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.
Good Lord... We're back to the beginning. Experts are provided, sources for quotes are given, and then you suddenly asked what they have to do with Gage's claim, as if that was the original question. Now, you're back to pretending the experts don't exist.
The experts debunking the
inside job were quoted in the PopMech article. No, they didn't address Gage's claims, but they addressed the conspiracy fantasy. They're quoted in the article here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
Now, are you going to admit that PopMech and Meigs did indeed have sources to lean on, or are you going to go back and forth on what you were asking again?
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?
(*Sigh*)
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?
That was your original post. I was answering the second question: "... 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". They put their names to the opinion, and that's locatable in the link above. Trying to cry that they're somehow anonymous because they didn't take part in the TV show is disingenuous; they were involved and quoted in the written work that the info in the show is based on. There's no empty appeal to authority; the sources for the TV show can be found at the link above, and had their say in the written work!
And while I wasn't originally trying to compare Meigs's use of his sources and Gage's listing of architects and engineers, I think we should do that now, since that appears to be the bone of your contention. Meigs lists the sources and their arguments in the written PopMech work. That PopMech work is the source of the information in the History Channel show. That the sources did not appear in the program is irrelevant; their arguments were conveyed through Meigs and others on that show. So if you go back to the original work, the use of experts are transparent. You can see what they contributed, because they're directly quoted in the work.
Now, regarding Gage: Where does he cite an AE911T member in
his work? What do they contribute? Where does he quote one of
themi? And if he's his own expert and does his own work, why the continual reference to the membership of AE911T? Why no transparency in what they contributed? The PopMech work is perfectly transparent.
Let's go back to AntiSophist's original post:
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"...
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.
Where does the PopMech work only lean on credentials? Where does the PopMech work ever say "the expert said so" and not actually explain the argument and the evidence? And then turn that around: Where does Gage ever cite his sources? Which member of AE911T has contributed to any work attributed to that group? Everything I find was done by Gage himself.
So Gage is irrelevant because he himself is an expert? LOL That’s some debunking there. Good job.
What kind of non-sequitur is that?? I said:
What does it matter that they weren't on the show? Is the History Channel program the only source for the PopMech information?...
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.
I was addressing your charge that the experts don't seem to be available, your question asking "... who is it (Meigs) is appealing to and where are they and why don't they put their face to the so-called expert opinion?". That's what I was referring to.
Are you coo coo for coccopuffs too?
Actually, I have a box of Rice Crispies in the kitchen right now. And as far as chocolate, I prefer Cocoa Pebbles.
But, in all seriousness, I was wondering why I have to explain the obvious to you. You seem to deliberately misinterpret everything people say to you. This last post I'm responding to is a perfect example of that.
That's why I need to point this out. You seem to want to twist answers around to mean something other than what they mean. I answered your charge that the experts Meigs leaned on were there, then you followed with a complaint that they concentrated on something that Gage didn't address, the plane pods. Then, all of a sudden, it's back to "where are they".
You're the one who keeps on misinterpreting and moving topics around. You're the one being disingenuous in what you're saying.
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?
Is that all you asked for? Obviously not, now that you're complaining, but that was all that was referred to in your response to Twinstead:
So are you saying that you claim the experts referenced in the book didn't say what the book said they did?
Which experts said what? Quotes please.
All you were asking for in that post was what did which expert say, in reference to Twinstead's question about "experts referenced in the book (not saying) what the book said they did". In short, you wanted proof that experts said something, and for specific quotes.
That's why you were linked to the original work.
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.
What?? Did you even read what I wrote?
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.
Again, you're addressing something separate from what the post said. This was a response to your sudden moving of the goal posts:
... again how does their expert opinions or their quotes debunk inside job or anything Gage claims? For instance does Gage claim pods?
You're all of a sudden asking how they refute Gage.
I was pointing out that the original context was Meigs credibility vs. Gage's and answering in that vein.
And now you're asking "How the hell is Meigs an expert in anything?" You've totally missed the point of each and every post in response to you in asking that. Meigs
is not the expert. He
cites their arguments, and provides direct quotes from those experts. The fact that he's the portal for their work doesn't invalidate the work.
Why is that so hard to understand?
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?
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 don't see an answer to what? You asked "... if Meigs is not the expert himself, then
who is it he is appealing to".
Well, actually, wait a minute. You're right! I didn't answer this. Meigs was never "
appealing to" anyone. Rather, he was citing the expert and the argument the expert made, plus the evidence the expert used. He wasn't merely claiming that the experts said it wasn't so because they were "experts".
Thanks for pointing that out. Anyway, that should answer your previous questions about "appeals to authority". Meigs wasn't doing that. Rather, he was the presenter of their work.
And to the second question: How does it debunk an inside job?
My first response is, "you're kidding". When the arguments are presented, and shown to be false, that doesn't debunk "inside job"? They shown that the basis for so many of the conspiracy fantasies - the "
plane pod" (yes, I know that Gage didn't forward this, but we're discussing the general CT, not Gage's specific corner of it), the "
Stand down orders",
molten steel,
puffs of dust,
intact windows, etc. - were fallacious, misinterpreted, or outright falsehoods. When the base arguments for "Inside Job" are shown to be false, then it's debunked.
Again, what's so hard to understand about this?
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?
The fact that no experts were " sitting next to Meigs or Coburn on the HC show" is somehow proof that the info is invalid? Are you
serious?? What kind of argument is that?? They weren't there because they already contributed to the work! The work we've been linking to! The work you're ignoring! You seem to want to separate out the PopMech article and book from the History Channel show, but you cannot: It is the
source of the information! It is the basis for what Meigs and Coburn said! The fact the experts weren't there proves nothing. What, you think they were ashamed of the work? Trying to hide? Try again! They were cited in the written work! Names and credentials.
This attempt to impugn the sources by pointing out they weren't on the show is just laughable. What about their not showing up makes the information false?
On top of that: The "Pod or no Pod" argument would be valid if it were the only one in contention, but
every CT has an answer based in reality. Mackey and others here have pointed out the problems with the assumptions in Ross's work. Greening has shown alternate and more probable explanations for Jones's findings. Many others have shown errors in all other claims, from the Pentagon and Shanksville wreckage questions, to the various elements of witness testimony... I
am looking at the forest instead of the individual trees. It's you conspiracy fantasists who keep on bringing up the individual trees.
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.
Already done. See above.
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.
Answered above. They put their names to facts in the PopMech article and book. Why is appearing on the TV show so important? They've already forwarded their credibility. They did it in a spot way before your arbitrary point too.
As a reminder, here are their names:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9
And as a final reminder: The importance of this list doesn't rest in their authority. Rather, it rests in what they actually say, what arguments they build from what evidence they cite.
That's the importance. Regardless of whether they cite it in an interview published in Popular Mechanics or used by others in a TV show.
