Anyone seen this used to prove CD?

[gumboot]

nope.
Just The Truth AS I See IT.
I say "after it starts moving", and he/she comes back stating I'm wrong based on events that take place Before it starts moving.

Er... Corsair was specifically talking about characteristics of the building during its collapse. Those characteristics cannot possibly appear until after the building starts moving.

And indeed, Protec cite both examples (bottom portion of tower remaining completely intact and stationary until reached by collapse wave, and debris being expelled laterally some distance) in their paper as evidence that it was not a Controlled Demolition.

I see what you're saying - generally speaking the laws of physics dictate large buildings have to collapse the same way, and indeed an explosive collapse relies on these laws to do most of the work. The Protec paper also states this. But Corsair was talking only about very specific details.

-Gumboot

 

[Travis]

I often find myself explaining to people that it isn't so much that an impacted and fire initiated skyscraper collapse looks like an explosive initiated implosion as it is that an explosive initiated implosion looks like a skyscraper collapsing, for any reason. Skyscrapers are high capital investments that warrant tender loving care by those who have financial stakes in them and as a consequence they will rarely collapse in the same way that airliners, high cost complex machines, rarely fall out of the sky. As a result our collective experience is skewered by the fact that we usually only see these buildings collapse when they are brought down deliberately. Therefore, even though all skyscraper collapses will look roughly the same, when we see a skyscraper collapse our frame of reference immediately compels us to think it looks like an implosion as that is the only way most of us have ever seen a skyscraper collapse.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think that is a good question, who on earth would think about a CD that day. Of course if the experts that day think it was due to fire that is a temporarily theory.

In other words, the experts were fooled because it never occurred to them at the time that any of the collapses were CD's, it's only in the light of later information that has emerged that some people are beginning to question whether the collapses were really due to damage and fire.

Wrong, because on the other hand there were also highly skilled experts who thought about bombs in the twin towers and they rejected that a few days later.

In other words, it occurred to the experts at the time that WTC1 and WTC2 were CD's, but on consideration afterwards they decided that they weren't.

Do you stand by both of the above statements, and if so, can you see a problem with that?

Dave

 

[rwguinn]

Not sure why you are so testy. Perhaps you confused my initial reply as condoning and supporting the CT position vis-a-vis the WTC collapses? (It's exactly the opposite in fact.)

No disagreement from me on that point.

Let me try this again:

I was specifically responding to the bolded portions. Even after things get going, the typical controlled demolition using explosives still does not look similar to the WTC tower collapses, for the reasons I mentioned previously.

Yes, both are buildings falling under the effect of gravity, and within that overall, general framework they are similar. But the details of the motions between the two are what's different, and it's those details I was pointing out. To me, the differences in those details are significant. And it's those differences which make the CT belief that the WTC towers were brought down by explosives self-evidently false and ridiculous.

Sure it does.I defy anybody to watch, say, a baseball in flight and tell me the difference, without visual and audio clues, whether it was thrown or hit with a bat. Once the thing comes under the influence of Newton, there is nothing else man can do.
The falling in its own footprint and floors starting to move simultaneously are symptoms of the Control portion of the demolition. And even CD's have some surprises--that's why they board up windows of adjacent buildings and clear the streets.
This is more and more true as the buildings get taller. I would imagine that CD-ing a 110 story building would result in lots of collateral damage, just because of the size of the rubble pile. And if you CD it from the top, It would look pretty much exactly like the towers did while falling.

I simply get tired of what is essentially a straw man argument.It is truly inconsequential what it "looked like". The facts are that 2 big honkin' airplanes each hit a tower, in slightly different spots, at different angles, doing tremendous damage to the tower's structure, and started raging fires. The consequences of that are inevitible to anyone who can count to 23 without visual aids.
The other fact is that there is zero evidence for any kind of explosive being used, other than the normal residue you would find from an airplane crash and office fires.

 

[gumboot]

The falling in its own footprint and floors starting to move simultaneously are symptoms of the Control portion of the demolition.

