The Worlds Experts Cry Out! not

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


ok he is not an idiot..then...since he is not an idiot...tell me how he must think the plane got there....did it just show up ....was it on a string...did it flap it's wings....you tell me.

Believe me i know what he is talking about you have no need to explain to me....the building should have survived...we are not talking about just one instance are we.....two structures...hit at different points....on different levels...yet both collapses complete collapses.

reply to post by plube


It seems like we're talking at cross purposes. He's clearly referring to the impact of a flying jet, and whether it would "knock over" such a tower. His answer is that the impact of a jet, while enormous, is not sufficient to topple the tower, because the wind load it is designed to sustain is even greater than the impact of a jet. And he was correct.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


would you stop with just repeating the same thing over again....you will not acknowledge it when he states about the building would sustain the hit and only elements of the structure would fail....I stated i know what he is talking about...as far as striking the building....stop Obfuscating what is being stated....he believes in 1988 a 747 would not topple the building...and also elements of the building would be affected....simple as that.....he is not an idiot so he would assume fuel to be on the plane...as was with the plane that struck the empire state building....now he uses a 747 as an example...which is much larger that an 707 of which the buildings were designed for ....yet you still do not seem to understand what is the point here....he is the same person who signed off on two conflicting reports...FEMA...and Silverman...yet in 1988 he states the buildings could sustain a hit from a 747.

this is like pulling teeth....I have stated my trade in the past...i completly understand what he is saying.....and it conflicts with the reality of the day.

now just a note...WE know the buildings...both towers...sustained the hit....THEY STOOD FOR 1HR AND 1 1/2HR respectively

Originally posted by plube
.I have stated my trade in the past...i completly understand what he is saying.....and it conflicts with the reality of the day.

He's quite clearly referring to damage from impact only, and never mentions fire, so there's nothing wrong with what he's said, as far as it goes. Initially there was only damage to a portion of each structure and they were not toppled by impact.

I never take pseudonymous posters occupations seriously, so I don't remember who or what you claim to be. It's not relevant and not verifiable in any case...

well i guess from your above statement you can never be taken seriously....well said M8....and yet again you repeated yourself...wow...your on a roll....I am pleased most people will get what i said very clearly...and did you even notice what i had said.....the towers clearly survived the impacts....That was not the question here...the point of questioning was this mans ability to change his professional beliefs for what.

So since nothing can be taken seriously here because of the anonymity...then there is no point discussing with you on this matter or any matter here on ATS.(in your point of view).

As has been shown...even when ones occupation is known to be true...if people do not agree with them...people begin character assassination. So are you still going to repeat the same thing yet again....will that make it become truth if you just keep repeating what is not being discussed....I will try this...Why would this man in all his KNOWN professionalism sign off on two conflicting reports about collapses...when he himself really, in all his KNOWN professionalism does think the collapses would have happened in the first place.

Don't worry i am working on every person that i presented to show conflicts....which are blatantly clear...but i do not do this for you...I do it for people who actually realize they are talking to real people when they are presenting here on ATS. For one thing professional or not people have valid opinions whether anonymous or known.

I am so glad that has been clarified.

NOTE...just on the point of nothing wrong with what he said....please point out where i said there was anything wrong with what he states.....What he stated was perfectly accurate...without fail...the only person here that is wrong in what they say is you....as you are twisting words that get said to you to fit into the way your thinking.

maybe you might like some viewing while your contemplating what has been said to you.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Out of the kindness of my heart i thought i would also present you with much good reading on Some facts of 9/11..

All articles...and all comments are cited and linked for your perusal....you have to go quite far in google to find it so i have done the hard work for you....but it is alot of reading....so take your time...and remember to use the links and follow the trails...I think it does help.

Also if you go to the PBS transcripts for Nova you will find some interesting things stated by Mister Thorton.

here you go

DIG

It is Kevin Ryans blog so please enjoy.

I am questioning your motives here....and how you view things...is there something to be gained by being very Obtuse in replies....I myself have been shown to be wrong on some things...and i accept them as that is part of being human...mistakes can and do get made.

what is the OS, IS it NIST,FEMA and the commission report....which has shown to be conflicting with each other time and time again....IS it these falsehoods which you hold so dear that you would hold onto tooth and nail to defend....I need to ask why.....being that i am a person who is always asking questions....and when the answers just don't add up...i simply ask why again.....These three reports do not add up.....so WHY?.

reply to post by SimontheMagus

And what does ANY of this have to do with the actual laws of physics?
How do "beliefs" determine what brought down the towers?
What do you expect to gain by endlessly arguing over who believes what?
Since when is the truth determined by a majority in an opinion poll?

All of these goes to my origional point of this thread.

All of the worlds experts agree that none of the laws of physics were broken that day.
Only a few web warriors and profiteers do.

reply to post by samkent

That's 15 out of the 22 who's specialty has nothing to do with the reasons the buildings came down... The entire planet and none believe in CD.

I really do not understand your interpretation or what you are trying to achieve. Personally I do not believe it was CD, I know it was. The case this this clear when reviewing the evidence. I started out as a debunker as I really did not want to deal with the implications of the inside job, but here we are as I value reality more than perception.

And I'll bet that not one of the other seven is willing to put their name on a paper for peer review.

If you check out that website it is a peer reviewed collection of best evidence for any investigation, they all have their name on it. If you want peer reviewed papers here are some www.journalof911studies.com...

reply to post by kwakakev

If you want peer reviewed papers here are some....

And who exactly "peer reviewed" these papers? And just out of curiosity - what do you think "peer review" means?

reply to post by hooper


Here is the peer reviewed process for www.journalof911studies.com... . As long as one other person with similar technological knowledge reviews the work then technically it is peer reviewed. Different journals have different process. Just because a work has been peer reviewed does not mean it is absolute, but it does maintain a professional standard of work and worthy of consideration.

reply to post by kwakakev

As long as one other person with similar technological knowledge reviews the work then technically it is peer reviewed.

Hmmmm. Really? Just one other person? Thats it? Thats your standard? And who is deciding whether or not the other person has "similar technological knowledge"? Isn't that usually the task of professional societies? Or is it just left to the reader to decide? Or the author?

Listen, if thats your standard for "peer reviewed" then that is your standard. But its not the same standard as the rest of the professional world.

reply to post by hooper


I am not sure what these personal attacks have to do with the thread topic. I gave you the link to the standard used the last journal I posted.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by hooper

 

I am not sure what these personal attacks have to do with the thread topic. I gave you the link to the standard used the last journal I posted.

Its about the definition of "expert". And the definition of "peer review". People like to throw that term around. Sounds really offical and professional. But think about some real, actual professional journals. Then think about "the Journal of 9/11 Studies", which is really just a website for conspiracy "theories".

reply to post by hooper


Very good, science is built on theories. All of mankinds knowledge and capabilities started as theories, then with the theory of the scientific method we made our theories stronger, proved, disproved or still under review. Fact, fantasy or still unknown. The journey continues as the experts help put the evidence into context.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by samkent

 

That's 15 out of the 22 who's specialty has nothing to do with the reasons the buildings came down... The entire planet and none believe in CD.

I really do not understand your interpretation or what you are trying to achieve. Personally I do not believe it was CD, I know it was. The case this this clear when reviewing the evidence. I started out as a debunker as I really did not want to deal with the implications of the inside job, but here we are as I value reality more than perception.

And I'll bet that not one of the other seven is willing to put their name on a paper for peer review.

If you check out that website it is a peer reviewed collection of best evidence for any investigation, they all have their name on it. If you want peer reviewed papers here are some www.journalof911studies.com...

Consider it like this:
Person A has a medical issue.
Person B says 'My mom had that and she rubbed it with pine root".
Person c says " Yea I had that too".

This is akin to what those 15 out of 22 people are doing. Not one of them has a degree in a field related to the causes of the building collapses.
Two of them are journalists are going to take their word as definitive on an engineering issue?
Perhaps we should have the two religious experts in the list design our next Moon rocket.

Why have experts look at the evidence first hand if you are going to take the word of someone who has zero experience in that field?

reply to post by kwakakev

Very good, science is built on theories.

No, very good science is based on disciplined observations. Theories are the product of the scientific method, not the basis for the method. Except in the world of pseudo science, wherein people start with "theories" and then go looking for evidence to support those theories.

All of mankinds knowledge and capabilities started as theories, then with the theory of the scientific method we made our theories stronger, proved, disproved or still under review.

Nope. Our knowledge started with the establishment of the process where we employed unbiased observation.

Fact, fantasy or still unknown. The journey continues as the experts help put the evidence into context.

No, the journey is over. At some point you reach your destination. Unfortunately the destiation may not always be where you thought they would be.

reply to post by hooper


Not to de-rail too much, but sometimes scientist's are dragged kicking and screaming to knowledge that they had prior thought impossible and based on the ravings of lunatic's

After all it was only a little over a hundred years that the very idea of rocks falling from the sky( meteorites) was considered shear madness!

Scientist's should learn to be a little more open minded.

reply to post by crawdad1914

Not to de-rail too much, but sometimes scientist's are dragged kicking and screaming to knowledge that they had prior thought impossible and based on the ravings of lunatic's

Careful now. Don't confuse facts and theories. Sometimes facts, which may be difficult to examine, are not acknowledged right away. Scientist may be skeptical (dragged kicking and screaming in your words) even about the best laid out theories if the theories are difficult to test.

After all it was only a little over a hundred years that the very idea of rocks falling from the sky( meteorites) was considered shear madness!

Actually it was about 200 years ago and "shear madness" is just a little bit of hyperbole.

Scientist's should learn to be a little more open minded.

No, real science requires discipline.

reply to post by hooper


You are correct, it was close to 200 years ago.

Thanks for the date clarification.

I stand by the rest of my comments.