View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Would 777 Architects and Engineers endorse BS? No way!

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Would 777 Architects and Engineers endorse BS? No way!

Postby Scepcop » 25 Aug 2009, 20:36

Skeptics,
Would 777 professional licensed Architects and Engineers sign their name to something that was BS?! No way!

Yet they endorse the controlled demolition hypothesis that was derived at using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD! Have a look. Here is a long list of their full names, credentials and personal statements, all 777 of them!

http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_ALL_

Examples:

http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=998501

Name: Claude Robert Briscoe
Title: P.E.
License #: Civil Engineer C17546 -- California
Degree: BS Engineering, UCLA
City: Santa Rosa
State: CA
Country: USA
Category: Engineers (Degreed & Licensed - Active & Retired)
Discipline: Engineering
Status: Degreed and Licensed
Bio:

45+ years in civil and structural engineering design and construction with project work in bridges, buildings, foundations, earth retaining structures, roads, highways, and various commercial, industrial and public works facilities.

Personal 9/11 Statement:

The collapse of the three WTC buildings would seem to defy the laws of mechanics, conservation of energy and known structural failure behavior. The case for the destruction of the three WTC buildings by means of "controlled demolition" is overwhelming.

Verification Status: Verified



L. Alan Pyeatt
P.E.
Lic: C56857 CA (Civil Engineer)
B.S.C.E.
Malibu, CA

Engineering — Degreed and Licensed

• Bio:

Over 25 years experience in civil engineering and construction (mostly public works). Project Manager for Federal Demonstration Project and two APWA/Southern California award-winning projects in West Hollywood, California. Also served as Project Manager for a fire sprinkler subcontractor on building projects in Houston, Texas (including high-rise buildings in Houston and San Antonio).

• Personal 9/11 Statement:

The fact that both towers collapsed in their footprints, without any toppling of the upper floors, clearly indicates controlled demolition as the cause of the buildings' collapse, rather than structural failure. In my opinion, the collapse of the south tower (WTC 2) illustrates this idea most clearly. The airplane which hit this tower entered the south wall, and wreckage can be seen in the videos exiting the east wall. As a result, one would expect the damage to be worse near the southeast corner of the building, and any structural collapse should have occurred first at this corner. This should have resulted in the upper floors toppling toward the southeast. However, videos of the building's collapse clearly show it failing in a more or less symmetrical manner.

In contrast, the north tower (WTC 1) was hit by the first airplane in the north wall, at almost a perpendicular angle to the north wall. And yet, the upper floors of this building leaned toward the south as the building collapsed.

Likewise, there are two failure phenomena which cannot be explained by the "pancake collapse" theory. First, video of the collapse of the north tower shows the upper floors (approx. 10 stories) toppling toward the south. Yet, instead of falling to the ground relatively intact (as they should have done with no structure supporting them from beneath at that point, and nothing pressing down on them from above), they mysteriously disintegrated in mid-air. What forces (other than explosives) could have caused this?

Second, a video exists which shows part of the inner core of the north tower still standing prior to the south tower's collapse. And yet, with only minor debris falling on it from the south tower, the remaining core structure disintegrates. Unless the video is faked (and I have seen no evidence of this), what would have caused the remaining core structure to collapse?


Cynthia Howard
AIA
Lic: MArch MIT, 1243 ME, 4486 MA
Biddeford Pool, ME

Architecture — Degreed and Licensed

• Bio:

Architectural education MIT (Masters), and Harvard GSD, (taught course Developing Historic Properties). Studied Structural Engineering under William LeMessurier, at MIT.

30 years private practice:
Preservation Planning for municipalities, agencies and historic societies
Energy-efficient historic restoration and new construction projects, concentrated in coast and mill communities.

Served on the Board of the Boston Society of Architects, as President of the New England Chapter of the AIA, and as President and Board member of AIA Maine.

• Personal 9/11 Statement:

I believe that it is physically/scientifically impossible for the heat from the burning planes to have caused the collapse. If the steel had failed by heat, as has been claimed, the building would have deformed.

The speed of the building's collapse, indicating no resistance as it fell, further indicates that only carefully placed and timed detonation devices throughout the skeletal structure could account for the sudden implosion of the towers into their footprints.

