Any AE911Truth supporters want to explain this?

[LastChild]

Wow, that's just funny and yet so sad. You can literally feel the desperation set in.

Really? You're just starting to feel your desperation setting in? Don't be modest.

 

[1337m4n]

He's on my Ignore but I will guess at what he just said:

"So it's perfectly okay for you guys to have fake experts but when AE911Truth does it they're all a bunch of liars? LOL! FAIL!"




Did I get it right?

 

[LastChild]

Oh for the love of GOD! Read the freakin article!

Here's one page:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=2

Two experts are quoted: Ronald Greeley and Fred E. Culick. Other pages have quotes from other sources. Read. Don't ask to be spoon fed.

I don't remember seeing them in the History Channel special on 9/11 I was referring to in which Meigs and Coburn were referred to as experts. Why weren't the experts on the program and again how does their expert opinions or their quotes debunk inside job or anything Gage claims? For instance does Gage claim pods?

 

[Minadin]

He's on my Ignore but I will guess at what he just said:

"So it's perfectly okay for you guys to have fake experts but when AE911Truth does it they're all a bunch of liars? LOL! FAIL!"




Did I get it right?

Close, but if he had framed it that way it might have given the appearance of relating to the topic, instead of being a willful attempt to derail the discussion and obfuscate a situation that makes a Truth Movement^TM group look bad.

 

[SDC]

I think Gage claimed he'd lost his iPod. You know what TV is like.

LC, as many have said ... READ!! Don't keep citing the History Channel. Prove you can read. You'll learn more that way. You'll gain the respect of your peers. You'll even meet girls.

 

[Par]

I don't remember seeing them in the History Channel special on 9/11...

I notice that you’re trying to change the subject. So, you don’t want to talk about the Popular Mechanics book anymore?

 

[LastChild]

I notice that you’re trying to change the subject. So, you don’t want to talk about the Popular Mechanics book anymore?

I see you need to be reminded on who is changing the subject. Post #33. Your welcome. Now what about the book do you want to talk about because I'm not getting any answers. How does a so-called expert opinion on whether or not a photograph shows a pod under a plane debunk whether or not 9/11 was an inside job? Does no pod equate no inside job? And where were any of these so-called experts on the History channel? And do they have opinions or facts?

 

[SDC]

Read the book. It may even be in your local library.

 

[Par]

How does a so-called expert opinion on whether or not a photograph shows a pod under a plane debunk whether or not 9/11 was an inside job? Does no pod equate no inside job?

It is not our responsibility to prove the conspiracy theories false. Remember, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[johnny karate]

I guess it's just our rotten luck that Popular Mechanics and The History Channel are the only proponents of the official version of events. Because once LastChild dispatches with them, as he has cleverly done in this thread, we're finished!

*bitterly shakes fist*

Curses, LastChild! You've foiled us again!

 

[pomeroo]

How do you know what part of the PM book is expert opinion and which expert opinion and which part is Jim Meigs opinion or better yet Benjamin Chertoff’s?

Meigs the 9/11 expert who wrote "Make your own Music Video" and Chertoff who has done what?

Then there is always the PM fact checker what's his name... Davin Coburn ?

Can you try to grasp the idea that the writers and editors of a popular science magazine find it necessary to consult with experts before producing an article intended for an audience of non-professionals?

Can you grasp the idea that when a popular science writer interviews a leading authority on, say, string theory and goes on to produce an article, the writer is NOT palming himself off as the expert?

Can you grasp the terribly difficult concept that when the Popular Mechanics team consults various experts in relevant fields and produces an article or book based on what they have learned from those experts, they are presenting the conclusions reached by EXPERTS?

I keep asking you why you want to appear as obtuse as you possibly can.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I don't remember seeing them in the History Channel special on 9/11 I was referring to in which Meigs and Coburn were referred to as experts. Why weren't the experts on the program and again how does their expert opinions or their quotes debunk inside job or anything Gage claims? For instance does Gage claim pods?

