Originally posted by GenRadek
I'm almost sorry I didnt respond to this one sooner.
Your "experts" are better than the actual experts at ASCE, NIST, ICE? I stand in awe. I didnt know an interior home designer is considered an
expert in construction techniques and demolition. I didnt know an electrical engineer is an "expert" in demolition.
I doubt you even know the significance of the names and their professions on AE9/11T. A good 99% have about as much say regarding 9/11 as a
theologian does about nuclear physics.
(Disclaimer, I don't care about argument from authority from either side of the debate.)
Yeah, it's the old game of moving the goal posts. If someone is an architect, he should be structural engineer or he doesn't know what he's talking
about. If he's a controlled demolition expert, he should be a mechanical engineer and a chemist or he doesn't know what he's talking about. If
he's a physicist, he should be an architect, or he doesn't know what he's talking about. If he's a .....
Apparently, 'debunkers' need someone who has a bachelors degree, a masters degree, a PhD, a doctorate and a professor's tenure in physics, fire
dynamics, chemistry, analytical chemistry, nanochemistry, physical chemistry, chemical physics, structural engineering, electrical engineering,
mechanical engineering, architecture, metallurgy, forensic biology, mathematics, nuclear physics, politicology, philosophy, journalism,
historiography, English literature and should be licensed controlled demolitionist before they have any authority on any subject.
Of course, single issue academics from the 'debunker' camp need only be degreed in one field before they are a straight up Oracle of Delphi on
everything from biblical Genesis to collision dynamics to geopolitics and entomology.
Keep moving those goalposts, changing the rules and making new demands!