Any AE911Truth supporters want to explain this?

[Tweeter]

Add tour guide to the list and i would have to agree.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Add tour guide to the list and i would have to agree.

Do you understand how absurdly stupid this argument is? Do you understand the difference between an appeal to authority and an ad-hominem?

 

[Calcas]

Add tour guide to the list and i would have to agree.

Your real problem is that ANYONE CAN and HAS joined with fake credentials.

I have. I just wanted to see how easy it was. And it was very easy.

How do you reconcile that?

So, while I don't dispute that there are likely SOME legitimate degreed people there, we really don't know, do we?

 

[Slayhamlet]

I'm clearly not a supporter... but you've listed engineers and other highly technical professions. So... Yes? Obviously? I'm kind of amazed no one else has pointed this out, to be honest.

Engineers take college level classes on calculus, physics, statics, dynamics, etc. Is it enough to be an expert, or claim expertise? No. But it's -plenty- more than the average person.

Why wouldn't someone whose taken differential, integral, and multivariate calculus and an ordinary differential equations course be more equipped to understand the mechanics and physics of the collapse?

While I agree that it would ridiculous for me and other engineers who aren't structural/etc to claim sufficient expertise to make claims in these areas, it's certainly false to claim we are no more qualified as "the average person".

For god's sake, I can derive the kinematic equations from Newton's Law. Doesn't that already put me ahead of an average person? I can simulate an elementary model of the collapse on my computer in a matter of minutes. Doesn't that count for something?

Well that's not exactly how you phrased the original question, is it?

You are right, of course. The problem with Gage's site is that very few of the engineers and other experts he has listed have done any actual work, whether in JONES or elsewhere, to support their contentions. It's primary purpose seems to be an appeal to authority.

 

[Minadin]

I'm clearly not a supporter... but you've listed engineers and other highly technical professions. So... Yes? Obviously? I'm kind of amazed no one else has pointed this out, to be honest.

Engineers take college level classes on calculus, physics, statics, dynamics, etc. Is it enough to be an expert, or claim expertise? No. But it's -plenty- more than the average person.

Why wouldn't someone whose taken differential, integral, and multivariate calculus and an ordinary differential equations course be more equipped to understand the mechanics and physics of the collapse?

While I agree that it would ridiculous for me and other engineers who aren't structural/etc to claim sufficient expertise to make claims in these areas, it's certainly false to claim we are no more qualified as "the average person".

For god's sake, I can derive the kinematic equations from Newton's Law. Doesn't that already put me ahead of an average person? I can simulate an elementary model of the collapse on my computer in a matter of minutes. Doesn't that count for something?

Well that's not exactly how you phrased the original question, is it?

This is my contention as well. I might make 1337m4n's list as a "common architect" since, to date, the largest building I've worked on has been 4 storeys. But I feel that I do bring some expertise to the table. At least, more than the average joe. I took physics and calculus and differential equations in college; I took specialized courses in statics and strengths of materials and structural design. (I also took organic chemistry and sculpture; I'm an oddball)

I know the jargon. How many of the average joes here knows what a bending moment diagram is or what it's useful for, let alone can make one? I can make basic structural calculations and in fact have to for my livelihood. If it gets into the nitty-gritty, I'll of course defer to a structural engineer or someone with more expertise, such as Newton's Bit, or Architect, who works on high rises. Just as I would professionally: If we're going to use a moment frame or something else I'm not familiar enough with to bet my career, I get a real expert.

1337m4n, I don't see how your little ranking system can honestly rank a firefighter above an architect. Even a "common" architect. I'm sure it's true that some people in our profession work mostly on tenant finishes and remodels (such as architects in New York and other large cities that are mostly built up already) and don't deal much with structures at all, but many of us do.

Just like I'm sure some firefighters have a lot more experience with fires in high-rise steel structured office buildings (such as a firefighter in San Fran might) whereas other firefighters might be mostly dealing with low-rise wood structures (such as a volunteer firefighter in Wakarusa, Kansas). Should those be comparable?

If you're going to do a ranking of their members and give a -5 for completely unrelated jobs / education / expertise, I think you might want to get a +5 if they get someone who could be considered an expert in a highly relevant field (such as most of the professions you're giving a +2 currently, and as far as I know they have none) and then +2 and +1 for slightly less relevant fields who should still know more than an average businessman or soccer mom about the subjects involved.

 

[Minadin]

Also, a PhD doesn't necessarily give anyone more expertise, nor is it practically available for all fields. In fact, many of the architectual firms in my area would rather hire a graduate architect with a 5-year bachelor degree compared to someone with a 6-year master's degree.

