Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC "Experts"

[scooby]

Excellent article for people sick of hearing about the NIST and 911 Commission report and other 911 ... 'bunk'. Useful in clearing peoples minds up and illustrating the numerous conflicts of interest involved ...

Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC "Experts"

... The only supposedly independent corroboration that the Bush scientists at NIST could produce for their appalling pack of lies was from that old respected scientific institution, Popular Mechanics. This Hearst magazine is not, as most people know, a scientific publication in any way, shape or form. When they talk about Mechanics, they do not mean Quantum Mechanics or Statistical Mechanics, or even Classical Mechanics. Popular Mechanics (PM) is simply a gloss-covered advertisement for numerous consumer items ranging from ATVs to lawn mowers. You know – mechanics.

This hasn’t prevented many who cling to the official story from using PM as their scientific champion. For example, in his poorly researched hit piece against “conspiracy theorists”, British essayist George Monbiot foists Popular Mechanics upon us, saying they “polled 300 experts” to support their findings.[16] But science is not about popularity, and PM’s “poll” of “structural engineering/building collapse experts” actually consisted of only about 33 people, some of them listed as photographers, media-relations staff and spokespersons. Of those that were engineering-related, most were in some way related to OKC, FEMA, NIST or DOD, and many were responsible for the Weidlinger report, the Pancake Theory, or the NIST report.[17] It turns out that, when it comes to scientific explanations for terrorist acts, it’s a small world after all.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6765

 

[R.Mackey]

As long as they show their work, and produce conclusions that can be independently verified, it makes no difference who produces the report. The "Truth Movement" never seems to grasp this point, as it produces virtually no work of its own, and what little it does fails at first inspection.

Your short-sighted table also fails to take into account the numerous subcontracts and partnerships, spanning literally hundreds of universities, national laboratories, private engineering firms, and contractors. Do you honestly think that the short list of people above single-handedly wrote all 10,000 pages of NIST? Or that they would be able to silence those who did write it, if they exerted an unfair editorial influence?

Complaint noted and rejected.

 

[beachnut]

Excellent article for people sick of hearing about the NIST and 911 Commission report and other 911 ... 'bunk'. Useful in clearing peoples minds up and illustrating the numerous conflicts of interest involved ...

Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC "Experts"

... The only supposedly independent corroboration that the Bush scientists at NIST could produce for their appalling pack of lies was from that old respected scientific institution, Popular Mechanics. This Hearst magazine is not, as most people know, a scientific publication in any way, shape or form. When they talk about Mechanics, they do not mean Quantum Mechanics or Statistical Mechanics, or even Classical Mechanics. Popular Mechanics (PM) is simply a gloss-covered advertisement for numerous consumer items ranging from ATVs to lawn mowers. You know – mechanics.

, and PM’s “poll” of “structural engineering/building collapse experts” actually for the Weidlinger report, the Pancake Theory, or the NIST report.[17] It turns out that, when it comes to scientific explanations for terrorist acts, it’s a small world after all.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6765

Who is the dolt who wrote this crap?

It sounds like sour grapes and from someone too dumb to keep a job! Sounds like it is from a mentally challenged person who was fired for being an idiot.

Let me check now to see who it is! No I think reading your portion of junk is enough to call anything you post as garbage and the people you parrot as nut cases who have no facts. But seems like you suck up this stuff like it was real stuff.

If you would take some time off from being a CTer, you could become educated and see how there are no facts in this piece of stuff from a failed person. I bet this person is on some circuit making money at conventions for truthers.

Did you write this or plagiarize it?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Oh, oh, oh, scooby is progressing to cornered CT option #2. When getting your backside handed to you on one topic, start a new thread.

 

[332nd]

Excellent article for people sick of hearing about the NIST and 911 Commission report and other 911 ... 'bunk'. Useful in clearing peoples minds up and illustrating the numerous conflicts of interest involved ...

Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC "Experts"

... The only supposedly independent corroboration that the Bush scientists at NIST could produce for their appalling pack of lies was from that old respected scientific institution, Popular Mechanics. This Hearst magazine is not, as most people know, a scientific publication in any way, shape or form. When they talk about Mechanics, they do not mean Quantum Mechanics or Statistical Mechanics, or even Classical Mechanics. Popular Mechanics (PM) is simply a gloss-covered advertisement for numerous consumer items ranging from ATVs to lawn mowers. You know – mechanics.

This hasn’t prevented many who cling to the official story from using PM as their scientific champion. For example, in his poorly researched hit piece against “conspiracy theorists”, British essayist George Monbiot foists Popular Mechanics upon us, saying they “polled 300 experts” to support their findings.[16] But science is not about popularity, and PM’s “poll” of “structural engineering/building collapse experts” actually consisted of only about 33 people, some of them listed as photographers, media-relations staff and spokespersons. Of those that were engineering-related, most were in some way related to OKC, FEMA, NIST or DOD, and many were responsible for the Weidlinger report, the Pancake Theory, or the NIST report.[17] It turns out that, when it comes to scientific explanations for terrorist acts, it’s a small world after all.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/reprehensor/911/demo-matrix.jpg

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6765

True. (And since R. Mackey has already mentioned that thing so many people who claim to be searching for the truth fail to do, showo their work...) If it's not a popularity contest why does one poll that shows 80% don't believe the Government has told us everything about 9/11 (which you and others somehow believe that translates into 80% believes the government did it.) count?

 

[scooby]

As long as they show their work, and produce conclusions that can be independently verified, it makes no difference who produces the report.

Ah see, you fail again.

The issue at hand here, is not science, it is 'conflict of interest', a judicial concept in the main. It is often used to dismiss unsafe testimony.

 

[Arus808]

the issue isn't conflict of interest. that is just posturing on your part.

what about all those scientists that have no allegiance to the USA? you have millions of scientists to pull from...

get to it.

 

[uk_dave]

yeah right.

getting the top people in their fields (ARUP, mark loizeaux et al) merely means the woowoos are reduced to snide comments about how those people also work for government agencies.

Much better to have some theology professor commenting on structural engineering, right?

So, the conspiracy is getting bigger and bigger as more and more people are implicated in the cover up.

 

[R.Mackey]

My mistake. I thought you were claiming that the reports you see fit to heap scorn upon were incorrect.

Instead, it appears you're fussing over a mere procedural issue.

Fine. Show me how there is a conflict of interest here. I fail to see how membership in, for instance, the Oklahoma City Bombing report would post a conflict of interest with, for example, the NIST WTC report. There is no competition between the two, nor is there information that could not be shared between them. Hence, no conflict of interest.

And as far as "unsafe testimony" goes, that is indeed a matter for science. The reports are independently verifiable. That makes the testimony de facto reliable, end of story.

 

[Brainster]

Ah, it's Kevin "I'm certainly not the brightest guy" Ryan, who's plenty bright enough to edit a scholarly urinal, errr, journal.

Exactly how they could find so many experts on the fire-induced collapse of tall buildings is not immediately clear, considering such an event had never happened before. But it did help that the questions were quickly framed as being solely matters of structural engineering, a sub-field of civil engineering, because structural engineers cannot find work without continual government approvals. A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people can’t just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own.

Ah, ergo we should trust the chemistry laboratory manager, because he doesn't have any permits or licenses the government can pull?

It is amazing to read, but Ryan even drops into the OKC swamp:

After spending 25 years dealing with explosive weaponry, General Partin independently studied the damage done to the Murrah building in the month before the evidence was destroyed, and made several strong statements to members of the US Congress. In July of 1995, General Partin wrote to Senator Trent Lott, stating, “The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Aflred P. Murrah Federal Building…was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level.” He added “No government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash and bury evidence of a…terrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency.”

Time for Perry to show up and have the vapors about somebody accusing the Democrats of covering up a terrorist attack on American soil. And in this case I certainly agree with him; the idea that OKC was organized by the government is nutty.

 

[uk_dave]

Ah see, you fail again.

The issue at hand here, is not science, it is 'conflict of interest', a judicial concept in the main. It is often used to dismiss unsafe testimony.

Actually, you're partially right there.

Ever consider the 'conflict of interest' posed by those at the top of the 'truther' tree?

No? Didn't think you would have.

Of course Fetzer and Jones and Wood and Reynolds won't have ever designed a building you will have used. Whereas ARUP may well have had a hand in the structural design of many large buildings, some of which you may have visited and trusted your safety to their expertise.

Since you don't trust them to be honest about 9/11, I can only suggest that from now on you stay in your basement and fight 'the man' from there.... don't venture out into the real world because it is designed and built by people you don't trust.

 

[Myriad]

So, the conspiracy is getting bigger and bigger as more and more people are implicated in the cover up.

Which raises the interesting question: once everybody is in on the conspiracy, does it matter any more?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[DavidJames]

Excellent article for people sick of getting their ass kicked by the NIST and 911 Commission report and other 911 ... 'fact based reports'. Useful in fogging peoples minds up and hiding the numerous intelligently written analysis's ...

That is what you really wanted to say, until your meds wore off.

 

[WildCat]

Another desperation move by the troofers to try to save their dieing movement. Soon, Ryan, Fetzer, and Steven Jones may actually be forced to get a job.

 

[scooby]

Perception & Propaganda: Media Analysis of 9/11

Anyone who regularly reads newspapers is by now aware that there are people questioning the official version of events of September 11, 2001. Examples of coverage of the the "9/11 conspiracy theorists", as the mainstream media consistently characterizes the skeptics of the official story, include front-page articles in the Wall Street Journal and feature articles in Time and Popular Mechanics.

In November 2006, Counterpunch.org published a series of articles by Manuel Garcia, Jr. purporting to debunk "conspiracy theories" about the destruction of the World Trade Center.The first article was The Physics of 9/11. http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html

Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist
by Kevin Ryan
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/garcia.html

Critique of Manuel Garcia's The Physics of 9/11
by Jim Hoffman
http://911review.com/reviews/counterpunch/markup/physic11282006.html

A Quick Review of Manuel Garcia's article "We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist: The Physics of 9/11"
by Kevin Ryan
http://www.stj911.org/critiques/ryan/counterpunch.html

The Truly Distracting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
[12.03.07] Alexander Cockburn’s “US: The Conspiracy That Wasn’t,” which is an attack on the 9/11 truth movement, is faulty in virtually every respect. He calls me one of the movement’s “high priests,” as if it were a religious movement, rather than a fact-based movement that involves scientists, engineers, pilots, war veterans, politicians, philosophers, former air traffic controllers, former defense ministers, and former CIA analysts.

http://www.lmd.no/index.php?article=1408

 

[CHF]

Ah see, you fail again.

The issue at hand here, is not science, it is 'conflict of interest', a judicial concept in the main. It is often used to dismiss unsafe testimony.

Scooby,

if there are serious flaws in the NIST report then why aren't the rest of the world's engineers crying foul?

Why aren't truthers pointing out the errors?

If the NIST report is flawed then show me a peer-reviewed paper in an engineering journal that explains how.

 

[CHF]

Gee, scooby...

Kevin water-boy Ryan on building collapses???

Where did he get his structural engineering degree again?

 

[T.A.M.]

Scooby:

I get it. You are saying that instead of The top Scientists in their field working with other top scientists, whom they happen to be connected with, and have a good rapport with, they should have looked for other scientists that they did not know, and had never worked with to help with the SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ON BUILDING SAFETY.

That is simply moronic, paranoid, and simply stupid...alas, not surprising.

TAM

 

[scooby]

Scooby,

if there are serious flaws in the NIST report then why aren't the rest of the world's engineers crying foul?

Why aren't truthers pointing out the errors?

If the NIST report is flawed then show me a peer-reviewed paper in an engineering journal that explains how.

Why would I bother doing that when all I have to do is ask you for the NIST reports explanation of what happened during the collapse of the WTC and WTC7.

Care to provide it?

I'd love to read what they say happened during the collapses - it was all so quick after all. I believe it's online, and you sound like an expert - so please, point out the relevant section.

 

[LashL]

Scooby, there is a thread here on the qualifying of experts for purposes of giving opinion testimony in court. You should read it. Ryan and Hoffman would simply not make the grade to be accepted as experts on the subjects that they purport to opine about.