Um... that's kind of our point...

The reason you can tell it's a CD is not because of the speed it falls, or that it falls at all, or that it pretty much falls down, or that there's lots of dust. Those are inherent factors of a building collapse of any form, dictated by the laws of physics.

The things that give away a CD, and make it distinct from an uncontrolled collapse, are that all floors fail simultaneously, and the building collapses in on itself.

Now, certainly in reality, you could have a natural collapse in which both of those occurred, though I think it would be highly unlikely, but you would never see a controlled demolition that looked like this.

The guts of this argument is, if you do this, you don't have to get into the science of it.

Most CTers argue from the position that it looks like a Controlled Demolition. If you can demonstrate that it is missing the key features of a controlled demolition (simultaneous floor movement, and inward collapsing walls) they then are left claiming it was purposefully made to look like an uncontrolled collapse, in which case they have shot themselves in the foot.

And if you CD it from the top, It would look pretty much exactly like the towers did while falling.

I'm sure it would. But the point is you wouldn't do that, and no one ever has. If you did do that, it would not be a controlled demolition, by any stretch of the imagination. It would be an uncontrolled demolition. Basically, by pointing out that the building lacks the defining characteristics of a controlled demolition, we are immediately destroying 90% of the CTers' argument for asserting it is a CD.

-Gumboot

 

[rwguinn]

Um... that's kind of our point...

The reason you can tell it's a CD is not because of the speed it falls, or that it falls at all, or that it pretty much falls down, or that there's lots of dust. Those are inherent factors of a building collapse of any form, dictated by the laws of physics.

The things that give away a CD, and make it distinct from an uncontrolled collapse, are that all floors fail simultaneously, and the building collapses in on itself.

Now, certainly in reality, you could have a natural collapse in which both of those occurred, though I think it would be highly unlikely, but you would never see a controlled demolition that looked like this.

The guts of this argument is, if you do this, you don't have to get into the science of it.

Most CTers argue from the position that it looks like a Controlled Demolition. If you can demonstrate that it is missing the key features of a controlled demolition (simultaneous floor movement, and inward collapsing walls) they then are left claiming it was purposefully made to look like an uncontrolled collapse, in which case they have shot themselves in the foot.






I'm sure it would. But the point is you wouldn't do that, and no one ever has. If you did do that, it would not be a controlled demolition, by any stretch of the imagination. It would be an uncontrolled demolition. Basically, by pointing out that the building lacks the defining characteristics of a controlled demolition, we are immediately destroying 90% of the CTers' argument for asserting it is a CD.

-Gumboot

I'm going to drop this now.
It is obvious to me that this is a point that I can see, due to my background, experience, and inclination, but I cannot make clear to even those who agree with me. My failing, nobody else's. I'm sure that the engineers/physicists know what I'm talking about, but either the subtilty eludes them, or they don't see it as being important, or it is even remotely possible that I'm full of (rule8) and totally off base. Should i start a poll?

 

[gumboot]

I'm going to drop this now.
It is obvious to me that this is a point that I can see, due to my background, experience, and inclination, but I cannot make clear to even those who agree with me. My failing, nobody else's. I'm sure that the engineers/physicists know what I'm talking about, but either the subtilty eludes them, or they don't see it as being important, or it is even remotely possible that I'm full of (rule8) and totally off base. Should i start a poll?

I think we're in agreement, we're just arguing at cross purposes... We could probably all do with some communication lessons...

One of the problems is some CTers will argue it was explosives because it had feature X, and others will argue it's a CD because it lacks X.

Thus one group is trying to demonstrate that X does not mean CD, and the other is trying to demonstrate that lack of X does not mean CD...

-Gumboot

 

[Belz...]

I disagree. There. More oil on the fire.

 

[Corsair 115]

I disagree. There. More oil on the fire.

Uh oh, now you've done it! There's gonna be trouble...


Also, my thanks to gumboot for reiterating what I was trying to say, and perhaps doing a better job of saying it than I did.

