Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of World Trade Center Building 7

reply to post by hooper

Yeah, its called specialization. Its been around for a couple of thousand years now and has worked pretty well. We let medical experts do our health "thinking" for us, we let engineering experts do our bridge building "thinking" for us, etc., etc., etc..

What's dnagerous is when non-experts start thinking that they are the equal of the experts. This usually occurs when the experts say something they don't like.

You say all that like it's a good thing.

Do I need to discuss all the wrong diagnoses and needless deaths and terrible side effects from all those medical professionals?

If my doctor tells me I need to take such and such medicine, I research the medicine...they're just people who have been trained by the same establishment that creates an "industry" out of healthcare. The bottom line in any industry is the bottom line.

Same with Engineers...stupid people like me are able to read and understand engineering concepts without a formal education.

I am capable of checking the "experts" work...as is anyone who bothers to make the time and effort.

Originally posted by Yankee451
Same with Engineers...stupid people like me are able to read and understand engineering concepts without a formal education.

Its pretty obvious that this isnt the case.

reply to post by Yankee451

You say all that like it's a good thing.

It is. Its why we have computers and the internet and central heating and aspirin and internal combustion engines, etc.

Do I need to discuss all the wrong diagnoses and needless deaths and terrible side effects from all those medical professionals?

Yes, but only in the context of the billions of correct diagnoses and lives that were extended by decades and limbs that were saved.

If my doctor tells me I need to take such and such medicine, I research the medicine...they're just people who have been trained by the same establishment that creates an "industry" out of healthcare.

But if it weren't for the Dr. and the "industry" and the experts you would have no medicine to research, no way of researching it and no way of knowing which medicine to research.

The bottom line in any industry is the bottom line.

Yeah, so? Besides that negates the idea that humans, regardless of occupation, still are humans capable of empathy and therefore prone to act generally in the best interest of their fellow humans.

Same with Engineers...stupid people like me are able to read and understand engineering concepts without a formal education.

No you can't. You just think you can. Like you think you can look at a video and declare that its CGI.

I am capable of checking the "experts" work...as is anyone who bothers to make the time and effort.

No, you really aren't qualified to check the work. You may ask questions, you may seek other professional opinions, but no you are not qualified to check the work. Again, you just think you are.

reply to post by Yankee451

Same with Engineers...stupid people like me are able to read and understand engineering concepts without a formal education.

Most of the world disagrees with your interpretation of the facts. Otherwise there would be droves of ‘experts’ signing up with ae911.

reply to post by SirMike

Its pretty obvious that this isnt the case.

Why do you say that? Because I disagree with the experts you let do your thinking for you?

reply to post by samkent

Most of the world disagrees with your interpretation of the facts. Otherwise there would be droves of ‘experts’ signing up with ae911.

Where the hell do you guys get off for speaking for the "rest of the world"? I only speak for myself, but all the OSers and most of the official "truth" movement groups ("experts for 911 Truth") sure spend alot of effort speaking for the rest of the world.

Your logic is really sound..."rely on the experts"...you can tell they're not telling the truth because more "experts" would join them.

Sure looks to me like you're too lazy to check their work.

reply to post by hooper


Man, you're an encyclopedia of assumptions.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by SirMike

 

Its pretty obvious that this isnt the case.

Why do you say that? Because I disagree with the experts you let do your thinking for you?

There's a difference between deferring to someone's opinion and experience and letting someone do your thinking for you. Let me know the next time you need surgery, I’d love to see how your DIY hip replacement works out for you.

reply to post by SirMike

There's a difference between deferring to someone's opinion and experience and letting someone do your thinking for you. Let me know the next time you need surgery, I’d love to see how your DIY hip replacement works out for you.

Continuing to twist my meaning only makes you look foolish.

I would check the work of the doctor who recommended the hip surgery, not perform the surgery.

It doesn't take an expert in engineering to learn about the construction of the WTC, and it doesn't take a physicist to learn that what the media showed on TV was impossible in the real world.

the strange thing is, most people that i know that do believe the official story, don't care what anyone else thinks and wouldn't come on a forum to sit and argue with people that they think are nuts.....makes you wonder why these guys are doing it....if you don't care, why even bother? yet, everytime there is a thread about it, these guys are here like clock work....very strange indeed......

Originally posted by Yankee451

It doesn't take an expert in engineering to learn about the construction of the WTC, and it doesn't take a physicist to learn that what the media showed on TV was impossible in the real world.

So then you have the ability to run an FEA, etc and determine what load transfers would take place as a result of the plane strikes that you ignore?

I kinda doubt it.

However, I DON'T doubt that you suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect, along with a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Yankee451

It doesn't take an expert in engineering to learn about the construction of the WTC, and it doesn't take a physicist to learn that what the media showed on TV was impossible in the real world.

So then you have the ability to run an FEA, etc and determine what load transfers would take place as a result of the plane strikes that you ignore?

I kinda doubt it.

However, I DON'T doubt that you suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect, along with a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance.

are you trying to convince others that the official story is true, or are you just here to fuddle the thread?

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Yes, your sweeping derision is noted.

I need to rely on experts because I'm too stupid to thnk for myself. Check.

Originally posted by patternfinder


are you trying to convince others that the official story is true, or are you just here to fuddle the thread?

