Ed Who is Gordon Ross?

[Lenbrazil]

It is clear that he makes the classic mistake that many have made - assuming that during the "Global collapse" phase for the twin towers the columns of the lower section offered significant resistance.

Upon impact with the lower section the falling mass would deliver a force which would grow from zero, up to the failure load of the impacted storey columns, over a finite period of time and distance.
This force would also be felt by the columns below the storey which was first impacted...

(My bolding emphasis) The columns would not feel that force - the towers did not collapse by that mechanism - the columns were bypassed. The floor joist to column connectors took the force - (or failed to in reality).

Yeah even I understand that, the floor connections failed and the columns could not stand without them.

If G Ross responds to your emails and shows you that he holds multiple PhD's in structural engineering does it somehow make his false claims come true?

No it's more the inverse. If he lied his credibility is shot. If he really got the degrees he claimed but his area of speciality is irrelevant it makes him that much less compelling as an 'expert'.

I'm reminded of the quote, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." (often misattributed to Eleanor Roosevelt) It is easier to understand credentials that complex engineering

 

[Lenbrazil]

No one named Gordon Ross is currently on the AE911T petittion as an engineer, and also none as an "other supporter".
I am on vacation, away from home for a couple more days. When I return I'll check my database to see if he is a former signer.

However, it wouldn't be entirely unheard of for prominent proponents of "classical CD or thermite" to not have signed the petition. Just can't think of anyone off the bat.

Well there's Judy Wood and she really is "off the bat" but they have dissed her for her nutty ideas so I don't think either would want the other. With Ross it's different, his views are the same as theirs, they even host some of his babble.

 

[ozeco41]

...No it's more the inverse. If he lied his credibility is shot. If he really got the degrees he claimed but his area of speciality is irrelevant it makes him that much less compelling as an 'expert'....

Sure ... but the issue remains "is the claim true or false.." and that takes priority as evidence over credibilty of the witness.

...I'm reminded of the quote, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." (often misattributed to Eleanor Roosevelt) It is easier to understand credentials that complex engineering

I'm not disagreeing. I even comprehend that it is easier for the lay person to call on claimants' credibility. But don't overlook that you have access to various alternate experts including some on this forum.

So one of the points I am making is that you have access to alternate experts on this forum and their evidence is better than Ross's credibility.

Naturally you are free to put Ross's credibility anywhere you want in your personal acceptance of evidence - and to disregard me and other engineers who post here - it is your call as to what you rely on for your personal usage. But what I am saying is where the priorities would lie in formal debate. (Or in a legal case if that was the setting.) Stating it simply the order is direct evidence as to the validity of claim comes first and overrules evidence of experts with relevant qualifications which ranks second and, in turn, overrules the evidence of persons who are not expert in the relevant field and ranks third.

 

[Oystein]

Sure ... but the issue remains "is the claim true or false.." and that takes priority as evidence over credibilty of the witness.


... But what I am saying is where the priorities would lie in formal debate. (Or in a legal case if that was the setting.) ...

There is no single "the" issue. Ross's credibility and the validity of his assumed authority is an issue different from the question whether or not he is right.

AND Len may very well not have a formal debate or legal case in mind, but perhaps a blog in which he intends to write for a non-formal, non-technical, non-legal audience.

In that different setting, where belief and faith in supposed authority may play an inordinarily important role, it would be an easy first target to shoot down IF Ross indeed had exaggerated or invented his credentials (or even his name). Because, ya know, when you present the technical, logical, formal reasons why Ross is wrong, a good proportion of such an audience will understand neither Ross nor the rebuttal, and may instead think "but Ross has all these nice technical credentials, whereas Len comes from the humanities" or "Ross stand up for his claims with his name and title, while ozeco is just an anonymous on the internet, so I am going to skip the formal arguments about the technicl issues and believe Ross".

Once you show that
1. Ross isn't the technical authority he claims he is
2. Ross lies on fundamentals
such a lay audience might be much more easily persuaded to now also consider the technical merits OR skip the formal arguments and believe you.

 

[ergo]

It's incredible to me that anonymous internet posters who style themselves as 9/11 "debunkers", most of whom really don't know what they're talking about, who have written zero on the subject, who have published zero, and who have zero creds to contribute to any technical discussion somehow feel it within their rights or prerogative to question the knowledge or expertise of those who do use their real names, who publish using their real names, who have real jobs, and who offer qualified (despite protests to the contrary of the resident baboon club) technical critiques of the pseudoscience that now stands as official 9/11 "investigation".

Lenbrazil, what business could you possibly have in making this query? Who the hell are you, and why do you think Gordon Ross should care about your concerns? Honestly, we don't have to lift a finger most of the time: you guys are self-lampooning.

However, with the kind of creepy personal probing and investigoogling that certain internet bedunkers do on 9/11 researchers, is it any wonder that many of them do not want to give any more personal details than they already have? In fact, this kind of gang-style investigation into often very personal histories of those who are public in their support of 9/11 skepticism reminds me of the extremism found in movements like the anti-abortion crowd, some of whom (ironically, in the name of "life") singled out and murdered medical professionals who dared to offer abortion services. It's just plain creepy.

 

[beachnut]

It's incredible to me that anonymous internet posters who style themselves as 9/11 "debunkers", most of whom really don't know what they're talking about, ... .

Ironically, Ross said the WTC towers would not fall. He was wrong. You support nuts who are wrong. You are an anonymous internet poster who falls for and supports lies. Happy New Year, another year to fail in for 911 truth and your silly claims about 911.

It is easy to see why people think Ross is not real, he is big time wrong. How can a real person be that wrong? Why did Ross fail? Can you do some engineering stuff to figure out where Ross went wrong:>?.

911 truth, shooting for 12 years of solid failure, a goal they can achieve with ease.

911 truth, the personification of outmoded concepts.

 

[ozeco41]

There is no single "the" issue. Ross's credibility and the validity of his assumed authority is an issue different from the question whether or not he is right...

Of course - the relationship between the two is implicit in all I have posted. However both your and Lenbrazil's statements either explicitly or by implication are directed towards the claim that Ross is wrong. So you both accept the primacy of "prove him wrong" and discussing his credentials is simple a tactical ploy towards that goal of proving him wrong. So both of you accept the "one issue" - you simply don't want to talk about it.

...at this time.

... OK I can go along with that.

...and we are not in disagreement.

The tactical choice of attacking his credentials as a soft way to persuade lay or naive audiences that he is wrong on what I call the one/main/primary issue does not change that ultimate goal - prove he is wrong.

So I make no apology for focussing on that outcome. Nor for deliberately not laying out the complete taxonomy of issues because - as I said:

Of course - but I didn't want to write a 5000 word essay. So I focussed on the "top layer" or primary issues - and set aside the second order or supporting stuff...

HOWEVER if Lenbrazil and you want to limit this discussion to the limited scope of the OP which is about Ross's credibility I will readily withdraw from contributing.

In that context the remainder of your comments are valid...

...and I didn't need the tactics laid out but others may benefit.

 

[Lenbrazil]

It's incredible to me that anonymous internet posters who style themselves as 9/11 "debunkers", most of whom really don't know what they're talking about, who have written zero on the subject, who have published zero, and who have zero creds to contribute to any technical discussion somehow feel it within their rights or prerogative to question the knowledge or expertise of those who do use their real names, who publish using their real names, who have real jobs, and who offer qualified (despite protests to the contrary of the resident baboon club) technical critiques of the pseudoscience that now stands as official 9/11 "investigation".

Lenbrazil, what business could you possibly have in making this query? Who the hell are you, and why do you think Gordon Ross should care about your concerns? Honestly, we don't have to lift a finger most of the time: you guys are self-lampooning.

However, with the kind of creepy personal probing and investigoogling that certain internet bedunkers do on 9/11 researchers, is it any wonder that many of them do not want to give any more personal details than they already have? In fact, this kind of gang-style investigation into often very personal histories of those who are public in their support of 9/11 skepticism reminds me of the extremism found in movements like the anti-abortion crowd, some of whom (ironically, in the name of "life") singled out and murdered medical professionals who dared to offer abortion services. It's just plain creepy.

I'm not billing myself as a technical expert and citing my diplomas to buttress my claims. Mr. Ross on the other hand is doing exactly that so it is reasonable to ask: does he really have the claimed qualifications? and do the 'qualifications' really qualify him?

Your post is typical of CT double standards. They have no problems with appeals to authority when pushing the supposed qualifications of their 'experts'; but the moment a sceptic questions the 'expert's' qualifications they change their tune to some variant of 'argue the case not the man'.

So now I'm some how akin to someone who kills doctors who provide abortions? Is that more stupid than it is offensive or more offensive than it's stupid?

 

[Lenbrazil]

I got a reply from someone who graduated from the same year from the same double degree program claimed by Ross. He remembered a Gord Ross, which is close enough but said the program doesn't really provide expertise visa vie the WTC collapses.

 

[Spanx]

It's incredible to me that anonymous internet posters who style themselves as 9/11 "debunkers", most of whom really don't know what they're talking about, who have written zero on the subject, who have published zero, and who have zero creds to contribute to any technical discussion somehow feel it within their rights or prerogative to question the knowledge or expertise of those who do use their real names, who publish using their real names, who have real jobs, and who offer qualified (despite protests to the contrary of the resident baboon club) technical critiques of the pseudoscience that now stands as official 9/11 "investigation".

Lenbrazil, what business could you possibly have in making this query? Who the hell are you, and why do you think Gordon Ross should care about your concerns? Honestly, we don't have to lift a finger most of the time: you guys are self-lampooning.

However, with the kind of creepy personal probing and investigoogling that certain internet bedunkers do on 9/11 researchers, is it any wonder that many of them do not want to give any more personal details than they already have? In fact, this kind of gang-style investigation into often very personal histories of those who are public in their support of 9/11 skepticism reminds me of the extremism found in movements like the anti-abortion crowd, some of whom (ironically, in the name of "life") singled out and murdered medical professionals who dared to offer abortion services. It's just plain creepy.

In order for me to establish if you feel you have any right to post in this thread?

Please supply your name, address and any qualifications you may have.

Hang on am I being stupid ?

 

[fitzgibbon]

It's incredible to me that anonymous internet posters who style themselves as 9/11 "debunkers", most of whom really don't know what they're talking about, who have written zero on the subject, who have published zero, and who have zero creds to contribute to any technical discussion somehow feel it within their rights or prerogative to question the knowledge or expertise of those who do use their real names, who publish using their real names, who have real jobs, and who offer qualified (despite protests to the contrary of the resident baboon club) technical critiques of the pseudoscience that now stands as official 9/11 "investigation".

Lenbrazil, what business could you possibly have in making this query? Who the hell are you, and why do you think Gordon Ross should care about your concerns? Honestly, we don't have to lift a finger most of the time: you guys are self-lampooning.

However, with the kind of creepy personal probing and investigoogling that certain internet bedunkers do on 9/11 researchers, is it any wonder that many of them do not want to give any more personal details than they already have? In fact, this kind of gang-style investigation into often very personal histories of those who are public in their support of 9/11 skepticism reminds me of the extremism found in movements like the anti-abortion crowd, some of whom (ironically, in the name of "life") singled out and murdered medical professionals who dared to offer abortion services. It's just plain creepy.

Wow! Now that's just about the biggest strawman with the longest reach I've ever seen. And of course that isn't mentioning the double standard elephant in ergo's room.

I'm waiting with bated breath his addressing this ('K. Not really 'cuz I know it won't happen)

Fitz

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

It's incredible to me that...

To be fair, lots of ordinary, normal, easily-understandable things are "incredible" to truthers.

Happy New Year!

 

[ergo]

I'm not billing myself as a technical expert and citing my diplomas to buttress my claims. Mr. Ross on the other hand is doing exactly that so it is reasonable to ask: does he really have the claimed qualifications? and do the 'qualifications' really qualify him?

Your post is typical of CT double standards. They have no problems with appeals to authority when pushing the supposed qualifications of their 'experts'; but the moment a sceptic questions the 'expert's' qualifications they change their tune to some variant of 'argue the case not the man'.

Lol. This is rich. Most of the anonymous 9/11 "debunkers" here won't even supply their names! So even if we wanted to investigate their claims of expertise, we can't! And you're going after Gordon Ross, who has supplied his real name? WTF?

(ETA: the ones who do supply their names invariably have credentials of a rather underwhelming scope and/or the wrong, irrelevant kind.)

Your post is typical of bedunker double standards.

So now I'm some how akin to someone who kills doctors who provide abortions? Is that more stupid than it is offensive or more offensive than it's stupid?

You're about as credible as they are, with just a tinge of the same kind of creepiness. Does that make you feel good?

 

[jaydeehess]

Lol. This is rich. Most of the anonymous 9/11 "debunkers" here won't even supply their names! So even if we wanted to investigate their claims of expertise, we can't! And you're going after Gordon Ross, who has supplied his real name? WTF?

(ETA: the ones who do supply their names invariably have credentials of a rather underwhelming scope and/or the wrong, irrelevant kind.)

Your post is typical of bedunker double standards.

The purpose of anyone writing a paper concerning 9/11 is to educate the viewer on the subject. To this end then anyone reading any paper purporting to be an analysis concerning any aspect of 9/11 SHOULD investigate the qualifications of that author, regardless of which direction you are approaching the subject from.

THAT is the difference between debunkers and truthers. Debunkers will investigate the qualifications inasmuch as education, experience and relevence to the subject matter discussed, whereas truthers seem to go only as far as education and even then are often satisfied if its something, anything, greater than high school. (Fetzer, Gage, Chandler for eg.)

Mr. Ross does not appear to have particularily high qualifications or experience to lend credence to his paper and there are some glaring errors that do not actually require too much engineering experience to recognoze (Such as the fact that the dynamic loads of the falling mass will impinge upon the floor pans to a much greater extent than directly to the columns)

I give him props for the attempt whereas persons such as yourself are mostly content with 'looks like' arguements.

You're about as credible as they are, with just a tinge of the same kind of creepiness. Does that make you feel good?

This comparison you are now making is about as low and ridiculous as anything you have stated in the past ergo.
Anti-abortionist murders have absolutely no concern or care about the qualifications of the doctors performing abortions. There is no technical aspect whatsoever to their beliefs. Diametrically opposite to the tack debunkers take towards 9/11.

 

[Lenbrazil]

I'm not billing myself as a technical expert and citing my diplomas to buttress my claims. Mr. Ross on the other hand is doing exactly that so it is reasonable to ask: does he really have the claimed qualifications? and do the 'qualifications' really qualify him?

Your post is typical of CT double standards. They have no problems with appeals to authority when pushing the supposed qualifications of their 'experts'; but the moment a sceptic questions the 'expert's' qualifications they change their tune to some variant of 'argue the case not the man'.

Lol. This is rich. Most of the anonymous 9/11 "debunkers" here won't even supply their names! So even if we wanted to investigate their claims of expertise, we can't! And you're going after Gordon Ross, who has supplied his real name? WTF?

(ETA: the ones who do supply their names invariably have credentials of a rather underwhelming scope and/or the wrong, irrelevant kind.)

Your post is typical of bedunker double standards.

I gotta admit you have a point, oh wait we're talking about people posting on a forum as opposed someone who writes papers for publications in 'journals' and makes presentations etc. The only one of us who does anything comparable is Ryan but he has been very upfront about his work experience.

I'm not "going after" anyone, I'm just trying to verify if he is who he claims and what his work experience has been.

So now I'm some how akin to someone who kills doctors who provide abortions? Is that more stupid than it is offensive or more offensive than it's stupid?

You're about as credible as they are, with just a tinge of the same kind of creepiness. Does that make you feel good?

If a rational person I respected said that it would probably bother me or at least cause me to reflect. From you it's meaningless and doesn't even serve as a 'badge of honor'. I've been called worse by more prominent conspiracy kooks; Fetzer (for example) varied between calling me intellectually challenged to accusing me of being some especially clever disinfo agent.

 

[NoahFence]

So even if we wanted to investigate their claims of expertise, we can't! And you're going after Gordon Ross, who has supplied his real name? WTF?

If it's been said once, it's been said a hundred times. The ONLY qualification a person needs to know for a fact that the destruction at the WTC site wasn't controlled demolition of any kind are fuctioning eyes and ears. Hell - if you only had one functioning eye and ear you'd know.

Who cares about ANYBODY'S credentials? It wasn't a controlled demolition. Period. Anybody that cares to go more in depth than that, is simply doing so as a hobby.

 

[Spanx]

Ok Ergo

What is your name and qualification ?

Are you Gordon Ross ?

 

[carlitos]

Back when there still was a sort of truth movement, and there was still "debunking" to do, there were actually lists of validated credentials of JREF posters.

General List

Military List

Since there is nothing more to say to the 9/11 trolls, these lists will never be updated, as there simply isn't any "truth" left to "debunk."

 

[Oystein]

No one named Gordon Ross is currently on the AE911T petittion as an engineer, and also none as an "other supporter".
I am on vacation, away from home for a couple more days. When I return I'll check my database to see if he is a former signer.

Nope, he ain't a former signer either

 

[Jono]

Btw, does anyone know how to contact the NYPD officer named James Luongo? His comments on Fresh Kills, that he only saw dust, have been extensively used lately by truthers and they consider him to be arguing on their behalf regarding the claim that there were no significant solid debris left of the Towers;i.e they were mostly turned to dust by a super secret energy weapon.

Now, I've got photograps up the yin yang negating such nonsense, as well as the reports/documents of the removal and handling of the debris at Staten Island. I'd just like to contact Luongo and get a quote explaining how his words have been taken out of context.

For example:

"I think the lack of artifacts stands out. I haven't seen a door. I haven't seen a desk. I haven't seen a computer. I haven't seen a doorknob. I think that stands out".

And:

Everything was reduced to the finest state. It basically looked like mountains of dirt.