 

[JimBenArm]

Oh, come on! I was so looking forward to a geek slap fight!

 

[Miragememories]

A diploma makes you educated and capable of having far more requisite knowledge in a given area than those who did not spend 4-6 years acquiring such knowledge.

Hardly. A diploma is a piece of paper. It proves you successfully made it through the program. It does not prove that you were honest in this accomplishment.

Colleges and universities graduate engineering 'experts' by the thousands every year and companies swallow them up. Certainly the cream of this group will indeed eventually deserve the status of a proven expert. Many will not rise beyond basic competency, many will be mediocre and of course some will be poor. Backed by engineering diplomas, few will doubt the expertise they feel these diplomas entitle them to.

This, of course, is your opinion as a non-engineer. In the engineering community, we have a rather brutal way of culling the herd, as it were. The failure/attrition rate in colleges for most ABET accredited engineering programs is about 60%. The minority that makes it through college then faces another 2 years of practical work. It is not uncommon for engineers to work 60 hour weeks and return home to read regulations and documentation for several hours. Many engineers leave engineering for other career opportunities after about 18 months. Those who survive have now passed two very grueling tests in addition to an 8 hour Fundamentals of Engineering exam and an 8 hour Professional Engineering exam.

My point is that judging engineers between themselves is a meaningless exercise. Any engineer is smarter and more qualified than any non-engineer to make judgments and opinions based on professional experience.

First of all, you don't know my engineering credentials so don't make statements of fact that you can't source! An expert or a good engineer would not state as fact something they could only assume.

I'm well aware of how brutal a discipline engineering is and that their is a high dropout rate, especially in the 1st year. The fields of Law and Medicine are equally if not more demanding. Should we also accept that all lawyers and all doctors are more expert than those who do not have identical diplomas? I'll answer that for you. On the surface of course, yes we should. BUT. Being declared as a diploma qualified expert does not necessarily make a person effectively more expert. Academic expertise is one thing. Real world expertise is another.

Are there no incompetent experts?

Do companies not hire 'experts' to reinforce legal positions (tobacco companies, oil companies etc.) while those challenging those positions hire their own experts to take an opposing position?

Note that experts disagree all the time, but still have the relevant education and experience to call themselves as such. No court would allow a medical doctor's opinion to stand with equal weight against a theologian's regarding the health effects of smoking.

Interesting you chose a "theologian" as your example. Theologian=a person who studies the nature of God and religious belief=your prejudiced assumption that this is a person with no credibility regarding expertise in the intellectual and practical activities encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

I would argue that a doctor in the employ of a large tobacco company giving expert testimony in court could have his expertise and bias effectively challenged by opposing counsel. I would also argue that a theologian's testimony, if germane to the specific topic and offered with no proven prejudice, could be respected as a more 'expert' witness and thus 'more weight' given to his or her testimony.

This whole our experts are better and outnumber your experts kind of reasoning borders on the absurd at times.

Straw man. Our argument has been that your side has produced no relevant experts, and that the group whom you cling to as experts routinely make absurd, irrelevant, false and irrational conclusions. The annals of this forum are packed with the lies, errors and omissions of Jones, Wood, Fetzer and the like.

"no relevant experts.." Again you make an absolute statement of fact when it is simply untrue. I realize that by stating something as absolutely so, the idea is to create the impression of unimpeachable evidence while pretending to not know otherwise.

I know you are well aware of Danny Jowenko! We both know he is an expert in building demolitions. We also both know that his belief supports 'my side', as you like to put it.

The only experts with real currency, are those with not only the relevant academic and practical credentials, but those with proven integrity.

Proven integrity? You mean, like an entire career spent producing valid, peer reviewed research, international recognition by professional societies for contributions to knowledge and understanding in their fields and a diverse career spent in private industry, academia and government research? Sorry, we've got you beaten in spades with that one too.

When I studied engineering, my better teachers always emphasized that they weren't training engineers but were helping to equip us with the necessary mindset to become engineers. It became quite evident over my years of study and numerous conversations with teachers and the dean of my particular engineering discipline, that in the real world, one could be a successful engineer without ever having to be a good or a great engineer. There are a lot of graduate engineers in comparison to how many major engineering projects that are available. Many engineers, depending on their worthiness, go on to supporting roles for those engineers who are able to rise above mediocrity. Regardless, engineers who have written peer reviewed papers and are internationally recognized for their contributions in their specific fields, are in a minority. And is it really news to you that professionals have been known to present faulty research?

I'll give far more currency to a well educated, solid thinking, expert with known intellectual integrity in a non-related field, than an expert directly related to the field in question whose integrity is a question mark.

So you're the one who gets to decide who has integrity and who doesn't? How is that not confirmation bias in its highest form?

No that's a judgment call based on my own research. Everyone has the right to judge those they accept information and opinions from. I'm sure you judge me and you can be certain I judge you as well. It's very dangerous to assume the integrity of an individual strictly based on their supposed level of expertise. I expect most experts to "know what is right" but because they are human and subject to the influence of others, I don't automatically expect them to "do what is right".

Dr. Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin are two men that I feel have great integrity. Because neither are structural engineers, and in David Ray Griffin's case, he suffers the extra prejudice imposed by skeptics due to his religious associations, skeptics refuse to acknowledge that in spite of; proven academic accomplishments, many years of accumulated experience, acquired wisdom, extensive research and balanced judgment, individuals such as these men are quite qualified to make valuable comment, especially after having prepared themselves for the aspects of the 9/11 subjects they are addressing.

Straw man. Skeptics do not refuse to believe them because they have no requisite education. Note that we believe Gravy, but that the difference between the two sides is remarkably different.

Tour guides are experts at leading people where and how they wish. It's what they do. The arts degree provides the useful skill of knowing how to collate information and package it in an effective manner.

Jones makes statements and draws conclusions that he validates by his degree and position.

Degree?

His academic credentials;
Bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude
Ph.D. in physics

Those statements are demonstrably false, and can be shown as such by both experts and non experts. For instance, Jones presents hyperspectral X-Ray maps in his presentations on the WTC steel. He misidentifies fluorine in said maps, and proceeds to use the presence of fluorine to prove the existence of thermite detonators. Any materials scientist can tell you that the X-Ray lines for fluorine and iron overlap, but Jones is completely unaware of this problem.

Source please!

In summation, Jones is too uneducated to know what he doesn't know. This is the problem with people in non-relevant fields. It is not simply a matter of reading literature and using the same techniques as the experts. Such knowledge requires time and effort to acquire, and should be taken long before any research in the area is undertaken. Had Jones truly been interested in WTC research, he would have gone back to school, learned the engineering and the science, and then he would have begun to research. Rather, Jones thinks he knows more than the engineers, and it is this hubris that destroys his academic integrity.

Dr. Jones is far from the inadequate challenger of the status quo that you attempt to present him to be. As a holder of a Ph.D. in physics, it is difficult to imagine a more related academic field to all the aspects of structural engineering and the related sciences to 9/11 and WTC. Physics after all, is the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics, includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms.

I might suggest that you lack the qualifications to pass such extreme judgment on a man who probably far exceeds your academic and research accomplishments.

And what about Gravy? It turns out that the position of the debunker is radically different from the position of the researcher. The researcher is supposed to present new evidence and research, and the debunker finds out if any of it is true. Gravy's work relies largely on determining errors, distortions and omissions, and it is backed up by sources with relevant knowledge and expertise. What's more, we can go to the source and verify Gravy's claims one by one. Errors in fact and beautifully documented in his Loose Change Guide, and his references are there for the whole world to see.

What about Gravy? Well. If a frustrated artist and corporal in the German army can eventually rise through oratory and bluster to become the leader of all the German armed forces, then I imagine it's quite understandable how an english arts graduate and tour guide can rise through inflammatory oratory and cut 'n paste to become the de facto leader of the 9/11 debunker movement.

That's the difference. We will take anyone who can provide referenced, verifiable data on any subject, and we will accept research that is beyond our purview to replicate, as long as it has been peer reviewed in an accredited journal of science or engineering.

Who is we?

That's fine. You can limit yourself in your narrow criteria and thus exclude those whom you feel aren't worthy. Your criteria may be fine in a courtroom, but it's too restrictive for a public discussion forum with people whose goal is seeking an investigation of the truth rather than a conviction of those suspected of altering the truth.

MM

 

[Belz...]

Mirage, that was a fine demonstration that you have no idea what an expert is. Thanks. That was worth it.

 

[Miragememories]

Mirage, that was a fine demonstration that you have no idea what an expert is. Thanks. That was worth it.

Did I miss something in the rules?

Is there a prize for the fastest reply without reading, or is it the overall post count that is your real goal?

MM

 

[Minadin]

First of all, you don't know my engineering credentials so don't make statements of fact that you can't source! An expert or a good engineer would not state as fact something they could only assume.

If you are in fact an engineer, you are doing a much better job of hiding it than The Almond is. I am not an engineer, but I deal with them all the time, so I can recognize some telltale signs. I assume that you are not one because you tend not to make definitive (testable) statements backed up by mathematical equations and/or weird / esoteric engineering jargon as a reference to a well known (to engineers) prior proof when you don't feel like re-doing and showing the work to lay people.

 

[stateofgrace]

MM,

I was going to quote to word for word but why bother, your self righteous rant deserves only the following. I will remain within the rules and I will remain civil throughout all I say to you, for this will be the last time I ever bother wasting my time, effort or even my brain power on you.

Your ,almost laughable attempts to silence your critics by belittling them and trying to make out that nobody is qualified to talk on this subject other than your god Jones and the other denier Griffin is almost toe curling. It is almost unbearable to read as you drone on and on as to how only they are qualified to deal with such a complex issue as 911 and hey everybody should listen to them and heaven forbid that anybody should even question such men of high virtue and integrity. So high in fact that they accuse innocent Americans of MASS MURDER.

Get off your high horse; you are like some school kid, who has nothing but admiration for the likes of these. Drooling on their every word, Oh how wonderful MR Jones, Oh lovely Mr. Griffin, yes I see where you are at my heroes. They are not heroes MM; they are kooks, irrespective of their qualifications, irrespective of who they think they are. Equally irrespective is your snotty attitude at anybody that chooses not only not to believe them but actually has the audacity to question them. Oh no way, nobody is qualified to do that, no way can a bunch of debunkers be capable of reading let alone grasping what they are saying and choose to question them. That’s not is the script is it MM?

Listen, accuser of innocent people, it may well work over at LC but not here. Here people are not censored, they can express their opinion, they can actually question your gods and hey they can actually prove them wrong, irrespective of their academic qualifications. Because honesty does not come with these qualifications, honesty comes with facts and the truth. Something you and your crowd are sadly lacking in.

Your condemnable comparison of Gravy to Hilter is the mark of your depth, the true depth you will sink to silence those who simply will not be silenced. The wall of debunkers you fear so much you have to demonize so badly will not cower in the corner because you believe nobody is qualified to talk about 911 other that those you deem fit, those who just happen to agree with you.

Show some level of respect for the real research that has gone on this forum and you may very well receive some back but as yet you deserve none.

I am an engineer pal, I studied for my degree, I earned it, I work offshore as an engineer, have for the last twelve years, I know I am not qualified to write a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers, but I am entitled to hold my beliefs pal. I am entitled to be appalled by loonies and idiots who hijack 911; pretend they are saviors of humanity and make out that everybody else should shut up. I could not care less whether you deem me fit to oppose you and your fringe movement, but I assure you I will, I will until you are finally put in your rightful place. A deep dark distant memory.

I take I have been civil enough and I take it since I do not have the god like status you give Jones and Griffin you will suitably ignore me for my rant, please do for this is your place from here on in.

Good day

 

[gumboot]

If a frustrated artist and corporal in the German army can eventually rise through oratory and bluster to become the leader of all the German armed forces, then I imagine it's quite understandable how an english arts graduate and tour guide can rise through inflammatory oratory and cut 'n paste to become the de facto leader of the 9/11 debunker movement.

Godwin didn't take long this time...

-Gumboot

 

[T.A.M.]

I didnt ignore your "rant" SOG. For what it is worth, he labeled me "likened to" a Nazi...

Well said my friend.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Personally, I think if Mark Roberts were educated in Structural Engineering, they would hate him 1000 time less. They are clearly jealous that someone WITHOUT official credentials in the area, without university training in engineering or sciences, has been able to not only acquire such a huge knowledge in so many varying areas related to 9/11, but has also been able to digest the material, understand it, and then provide bits of it when appropriate, on the fly...

NONE of them have come close to doing this, and it irritates them to NO END.

TAM

 

[The Almond]

Hardly. A diploma is a piece of paper. It proves you successfully made it through the program. It does not prove that you were honest in this accomplishment.

While I love reading your opinions, they have no bearing on this debate.

First of all, you don't know my engineering credentials so don't make statements of fact that you can't source! An expert or a good engineer would not state as fact something they could only assume.

Given your posting history, the irony of that last sentence should be quite apparent. Anyway, you've told us enough about your engineering credentials, in the sense that, unlike the researchers and engineers you deride, you have no engineering degree.

I'm well aware of how brutal a discipline engineering is and that their is a high dropout rate, especially in the 1st year. The fields of Law and Medicine are equally if not more demanding. Should we also accept that all lawyers and all doctors are more expert than those who do not have identical diplomas? I'll answer that for you. On the surface of course, yes we should.

I agree, they have far more requisite knowledge than people who are plumbers, bricklayers, and chemists in the respective areas of law and medicine.

BUT. Being declared as a diploma qualified expert does not necessarily make a person effectively more expert. Academic expertise is one thing. Real world expertise is another.

Since I know where this is going, why not tell me what real world experience Jones, Fetzer and Griffin have in the design of skyscrapers? Or perhaps they have real world experience in collapse forensics. So what other collapses have they worked on? How many years have they been doing it?

Interesting you chose a "theologian" as your example. Theologian=a person who studies the nature of God and religious belief=your prejudiced assumption that this is a person with no credibility regarding expertise in the intellectual and practical activities encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

My actual assumption is that said theologian cannot contribute on the same level as a structural engineer with equivalent experience. Another way of putting that would be to ask why a person who has spent 20 years studying/practicing theology thinks he has more to offer than someone who has spent 20 years studying/practicing structural engineering.

My issue is not with research, but rather with commentary. Anyone can research and become literate in a subject, but when someone acquires new data/evidence and wishes to comment on it, that broaches the realm of commentary. Supporters of various conspiracy theories are commenting on evidence in a way that implies that they have requisite experience. When someone states that the towers had 47 interior columns, that's reporting a fact. When someone says that the towers were over designed or "flimsy", that's commentary. When Gordon Ross reports safety factors based on, well nothing at all, that's dishonest commentary.

I would argue that a doctor in the employ of a large tobacco company giving expert testimony in court could have his expertise and bias effectively challenged by opposing counsel. I would also argue that a theologian's testimony, if germane to the specific topic and offered with no proven prejudice, could be respected as a more 'expert' witness and thus 'more weight' given to his or her testimony.

And yet, the theologian is only qualified to report the research done by others. He's not qualified to say, "I wouldn't recommend smoking to my patients" because he has none.

"no relevant experts.." Again you make an absolute statement of fact when it is simply untrue. I realize that by stating something as absolutely so, the idea is to create the impression of unimpeachable evidence while pretending to not know otherwise.

I know you are well aware of Danny Jowenko! We both know he is an expert in building demolitions. We also both know that his belief supports 'my side', as you like to put it.

Please note the second part of my statement that you conveniently ignored:

and that the group whom you cling to as experts routinely make absurd, irrelevant, false and irrational conclusions.

When I studied engineering, my better teachers always emphasized that they weren't training engineers but were helping to equip us with the necessary mindset to become engineers. It became quite evident over my years of study and numerous conversations with teachers and the dean of my particular engineering discipline, that in the real world, one could be a successful engineer without ever having to be a good or a great engineer. There are a lot of graduate engineers in comparison to how many major engineering projects that are available. Many engineers, depending on their worthiness, go on to supporting roles for those engineers who are able to rise above mediocrity.

This section has nothing to do with my commentary.

Regardless, engineers who have written peer reviewed papers and are internationally recognized for their contributions in their specific fields, are in a minority.

And?

And is it really news to you that professionals have been known to present faulty research?

You mean like the Journal of 9/11 Studies? Yeah, smart people can believe really stupid things.

No that's a judgment call based on my own research.

Nice dodge. Confirmation bias of this type allows you to disregard researchers who disagree with your preconceived opinions about 9/11, and thereby make up post-hoc rationalizations to support it.

Everyone has the right to judge those they accept information and opinions from. I'm sure you judge me and you can be certain I judge you as well. It's very dangerous to assume the integrity of an individual strictly based on their supposed level of expertise. I expect most experts to "know what is right" but because they are human and subject to the influence of others, I don't automatically expect them to "do what is right".

Then why do you not apply these standards to conspiracy theorists? Why has it not entered your mind that they're wrong, or that they're influenced by the desire to make money off of gullible people?

Tour guides are experts at leading people where and how they wish. It's what they do. The arts degree provides the useful skill of knowing how to collate information and package it in an effective manner.

Research, not commentary.

Degree?

His academic credentials;
Bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude
Ph.D. in physics

And yet, there are dozens of researchers at NIST whose credentials match and exceed Jones's in areas more closely aligned with structural engineering. What's more, they have requisite experience in the area of structural design and collapse forensics.

Source please!

My post on this is here.

Dr. Jones is far from the inadequate challenger of the status quo that you attempt to present him to be. As a holder of a Ph.D. in physics, it is difficult to imagine a more related academic field to all the aspects of structural engineering and the related sciences to 9/11 and WTC. Physics after all, is the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics, includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms.

The fields are related, but they are not the same. Jones's research has been focused on cold fusion, not structural analysis and not collapse forensics. For anyone to believe that his commentary on the WTC towers, shown in numerous instances to be inaccurate, incomplete and false, has equal weight with NIST is ridiculous.

I might suggest that you lack the qualifications to pass such extreme judgment on a man who probably far exceeds your academic and research accomplishments.

My master's degree and licensure state otherwise. In terms of designing buildings and spectroscopic analysis of concrete, I've got 3 years of professional experience to Jones's 0.

What about Gravy? Well. If a frustrated artist and corporal in the German army can eventually rise through oratory and bluster to become the leader of all the German armed forces, then I imagine it's quite understandable how an english arts graduate and tour guide can rise through inflammatory oratory and cut 'n paste to become the de facto leader of the 9/11 debunker movement.

Godwin strikes with a heavy hand tonight.

Who is we?

Skeptics. Or find me a skeptic who disagrees with my statement.

That's fine. You can limit yourself in your narrow criteria and thus exclude those whom you feel aren't worthy. Your criteria may be fine in a courtroom, but it's too restrictive for a public discussion forum with people whose goal is seeking an investigation of the truth rather than a conviction of those suspected of altering the truth.

MM

I'm glad courts stopped investigating things and searching for the truth. But then again, I've always thought that the "This is not a courtroom! Stop demanding evidence!" is a particularly bad argument.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Given your posting history, the irony of that last sentence should be quite apparent. Anyway, you've told us enough about your engineering credentials, in the sense that, unlike the researchers and engineers you deride, you have no engineering degree.

Hah. Oops!