Hmm. 14 physicists and engineers, supposedly without bias, explaining their engineering beliefs about the 9/11 collapses with a writer holding no background in engineering.
Really? They didn't even know?
Of course in chat rooms, you cannot easily verify the credentials of your respondents.
And how did you manage to so subtlety ask useful scientific questions about the 9/11 collapses without biased respondents realizing?
So your "understanding" comes from a few physicists and engineers form a local university, possibly just one of each, combined with staff and customers from the Colorado School of Mines.
This is a grand total of 14 people to whom you personally asked questions about the 9/11 building collapses?
Could you please explain your understanding of what constitutes an "overwhelming array of physicists and engineers"?
And could you also please explain how your numerical concept of an "overwhelming array of physicists and engineers" represents greater credibility than the considered opinions represented by the 1,600+ engineering professionals who have joined AE911Truth?
MM
MM you are in such complete denial I don't even know where to start. As just one example, I'd go to a physics chat room and say "I have a question about a collapsing building. If one floor of a steel-framed high-rise collapses down 12 feet without much resistance, when it hits the next floor, will it have enough energy to break the supports on that floor and collapse to the next floor, or will the structure be strong enough to stop its collapse?" Question after question like that, about fires, physics, tilting buildings, angular momentum, on and on and on.
If you deny that your opinion on the physics of the 9/11 collapses represents a tiny minority of the structural engineers and physicists who have looked at this, I can't help you. Being in the minority doesn't make you wrong, but believing your opinion is somehow held by a majority or even a large minority of qualified scientists and engineers means you are completely unrealistic about the low regard your opinion is held by most qualified experts. I have heard 9/11 Truth people compare David Chandler and other of their researchers to Galileo, who was also in the minority. Except for one tiny difference. Galileo knew he and his followers were a tiny tiny minority. Most of the experts I talked to wouldn't even discuss 9/11 until I assured them I wasn't a 9/11 Truth activist (a stance I consider unfair). The scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports natural collapse, and the only way to change that is to produce new data which will prove CD and get it into the scientific mainstream via published reports. Believe it or not, I was willing to accept the possibility that Jim Millette's dust study just might have found thermitic materials. So was he: "If I find it I'll publish it." He didn't find it. Where are the published reports (besides the Bentham one) producing evidence that can be replicated (as Jim Millette tried to do and found NO THERMITIC MATERIALS)?
BTW I asked 14 experts face to face, one on one. I also asked about 15 engineering students en masse about all this at a wedding reception. I've lost count of the number of real experts I've talked to in chat rooms and via email, as well as the number of published papers and abstracts I've read before even coming to JREF (at Gage's suggestion, BTW).
Please let me know if you have done anything remotely like this. How many times have you walked onto a college campus and started asking around with the structural engineers and physicists who exist in abundance there and enjoy explaining things to laypeople like you and me? How many times have you fashioned technical questions of a general nature so their answers would be untainted by any prejudice re 9/11? How many times have you written specific, open ended questions to people on the other side and gotten answers, as I did with Richard Gage, David Chandler, CD worker Sullivan, Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, and several lesser-known 9/11 researchers? Please give me an estimate of how many people you have done this with, as I have done for you (and which you have poo-pooed). Does your dismissal of my research mean you have done much, much more of this kind of research? Are you willing to have your mind changed by the answers you get, as I have been? When? On which question?
