His arguments are highly technical and can be difficult for lay people to follow. I think for a non-technical person - I studied history in college and have worked with photography, t-shirts, art, teaching and translating English - I have a pretty good grasp of math and science, I do some very technical translations. But I can't follow all the issues at hand and expect the average CT/fence sitter understands even less than me. Establishing he lied about his credentials or got his degree but never worked as an engineer or his work experience is not all applicable would help deflate him.
Neither his failure to tell anyone what his work experience has been nor his failure to sign the AE911T petition smell right to me.
Thanks Len. I comprehend the difficulties you describe which do not apply to me. Being a civil engineer myself I can nearly always go direct to any structural engineering claims and judge whether or not they are valid. Also for most aspects of applied physics which is the underpinning of structural engineering.
I also have had experience managing engineers and other professionals and am accustomed to assessing whether what they are saying is right or maybe sus... Using your expression whether it "smells right" or not. Not always perfect but a good indicator.
On this forum there are people who are experts in their non-engineering fields whose opinion I have come to respect. I would accept their reasoned assessments before those of any outsider putting forward pro-truther claims.
The point I make is that the truth of a claim is independent of the qualifications or experience of the person making it. I don't need to know S E Jones qualifications to know that thermite claims are nonsense at two levels:
1) At the level of
Detail - there was no thermxte on site as near enough proven by the efforts of several members here; AND
2) (This is the bigger issue for me) In the
Context of claims of CD at WTC on 9/11 there was no demolition so all the argument about "was there thermXte in the dust" is moot and irrelevant.
If it was suddenly revealed that Jones held multiple doctorates across the metals analysis and structural engineering fields and had worked 10 years for a top ranked demolition company it would not make his false claims true. They are false independent of the qualifications held by the person making the claims.
BTW To go a step further that distinction between "detail" and "context" is important. We tend to focus too much on details IMO - because that is where truthers and trolls keep the debate. Truthers and trolls as two distinct breeds seem to be incapable of constructing complete hypotheses - it suits their untruthful agenda to stay down in the details.
To take an engineering example where "context' overrules "details" we only need to look to all the detailed arguments about that alleged "Missing Jolt". A lot of detailed measurements and detailed engineering argument. The context makes it much simpler - once the top block was falling the opportunity for any big jolt was already past. So once again all the detailed discussion is moot.
Now let me go to one paper by Ross. This one which is posted at AE911Truth:
"Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1"
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).
He continues:
....Analysis:
The falling upper section with a velocity of no more than 8.5 metres per second at impact would meet resistance from the impacted columns and have as its first task the necessity to load these columns through their elastic range and thereafter through the plastic shortening phase....
(again my emphasis) Again that is faeces of a male bovine. It didn't happen that way.
The actual mechanism of WTC Twin towers global collapse stage has been described many times on this and other forums. The falling top bit sheared off floors in the Open Office Space and beams in the core. The columns were effectively bypassed. So Ross is wrong in the opening paragraphs - the base assumptions on which he builds his claims.
Now back to our immediate issue:
I am an engineer and I have identified that fault in Ross's paper. And I think I have identified it at a level where you as a lay person can see that my statement is true. If you still doubt the truth of my statement I can explain in more detail or you can seek the opinion of other engineers and non-engineer members posting here.
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?
I'll leave the discussion at that point.
Again thanks for your explanation of your situation.
)
)