Well, at least this is progress. Instead of implying they don't exist, he's now complaining that they weren't in one specific show that he's concentrating on, and raising a new question about what their impact is. So at least now LC admits they exist.

Anyway:

1. What does it matter that they weren't on the show? Is the History Channel program the only source for the PopMech information? No; the book and magazine/website are too, and in fact are the original sources for the info. Research done in writing those worksis the source for the info given in the History Channel show.

The fact that the relevant experts weren't cited on the History Channel show does not invalidate the information, or render it inferior. It merely means they were involved in the original work, which was the source for information used in the later one. The fact that others delivered the information doesn't change the source it came from.

Why do I have to point this out? This should be obvious.

2. Why are you taking my citing as somehow applicable to what Gage said? You said to Twinstead:

Which experts said what? Quotes please.

If that was a search for references for PopMech sources that directly refuted Gage, then perhaps that should be stated. But, the topic was about the comparison of Meigs vs. Gage's credibility, not whether Meigs's contribution - information build on interviews of relevant specialists in a variety of fields - directly challenged or refuted any of Gage's claims. That is the context your first post and my first response is built on.

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?

Should I have read into that quote that you were looking for PopMech sources that directly refuted Gage's claims? Well, in retrospect, I probably should have. But, you invoked Meigs and PopMech, which invokes a wider range of claims than what Gage said. That is why I wrote what I did.

You are right in one regard; Gage never made any claims about airplane pods. Problem is, that's not what I was doing when I pointed you at those quotes. You were asking for some sort of citiation - a quote - from relevant experts in the PopMech work. I provided that. Sorry it doesn't address Gage's work, but that wasn't the question my post was in response to. It was in response to your challenge:

Which experts said what? Quotes please.

Which could be read as an implication that the PopMech work did not truly cite experts in their work. Which also is a statement devoid of any relation to Gages' specific claims, which is why I merely chose the first page of the PopMech work that quoted people. There was no request in that post that wanted quotes specific to Gage's claims.

So, now that that's cleared up, what is the center of the complaint? That the PopMech experts did not appear on the History Channel show? That's true, but what is the problem with that? Does that invalidate or render inferior the PopMech information? If one thinks that's so, read above. I really don't see how it does, but I'm willing to listen to arguments claiming so to see if they're convincing.

 

[LastChild]

Originally Posted by LastChild
I don't remember seeing them in the History Channel special on 9/11 I was referring to in which Meigs and Coburn were referred to as experts. Why weren't the experts on the program and again how does their expert opinions or their quotes debunk inside job or anything Gage claims? For instance does Gage claim pods?

Well, at least this is progress. Instead of implying they don't exist, he's now complaining that they weren't in one specific show that he's concentrating on, and raising a new question about what their impact is. So at least now LC admits they exist.

I was asking why it’s Meigs who is referred to as an expert on the history channel show if there are so many available real experts who support the official version. Still no answer to that. Then I asked for quotes from the experts and exactly what they claim that debunks an inside job. Still no answer to that.

Anyway:

Yeah anyway…

1. What does it matter that they weren't on the show? Is the History Channel program the only source for the PopMech information? No; the book and magazine/website are too, and in fact are the original sources for the info. Research done in writing those worksis the source for the info given in the History Channel show.

The History channel is what I brought up in response to someones claim that Gage is appealing to authority. I was then brilliantly linked to a PM article. What kind of appeal was that?

The fact that the relevant experts weren't cited on the History Channel show does not invalidate the information, or render it inferior. It merely means they were involved in the original work, which was the source for information used in the later one. The fact that others delivered the information doesn't change the source it came from.

So Gage is irrelevant because he himself is an expert? LOL That’s some debunking there. Good job.

Why do I have to point this out? This should be obvious.

Are you coo coo for coccopuffs too?

2. Why are you taking my citing as somehow applicable to what Gage said? You said to Twinstead:

Originally Posted by LastChild
Which experts said what? Quotes please.

