is nothing but BULL#?

If you tried to stack 110 pizzas in boxes on top of each other and each pizza weighed 4 pounds wouldn't most 7th and 8th graders figure out that the pizza box on the bottom would not support 436 pounds? There is just so much talk pretending that this simple problem is complicated.

Can't we can all agree the buildings had to hold themselves up? Skyscrapers could not be built until the Bessemer process made it possible to produce enough steel cheaply enough. So why do we need PhDs in physics and masters degrees in structural engineering to realize the importance of how much steel had to be put where to make each level strong enough?

Transistors didn't exist when the Empire State Building was constructed but we are supposed to believe this problem is too complicated for electrical engineers? My pledge father was an architect. The standard joke at Illinois Institute of Technology was that architects studied funny physics and funny math. Their courses emphasized aesthetics and everybody was supposed to be impressed because architecture had such a long, ancient tradition. It's older than Newtonian physics guys. A degree in architecture took 5 years but electrical engineering only took 4. Not nearly as high class. But we didn't have pocket computers back then.

But now computers are so cheap they don't have class either. But skyscrapers can only get more expensive.

This is nothing but educational TRADITION.

The physics of this problem is GRADE SCHOOL LEVEL.

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
This is nothing but educational TRADITION.

The physics of this problem is GRADE SCHOOL LEVEL.


Why then won't at least one of these 1,400 architects or engineers publish something detailing this alleged grade school physics? It seems that should be a piece of cake. It seems quite telling that nobody is up to the task after ten years.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
This is nothing but educational TRADITION.

The physics of this problem is GRADE SCHOOL LEVEL.


Why then won't at least one of these 1,400 architects or engineers publish something detailing this alleged grade school physics? It seems that should be a piece of cake. It seems quite telling that nobody is up to the task after ten years.


I guess we call all ask why NIST doesn't show all their workings..
Results without knowing how you got there are not possible to review..

Stop complaining about A&E and take a good hard look at NIST..



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
This is nothing but educational TRADITION.

The physics of this problem is GRADE SCHOOL LEVEL.


Why then won't at least one of these 1,400 architects or engineers publish something detailing this alleged grade school physics? It seems that should be a piece of cake. It seems quite telling that nobody is up to the task after ten years.


The whole reason they have a problem with the NIST report is that it was all made up. They want a proper investigation, that leads to conclusions. Replacing something the 911 comission and nist made up, with something somebody else made up, is not going to cut it. First you have a proper investigation, which THEN yields answers, where possible and not muslims did it and this is what happened maybe.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

I guess we call all ask why NIST doesn't show all their workings..
Results without knowing how you got there are not possible to review..

Stop complaining about A&E and take a good hard look at NIST..


What is the topic again?
If we wish to talk about NIST the OP should adjust the post title. If I bring up an answer to the post's question please try not to deflect by bringing up other subjects.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
The whole reason they have a problem with the NIST report is that it was all made up. They want a proper investigation, that leads to conclusions. Replacing something the 911 comission and nist made up, with something somebody else made up, is not going to cut it. First you have a proper investigation, which THEN yields answers, where possible and not muslims did it and this is what happened maybe.


Okay, then this goes back to my point. Some here claim it's all "grade school physics". Nobody in the A&E for 911 Truth has seemed to publish anything indicating as such. Why not?

And, is this post really about why people have a problem with A&E for 911 truth or is it really about your personal problems with the NIST report? Each time a problem with the group is mentioned the topic immediately switches to the red herring of the NIST report. This, combined with the sarcasm of the OP, indicates you may just be trolling those with different beliefs about 911 than yourself.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
It really isnt about believes, unless you want to make it a question of faith, then you have no use for facts I guess. Nist can not stand up to scrutinity, because they do not release their work to begin with, but it does not automaticall give you the answers to what happened, that still requires and investigation. You argue because Nist made something up, somebody else has to make something up as well to be taken seriously. No, just no. Also I am not the one doing the trolling. Its goodolddave and his buddies who spend a lot of time calling people who take qualified PH.Ds seriously names and doing so uncesnsored.
edit on 9-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
It really isnt about believes, unless you want to make it a question of faith, then you have no use for facts I guess. Nist can not stand up to scrutinity, only because it is easily realized what is bogus, does not automaticall give you the answers to what happened, that still requires and investigation.


So this thread is really about your problems with the NIST report then?
Maybe you should change the title.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


No it isnt. You mentioned nist.


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.


And the conversation carried on from there with you and others. So the thread got a bit derailed I guess. But we can stop talking about nist and get back on topic on why 911 deniers think we can not take A&Efor911 truth seriously. And I just mentioned that they want an indipendent investigation, you need the investigation first before you can publish anything. Yet you demand A&E puts out papers, based on what exactly?
edit on 9-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
And the conversation carried on from there with you and others. So the thread got a bit derailed I guess. But we can stop talking about nist and get back on topic on why 911 deniers think we can not take A&Efor911 truth seriously. And I just mentioned that they want an indipendent investigation, you need the investigation first before you can publish anything. Yet you demand A&E puts out papers, based on what exactly?


911 has already been investigated by the FBI ("PENTTBOM"). The NIST spent years publishing findings on structural failures. What exactly is the purpose of claiming that there must be an "independent investigation"? Do they mean they want someone to come along and "investigate" by confirming a preconceived notion of conspiracy? Why don't they do it themselves? They seem qualified by the credentials that they advertise. And what new evidence has been presented to warrant a new investigation? Who pays for it?

