Truthers Take On NIST

[The Doc]

I'm calm now Architect

If Wizard wishes to continue his personal slander at me - good luck to him. He's not getting a response from me. All it's going to do is show something about him.

So without the personal attacks, Wizard, enlighten us on the point:

That was the first thing that caught my eye. The plane crashes caused apertures in several sides of the buildings. Somehow he missed that part of the NIST report.

 

[The Doc]

And Turt1es post in post #107

 

[Architect]

I'm calm now Architect

If Wizard wishes to continue his personal slander at me - good luck to him. He's not getting a response from me. All it's going to do is show something about him.

So without the personal attacks, Wizard, enlighten us on the point:

Surely it was libel?

Anyway, far better that we forensically disect the debunking NIST site than have the equivalent of a street slanging match.

Not that I'd have said that before the jumbo Co-codomol (sp?) and Volterol kicked in.....

 

[Gravy]

that's right. why would they try to use a computer model to attempt to calculate all the crazy forces at play, when they could just build a model of the WTC out of chicken wire?

Anyway, he's just wrong about that. NIST's conclusions are derived from observations of the towers during and after impact, from examination of the steel, from interviews, from real-world experiments, and from computer simulations.

 

[OMGturt1es]

It warrants you...disproving his claims that NIST contradicted all of their "scientific," experiments...and created a computer simulation, just so they could get the answers they wanted.

i'm not sure i understand you completely. are you claiming that the chicken wire WTC 7 refutes the NIST scientific expirements? i mean, are you claiming that the results from the chicken wire WTC 7 are enough to conclude that the NIST experiments are incorrect?

i'm not trying to put words in your mouth; i just don't know exaclty what you are claiming. (blame the lack of coffee?)

 

[beachnut]

It warrants you...disproving his claims that NIST contradicted all of their "scientific," experiments...and created a computer simulation, just so they could get the answers they wanted.

No, Eric has to prove his point and he is just talking, he has no alternatives.

The paper is talk. No science, just talk; go read it yourself; it is close to you favorite thing; double think!

 

[Gravy]

It warrants you...disproving his claims that NIST contradicted all of their "scientific," experiments...and created a computer simulation, just so they could get the answers they wanted.

Now THAT'S a troll. A guy who thinks that rabbit-fence boy has scientific relevance.

 

[Wizard]

You're wrong, Mr. Doherty, as you are wrong about most things. I have no duties here. If you stick around and choose to learn from your mistakes you will be improved by your time here. If you choose not to learn from your mistakes, you will live in Christopheraville. It's your choice.

Now I am confused. You are convinced i'm pdoherty for reasons you won't disclose. He has been banned a million times for having socks. Yet you don't want me banned?

 

[Gravy]

Now I am confused. You are convinced i'm pdoherty for reasons you won't disclose. He has been banned a million times for having socks. Yet you don't want me banned?

I have never asked that you, in any of your incarnations, be banned. Get over yourself.

 

[Wizard]

I have never asked that you, in any of your incarnations, be banned. Get over yourself.

Gravy you are wrong. For a man who likes evidence you sure like making accusations without any.

 

[maccy]

There's another Douglas Architecture in New Jersey:

http://www.archiplanet.org/wiki/Douglas-Architecture_and_Planning,_Linwood,_New_Jersey,_USA
http://www.architectureweek.com/directory/firms.cgi?11975

The domain douglasarchitecture.com was registered on Aug 8 2006:

http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=douglasarchitecture.com&prog_id=godaddy

The address given by Eric in making the registration appears to be his home address:

http://phone.people.yahoo.com/py/lg...each&state=NY&zip=11414-2802&phone=7187381488

It's quite close to JFK Airport:

http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?addr=15633+94th+St&city=Howard+Beach&state=NY&zip=11414-2802

A quick look at google earth seems to confirm that this is a residential address.

The phone number on the website 917-292-0355 is a cellphone:

http://www.bennetyee.org/ucsd-pages/area.html#917

Also he lists his full name as Eric Scott Douglas. A bit of googling later, I find http://www.ericscottdouglas.com/ which is registered to the same Eric Douglas:

http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=ericscottdouglas.com&prog_id=godaddy


Here is his resume:

http://www.ericscottdouglas.com/Resume.HTM

He has a BA in Architecture from UC Berkley but no professional experience as an Architect, he's been employed mainly as a drafter.

Edited to Add:

His resume looks to be seriously out of date as it has him working as a drafter for an Architecture Firm in Oakland, CA since July 2001. Nevertheless, I don't think he's an architect.



Source: http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/programs/undergraduate

I thought I'd break things up a bit by posting on-topic .

On further investigation it looks like Mr Douglas is a registered architect:

http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opscr2?profcd=03&plicno=031273

I can only assume that he's done some professional qualification since he last updated his resume.

Still, as our very own high-rise Architect will tell you, it doesn't mean he has any experience in high-rise architecture. And, as the Almond has pointed out, if he really thinks there is something wrong with NIST he should be taking it with NIST themselves and/or trying to get his paper published in a proper peer-reviewed journal.

Edited to Add:

I don't think Eric Scott Douglas is claiming much by the way of building design and construction experience, from his website:

Eric Douglas is a Registered Architect working in New York City.

He offers quality, affordable architectural services including

* Consultation
* Building Inspection
* Construction Documents

Source: http://douglasarchitecture.com/

Looks like he's self-employed doing the sort of work he was doing before in CA (ie mainly drafting plans using CAD).

The New York State Educational Department isn't especially clear on what it takes to become a Registered Architect, there's some information for Architects who want to apply here:

http://www.op.nysed.gov/archlic.htm

And some information about the NCARB Architect Registration Exam here:

http://www.ncarb.org/are/overview.html

and here:

http://www.ncarb.org/are/divisions.html

However, it's certainly the case that the NYSED doesn't recommend taking the fact that an architect is registered as any firm guarantee of their suitability for a particular job:

What should I expect as a client of an architect?

You should expect to be provided with the following:

• proof of the architect's qualifications
• names of former clients as references
• a clear and complete description of the services to be provided and the work that will be done
• a schedule of work and the related fees

You may choose to limit your contract to project planning and preliminary design services only, or you may extend your contract to include the preparation of construction documents or the management of the project to completion.

source: http://www.op.nysed.gov/archbroch.htm

Edited, again to add:

Also, from the practice guidelines:

1. Representation of Qualifications and Experience

An architect, partnership, joint venture, professional service corporation or grandfathered business corporation offering architectural services should not mislead a client or the general public or misrepresent their competence or qualifications [Regents Rules Section 29.1(b)(12)].
An architect who has been an employee of an architectural firm should not claim unconditional credit for projects contracted for in the name of the previous employer. To avoid misrepresentation of facts, the architect might:

• identify the project,
• the nature and extent of the involvement and experience gained in connection with the project, and
• that the experience was acquired as an employee of another firm which should be identified.

An architect, who was formerly a principal in a firm, may make additional claims provided they are accurately documented and explained. Similarly when a principal or architect leaves a firm, that firm has an obligation to accurately represent the experiences and capabilities of the remaining staff only.
Projects listed as "credits" which remain unconstructed, should be identified as "unbuilt" or given a similar designation.

source: http://www.op.nysed.gov/archguide-c1.htm

I think that makes it pretty clear that Registered Architect can cover a wide range of expertise and doesn't, in and of itself, indicate any relevant experience when it comes to assessing the collapse of the WTC buildings.

 

[beachnut]

Gravy you are wrong. For a man who likes evidence you sure like making accusations without any.

If you are pdoh you will continue as now!

You will post prisonPlanet and Rense junk, you will drag out a thread on no facts just jabs.

If you are pdoh you have been trying not to be; and that is an improvement.

but just as pdoh you have tried to jab just certain people, and you are doing it now, why?

Are you the old docker, jessicarabbit guy, or what?

Just read Eric's paper and the NIST stuff and try to understand why most engineers think the WTC was hit by a plane, burned and fell!

 

[sophia8]

Message To Wizard & Dr Fungi:

You two - get a room, huh?

 

[The Doc]

Message To Wizard & Dr Fungi:

You two - get a room, huh?

Lol don't look at me I've stopped.

"If Wizard wishes to continue his personal slander at me - good luck to him. He's not getting a response from me. All it's going to do is show something about him."

 

[tsig]

Critiques are good. If they come from qualified people that is. A guy on a foirum pasting non expert views over a film in Windows Movie Maker does not impress me.

Right back at ya!

 

[tsig]

Maybe you're the one in the coma...who could use a good dose of reality.

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.exclude.html

Charlie Sheen gave America the perfect chance to show what they think about Alex Jones and his nutty beliefs. Well, 54,000 of them spoke up AND 83% AGREE WITH CHARLIE SHEEN that the USG covered up the events of 9/11.

I'm sure you will make a joke about Charlie Sheen, even though this has little to do with him. It's the American people who voted in these two polls...

Stars don't count. 100% of reality agrees with gravity.

 

[kookbreaker]

Hmph. I just remember the last guy the Scholars pushed as being an 'Architect' had nothing more than an uncertified course in Feng Shui design.

Wasn't this guy, though. But he still does not impress.

 

[kookbreaker]

It warrants you...disproving his claims that NIST contradicted all of their "scientific," experiments...and created a computer simulation, just so they could get the answers they wanted.

Again you demonstrate remarkable ignorance about the use of computer simulation in this world. In doing so you insult and denigrate amny of the designers of things you use on a daily basis that were developed using computer simulations.

Failure analysis via computer simulation is a very effective and critical tool for engineers. the fact that you make comments like what you say above shows your massive ignorance about how things work in the engineering world. It also shows you failed to understand the NIST experiments that make such comments on.

You should be ashamed, but I suspect when you become a CTer your shame is surgically removed and replace with an ignorance generator.

 

[maccy]

Hmph. I just remember the last guy the Scholars pushed as being an 'Architect' had nothing more than an uncertified course in Feng Shui design.

Wasn't this guy, though. But he still does not impress.

Wizard brought up Ted Elden is another thread, this is what I found out about him:

Seems to specialise in low-rise buildings and renovation work and damage assesment.

http://www.archiplanet.org/wiki/Elden_Architects,_Charleston,_West_Virginia,_USA
http://www.architectureweek.com/directory/firms.cgi?19571

His website is mainly concerned with his photography business

http://www.abodia.com/

Architecture seems to be pretty much a sideline.

His photography page biographical notes reveal him to be on the fringes of scientific thought:

He lectures to Civic Clubs, students & public on a plethora of subjects including but not limited to: 911, language, media, How we Think, computer applications, Stone Henge, free energy, Tesla & much more.

http://www.abodia.com/photography/about_us.htm

And it gets worse, the articles page on his website reveals him to be a holocaust denier, a UFO believer, a moon hoax moonbat and a "freedom to fascism" tax law dodger; to be a chemtrail testifying, child-abuse-sex-slave-mind-control believing, fiendish flouridator fearing, NWO underground city imagining, stone cold moronic deluded moon howling tin-hatted idiot. Yes, a stone cold freaking idiot who says, "the Zionists want your guns," and, "Leo Wanta wantsta giveya a trillion dollars, but the Gnomes of Zurich won't let him."

It's all here folks: http://www.abodia.com/911/Articles/1/index.htm

Scholarly articles in peer-reviewed publications: zero.

NOT a scholar then.

Edited to Add:

He's written a letter to the AIA:

http://www.abodia.com/911/Articles/AIA_Letter_Nov_06.htm

 

[Lurker]

If a neutral structural engineer analysed 911 mysteries I would be delighted.

Well, here is a structural engineer from China (thus resistant to the US govt coercive efforts unless he wants to get a visa to visit the US) who modeled the impact and collapse.

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm

His conclusion?

The results show that the direct reason for the collapse is the softening of steel under fire and the chain reaction damage of floors under the impact load of upper floors

I found this with a simple google search. Why does this seem beyond the CT'ers grasp to do?

Lurker