Structural Engineer Says Inside Job

Royal Failure

[=Miragememories;2390876]Get off your high horses.


Yes the ever imminent FINAL NIST Report on WTC7 better be good because you folks failed royally in debunking the CT claims of CD.

MM

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'll admit that the conspiracy liars debunked the conclusions of EVERY demolition expert in the country by ignoring them.

Similarly, the liars debunked the data provided by seismologists, first, by distorting it, and when that ploy was exposed, by ignoring it.

The liars debunked authoritative reports produced by real scientists by distorting them and refusing to address the specific points they made.

Yeah, the forthcoming NIST report on WTC 7 had better be able convince people who won't read it and couldn't understand it if they tried.
 
This guy isn't a structural engineer, he's a civil engineer.

-Gumboot
 
He sounds about as reliable an engineering source as Judy Wood.
 
Miragememories said:
Get off your high horses.

Any expert who disagrees with you loonies becomes a loonie.

Any loonie who agrees with you loonies becomes an expert.

No matter how many experts come forth it will never be enough.

I can see you folks would take it to a Supreme Court decision if the numbers ever got too close.

Let's face it, your in bed with your beliefs and all the crap you spew about "sho me the proof" is meaningless because when "push comes to shove" you retreat to some lame ass excuse to believe what your commited to believe.

You lose too much face if you validate anything.

The only people worth a little respect here are the rare few who occasionally stray and begrudgingly acknowlege yes that "i" has been dotted.

Yes the ever imminent FINAL NIST Report on WTC7 better be good because you folks failed royally in debunking the CT claims of CD.

MM
Click to expand...
Here's an idea for you. Why don't you get off your fat behind and actually start answering some of the questions I asked, instead of pontificating endlessly? You haven't shown any ability to actually apply any reasoning, logic, math, physics or common sense to anything. You have thrown rhetoric, insults, and absurd ideas without any proof to back them, and when asked to, run away like a screaming schoolgirl.
Grow a pair, dude, and answer my questions, or go away, you pompous ass!
 
Miragememories said:
Get off your high horses.

Any expert who disagrees with you loonies becomes a loonie.

Any loonie who agrees with you loonies becomes an expert.

No matter how many experts come forth it will never be enough.

I can see you folks would take it to a Supreme Court decision if the numbers ever got too close.

Let's face it, your in bed with your beliefs and all the crap you spew about "sho me the proof" is meaningless because when "push comes to shove" you retreat to some lame ass excuse to believe what your commited to believe.

You lose too much face if you validate anything.

The only people worth a little respect here are the rare few who occasionally stray and begrudgingly acknowlege yes that "i" has been dotted.

Yes the ever imminent FINAL NIST Report on WTC7 better be good because you folks failed royally in debunking the CT claims of CD.
Click to expand...
Bolding mine.

Perhaps I missed the proof you've posted. Have you done so?

Evidence counts for something, y'know. Wishful thinking simply doesn't.
 
Miragememories said:
Now take that fireproofing. There's a big and critical assumption on the part of NIST.

They assume it was mostly removed by the aircraft impact because it's critical to making their model work. They make other assumptions as well but the dislodged fireproofing one is particularly questionable.

I've yet to see or read of anything that can move this 'best guess' out of the realm of speculative fantasy. They can't provide any physical proof. Once the buildings collapsed, I suspect a fair bit of fireproofing was removed.
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)

Ah Hah. Yes well that makes perfect sense.

Hey I just thought of something. If the fireproofing was removed by the collapse, then I suppose all the detonators and wiring and timers and whatever the hell one uses for a controlled demolition were ALSO removed, right? 'splains why none were ever found.

Amazing. Ya think about this stuff, have another pull on the cognac, and the answers just kinda float, hazy-like, right in front of yer eyes...
 
TheGrunion said:
I'm a registered civil P.E in three states.

A professional engineering license for civil engineering is not an appropriate credential to demonstrate expertise in structural engineering.

Also, "working on" structural steel buildings could mean a lot of things. He could have been performing subprofessional work (CADD, materials testing, construction inspection, etc.) or he could have been performing site/civil tasks (such as handling the storm run-off coming from the building, or the grading plan of the site where the bulding was constructed).
Click to expand...

grunion, i was going to respond with the same point, but i'm glad you beat me to it, as you are an engineer. i'm just a perpetual student/slacker.
 