Has A&E For 911 Truth discovered new evidence? Have they revealed through scientific demonstration any of their suspicions about a 911 conspiracy? Are they actually pushing for truth or are they just a club of similarly employed people with some anti-establishment beliefs? I don't know, but what I do know is that their lack of gumption in proving their case is suspicious and even "truthers" should be appalled at their lack of practical impact.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
What makes you think A&E has a preconceived notion? They have reason to say that not a good job was done on investigating the attack and the collapse. What is the problem with an indipendent investigation? It should yield the same result, if nist and the 911 comission did a good job.

You do not need to be afraid of a preconceived notion either way. It only counts what the results yield. Somehow you and other seem to think that a preconceived notion or in other words invalidates the results yielded through the work by people like Niels, Jones, its team and the people who signed. If there are faults with the science, it should be pointed out, but the reasoning that their science is faulty because they had a suspicion is just nonsense. You have to show the work was not done properly and the results made up to support their agenda. If proper work supports their personal suspicion, it is still a valid result. We will see if they do get their investigation.

Bottom line you have to show their preconceived notion is reflected in their work. If their work is spotless, it confirming a suspicion they held does not invalidate it in any way.
edit on 9-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
What makes you think A&E has a preconceived notion?


It's in the title of their organization.


They have reason to say that not a good job was done on investigating the attack and the collapse.


What reason is that? The fact that they're architects and engineers? By fiat?


What is the problem with an indipendent investigation? It should yield the same result, if nist and the 911 comission did a good job.


Why aren't they doing one then? Why aren't they raising the money for one?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


They are.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


They are.


Good for them. Perhaps they'll vindicate themselves and find something to justify their stance. Until then, there is much to have a problem with.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Thats where you are wrong. So far they showed that nist worked from a predetermined conclusion and was looking to fudge facts to support their conclusion. They did not get their investigation yet, so there is nothing to have a problem with yet.

The only problem is a level playing field. The nist report does not need to be peer reviewed and does not show how they reached their conclusions.

If somebody would produce an investigation that contadicts nist, not only would be demanded that every single digit of their work is rendered public, but a rigorous cross examination of their work would be demanded as well. The Nist report is just an opinion paper and any report I compile carries just as much weight as the nist report.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Thats where you are wrong. So far they showed that nist worked from a predetermined conclusion and was looking to fudge facts to support their conclusion. They did not get their investigation yet, so there is nothing to have a problem with yet.


How did they show this without an investigation? Where is their publication?


The only problem is a level playing field. The nist report does not need to be peer reviewed and does not show how they reached their conclusions.


Though it appears it's not a level playing field, NIST not being peer reviewed is irrelevant. "A&E" will still need to published peer reviewed science to make any kind of case towards "911 truth".


If somebody would produce an investigation that contadicts nist, not only would be demanded that every single digit of their work is rendered public, but a rigorous cross examination of their work would be demanded as well. The Nist report is just an opinion paper and any report I compile carries just as much weight as the nist report.


But didn't you say "A&E" was arranging for the new investigation? We don't arrive at the truth solely by trashing another's explanations. Legwork must be done to prove the assertion through scientific method. Surely, architects and engineers are no strangers to this process.
edit on 9-1-2011 by traditionaldrummer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Well yes, thats what I said, that we do not arrive at the truth just by thrashing another investigation. But you can still call a spade a spade and a non investigation for what it is. I never said that by disqualifying nist you magically get the answers. You make your case on why an indipendent investigation is needed.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Well yes, thats what I said, that we do not arrive at the truth just by thrashing another investigation. But you can still call a spade a spade and a non investigation for what it is. I never said that by disqualifying nist you magically get the answers. You make your case on why an indipendent investigation is needed.


Well best of luck to them in their endeavors. Keep in mind I really have no dog in the 911 fight either way: I am neither a "truther" or a government apologist. I see problems with say, the 911 Commission. I also see problems with many of the "truther" groups, "A&E" not excluded. I think any intellectually honest person would find that flaws are ubiquitous on both sides of the 911 aisle.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
This is nothing but educational TRADITION.

The physics of this problem is GRADE SCHOOL LEVEL.


Why then won't at least one of these 1,400 architects or engineers publish something detailing this alleged grade school physics? It seems that should be a piece of cake. It seems quite telling that nobody is up to the task after ten years.


I worked for IBM for years. But I built my first computer shortly after I was hired, a Heathkit H-8. It was a von Neumann machine. All of the computers I was trained on at IBM were von Neumann machines. But I never saw the term on any documentation or heard anyone use it.

I didn't learn that term until after Ieft the company. IBM hired John von Neumann as a consultant in 1952.

Experts have a vested interest in making their area of expertise look complicated. They don't want everyone to UNDERSTAND they just want people to BELIEVE. So it is propaganda versus propaganda not explaining the grade school physics. Why don't we have a table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level after NINE YEARS. I asked Richard Gage about that face to face. When do you hear physicists asking about it,

Why hasn't any engineering school built a physical model that can completely collapse in NINE YEARS.

Double-entry accounting is 700 years old. Ever heard an economist suggest that it be mandatory in the schools? Would people use 20% interest credit cards so much if they understood accounting?

Information hiding permeates the culture.

psik



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join