Do Yourself a big, big favor, Dennis, and do not presume to lecture me ~ or, particularly, the folks at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ~ on the scientific method.
They [like me] did not start with a “conclusion” and then “invented evidence” to prove that that conclusion was right.
They started with all the Questions that were eith…
Do Yourself a big, big favor, Dennis, and do not presume to lecture me ~ or, particularly, the folks at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ~ on the scientific method.
They [like me] did not start with a “conclusion” and then “invented evidence” to prove that that conclusion was right.
They started with all the Questions that were either asked but left unanswered and/or were not even asked by the government [the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST] about what actually happened on 9/11. Particularly as regards the destruction of the three WTC Towers.
In other words, they [like me] started with what is called an “hypothesis”: “[A] proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words ‘hypothesis’ and ‘theory’ are often used interchangeably, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.” [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis ]
If You watch the movie SEVEN, You will see a very detailed explanation as to how that Structural Engineering Study of the destruction of WTC 7 was conceived, organized, and executed, all completely within accepted standards of the scientific method and engineering research, with hypotheses to deal with all those unanswered and unasked questions.
And what is so puzzling about a military operation that has a date of planned execution that allows sufficient time for all the necessary activity that needs to happen before that operation is launched, if it is to have any chance of success? If the ultimate objective was to bring those Towers down, time would have to be spent prepping those Towers for their destruction, which were originally designed and built to take and survive intact the impact of a Boeing 707, according to the architect who designed them.
And exactly how do “we know” that it wasn’t a plane that hit the Pentagon? Plus, the damage done to the Pentagon was the obvious result of something crashing into it; and not the result of “bombs previously planted” inside that “high security’ building. After the explosion from whatever hit the Pentagon, nothing was blown outward away from the building as if that explosion were caused by explosives inside the building. All the damage was directed inwards.
And finally, if You accept the “Official” conspiracy theory about 9/11 as put out by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, NIST, and the Media, You have already gone down the Rabbit Hole they intended for You to go down. Just like the overwhelming majority of Americans who have much more pressing issues to confront and deal with than what War their government is going to get into next.
Jeff my friend, you are right. I have already gone down the rabbit hole "they" intended for me to go down. And the "movies" you watch are the real truth! LOL
BTW I attended a Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presentation in Seattle on the 9/11 building collapse. By Leslie Earl Robertson*, of the Seattle Structural engineering firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson. He was the lead structural engineer of the Twin Towers design. He and his colleagues developed the framed-tube structural system that was used in the towers. He made no bones about it that he thought the folks at the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" were a bunch of wack jobs. And that the movie SEVEN was not to be taken seriously.
Unlike you, I have no axe to grind here. And have actually been involved in building design. Working on loan for 4-years to our sister company design firm, ABAM Engineers in Federal Way WA. Know a little bit about the design process! LOL
Now go find somebody else to fight with. You are wearing me out and confusing me with someone who wants to fight to the death about what happened on 9/11.
All I know is the Americans fucked themselves before, during and after that fateful day.
Have a great day.
*He received The Mayors Award for Excellence in Science and Technology for the design of the World Trade Center. In recognition of his design withstanding the impact of the planes with enough time to allow many thousands of occupants to evacuate safely.
That's very interesting, Dennis, that You attended a presentation by Mr Robertson, and that he said that "the movie SEVEN was not to be taken seriously."
i'm curious: When did You leave the US to return to New Zealand? Were You still living in Seattle when You heard Robertson? Or did You travel all the way from New Zealand to attend his presentation in Seattle in 2020?
You must have if ~ as You claim ~ You actually heard him say that for the simple reason that SEVEN was released in 2020, after the study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks on the destruction of WTC 7 was completed.
Jeff, if you don't believe I attended a presentation by Leslie Robertson on the twin towers collapse I guess there is nothing I can do about that.
And yes, I was careless in my post in implying that he also commented on SEVEN at the presentation I went to. My posts in the middle of the night lacking in accuracy! LOL. My old memory is not what it was eh. I went to many seminars - don't remember the dates of any of them now.
But I have close personal friends and colleagues who also are Structural Engineers and regularly attend seminars in Seattle. Some of whom were friends with Leslie before he passed away. In our regular email correspondence over the years, talking shop, we have discussed our mutual interest in this subject. It's through them I am aware of our colleague Mr. Roberston's feelings about the movie.
Have you read this article? Seems as if there are some serious problems with the University of Alaska Fairbanks study. Like any complex problem, especially with engineers (LOL), there is always disagreement with the conclusions,
"The UAF study seems to have some serious problems, particularly with regard to the extent of the fires and the floors on which fires were located and therefore this evidence was ignored. This is not science!
The most obvious challenge to the demolition theory is the question of how possibly hundreds of explosive charges and detonators, along with their wiring, could have withstood an extensive eight hour fire and remain intact until someone decided to push the big red button, but nevertheless I cannot discount it with any authority."
The problem Jeff is that "The Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth", headed by ARCHITECT Richard Gage, have made STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING blunders that have seriously jeopardize their credibility.
But Jeff, I'm done with this. I don't have the desire or energy to pursue this subject anymore. And after all, have you not hijacked a blog on War and Militarism Thrive in America to push your confirmation bias on the subject.
And it's interesting that there is nothing online anywhere that has Mr Robertson expressing his feeling about the movie. Maybe Your friends and colleagues can cite any specific statements that he made about it.
Jeff, Leslie Roberston, an astute professional of some standing in his field, was not in the habit of flippantly expressing his feelings about a movie to outsiders of his profession. Especially such a hot potatoe as this. And especially on the internet, which even in his time was already a bit of a minefield. Discussing it with his equals over a few drinks at the presentation dinner maybe eh.
Do Yourself a big, big favor, Dennis, and do not presume to lecture me ~ or, particularly, the folks at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ~ on the scientific method.
They [like me] did not start with a “conclusion” and then “invented evidence” to prove that that conclusion was right.
They started with all the Questions that were either asked but left unanswered and/or were not even asked by the government [the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST] about what actually happened on 9/11. Particularly as regards the destruction of the three WTC Towers.
In other words, they [like me] started with what is called an “hypothesis”: “[A] proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words ‘hypothesis’ and ‘theory’ are often used interchangeably, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.” [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis ]
If You watch the movie SEVEN, You will see a very detailed explanation as to how that Structural Engineering Study of the destruction of WTC 7 was conceived, organized, and executed, all completely within accepted standards of the scientific method and engineering research, with hypotheses to deal with all those unanswered and unasked questions.
And what is so puzzling about a military operation that has a date of planned execution that allows sufficient time for all the necessary activity that needs to happen before that operation is launched, if it is to have any chance of success? If the ultimate objective was to bring those Towers down, time would have to be spent prepping those Towers for their destruction, which were originally designed and built to take and survive intact the impact of a Boeing 707, according to the architect who designed them.
And exactly how do “we know” that it wasn’t a plane that hit the Pentagon? Plus, the damage done to the Pentagon was the obvious result of something crashing into it; and not the result of “bombs previously planted” inside that “high security’ building. After the explosion from whatever hit the Pentagon, nothing was blown outward away from the building as if that explosion were caused by explosives inside the building. All the damage was directed inwards.
And finally, if You accept the “Official” conspiracy theory about 9/11 as put out by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, NIST, and the Media, You have already gone down the Rabbit Hole they intended for You to go down. Just like the overwhelming majority of Americans who have much more pressing issues to confront and deal with than what War their government is going to get into next.
Jeff my friend, you are right. I have already gone down the rabbit hole "they" intended for me to go down. And the "movies" you watch are the real truth! LOL
BTW I attended a Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presentation in Seattle on the 9/11 building collapse. By Leslie Earl Robertson*, of the Seattle Structural engineering firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson. He was the lead structural engineer of the Twin Towers design. He and his colleagues developed the framed-tube structural system that was used in the towers. He made no bones about it that he thought the folks at the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" were a bunch of wack jobs. And that the movie SEVEN was not to be taken seriously.
Unlike you, I have no axe to grind here. And have actually been involved in building design. Working on loan for 4-years to our sister company design firm, ABAM Engineers in Federal Way WA. Know a little bit about the design process! LOL
Now go find somebody else to fight with. You are wearing me out and confusing me with someone who wants to fight to the death about what happened on 9/11.
All I know is the Americans fucked themselves before, during and after that fateful day.
Have a great day.
*He received The Mayors Award for Excellence in Science and Technology for the design of the World Trade Center. In recognition of his design withstanding the impact of the planes with enough time to allow many thousands of occupants to evacuate safely.
That's very interesting, Dennis, that You attended a presentation by Mr Robertson, and that he said that "the movie SEVEN was not to be taken seriously."
i'm curious: When did You leave the US to return to New Zealand? Were You still living in Seattle when You heard Robertson? Or did You travel all the way from New Zealand to attend his presentation in Seattle in 2020?
You must have if ~ as You claim ~ You actually heard him say that for the simple reason that SEVEN was released in 2020, after the study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks on the destruction of WTC 7 was completed.
Jeff, if you don't believe I attended a presentation by Leslie Robertson on the twin towers collapse I guess there is nothing I can do about that.
And yes, I was careless in my post in implying that he also commented on SEVEN at the presentation I went to. My posts in the middle of the night lacking in accuracy! LOL. My old memory is not what it was eh. I went to many seminars - don't remember the dates of any of them now.
But I have close personal friends and colleagues who also are Structural Engineers and regularly attend seminars in Seattle. Some of whom were friends with Leslie before he passed away. In our regular email correspondence over the years, talking shop, we have discussed our mutual interest in this subject. It's through them I am aware of our colleague Mr. Roberston's feelings about the movie.
Have you read this article? Seems as if there are some serious problems with the University of Alaska Fairbanks study. Like any complex problem, especially with engineers (LOL), there is always disagreement with the conclusions,
https://12bytes.org/articles/exposed/possible-problems-with-the-uaf-wtc-7-collapse-study/
"The UAF study seems to have some serious problems, particularly with regard to the extent of the fires and the floors on which fires were located and therefore this evidence was ignored. This is not science!
The most obvious challenge to the demolition theory is the question of how possibly hundreds of explosive charges and detonators, along with their wiring, could have withstood an extensive eight hour fire and remain intact until someone decided to push the big red button, but nevertheless I cannot discount it with any authority."
The problem Jeff is that "The Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth", headed by ARCHITECT Richard Gage, have made STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING blunders that have seriously jeopardize their credibility.
But Jeff, I'm done with this. I don't have the desire or energy to pursue this subject anymore. And after all, have you not hijacked a blog on War and Militarism Thrive in America to push your confirmation bias on the subject.
Take care.
All i asked was when You left Seattle, Dennis.
And it's interesting that there is nothing online anywhere that has Mr Robertson expressing his feeling about the movie. Maybe Your friends and colleagues can cite any specific statements that he made about it.
But i doubt it.
Jeff, Leslie Roberston, an astute professional of some standing in his field, was not in the habit of flippantly expressing his feelings about a movie to outsiders of his profession. Especially such a hot potatoe as this. And especially on the internet, which even in his time was already a bit of a minefield. Discussing it with his equals over a few drinks at the presentation dinner maybe eh.
Take care.
Roger that, Dennis. Out.