Miragememories said:
Now take that fireproofing. There's a big and critical assumption on the part of NIST.

They assume it was mostly removed by the aircraft impact because it's critical to making their model work. They make other assumptions as well but the dislodged fireproofing one is particularly questionable.

I've yet to see or read of anything that can move this 'best guess' out of the realm of speculative fantasy. They can't provide any physical proof. Once the buildings collapsed, I suspect a fair bit of fireproofing was removed.

MM
Click to expand...

i'd suspect it would be difficult to gauge exactly how much fire proofing was removed upon initial impact, but i'd think it nearly impossible to argue that the impact did not have a significant affect on the survival of fire proofing within and near the impact zone.

i've read that during the construction of the WTC buildings, amosite asbestos was disgarded after concerns for workers' health arose. as i recall reading, chrysotile asbestos was used instead, as it is known to be safer than amosite. from what i recall reading, the amphibole asbestoses (the two most common being amosite, or "brown asbestos" and crocidolite, or "blue asbestos") are far better for fire proofing than the serpentine asbestoses, which include chrysotile. i've tried to find the prior source in which i read it argued that the inferior asbestos used in the upper floors of the WTC buildings may have played a significant role in the collapses, but i cannot seem to find it. so maybe i'm just mistaken.

i did find an interesting article, though, which seems to contradict my memory on the types of fireproofing used, but does, indeed, suggest that inferior fireproofing, and improper upkeep and/or application of fireproofing may have had serious implications on the fate of the towers. the cached version is available here: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...+chrysotile+spray+on&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

i'd find it hard to believe that the professionals involved with the NIST report and investigation, along with the entire scientific community to which the NIST report has been offered for scrutiny, would collectively fail to criticize such an important "assumption"-- it seems to me that it's likely not an assumption, and i would suspect that there's a wealth of knowledge on the topic in the NIST report.
 
Miragememories said:
Yes the ever imminent FINAL NIST Report on WTC7 better be good because you folks failed royally in debunking the CT claims of CD.
Click to expand...

it has been demonstrated repeatedly that:

1. there was significant structural damage to WTC building 7 due to debris from collapsing WTC buildings 1 and 2,
2. there was significant fire within WTC 7,
3. WTC building 7 showed signs of imminent structural failure prior to collapse, that
4. firefighters and other professionals on scene observed.

if you need any of the above to be demonstrated, please let me know, and i'll be happy to provide you with evidence, but only if you agree to actually take the time to examine the evidence, and to respond honestly.

furthermore, the CD arguments on wtc building 7 just don't make any sense. consider:

1. as it's been demonstrated that WTC 7 sustained major structural damage, and it is known to have indured massive fires that burned unchecked for hours, it seems very reasonable to assume that WTC 7 would have to have been brought down manually anyways, as it was damaged beyond repair and it was in the way... so, IF we assume that WTC 7 was a CD, why would the government bother trying to cover it up? i can recall, in fact, watching WTC 7 come down on television-- prior to my knowledge about the time and effort involved to rig a building for CD!-- and assuming that it had been demolished intentionally, with no nefarious intentions required or infered, simply because it was damaged beyond repair. hence, a cover up of any CD of WTC 7 would be utterly pointless.

2. given that it is known that fires ravaged the interior of WTC building 7, and that a fuel source existed to keep them burning (fuel for the generators), a CD of WTC 7 seems contradictory to the assumed goals of the government in the WTC 7 CD theory; if the government wanted to destroy data, surely unchecked fires would provide a much better tool of destruction than the demolition of the building. things that break apart can be put back together, but things that burn up or melt away are lost.

to summarize, it's been demonstrated repeatedly that the available evidence does not support the WTC 7 CD theories. observable failures in the building prior to collapse reject the WTC CD theories. moreover, the WTC 7 theories just don't make sense, even if their lack of evidence and verification is ignored.
 
Last edited:
Professor?

I talked to someone at the Vermont Guardian who promised to pass along my message to Da Professa. Apparently, Rice is not the Professor Emeritus at Villanova. I commented that he seems to be someone who has just awakened from a five-year coma. The idea that an engineer would display no awareness of the existence of the NIST Report, or the Popular Mechanics book, or...well, you can finish the sentence.

The article conjures up an argument with a self-proclaimed baseball expert. You say that ERA is an unreliable guide to a closer's effectiveness; he responds, What's ERA? My fraud sensors are blinking red. Here is the phone number for the Guardian:

802.861.4880
 
There is a basic thing that I think has been missed; yes, he is an engineer, and that's fine, but what do we have from him not is not his opinion but rather a criticism or analysis that rests on his engineering abilities and knowledge. If all he has done is voiced his opinion that such-and-such was such-and-such without supporting it with analysis or other work which can be critiqued by others with appropriate knowledge, then what is being done is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority.

So, what work/analysis/critique has he produced that can be reviewed?
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
I talked to someone at the Vermont Guardian who promised to pass along my message to Da Professa. Apparently, Rice is not the Professor Emeritus at Villanova. I commented that he seems to be someone who has just awakened from a five-year coma. The idea that an engineer would display no awareness of the existence of the NIST Report, or the Popular Mechanics book, or...well, you can finish the sentence.

The article conjures up an argument with a self-proclaimed baseball expert. You say that ERA is an unreliable guide to a closer's effectiveness; he responds, What's ERA? My fraud sensors are blinking red. Here is the phone number for the Guardian:

802.861.4880
Click to expand...

Not wishing to disparage any of my fellow civil engineers, I would comment that just because you pass a test and teach a few university classes, it does not mean your opinions are worth their weight in gold. To be sure, someone with relevant education and experience gives more weight to his opinions than your average truther, but that means nothing on the grand scheme of things.

I would suggest to Mr. Rice, however, that he carefully reviews the ASCE's ethical guidelines regarding commenting using your status as a licensed engineer. He should pay particular attention to Cannon 3, items 1 and 2.

  1. Engineers should endeavor to extend the public knowledge of engineering and sustainable development, and shall not participate in the dissemination of untrue, unfair or exaggerated statements regarding engineering.
  2. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony.
I would argue that he has not included all relevant information, and his lack of mention or acknowledgment of the NCSTAR qualifies under a breach of article 2.
 
The Almond said:
Not wishing to disparage any of my fellow civil engineers, I would comment that just because you pass a test and teach a few university classes, it does not mean your opinions are worth their weight in gold. To be sure, someone with relevant education and experience gives more weight to his opinions than your average truther, but that means nothing on the grand scheme of things.

I would suggest to Mr. Rice, however, that he carefully reviews the ASCE's ethical guidelines regarding commenting using your status as a licensed engineer. He should pay particular attention to Cannon 3, items 1 and 2.

  1. Engineers should endeavor to extend the public knowledge of engineering and sustainable development, and shall not participate in the dissemination of untrue, unfair or exaggerated statements regarding engineering.
  2. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony.
I would argue that he has not included all relevant information, and his lack of mention or acknowledgment of the NCSTAR qualifies under a breach of article 2.
Click to expand...

Interesting. What happens to a member if the ASCE determines that he or she breached the code of ethics?

Perhaps this is the reason that the only structural engineer to make extreme criticisms of the NIST report happens to be retired.
 
apathoid said:
Interesting. What happens to a member if the ASCE determines that he or she breached the code of ethics?

Perhaps this is the reason that the only structural engineer to make extreme criticisms of the NIST report happens to be retired.
Click to expand...

Nothing.

However, his state licencing board should have the authority to suspend his license and issue a monetary fine for ethical violations.
 
apathoid said:
There are 129,000 registered civil engineers in the US, so there are bound to be a few kooks among them. If 15% of the general population believes the inside job theories and that percentage holds up for the population of qualified experts(actually, if the CD theories held any water, that percentage would likely go way up) - there should be around 19,000 twoofer civil engineers. There are now 3....nuff said
Click to expand...
William Rice
Charles N. Pegelow

Who is the third?
 
Also, this made me laugh out loud: "pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives)".
 
Are pools of molten metal near where giant fires raged for months, building up heat, a source of confusion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom