1,600 verified architectural and engineering professionals

Marokkaan said:
Up to ignore!!!
Click to expand...

Oh, dear, how sad. Now you'll never see me point out the inconsistency between:

Marokkaan said:
Its up to you to prove or admit your fault.

I can not debate with somebody who does not wants to admit his fault or wants to lie.
Click to expand...

and:

Marokkaan said:
So i have to search a quote from ae911truth, where they thought/expect NIST would enlist ATF to search for explosives, because you dont believe that???

OW MY, OW MY, OW MY....

You really mean this?
Click to expand...

Apparently, only other people have to back up their statements.

Dave
 
Good grief, why is this still going? It was already pointed out that Quintiere's specific criticisms depended on fire and impact induced collapse, which is in complete opposition to AE911T's explicitly stated stance that explosives were used in the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Trying to state that Quintiere agrees with AE911T is like drawing an equivalence between a kitten and a moldy peach because they're both fuzzy: It ignores the fundamental difference between the two.

To repeat for those being deliberately ignorant:
"... the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and their fire durations are consequently too short...". So in his view NIST made mistakes regarding the length of time the fires had affected the structure.
"An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause (bolding mine) appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures corresponding to failure based on structural analyses...". So, in his view, even trusses that did not lose their spray on fire resistant material were susceptible to the effects of the fire.
Click to expand...

Repeat until it sinks in: Quintiere thinks that NIST underestimated the effect of the fires. That is evidence in the direct quote of his statements. You cannot get in any more direct opposition to the core of AE911T's stance than to state that NIST did not go far enough in saying how the fires affected the towers.

That's as clear as it gets. Ignoring that is ignoring reality.
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
So i have to search a quote from ae911truth, where they thought/expect NIST would enlist ATF to search for explosives, because you dont believe that???

OW MY, OW MY, OW MY....

You really mean this?
Click to expand...


Wait... are you suggesting that we take the truth of your statement on faith? Why would we do any such thing?
 
Marokkaan said:
I can not debate with somebody who does not wants to admit his fault or wants to lie.
Click to expand...

Why not... it hasn't stopped us from talking to you, has it?


Marokkaan said:
You know ae911truth is not about conspiracy,
Click to expand...

Great... so it's ok for you to lie, is it?

Nice double standard there, hypocrite.

Marokkaan said:
but about their expertise and about the science.....
Click to expand...

Which is why they won't submit anything to proper scientific review.
 
There can be wide variations in the content of architecture courses, even among accredited schools of architecture. However, there are some basic similarities. Nearly all undergraduate architecture programmes (both professional and non-professional) devote a great deal of time and study to design...
Click to expand...

This means design in the artistic (or architectural) sense; we don't just jump out of bed understanding how to interpret and understand the way people use and interact with buildings, never mind looking at say Corbusier or Mies or Lloyd Wright.

Some schools are more design oriented, some are more technical.
In addition, students take courses in behavioural science, structural and mechanical engineering and economics. There is additional course work in graphic art in various media that is combined with computer graphics and computer-aided design. Students also take mathematics and physics as preparation for the study of engineering statics and vector forces. ...
Click to expand...

This is true, but the extent to which you would study structures depends upon the school you were at and the elective classes undertaken. I did 3 years of structures, for example, but most of my classmates did only 2. I also did elective classes in "Building Fabric Performance" which was actually forensic ssurveying/architecture - only 4 of us out of 30 in my year did that one.

The final thing you overlook is the nature of the structural work most architects study, which tends towards the general end of the spectrum. High rise buildings are specialist and whilst an architect should, in principle, be able to follow the general principles being applied it does not necessarily equip him (or her) to go head to head with (say) Arup on it.

The parallel in many ways is a GP; he'll have a rough idea of what's involved in heart surgery but you wouldn't want him to be the one doing it.

This is why I'm quite happy to call Gage an idiot. He doesn't have the experience and background in complex tall structures and consistently misapplies issues around performance of fabric.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I encourage everyone to do so and learn about some residents integrity. It's a bit creepy to have people search my posts for stuff they think is useful to dodge completely unrelated issues, but i'm used to it and if it rocks your boat, be welcome. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Wow, a Truther preaches integrity. I'm a lot closer to the "I've seen everything" point that I was yesterday.
 
Childlike Empress said:
It's a bit creepy to have people search my posts for stuff they think is useful to dodge completely unrelated issues.
Click to expand...
Pointing out that you, tmd, marokkan, redibis, AE911, etc. have totally unprofessional expectations about how evidence is used from a legal standpoint is entirely related to our discussion.

If you'd prefer to discuss integrity however, note that I linked to the original post in order to assure every reader that the excerpt was not altered (IE "quote mined" as you accused me of doing), and it was real (IE. not fabricated). In other words, I made a claim, and I supported it. If you find supporting an argument "creepy" then that's not my problem.

Of course it also fits within the broader point, in which the OP asserts a false appeal to authority. 1,600 professionals share the same standards of evidence lacking professionalism, and competence. Practicing the same abusive practices as you all with evidence to suit an agenda; and doing nothing more than shouting on the internet as opposed to taking action. That's an integrity deficiency if I ever saw one
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
This is why I'm quite happy to call Gage an idiot. He doesn't have the experience and background in complex tall structures and consistently misapplies issues around performance of fabric.
Click to expand...

The sad part is in his not knowing what a failure he is, or that his antics, such as the box drop, do not impress anyone with basic reasoning skills.
 
Architect said:
The parallel in many ways is a GP; he'll have a rough idea of what's involved in heart surgery but you wouldn't want him to be the one doing it.
Click to expand...

Again: who are the structural engineers supporting the official collapse theories? Names, please.

This is why I'm quite happy to call Gage an idiot. He doesn't have the experience and background in complex tall structures and consistently misapplies issues around performance of fabric.
Click to expand...

I somehow doubt that. However, perhaps you can answer the question for us: why, in the ten years following 9/11, have no structural building code changes been implemented specifically addressing this phenomenon of "progressive collapse"?
 
ergo said:
Again: who are the structural engineers supporting the official collapse theories? Names, please.



I somehow doubt that. However, perhaps you can answer the question for us: why, in the ten years following 9/11, have no structural building code changes been implemented specifically addressing this phenomenon of "progressive collapse"?
Click to expand...

How do you know they haven't?
 
leftysergeant said:
The sad part is in his not knowing what a failure he is, or that his antics, such as the box drop, do not impress anyone with basic reasoning skills.
Click to expand...

But NIST does have basic reasoning skills, even when a high school teacher had to help them admitting the free fall moment:boggled:

Debunkers and logic....
 
tmd2_1 said:
Indeed there is definitely a "thought" police trying to enforce what to believe or not.
Click to expand...

No one but me is policing my thoughts. however in your case you have silly thoughts and so people laugh at you.\
This really leaves three options 1)keep doing what you are doing now and get used to being laughed at. 2) understand your educational and intellectual limitations and accept that some people simply are smarter and more knowledgeable than you are and accept that it likely that they are right and you are wrong.. 3) keep having silly thoughts but be samrt enough to keep your mouth shut.
Not just about 9/11, about many things. At least in the U.S it is not yet mandated by law. Meaning you won't get arrested.
Click to expand...

who is policing your thoughts???? what do you mean????
In the west you can more or less say what you want on any subject you please short of things that are likely to cause injury to others like yelling "fire" in a movie theater or incitement to commit a crime etc.

Though I'm sure "they" would love to do that.
Click to expand...

who EXACTLY are "they"????

They do make as difficult as possible however.
Click to expand...

again who are "they"???

Difficulty with your being shunned..etc.
Click to expand...

Shunned! you''e not Amish for %^&$ sake. People avoid people who act and talk crazy because they are scary. If your behavior on jref is anything to go by you are more than a little delusional and yes people likely will avoid you.

But I think things are starting to slowly change. It will take time no doubt, but I think we can get there.
Click to expand...


Who is "we" And if you want to "get there" go see a doctor. They can help.
Click to expand...
 
Childlike Empress said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/9907451897c0442ad.gif[/qimg]

Oystein. Spare me your weaseling. Not interested.
Click to expand...


You mean like claiming that topography allows a man to see a plane through a solid building and then refusing to explain how? People in glass house.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom