:lol: :2wave:
Now I know that you are saying that all those other professionals are just "accepting" the NIST and ASCE reports as gospel for no better reason than previous reputation.
But come on now, that is a simplistic analysis ... do you truly not think that despite their obvious good reputation that that alone could cover up flaws and errors in the reports.
Reputation simply does not transfer through to the realities of construction and engineering, nor any other field of science, by itself alone.
You can have all the good reputation in the world but unless your report or regulations get proven in real world situations ... it counts for nothing.
Expertise is demonstrated, not brandished as a title !!!
I agree with you... There's no 1 issue that could account for those hundreds of thousands of experts / professionals. However, it's not exactly a moot point.
We had been discussing the various issues that accounts for the engineers non-support of alternative views to those of 9-11.
Let's put it like this : I agree with the NIST report in that; the plane did hit where it shows in the report, it did cause damage reasonably comparable to the Purdue simulation, the metal in those areas had all the fire retardent removed, the fire was hot enough to heat that exposed metal to a point where that metal would be significantly weakened.
Now, look at the floor plans for where there was the most damaged columns... In both towers, it was areas that made up less then half of the structure, meaning that only those areas also had the fire-proofing removed, also meaning that only a portion of the buildings steel would have been over heated... I get that heat does transfer through metal, just not quite so well that the remaining steel would be heated to failure.
So, because of those flawed assumptions all the rest of the science, in all likelihood would pass scrutiny.. or like with NIST's declaration that WTC7 collapsed around 40% of free-fall for the first 17 stories... when the video ACTUALLY showed a collapse time within 3% of free-fall for the entire 17 floors. How did NSIT get that much of a difference??? They just started the clock about 37% early (about 5 seconds).
The WTC Towers were of a UNIQUE design, therefore their collapse would definately be of interest to most relevant professionals ... why wouldn't it ???
Understandably, and with NIST's reputation, there's definately a portion of professionals that simply looked through their data, and since the report seems to have crossed the t's and dotted the i's, in all likelihood a portion of 'concerned' professionals did a check to verify the math not to mention as you've so delicately put it before... why would an engineer listen to an architects opinion on his work?
I mean, it's my understanding of the industry that many engineering firms are dependant on organizations like NIST, and other similar organizations, makes it so that while their reputation is based on their work, the work they do is less scrutinized BECAUSE of that reputaton. Now, NIST's reputation IS well deserved, I don't dispute that. However, it can be shown that NIST's investigation was victim of having to make the evidence fit the analysis.
It would be "
the" topic of discussion amongst them !!!
Consider Purdues' simulations of the impacts ... they used some hundreds of hours of supercomputer time, and thousands of man-hours using millions of measurements and calculations to produce a four minute long piece of simulation ...
Computers, mathematical calculations and measurements ain't interested in reputation !!!
Something is either a foot long or it isn't ... reputation can't change cold hard facts !!!
New simulation shows 9/11 plane crash with scientific detail
Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack
Scientists and engineers simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center
Yes, and these all seem to focus on what is not up for debate... where the reputation of NIST would come to play is that they used good science that left unmentioned assumptions. Example : Saying that the plane knocked off 'all' the spray-on insulation, is stated as true, but uses that 'all' (all the area affected by the plane hit) to mean all the insulation over the entire floor.
There is a drive to build ever taller and more sophisticated buildings all over the world ... particularly in the Middle East just now.
Now in the design, engineering and construction of those new or ongoing projects any major flaws or problems would come to light.
Engineers and scientists, in the real world, NEED accurate and factual information and data to properly function.
NIST and ASCE by giving out faulty information would be leaving themselves open to some high level risk, criminally, legally, financially as well as complete lack of trust and authority, which they NEED to survive ... were they to knowingly and/or malicously disseminate known false data !!!
Their data is correct ... and backed up by citation from other relevent professionals.
Yes, that's why in EVERY other case, what comes out is completely accurate. I mean, NIST for a long time tried to deny the molten metal that was at ground zero for over 6weeks AFTER 9-11... they tried to deny it, because there's no reasonable explanation. If they couldnt explain it within their explanation, it was denied for as long as possible.
I hope you won't make me dig out ALL the examples of this...
Now I know that many Truthers will say "so why have they not come out in a public show of support" ... well, then tell me how many scientists have come out in "support" of a round Earth either !!!
That is not how real science works ...
Real scientists and engineers will have looked at the reports, agreed within the fields and moved on ... it is ONLY on the Internet that this is endlessly debated.
Scientists do NOT debate on the Internet ... they do it through Journals, conferences, symposiums and proceeding articles ... there are hundreds of them, but being highly technical they are mostly beyond the scope or understanding of the general public.
I have previously several times given links to them ... those links had many articles that were in ACTIVE discussion at INTERNATIONAL conferences by people from all over the planet ... look through them again, I will highlight the ones that were overseas ...
Granted... but understand that they are ALL based on NIST's or other 'official' reports... So, because NIST is the core for information on this issue, and all further science was based on those reports in some form or another, once it's shown that the science used under NIST's name was flawed / deceptive, then the rest of the science based on that crumbles with it... very much like what happened to global warming so recently.
So yes ... NIST and ASCE being the relevent, experienced and recognised experts with many years of factual authority would definatly hold MUCH more legitimate weight that Gages' PowerPoint and carboard boxes !!!
Wasn't it just last post that you denied as a possible reason why so few scientists would openly question NIST???
Aside from that AE911Truth is NOT an accredited organization ... rather an Internet-based small protest group.
That sounds about right...
Also, they share NO commonality in transparancy as charities and other proper organizations do ... such as their complete LACK of any means of seeing where monies donated or from sales is actually going to ???
I could wager if you're sending money to Gage's account on ae911truth, it woud either be put towards his efforts, or maybe some new drinking habit... I don't know. All is that if you took the names off and looked at the science, and could tell me what is wrong with the analysis I would have so much of an easier time in joining you in rebuking richard gage.
I mean, on the one hand you're saying 'these registered professionals say this', then you look to Gage and say, 'he's not a registered professional, so his opinion doesn't count'... which is turning into the argument : You can only come to the 'right' solution if you're a registered professional, or 'trust us, we're experts'.
ae911truth isn't a charity however... I occasionally donate money to bums on the street, I don't know if their buying food or crack with it, but they wouldn't count as a 'charity' either.
I can't speak for him or his finances, anymore then I can say that those 'save a cat' funds really do use that money for 'saving cats'... I mean, they could have a PETA standard for 'saving cats' (meaning, thin the herd) but their financial reports only show what they MUST show.