The only plausible reason for collapse of WTC 7, which was not hit by any plane, is similarly, timed explosives within the building.



Murray I. Brill
Registered Professional Engineer, CE #8928, ME #43
Lic: C8928, M433 California
BAE Engineering Rensselaer Polytechnic I
Los Angeles, DC

Engineering — Degreed and Licensed

• Bio:

Worked 52 years as Engineer including 11 foreign countries.

Consulting Engineering firms (such as TAMS), Government Departments (such as city and county bldg, bridge div, USAID) and private companies, on bridges, buildings and structures, and other projects in planning, design and construction supervision in the field.

I am now retired in Athens, Greece

• Personal 9/11 Statement:

I was open minded without any definite opinion until today when I spent two hours carefully listening and watching the video 9/11 Blueprint for Truth (2008 Edition).

I am now totally convinced by the evidence presented that the destruction of the three buildings had to be by controlled demolition rather than the impacts of the plane crashes.

I am crushed by this realization and very angry that we haven't brought the truth to the attention of the public the way it should be. I will lend my support to this endeavor.



Lester D. Baker
Consulting Professional Civil Engineer
Lic: Utah- PE=143426,, Wyo.- PE=1317, Ida. PE/LS=2282
BSCE Utah State Univ., Logan, Utah, 1954
Ogden, UT

Engineering — Degreed and Licensed

• Bio:

I am a registered Prof. Civil Engineer in Utah (since 1967), Wyoming and Idaho (qualified short time later). Am a Prof. Land Surveyor in Idaho.
Received my BSCE from Utah State University Logan, Utah in 1954. Was with U.S. Bur. of Public Roads for 3 years located in Oreg., Wash,. Alaska, and Wyo. Interstate Hwy Design engineer on I-15 from Lehi to Provo, Utah. After that, I was appointed Utah DOT's Standards Engineer (I started with zero standards.) Some BPR Standards were adopted, Developed new format, construction details and all new standards for all types of state roads and highway construction, plus traffic control design, signage and standards. Revised the Utah Road Commission payment handbook, which determined the methods for calculating the contactor's payment.
As a Facilities Engr, for Hercules, I was placed in charge of all roads, buildings, roofs, barricades, parking & utilities lines, including: acid, steam, air, water, sewer and N. gas, plus projects: using, air, hydraulic, explosion-proof equipment & handling equipment.
Mapped 6 underground coal mines in Utah, They used Explosives.
I had an day to day association with an "Explosives Expert & Chemist" for several years."
In 1949 (USAF) I flew over many bombed German cities and witnessed the damage done by bombs in WWII. The corners of the bombed-out buildings stood up 10 to 30 feet higher than the middle portion of the straight perimeter walls of the damaged structures. (Not true for 911 Bldg. #7. I see that example as more proof that all 3 WTC buildings were "Imploded". The corners failed due to the extra explosives.

Lester D. Baker, P.E.
Ogden, Utah

• Personal 9/11 Statement:

When a bldg drops/falls at "free fall" speed, it means to me that the floor above did not "help", or cause the collapse of the next floor below (that would have caused a "short" delay). It means to me that there was "no resistance, or delay" by the floor below and therefore that floors below had already failed "completely" before the upper floor could get there. Each and every floor failed "TIMELY". Only a well-controlled "Implosion" could do this 110 times in a row. And it was repeated for 2 more buildings (another 110 stories and then on another 47 story building.)
I suspect that if any of the floors had failed untimely (too soon or too late), it would have caused a totally different "failure scenario". Both would likely have missed the "footprint" below. The "lower" floors failed exactly as planned (which was about one-tenth of one second apart). Three huge buildings went down without a "hitch". It could not have been better, if it were planned. And yet they say that it was NOT planned. If that is true, The only "tougher" job I can think of - is for someone to build one of those buildings - WITHOUT A PLAN - Timing may not be so critical.

Seperate Comment:
Why can't we find these "EXPERTS", and these were "EXPERTS" that did this job? I suspect that there are only 5 or 10 people in the world, at most, who "know" how to even supervise this kind of "job", and they all know each other, also, they would have access to the sources (find them too) of the explosives, Thermite, and other "Specialties" used on this project, etc. (That was a BIG, COMPLEX job.) So, many people "in the business" would know about it. This INFO should be easy to find (I bet they even advertise). With just a little "waterboarding" (JUST KIDDING), we would have our answers. Can you imagine that the U.S. Government is still continuing those "trials" and torturing those poor Arabs. In any of the videos, I never even saw one Arab, let alone any Arab giving orders to "PULL IT". The owner had a big "payday", that day, He had owned it only a few months.

I have been very impressed with Mr. Richard Gage, Too bad, but the Constitution is either "dead" or "fast asleep". Otherwise, why would they (your officials) have the nerve to prepare and obtain agreements with Canada and Mexico without protecting their "butts". There are no borders, so there is no "country", or Nation. Nations require borders, or they are nothing, except renegades. Do your police "abide" by the Constitutional principles and why not? For any Officer to serve a citation of any kind; there has to have been an INJURY, OR PROPERTY DAMAGE, OR A "CRIME" COMMITTED. All other citations are issued under the "de facto Officer doctrine" under "color of Law." (Ryder v. U.S. 515 U.S. 177). Very interesting.

Another Subject: The Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal have ruled many times in the last 100 years that there is no "contract" between the "Government officials/Police and the "Citizens" (in name only). If Mr. Gage ever talks to me, I will be happy to explain it to him. Sorry, but it is true.



See what convinced these 777 licensed architects and engineers to sign their name by watching this film "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6903609314

Skeptics, ProfWag, wouldn't you agree that someone with 45+ years in civil and structural engineering design and construction knows their shit, compared to some BS denier on the internet who uses pure conjecture, like Mark Roberts or the http://www.debunking911.com site?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Would 777 Architects and Engineers endorse BS? NOT!

Postby ProfWag » 25 Aug 2009, 22:14

Scepcop wrote:
Skeptics, ProfWag, wouldn't you agree that someone with 45+ years in civil and structural engineering design and construction knows their shit, compared to some BS denier on the internet who uses pure conjecture, like Mark Roberts or the http://www.debunking911.com site?

Hmmmm, very very interesting Scepcop. Now, let's look at this a little more closely from a critical thinking perspective, shall we? First, their own website says that during a convention back in April, they "came face to face" with over 20,000 architects and engineers. They claim close to 50 new signatures (but according to their own actual count, it was 6.) That means that .0003 percent of those there agreed with them and .9997 disagreed. Okay, next issue, your list of people.

Briscoe: 45+ years in civil and structural engineering design and construction with project work in bridges, buildings, foundations, earth retaining structures, roads, highways, and various commercial, industrial and public works facilities.
It appears most of his experience comes from bridges, roads, and other city planning issues. No idea if he's an expert in 100 story skyscrapers that are hit by planes.

Pyeatt: Over 25 years experience in civil engineering and construction (mostly public works). Project Manager for Federal Demonstration Project and two APWA/Southern California award-winning projects in West Hollywood, California. Also served as Project Manager for a fire sprinkler subcontractor on building projects in Houston, Texas (including high-rise buildings in Houston and San Antonio).
What the hell does someone who works in Public Works and installs fire sprinkler systems know about 100 story skyscrapers hit by planes?

Howard: 30 years private practice:
Preservation Planning for municipalities, agencies and historic societies
Energy-efficient historic restoration and new construction projects, concentrated in coast and mill communities.
What the hell does planning historical societies have to do with 100 story skyscrapers hit by planes?

Brill: Worked 52 years as Engineer including 11 foreign countries. Consulting Engineering firms (such as TAMS), Government Departments (such as city and county bldg, bridge div, USAID) and private companies, on bridges, buildings and structures, and other projects in planning, design and construction supervision in the field. I am now retired in Athens, Greece
What the hell does a retired consultant from Greece who worked city planning and bridges know about 100 story skyscrapers hit by a plane?

Baker:
I am a registered Prof. Civil Engineer in Utah (since 1967), Wyoming and Idaho (qualified short time later). Am a Prof. Land Surveyor in Idaho.
What the hell does a land surveyor know about 100 story skyscrapers hit by a plane?

I don't feel I need to go on Mr. Wu and that I have satisfactorily answered your question from a critical thinking standpoint.
ProfWag
Last edited by ProfWag on 26 Aug 2009, 02:38, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Would 777 Architects and Engineers endorse BS? NOT!

Postby ciscop » 26 Aug 2009, 00:58

ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:
Skeptics, ProfWag, wouldn't you agree that someone with 45+ years in civil and structural engineering design and construction knows their shit, compared to some BS denier on the internet who uses pure conjecture, like Mark Roberts or the http://www.debunking911.com site?

Hmmmm, very very interesting Scepcop. Now, let's look at this a little more closely from a critical thinking perspective, shall we? First, their own website says that during a convention back in April, they "came face to face" with over 20,000 architects and engineers. They claim close to 50 new signatures (but according to their own actual count, it was 6.) That means that .0003 percent of those their agreed with them and .9997 disagreed. Okay, next issue, your list of people.

Briscoe: 45+ years in civil and structural engineering design and construction with project work in bridges, buildings, foundations, earth retaining structures, roads, highways, and various commercial, industrial and public works facilities.
It appears most of his experience comes from bridges, roads, and other city planning issues. No idea if he's an expert in 100 story skyscrapers that are hit by planes.

Pyeatt: Over 25 years experience in civil engineering and construction (mostly public works). Project Manager for Federal Demonstration Project and two APWA/Southern California award-winning projects in West Hollywood, California. Also served as Project Manager for a fire sprinkler subcontractor on building projects in Houston, Texas (including high-rise buildings in Houston and San Antonio).
What the hell does someone who works in Public Works and installs fire sprinkler systems know about 100 story skyscrapers hit by planes?

Howard: 30 years private practice:
Preservation Planning for municipalities, agencies and historic societies
Energy-efficient historic restoration and new construction projects, concentrated in coast and mill communities.
What the hell does planning historical societies have to do with 100 story skyscrapers hit by planes?

Brill: Worked 52 years as Engineer including 11 foreign countries. Consulting Engineering firms (such as TAMS), Government Departments (such as city and county bldg, bridge div, USAID) and private companies, on bridges, buildings and structures, and other projects in planning, design and construction supervision in the field. I am now retired in Athens, Greece
What the hell does a retired consultant from Greece who worked city planning and bridges know about 100 story skyscrapers hit by a plane?

Baker:
I am a registered Prof. Civil Engineer in Utah (since 1967), Wyoming and Idaho (qualified short time later). Am a Prof. Land Surveyor in Idaho.
What the hell does a land surveyor know about 100 story skyscrapers hit by a plane?

I don't feel I need to go on Mr. Wu and that I have satisfactorily answered your question from a critical thinking standpoint.
ProfWag


awesome response...

by the way
i stand in neither side of this one
i just dont care,
in vancouver there´s a lot of truthers rallies... and ooh gosh!.. thats the closest thing i have seen to a religion without being one
i went to see people screaming and fighting and all coming down to the fact that ¨no building has come down because of fire¨ ... and the others ¨there was an explosion and airplaine fuel¨ ...
personally.. i dont think bush is smart enought to carry that one.. but then again, he did become president of USA.. so what do i know?.
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Would 777 Architects and Engineers endorse BS? NOT!

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 06:58

ProfWag,
That is a low down cheap way to try to discredit something, and not reasonable or realistic either. Even a child could debunk what you just wrote. My God. Jesus.

Dude, um, you raise the bar to an impossible standard that no one can fulfill. Who is an expert on planes crashing into buildings then? No one! There is no such degree or certification called "planes crashing into buildings".

Professional architects and engineers may not be crash experts but they have better than average knowledge about structural design, stability, gravity, weight, laws of physics, etc. They are far more credible than average, and definitely more than you! Let me see your qualifications.

Show me where AE911Truth said they talked directly to 20,000 architects?

It's not possible in one weekend to talk to 20,000 people. Can you do that? So why are demanding that they do it?

In real life dude, which you seem to be out of, professional architects are busy and have professional lives and family lives. For one to get them to personally look at something is a rare accomplishment. Professionals don't waste their time. Just getting any to endorse something is a big accomplishment. So far AE911Truth has grown from 400 architects and engineers to 786 today. That's a great accomplishment, you little pessimistic scoffer!

Let's see you try to get 786 architects and engineers to sign their name to something.

It doesn't mean that 99 percent disagreed. Many of them said they'd consider it or they just don't have the time to look at it or the interest. You are jumping to conclusions.

No one can deny that getting 786 architects and engineers to sign their name to something is a BIG ACCOMPLISHMENT. They would NOT do that if something were BS.

Agreed?

Remember Frank Martini, one of the engineers of the WTC, who was killed on 9/11, said the WTC could withstand multiple impacts from jetliners. And the WTC did withstand it. There is no logical reason for the sudden collapse with no resistance below it, other than calculated controlled demolition.

ciscop, I am disappointed in you. Even if a skeptic looked at the sky and denied that it was blue, you'd be impressed. Very LOW standards you have there.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Would 777 Architects and Engineers endorse BS? No way!

Postby ciscop » 26 Aug 2009, 08:53

hahahahahaha you are right!
if the skeptic pointed to the sky and said it wasnt blue it would be true
because it was very late at night.. skeptics are sharp :-D

and scescop should i remember you
that skeptics are the ones with higher levels of need proof and data and validation
while believers jump of excitement by any anecdote that supports any of their beliefs?

hey... and jesse ventura
the governor.. he also believes in being explosives in the buildings and he is a sharp guy (i do believe that)
who knows, i am just not that interested in conspiracy theories.
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Would 777 Architects and Engineers endorse BS? No way!

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 09:12

ciscop wrote:hahahahahaha you are right!
if the skeptic pointed to the sky and said it wasnt blue it would be true
because it was very late at night.. skeptics are sharp :-D

and scescop should i remember you
that skeptics are the ones with higher levels of need proof and data and validation
while believers jump of excitement by any anecdote that supports any of their beliefs?

hey... and jesse ventura
the governor.. he also believes in being explosives in the buildings and he is a sharp guy (i do believe that)
who knows, i am just not that interested in conspiracy theories.


That's what skeptics CLAIM, but not what they do. Hence we call them pseudo-skeptics. Get it?

Skeptics seem to believe in the official 9/11 story, even though there's no proof to support it, so that debunks your "higher standard of proof". For anything official, they need no proof. For anything against the official story, no amount of proof will convince them. That's NOT true skepticism. Don't you see that? Gosh.

So you admit that you know not much about 9/11 and aren't interested in it? Then why are you posting here about it? If you really want to learn about it, then watch the films I recommended. EXAMINE the evidence. Don't just BS on here.

Yeah Jesse Ventura is sharp and bright. Lots of smart people don't believe the official 9/11 story. Ciscop, check out these statements by 786 PROFESSIONAL LICENSED architects and engineers. Do you think they'd sign their name to something that was BS?

http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_ALL_
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Would 777 Architects and Engineers endorse BS? No way!

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 22:09

What the freak are you talking about? There is all sorts of proof in the official story. Stop spreading fallacies Mr. Wu.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Would 777 Architects and Engineers endorse BS? NOT!

Postby Scepcop » 04 Jul 2010, 23:40

ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:
Skeptics, ProfWag, wouldn't you agree that someone with 45+ years in civil and structural engineering design and construction knows their shit, compared to some BS denier on the internet who uses pure conjecture, like Mark Roberts or the http://www.debunking911.com site?

Hmmmm, very very interesting Scepcop. Now, let's look at this a little more closely from a critical thinking perspective, shall we? First, their own website says that during a convention back in April, they "came face to face" with over 20,000 architects and engineers. They claim close to 50 new signatures (but according to their own actual count, it was 6.) That means that .0003 percent of those there agreed with them and .9997 disagreed. Okay, next issue, your list of people.

Briscoe: 45+ years in civil and structural engineering design and construction with project work in bridges, buildings, foundations, earth retaining structures, roads, highways, and various commercial, industrial and public works facilities.
It appears most of his experience comes from bridges, roads, and other city planning issues. No idea if he's an expert in 100 story skyscrapers that are hit by planes.

Pyeatt: Over 25 years experience in civil engineering and construction (mostly public works). Project Manager for Federal Demonstration Project and two APWA/Southern California award-winning projects in West Hollywood, California. Also served as Project Manager for a fire sprinkler subcontractor on building projects in Houston, Texas (including high-rise buildings in Houston and San Antonio).
What the hell does someone who works in Public Works and installs fire sprinkler systems know about 100 story skyscrapers hit by planes?

Howard: 30 years private practice:
Preservation Planning for municipalities, agencies and historic societies
Energy-efficient historic restoration and new construction projects, concentrated in coast and mill communities.
What the hell does planning historical societies have to do with 100 story skyscrapers hit by planes?

Brill: Worked 52 years as Engineer including 11 foreign countries. Consulting Engineering firms (such as TAMS), Government Departments (such as city and county bldg, bridge div, USAID) and private companies, on bridges, buildings and structures, and other projects in planning, design and construction supervision in the field. I am now retired in Athens, Greece
What the hell does a retired consultant from Greece who worked city planning and bridges know about 100 story skyscrapers hit by a plane?

Baker:
I am a registered Prof. Civil Engineer in Utah (since 1967), Wyoming and Idaho (qualified short time later). Am a Prof. Land Surveyor in Idaho.
What the hell does a land surveyor know about 100 story skyscrapers hit by a plane?

I don't feel I need to go on Mr. Wu and that I have satisfactorily answered your question from a critical thinking standpoint.
ProfWag


Again you're playing games. Those are QUALIFIED experts.

Who then to you, is an expert in planes hitting buildings? Can you name one expert who is qualified? lol

That's just a cheap attempt at ignoring expert opinions that are FAR above yours.

Who is an expert then? You? lol
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Would 777 Architects and Engineers endorse BS? NOT!

Postby ProfWag » 05 Jul 2010, 00:53

Scepcop wrote:
Again you're playing games. Those are QUALIFIED experts.

Who then to you, is an expert in planes hitting buildings? Can you name one expert who is qualified? lol

That's just a cheap attempt at ignoring expert opinions that are FAR above yours.

Who is an expert then? You? lol

I know one person who is nowhere near the expert he claims to be. (Think Richard...)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Would 777 Architects and Engineers endorse BS? NOT!

Postby ProfWag » 05 Jul 2010, 01:24

Scepcop wrote:Baker:
I am a registered Prof. Civil Engineer in Utah (since 1967), Wyoming and Idaho (qualified short time later). Am a Prof. Land Surveyor in Idaho.
What the hell does a land surveyor know about 100 story skyscrapers hit by a plane?

I don't feel I need to go on Mr. Wu and that I have satisfactorily answered your question from a critical thinking standpoint.
ProfWag

Again you're playing games. Those are QUALIFIED experts.

Who then to you, is an expert in planes hitting buildings? Can you name one expert who is qualified? lol

That's just a cheap attempt at ignoring expert opinions that are FAR above yours.

Who is an expert then? You? lol

I've shortened this up again to clarify your statement. You state: Those are QUALIFIED experts. You posted a comment from a Land Surveyor in Idaho. Land surveyor's are not qualified experts in 100 story skyscrapers Scepcop. If you think they are, why don't you have a land surveyor design your next house. Please, I'd love to see it. Just don't invite me over for cocktails as I'm not sure the roof would be very stable.
I will admit though, I can't really think of one person who is an expert in how a 100 story skyscraper reacts when a 767 flies into the 80th floor as I don't believe it happens very often. I watched it live on TV, my father-in-law watched it live, and I can watch the video of the collapse though and realize that yea, it fell because the remaining beams couldn't support the 20 floors of weight that was on top of the weakened 80th floor. It's pretty obvious to me.
Last edited by ProfWag on 06 Jul 2010, 09:04, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Would 777 Architects and Engineers endorse BS? No way!

Postby Edx » 06 Jul 2010, 07:52

Winston,

There is right now at least two no planers in AE911 Truth, meaning that they believe no planes were used on 911 at all. Anders Bjorkman and some other guy I cant remember the name of. On Patriots Question 911 there is also a former military Major who also says that no planes hit the towers at all.

Therefore, according to your logic you must also believe no planes hit the towers.

Is that what you believe? Or could these supposedly qualified people be wrong about that?
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21


Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron