My Hierarchy of Credibility
Incredible numbers of people have weighed in with opinions and explanations of how the WTC Buildings collapsed on 9/11. Some have more credibility than others. Who makes the argument is less important than the quality of that argument. The factual argument is true independent of the qualifications of the person presenting it - that over-rides all the credibility issues. Likewise, if it is false, the falsity "wins" even if the presenter is a multi-PhD and has had the paper "peer reviewed". Nevertheless, certain investigative processes carry more weight with me than others. Here is a list of the kinds of people and organizations whose opinions I have researched, and what weight I give their conclusions, in order from most to least credible:
1) Peer reviewed scientific papers written by specialists have the highest credibility, especiallay if other specialists have replicated or supported their central findings. The NIST Report has very high credibility in the worldwide scientific community. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, ARUP, Universities of Pennsylvania, Purdue, Hawaii, etc. have all supported and expanded upon the major findings of the NIST Report. Claims that NIST has committed fraud and violated basic laws of physics while under the microscope of such intense peer review are not credible to me. Early peer-reviewed papers by Thomas Eagar, Eduardo Kasel and others point in the general direction of the final conclusions of the NIST Report, but some of these early hypotheses were later supplanted by more nuanced understandings. Post-NIST Report, the CTBUH studies offered variations on the NIST summary which have credibility for me (thermal expansion of beams during heating followed by thermal contractionb when the fires moved on, for example). All of these credible scientists have been part of an evolving theory of natural collapse of the WTC Buildings.
Nothing they say is gospel or set in stone; new details have caused several revisions in the theory along the way. "Peer reviewed" does not guarantee that the paper or its claims are correct. It is only a threshold for admission into academic/professional discussion. It may be more likely to be correct than a non peer-reviewed blog entry, but cannot be presumed to be. "Peer-reviewing" is a process in traditional science where other qualified scientists try to poke holes in the research and suggest alternative explanations for the data, but the absence of peer review does not invalidate the argument.
2.) Opinions of specialists not involved in the 9/11 debate. I have talked to 14 physicists and got onto a physics chat room to ask questions about static vs dynamic loads, weight vs mass, momentum, formulae for energy expendituires, etc. I have also talked with engineers, heavy equipment operators, first responjders from 9/11, structural engineers, other engineers, a structural engineering chat room, etc. etc. etc. I ask technical questions, they answer, and they are not involved in the 9/11 debate.
3.) "White papers" by scientists. These are not peer-reviewed, not published in a major scientific journal, and often written by people who venture out of their areas of specialized training. On Debunking 9/11 Debunking by Ryan Mackey, for example, is the work of an aeronatical engineer. He is a generalist but well-trained in the scientific method; his claims are backed by extensive research and synthesis of the conclusions of people in category (1) above. When physics teacher David Chandler talks physics, his training carries more authority than my training would. Same with Richard Gage, whose experience as an architect on major projects gives him a grasp of structure that I don't have (but less authority than a structural engineer). Kevin Ryan's knowledge of chemistry, Steven Jones's understanding of physics: all of these 9/11 Truth advocates have a level of technical skill sets that surpass my own. But none of them have the kind of specialized training that makes them true authorities at the level of an MIT physics professor talking about the collapse mechanisms of the WTC Buildings. Importantly, all of these people have veered away from their areas of expertise. Ryan Mackey's psychological explanations of 19/11 Truth advocates has less credibility due to his lack of training in psychology; Kevin Ryan's research into the ties of prominent scientists to the CIA are little more than ad hominem attacks and are incredibly inaccurate, as I discovered when I was on the receiving end of one of his blog posts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212725&page=86 start at post 3435.
By definition, anyone who speaks about every aspect of the CD theory will have to venture out of their areas of expertise: for example, when Richard Gage talks about chemistry, he is no longer in an area of expertise for him.
4.) Journalists with professional training and experience in "separating the wheat from the chaff" by asking questions of people on both sides of an issue. That would be me... and NY Times reporters and journalists from major media outlets. However, not all journalists really do their homework. Some will accept government statements and press rfeleases and just write up a story, so the quality of journalistic investigation has to be taken into account before accepting their work at face value.
5.) JREF, 9/11 Truth and other blogs. Some of the people have strong technical backgrounds and "know their stuff." They also have a belief and they tend to filter what they read through their belief (we all do this).
6.) YouTube videos (like my own and countless 9/11 Truth and debunker videos). Every video is edited to make you see what the creator wants you to see. But there is still valuable info and visual evidence available even in this realm.
7.) Unsupported opinions of nonscientists on blogs or in emails to me.
8.) Neo-Nazi sites make me physically ill and I am unable to even look at material presented there.
Process Credibility
The peer-review process has a high degree of credibility for me. Journalistic investigation has a lower degree of credibility and depends on the intellectual honesty of the reporter. However, my journalistic experience and training makes it easier for me to look at an argument from any source and ask if the process of soundly reasoned argument based on objective evidence is at play, whatever the status of the one advocating it.
The process Richard Gage engages is has very low credibility for me. Richard Gage takes his arguments to the general lay public and not before a panel of scientists. People with no scientific training are asked to come to conclusions about events which require a high degree of knowledge about structural engineering, physics and chemistry. No serious researcher:
1) presents his/her case on YouTube or the internet or on radio talk shows; 2) just asks questions, and draws no conclusions; 3) asks the public to decide for themselves.
What they do is prepare their arguments very, very carefully, consult with experts in the pertinent fields & then submit them to peer-reviewed publications. Then they bring their results to panels of experts within the field. Gage has not presented his theories to the MOST prestigious panel of structural engineers that he can find, rather than college campuses and public meetings? Ask the AIA, of which gage is a member, what they think of him. Serious researchers draw conclusions. As many as they can. If they have no conclusions to present, they keep quiet until they can present conclusions, but the process has less credibility for me. This in and of itself does not invalidate his claims. The first need for Gage is to start presenting sound reasoned arguments based on objective assessment of evidence. If he does that he will be better placed. His ideas can become accepted by the mainstream if he first gets credibility among scientists who know these subjects well. The fear that scientists will shy away from his position because of possible threats to their careers has no traction outside the U.S., where scientists from Germany, India and other countries can research this with fewer political constraints. Gage's latest video, Experts Speak Out, is their best effort to date to compile a collection of opinions of qualified professionals to present their arguments. However, these are videotaped opinions that have not been through the peer-review process, and do not represent experts' actual research and study.
)
