Mr. Benshoof,
My compliments on your making the effort to write. Hopefully you aren't too far around the bend to listen & learn as well.
Introductions are delicate things, and must be handled gently. I will try to be gentle in my response to your introduction.
But, before we get to your questions, a little homework needs checking.
Hello fellow skeptics…
Like many people, I accepted the US Government conspiracy theory regarding the events of 9/11 without question for about five years, at which time I was presented with a number of pieces of information that put the validity of the USG CT into question for myself.
Kurt
You'll forgive me if I say that your second sentence (above) makes it sound like you're not much of a skeptic at all.
As a true skeptic, I must admit that I have some serious doubts about the truth of that sentence. My doubts exist for very good reason, I might add.
You see, there have been dozens of truthers who have used that line, but subsequent discussions showed that none of them meant it. They thought that it gave them "skeptic cred".
Unfortunately, when dealing with a bunch of people that are real skeptics, saying things that are implausible just undercuts one's credibility rather than enhances it.
So, I would like to check your skepticism just a little bit now.
Let's prioritize. Let's discuss the very few (say 3 or 4) MOST significant pieces of information that led to your revelations?
You say, you "were presented information that put the validity of the USG CT into question."
1. First, what were those most damning (to the "OGT") pieces of information?
2. Drawing on your skeptical skills, how did you check the information that you were presented. What tools did you bring to that task to see if that information was reliable, valid, etc.
Please show me that you haven't merely substituted one bit of unskeptical credulity for your acknowledged earlier one.
3. Presented information by whom?
4. The qualifications of the people that presented you with that info? Back to its source, please.
5. What were the logical steps that you used that convinced you that information was accurate?
I recognize at least one of the names of people who have posted comments on the Seattle Weekly blog page, and hope that we can all have a civil and informative discourse that will result in greater clarity and understanding of the subject matter. However, if any of you feel a compulsion to cast aspersions, I'm an ardent proponent of free speech, and will take no offense.
Good. I'm an engineer. We speak our minds. Plainly.
Makes most people feel uncomfortable.
I promise that I won't start the "casting aspersions" part.
First of all, I'd like to clarify a few things before we delve into the NIST report. The challenge I made to journalist Curtis Cartier was an attempt to create a dialogue with, and research by, a Seattle writer who has spoken authoritatively on the subject of WTC 7---without actually having done much research.
What were this writer's credentials that allowed him/her to "speak authoritatively"?
What were his/her assertions that you feel demonstrated their lack of research background?
I'd already gone to my local congressman's office to get answers as to why NIST was refusing to release all of their modeling data, as that seemed of paramount importance to current and future building safety. Regardless of exactly what occurred with WTC 7, it seems logical that all NIST investigation data should be released to the public, in order to facilitate a better understanding of how a steel framed high rise building can be destroyed.
First, I can see that, to a conspiratorial mind, the mere "keeping information confidential" may give the impression that people keeping the info have something to hide. The people whose job it is to decide what pieces of information are dangerous to release to the public view things differently.
They tend to be cautious. Overly cautious at times. They get no points, and lose no sleep, over the pieces of information that go out on their watch and cause no harm. They get lots of beating about the head & shoulders, lost sleep and internal feelings of failure, if some piece that they allowed to go out turns out to be used by nefarious persons in the commission of nefarious deeds.
Some people have decided that this information is sensitive. This is not an engineering question. It's a "National security policy" question.
In learning epistemology, the first thing that you learn is to direct all of your questions at appropriate experts. This one is for a "national security policy" expert. Not an engineer.
I personally find the injunction against its release silly. Virtually all of the info that might be dangerous is already in the public domain.
But I also have the humility to acknowledge that it is not an issue within my realm of expertise. Others have to make those calls. Just as, in a company, marketeers & QC & sales & manufacturing, etc. may make different - AND VALID, from their perspective - calls than I would (as an R&D engineer). I don't presume that, because they make different calls than I would make that they are nefarious, or have something to hide.
Now, regarding your questions ...
In no particular order of importance, here are some preliminary questions:
1) If, as the NIST report stated, there were only enough burnable materials to sustain a fire for 20-30 minutes in any given area, how is it that fires burned long enough to initiate collapse? According to their computer model, global collapse didn't manifest until the raging fires had burned continuously for 4 hours.
2) … did the NIST report exhibit scientific integrity by …?
3) … did the NIST report exhibit scientific integrity ...?
4) Doesn't the NIST report acknowledge that steel and concrete have virtually the same coefficient of thermal expansion?
5) … Does this exhibit scientific integrity?
6) … Does this exhibit scientific integrity ...?
etc. etc. etc.
Let me ask you to look at this from the other side of the desk.
Suppose that you were a cardiologist, with several decades of experience in doing bypass heart surgery. Then some guy walks into your office and starts grilling you, politely, about a case that you'd done, using the terminology that you've used here.
But substituting "did you use best medical practices by …" And bringing up questions of the caliber, "did you use best medical practices by administering anesthesia prior to cracking his chest?"
Followed by "BTW, what is the reason that you use anesthesia in the first place?" [Note that this is the caliber, the sophistication, of some of your questions.]
Would you continue talking to that guy?
If you did, you'd be a fool. And not many fools make it to have a decade long career in cardiology.
I will happily answer (as best I can) any questions that you have that haven't already been answered by others.
I have two pieces of info to request before doing so.
Your age.
A brief statement of your background (especially vis a vis engineering).
In the interest of fairness:
I'm 58.
I've been a working mechanical engineer since the mid '70s to this day.
If you answer these simple questions, I'll be happy to try to answer any questions that you have that remain.
Regards,
Tom
In case you didn't pick it up, exactly what part of your answer are you thinking I rejected, in any way ?