Reason: You don't have to get your undergraduate in architecture or even a related field to acheive your master's in 2-3 years in architecture. A bachelor is guaranteed to have spent 5 years on the subject. Kind of like getting your MBA after getting an undergraduate degree in history.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

(I also took organic chemistry and sculpture; I'm an oddball)

There's an organic chemistry sculpture class??

Yikes!!!! Okay, okay! We can get back on topic now!!

 

[1337m4n]

Okay okay, I get it!

Sheesh, I was half joking anyway.

My stupidity aside, AE911Truth does seem to be deliberately padding their numbers. I'm interested in figuring out just how many qualified signatories they have if you remove all the crap.

 

[Minadin]

Oh, their so-called experts are worthless.

I won't say that the reason they're worthless is because they are buying into this crapolla, because that seems like circular logic, but I would be tempted to say that signatories at AE911truth shouldn't be trusted to practice their expertise if it is relevant to the subject. At least, until one of them - any of them - produce something that can withstand the minutest of actual peer review. Thus far, they are batting 0-for-0, because none have them have even made an attempt.

Regardless of that, however, I don't think that taking them to task based on the non-expertise of their experts is a bad idea at all. In fact, I commend you for going to the trouble of cataloging it all. I'm just trying to make sure that the criticism is as valid as possible.

 

[Dave Rogers]

See--It involves those extra 8 (or is it 9) dimensions that curl around and are so tiny they don't matter in the ordinary course of events. It is these circumstances that they were ... designed ... for.
It's definitely quantum, too..

Actually, it's extremely simple. Steel columns are three-dimensional, and in common with all other physical objects have only a negligible extent in the remaining nine dimensions. This means that their rigidity against buckling in those additional nine dimensions is also negligible. When impacted by a sufficiently large impulse (like, for example, the upper storeys of the towers falling 3.7 metres), any minor imperfections in the additional nine dimensions will give a small but finite eccentric loading along those dimensions. The result is obvious; the steel will buckle along the direction of one or more of the additional dimensions, and as a result the majority of the steel will in effect leave the confines of the physical universe as we know it. The fact, therefore, that all the steelwork of the towers was recovered, is in itself proof of explosive demolition; every other high rise steel building that has suffered such serious damage simply collapsed into the ninth dimension, as string theory predicts.

Dave

 

[Anti-sophist]

You are right, of course. The problem with Gage's site is that very few of the engineers and other experts he has listed have done any actual work, whether in JONES or elsewhere, to support their contentions. It's primary purpose seems to be an appeal to authority.

This is precisely the point... and the fundamental difference is underlined perfectly by Tweeter's ignorant comment about a tour guide.

When you compile a giant a list of people, and run around touting "architects and engineers" believe something, you are creating an appeal to authority. The point that an electrical engineer, like me, doesn't really have any real authority, is valid. I can't say "Look, I'm an engineer. This is what happened. Believe me, because I'm an engineer".

The primary purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that this is not only an appeal to authority but an appeal to a -false- authority, which is even worse. And I agree whole heartedly with the OP on that sentiment.

Which brings me back to Tweeter's ignorant comment which touches on exactly what you are talking about. You don't get to dismiss someone's -message- just because of who they are. You don't get to say "Hey, Jones' is a total crackpot, so his theory on thermite is wrong.". We all know that. That's ad-hominem. However, when people do no actual legwork, provide no evidence, but simply put their name and credentials on a list, they are creating an appeal to authority, so pointing out the falseness of their authority is -not- ad-hominem. It's simply making the case that this particular appeal to authority is an even worse type of fallacy of an appeal to a -false- authority.

If you are going to depend on your credentials to prove your point, in lieu of evidence, (which is what this list is trying to do), then people have -every- right to question your credentials.

If, on the other hand, you are going to depend on the -evidence- to prove your point, your credentials are irrelevant. Gravy doesn't say "I'm a tour guide! Case closed!". That's why Tweeter's comment is fundamentally ignorant. Gravy's message is constructed fundamentally different from the AE people. His message is not an appeal to authority. Therefore, his message isn't discredited or devalued by attacking his credentials.

If the landscape architect wants to get into the evidence of 9/11, I'll take his ideas seriously, because they stand on their own. If he wants to tell me that his title has "architect" and therefore that lends credence to his beliefs, I'm going to laugh.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

More commonly known as a janitor. Is that our boy Willy Rodriquez?

No, it's not a janitor, it's the guy who drives the train. Woo Woo!


ETA: The proper term for Key master Willie is "Porter," which fits in nicely with the RR theme here.

Of course that would make the dancing V guy, Kevin Barrett, a gandy dancer.

 

[LastChild]

This is precisely the point... and the fundamental difference is underlined perfectly by Tweeter's ignorant comment about a tour guide.

When you compile a giant a list of people, and run around touting "architects and engineers" believe something, you are creating an appeal to authority. The point that an electrical engineer, like me, doesn't really have any real authority, is valid. I can't say "Look, I'm an engineer. This is what happened. Believe me, because I'm an engineer".

The primary purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that this is not only an appeal to authority but an appeal to a -false- authority, which is even worse. And I agree whole heartedly with the OP on that sentiment.

Which brings me back to Tweeter's ignorant comment which touches on exactly what you are talking about. You don't get to dismiss someone's -message- just because of who they are. You don't get to say "Hey, Jones' is a total crackpot, so his theory on thermite is wrong.". We all know that. That's ad-hominem. However, when people do no actual legwork, provide no evidence, but simply put their name and credentials on a list, they are creating an appeal to authority, so pointing out the falseness of their authority is -not- ad-hominem. It's simply making the case that this particular appeal to authority is an even worse type of fallacy of an appeal to a -false- authority.

If you are going to depend on your credentials to prove your point, in lieu of evidence, (which is what this list is trying to do), then people have -every- right to question your credentials.

If, on the other hand, you are going to depend on the -evidence- to prove your point, your credentials are irrelevant. Gravy doesn't say "I'm a tour guide! Case closed!". That's why Tweeter's comment is fundamentally ignorant. Gravy's message is constructed fundamentally different from the AE people. His message is not an appeal to authority. Therefore, his message isn't discredited or devalued by attacking his credentials.

If the landscape architect wants to get into the evidence of 9/11, I'll take his ideas seriously, because they stand on their own. If he wants to tell me that his title has "architect" and therefore that lends credence to his beliefs, I'm going to laugh.

Yes but Gage is an architect himself unlike a fraud like Meigs who is referred to as an expert opinion for example on the History Channel show covering 9/11 conspiracies. And if Meigs is not the expert himself then who is it he is appealing to and where are they and why don't they put their face to the so-called expert opinion?

 

[Par]

...if Meigs is not the expert himself then who is it he is appealing to and where are they and why don't they put their face to the so-called expert opinion?

Do you think that Popular Mechanics are lying about the contributing experts and their options? If so, do you have any evidence for the same?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

... if Meigs is not the expert himself then who is it he is appealing to and where are they and why don't they put their face to the so-called expert opinion?

Whaaat?? Who is it Meigs is appealing to?? Why are you spinning that as though the PopMech sources are unnamed?? Look here!

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9

Please tell me I'm misinterpreting you, because you make things sound as if PopMech didn't identify their sources, when it's very, very obvious that they clearly did.

 

[LastChild]

Whaaat?? Who is it Meigs is appealing to?? Why are you spinning that as though the PopMech sources are unnamed?? Look here!

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9

Please tell me I'm misinterpreting you, because you make things sound as if PopMech didn't identify their sources, when it's very, very obvious that they clearly did.

And? Gage doesn't post everyone on his site? And when Gage or Jones go public they use their face don't they? Who is it that's really appealing to authority and who is it that is actually an authority in the things they speak about?

 

[twinstead]

Not only did PopMech identify their sources, they meticulously identified their sources. One can disagree with their sources, but one can neither say they didn't 'put a face' on them, nor can one say they weren't indeed experts in the relevant fields.

 

[twinstead]

And? Gage doesn't post everyone on his site? And when Gage or Jones go public they use their face don't they? Who is it that's really appealing to authority and who is it that is actually an authority in the things they speak about?

So what are your problems with PopMech's sources? Are they not authorities?

 

[LastChild]

Whaaat?? Who is it Meigs is appealing to?? Why are you spinning that as though the PopMech sources are unnamed?? Look here!

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9

Please tell me I'm misinterpreting you, because you make things sound as if PopMech didn't identify their sources, when it's very, very obvious that they clearly did.

So then get some quotes from those very experts and show mw how it proves that 9/11 happened exactly like the official version claims.

 

[uk_dave]

And? Gage doesn't post everyone on his site? And when Gage or Jones go public they use their face don't they? Who is it that's really appealing to authority and who is it that is actually an authority in the things they speak about?

oh riiiight ... gotcha... see where you're coming from now..... the world in which you inhabit cannot have books or films written/produced by people collecting together the work of others and presenting it as a whole. Instead every person who is a specialist in a particular field should be presenting themselves, because that way you can see their faces and use your uncommon powers to decide then whether or not they are to be believed.

Great. That's your world. Enjoy it.