And? Is that all I asked for? Which expert debunks inside job with what kind of expertise and which quote? Or if you like which combination of experts and combination of quotes debunk an inside job? How many more experts in the relevant fields do PM quote in their book or article then Gage on his site and how are they more relevant?

If that was a search for references for PopMech sources that directly refuted Gage, then perhaps that should be stated. But, the topic was about the comparison of Meigs vs. Gage's credibility, not whether Meigs's contribution - information build on interviews of relevant specialists in a variety of fields - directly challenged or refuted any of Gage's claims. That is the context your first post and my first response is built on.

I didn’t even ask for that but if you insist. How the hell is Meigs an expert in anything? And now you’re asserting my points irrelevant based on the context of my one post? LOL Well… if that’s the best you can do.

Originally Posted by LastChild
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?

Should I have read into that quote that you were looking for PopMech sources that directly refuted Gage's claims? Well, in retrospect, I probably should have. But, you invoked Meigs and PopMech, which invokes a wider range of claims than what Gage said. That is why I wrote what I did.

Again I still don’t see an answer to this. I see Meigs at best para phrasing what he claims the experts say. And still in the end how does any of it debunk an inside job?

You are right in one regard; Gage never made any claims about airplane pods. Problem is, that's not what I was doing when I pointed you at those quotes. You were asking for some sort of citiation - a quote - from relevant experts in the PopMech work. I provided that. Sorry it doesn't address Gage's work, but that wasn't the question my post was in response to. It was in response to your challenge:

Whatever. Pick whatever one you want it’s not the point. How many experts does the article quote and even the ones posted here as an example didn’t even debunk anything. It’s just an opinion that the light could have made an appearance like a pod. Try to see the forest for the trees. Who cares? Pod or no Pod does it debunk inside job? Go right down the line with all the PM “experts”on some CT theories. What’s debunked inside job or parts of some cherry picked CT as if it means anything? Are you getting the picture as to why there were no experts sitting next to Meigs or Coburn on the HC show?

Originally Posted by LastChild
Which experts said what? Quotes please.

Which could be read as an implication that the PopMech work did not truly cite

It could be read as “Mary had a little lamb” if you claim that’s what it meant to you. I can't help what it means to you.

experts in their work. Which also is a statement devoid of any relation to Gages' specific claims, which is why I merely chose the first page of the PopMech work that quoted people. There was no request in that post that wanted quotes specific to Gage's claims.

Whatever. Count up all the quoted ones if you like and tell me how their opinion is any better then Gage or some of the people on his site. Then tell me how they debunked an inside job.

So, now that that's cleared up, what is the center of the complaint? That the PopMech experts did not appear on the History Channel show? That's true, but what is the problem with that? Does that invalidate or render inferior the PopMech information? If one thinks that's so, read above. I really don't see how it does, but I'm willing to listen to arguments claiming so to see if they're convincing.

No if the experts want to claim they know for a fact that 9/11 was not an inside job then let them put their face and facts to that instead of having Meigs imply it. Get it from the horses mouth not the cherry picking publicist.

 

[beachnut]

On 9/11, AE911Truth is pure nut case ideas. Why?

They are an embarrassment to each specialty they list! How can they be so stupid on 9/11? What makes people make up stuff on 9/11? Pure nuts!

 

[twinstead]

No if the experts want to claim they know for a fact that 9/11 was not an inside job then let them put their face and facts to that instead of having Meigs imply it. Get it from the horses mouth not the cherry picking publicist.

Do you imply that no experts have come out in support of the official account, and the only reference we have to any expert opinion about 911 in any way, shape, or form is from a second-hand 'cherry picking' publicist?

 

[Architect]

A Mechanical Engineer should have a fairly decent grasp of the physics involved. Architects DO actually know a few more things about structural engineering than the average joe does (there's a section on structural engineering on their liscensing exam).

The others shouldn't be on the list.

HEY!

I can't speak for those shoddy exams you have in the States, mate, but here in the ol' UK we have to do two years of structures with the opportunity for further elective study thereafter.

Anyway, smarty pants, explain to me the detailed constructional design of high-rise rainscreen cladding systems.....

 

[Newtons Bit]

HEY!

I can't speak for those shoddy exams you have in the States, mate, but here in the ol' UK we have to do two years of structures with the opportunity for further elective study thereafter.

Anyway, smarty pants, explain to me the detailed constructional design of high-rise rainscreen cladding systems.....

Architects here typically take a couple of structural classes in their undergrad programs, but two classes isn't going to get anyone close to understanding what is actually going on. I had a dozen of classes on general engineering mechanics before ever getting to class on structures.

As far as your rain screen, I think we call those "walls with windows" over here. It attachs to deck edge angles every 3 stories (the bottom story with a fixed connection and the top story with a vertical slide clip) and it weighs no more than 15psf. And that's all I need to know

 

[Architect]

An Intern Architect is one name for someone who has a professional degree in architecture, meaning they are qualified to take the licensing exam, but have not yet finished the 3-5 year IDP (Intern Development Program). This apprenticeship is required to be completed under the supervision of a fully-licensed professional. During this period, one must document and be able to demonstrate that they have spent a certain number of hours working in several distinct aspects of the profession. Then, the young architect may take the exam(s) and receive his or her seal.

Basically, that is where I am at, two and a half years in. There are differing opinions as to what to call the position, and I think it really depends on who you're talking to and what the conversation is about. It's criminal for someone without a license to misrepresent themselves as an architect in any sort of professional matter, but in everyday sort of chit-chat with laypeople I find it's just simpler to say "architect" when people ask what you do, rather than giving the more in-depth explanation. At my firm, my job title is "Architectural Associate" which is mainly to distinguish my position and qualifications from those of draftsmen or actual (college kid) interns, without indiscriminately applying the term "Architect".

An Intern Architect should, in theory, be able to understand and relate much more about structures than the average layperson, as they've completed a 5 or 6 year degree in the field, but their comprehensive knowledge would almost certainly be less than that of a newly degreed structural or civil engineer.

Also, the Associate AIA, Design Principal should probably be very familiar with these subjects, but that doesn't necessarily go for everyone as so many architects nowadays rely so heavily upon their engineering consultants as to not really have much competence in structures anymore. In fact, we've had fully licensed and registered architects who are members of the AIA outsource the structural design of some of their smaller projects to my firm, recently.

Just as an aside, it's an offence for anyone in the UK to style themselves as "architect" pending completion of the RIBA Part III professional practice exam...i.e. after 5 years at university and a minumum of 2 years of supervised practical experience.

You're what we would call a part II or part III student here. Nae luck. But I would agree that you would know more than the average man in the street.

In the same vein, can I just note again that architectural design of tall structures is rather specialist and unless a qualified architect had 5 to 10 years of experience in this specific area they would be surprisingly ignorant of many aspects of such work.

Not that this appears to have impeded Mr. Gage from opening his cavernous gob.

 

[Architect]

Architects here typically take a couple of structural classes in their undergrad programs, but two classes isn't going to get anyone close to understanding what is actually going on. I had a dozen of classes on general engineering mechanics before ever getting to class on structures.

See! Shoddy colonial system......

As far as your rain screen, I think we call those "walls with windows" over here. It attachs to deck edge angles every 3 stories (the bottom story with a fixed connection and the top story with a vertical slide clip) and it weighs no more than 15psf. And that's all I need to know

1. No it's not.

2. Structure. That's like the column thingies we attach the rainscreen cladding to, eh? Couple of bits of steel and that?

 

[Architect]

So Gage is irrelevant because he himself is an expert? LOL That’s some debunking there. Good job.

Gage is not an expert on tall buildings,as far as I can tell from his CV or reputation (specifically his lack thereof).