ae911truth gets its 1000 petitioner

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Whatever. It's really no big deal.

Right. It really wasn't. But the big deal for all to see is how people in this particular forum act.

Just because someone percieves someone else as a "truther" nothing they say is correct. Which is the definition of fundamentalism.

It's not actually.

Ironic that someone you percieve (sic) as a "fundamentalist" isn't allowed to make a small point. Whereas you, presumably the arch-rationalist, are at liberty to dive in wherever you like with your offended sensibilities.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


That is the problem with fundamentalism. A fundamentalist can never admit they were wrong.

Good bye to you and Joey. Neither of you are worth the time and/or aggravation



[edit on 21-7-2010 by Nutter]

Only science can reveal anything at all. Consider using simulation software to find the answer yourself, contract a non bias 3rd party pros in this field if you are into this. Preferably those without interest on 911.

Design and Verification Software


Conspiracy Sidetrack:
Why bother to reopen ?. If you have the truth, NOTHING can stop you from proving it, its just matter of time and effort. If you lie/misleading/untruthful, the doom is guaranteed, its just matter of time and effort.

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

That is the problem with fundamentalism. A fundamentalist can never admit they were wrong.

Good bye to you and Joey. Neither of you are worth the time and/or aggravation



[edit on 21-7-2010 by Nutter]

What was I wrong about? The bit where I largely agreed with you? The bit where I pointed out how rude you were to criticise my comprehension when you had in fact gone back to alter your post to make your meaning clearer? Or the point where I questioned your bizarre definition of "fundamentalist"?

And I suppose it's useless to point out the irony in someone so touchy about being labelled immediately slapping a label on somebody else.

reply to post by Nutter


SORRY Nutter but you are WRONG

Here is a link to the RIBA

www.architecture.com...

This is a quote from that link!!!!

The art of architecture can be practised by people with a wide range of skills – if I had to have maths or physics I wouldn’t (and probably couldn’t!) have become an architect.’ Sir Terry Farrell, Architect

ANY REPEAT ANY Structural engineer will be the complete opposite of that and will have a great understanding of PHYSICS, MATHS AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE!

All the ENGINEERS I am in daily contact with are like above and my background is 30+ in the construction industry and when I left school my first job was an apprentinceship in the design/drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK FABRICATOR so I do have a pretty good idea what is REQUIRED!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
All the ENGINEERS I am in daily contact with are like above and my background is 30+ in the construction industry and when I left school my first job was an apprentinceship in the design/drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK FABRICATOR so I do have a pretty good idea what is REQUIRED!!!!!!!!

You may have an idea, but did you ever go through it?

I am a civil engineering PE (which includes structural). I currently work for the federal highway administration [edit for clarity] as a sub and I consult as a forensics engineer.......i.e a structural engineer (actually my position is senior structural engineer). I HAVE studied and worked with architects who DID do structural calculations. So, my personal experience trumps your quoted material.

This is my last post then you guys can go back to your circle jerk. But, all I'm saying is that architects have the ability, education and reasoning to do structural calculations.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Nutter]

Originally posted by Nutter

all I'm saying is that architects have the ability, education and reasoning to do structural calculations.

So then why haven't they?

Why can't they support their statements?

Their statements are that the NIST report is wrong. This does not require an alternate hypothesis. All they would need to do is support WHY they disagree with NIST.

So far, nada.

Why does this not bother YOU?

For without this technical support, it is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Why haven't they shown NIST to be incorrect?

Why hasn't NIST been transparent and released it's data to be peer reviewed? Peer review does not equal in-house peer review BTW.

You can't critique something that you don't have the data for.

Originally posted by Nutter

You can't critique something that you don't have the data for.

You've lost the debate right there.

You're admitting that AE doesn't have data to base their statements on, therefore you are admitting that it is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

Based on nothing.

Does this bother you in the slightest?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You've lost the debate right there.

In this sense I have.

You're admitting that AE doesn't have data to base their statements on, therefore you are admitting that it is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

That is exactly what I am admitting. As far as AE911 knows, the NIST report could be unsinkable like the Titanic.

Does this bother you in the slightest?

Actually, it does. Which is why I have distanced myself from this group. As far as we know, the plane damage and fire could have caused collapse. But, we need the NIST to be transparent so that we can all agree that was the cause.

It would actually work in NIST's and the government's favor to be transparent and actually be able to say "nah, nah, nah.....we told you so". But they don't. Why? This doesn't bother you?

Originally posted by Nutter

It would actually work in NIST's and the government's favor to be transparent

Here's the rub.

Have you been vetted to determine what info is, and what is not, a secudity issue?

If not, you're not gonna get it.

Which leaves the TM complaining about guv shills, etc. Round and round and round.

But they don't. Why?

You already know why:

1- security issues
2- private property rights

This doesn't bother you?

No. For I, while not overly trusting of my guv, am not a paranoid lunatic.

I have not once read anything by any truther that made a lick of sense, nor had any iota of physics nor engineering support for their objections to the "OS:.

Until that happens, I'm fine with how events have played out.

With all due respect, 1000 is not a very significant number. There are 130,000 architects working in the US and 1.5 million engineers.

I agree there is something wrong with the official story - deeply wrong, in so many places. But irrelevant tallies do not sway anyone interested in rationality.