Although I also realize that very few truthers are rational enough to listen to logic, since a lack of logical thinking is a pre-requisite to becoming a truther in the first place, I'm going with that first thing.........

Originally posted by Yankee451

Yes, your sweeping derision is noted.

I need to rely on experts because I'm too stupid to thnk for myself. Check.

I encourage thinking for yourself. The process leads to self discovery.

But since you dodged my question about doing an FEA, etc..... that your own personal self discovery has shown you that you are not qualified to hold your beliefs.

Otherwise you would have answered in the affrimative.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Yankee451

 

If more people understood history, they'd understand scientists can be brainswashed to repeat lies just as easily as the next guy.

So you are saying that 99.999% of all teachers, scientists, engineers, etc have been brainwashed?

Ask yourself something.
Why hasn't the number of 'experts' on ae911 gone up exponentially?
My take is that they are the few who are flat out wrong.

Brainwashed may not be the right word. Call it psychologically conditioned conformity.



Going against the majority of morons can be stressful and unproductive.

The dominant culture runs on stupidity and lies. Professional economists who can't figure out that planned obsolescence is going on in automobiles 42 years after the Moon landing? YEAH RIGHT! And some how they have forgotten to talk about the depreciation of all of the automobiles in the world for the last 60 years. So suddenly we have global economic problems. I wonder how many politicians know that the economists have been doing their algebra incorrectly for the last 60 years.

The real purpose of the schools is to produce the conditioning. How many years do people have to spend in school to get PhDs? So what does that say about their personalities right there. Conformists are proclaimed to be INTELLIGENT!

psik

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So then you have the ability to run an FEA, etc and determine what load transfers would take place as a result of the plane strikes that you ignore?

Come on now, everyone knows that FEA is just code for TBTB.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

But since you dodged my question about doing an FEA, etc..... that your own personal self discovery has shown you that you are not qualified to hold your beliefs.

I never used to know how to do DWV plumbing, electrical work, low voltage netwoking, concrete pouring, masonry, framing, or build a house either, but I figured it out.

I'm guessing if I ever had any reason to do an "FEA", I'd be able to figure it out too.

reply to post by SirMike
Ya' know what Mikey? All I need to know about you is, you defended Hooper, the least relevant contributor to the 9/11 forums ever. The voting was close, but he managed to pull it off with his latest effort.

Originally posted by ANOK
That is not true. An architect has to design every part of a building, including everything from materials used to the safety features. They have to know building design inside and out (no pun). So yes they had better know if a building can collapse, and how.

A structural engineer works from the plans provided by the architect. A SE can also design structures of course, but they usually design features that are incorporated into designs by the architect. Or the architect can consult an SE to see if something they want will work if it's not already established.

OK, well I've been an architect for over 25 years and first let me say that your description is accurate for some, but not all architects. There are technical architects like myself who do indeed have a solid understanding of all of a building's systems and work closely with the entire design team (structural engineer, MEP engineers, landscape architect, civil engineer, misc. consultants) to develop the building design. It's a pretty specialized niche though and the majority of architects are not so savvy. Then there are design architects who know little to nothing about how a building works, but instead concentrate purely on aesthetic issues. And of course there are architects who are very good at what they do and others that are completely clueless. One thing I've learned over the years is that a "book smart" person can pass the exam despite having little to no practical knowledge.

My professional opinion on WTC is this, it is completely plausible that the buildings would have collapsed in just the way they did due to the airliners crashing into them. The buildings had fireproofed steel, but no sprinkler systems. Fireproofing is rated (1 hour, 2 hour, etc.) and what that rating means is the fireproofing will protect the steel for that period of time in a normal fire before the steel fails. Fireproofing doesn't protect steel forever, it is intended to buy time for people to escape and for firefighters to get water onto the fire. These ratings do not take into account something highly unusual like jet fuel INSIDE the building. Introduce an element like that and your fire rating is no longer valid. The fireproofing did do the job for a while, but once the steel started deforming it would have had a cascading failure affect (IE, once one column failed the others around it would have failed in succession). My understanding of WTC 1 and 2 is that the main support columns were all in the core of the building. This is fairly unusual, most buildings have columns spaced throughout the building. But by moving them to the core this would have allowed column-free lease space around the perimeter and this is highly desirable and much more flexible for interior design. But due to this, the floor would collapse downward. In a conventional structure the aircraft probably wouldn't have penetrated very far due to the perimeter columns, and the fire would have been to one side of the building, and perimeter columns would have failed first and the building probably would collapse to one side. But WTC 1 and 2 were not conventional structures as mentioned above. One has to understand that structure is designed for a designated dead load (permanent- furniture, the structure itself, finishes, etc.) and live load (temporary- people, wind, etc.). It is NOT designed for a sudden, tremendous downward force. So when a middle floor of a high rise collapses, the structure below is not designed to "catch" the upper floors collapsing down. If the aircraft impacts had happened near the top of the building they never would have collapsed because there wouldn't have been that huge load collapsing down. But they impacted well down from the top and once the columns failed, such a huge downward weight and force would simple collapse the structure of the floor below that, and in turn the floor below that, etc. As each floor collapses the loads increase due to the extra floor as well as the increasing speed of the collapse, and the failure would be EXACTLY what you see in the WTC videos.

So in conclusion, while some architects and engineers might think there's a conspiracy here, we don't ALL think that.