• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

WTC Demolition Conspiracy

Was the WTC disaster an inside job?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 10 66.7%

  • Total voters
    15
I think the wider point is that if you fail to disprove with the points some people make, your best course of action is to question their qualifications and therefore their experience.
 
Good point.

I would like to see a list (can't be bothered Googling just now) of all these academics, then I will highlight anyone who is supposed to be in engineering or physics etc.

Physics is a part of what happened at WTC - explosions, properties of materials, inertia, impact, temperature - these things are probably what physics children get taught at school.

What I say is that physics is something I know nothing about, but if a bunch of people do and they say some things don't match then I'm inclined to consider what they say (I'll take it with a pinch of salt, but I'll consider it).

Engineering is something that I know nothing about, but you need physics for learning engineering don't you? Physics and mathematics isn't it?

Were any of these academics physics experts or engineering experts?

I will accept physics experts because engineering involves physics and physics is involved with the WTC.
 
misterwibble said:
Have any of you people actually dealt with academics in any professional capacity? One thing I've learnt is that nearly all professors think they're an expert in everything, let alone their specialist field. And they get really touchy when you point out that they're talking bollocks.

Well, I work with academics in a professional capacity 3 months out of every year, and I don't share your particular take on it. That said, I also dont' consider them as a font of all knowledge either ;)
 
jimv1 said:
I think the wider point is that if you fail to disprove with the points some people make, your best course of action is to question their qualifications and therefore their experience.

I disagree. Unless they have specific knowledge about the subject at hand and the disciplines involved and needed in order to make an informed assessement, their statements can be taken as any more than opinions. One could also argue that these opinions aren't anything to do with professional opinions either.

If alot of highly-qualified professionals who deal with exactly the sort of factors that were involved with 9/11 all came forward and had issues with things, that would be a different matter.
 
coldelephant said:
Were any of these academics physics experts or engineering experts?

I will accept physics experts because engineering involves physics and physics is involved with the WTC.

But there are various different discplines within both areas that would be more specific. For example, I have a friend who is an aersospace physicist - that takes in maths, physics, engineering, etc. - he would still not be qualified enough in the specfic areas needed to make anything but a guesstimate. If anything, he'd know something about what happened with the planes, but would need very specific information/data first.

The reason that you have specialisations within disciplines is becuase there is a need to address specfic areas within engineering, physics, maths, etc..
 
techybloke666 said:
I agree up to a point Jerry.
But What a PHd gives you is the long haul at how to look at things , How to study, how to dissect, investigate and come to hopefully an accurate appraisal of the thing being studied.
learned people have the ability to think outside their fields on many occasions.
Just becouse a Professor is qualified in Applied Statistics does not mean he could have no input to say Criminology for instance.

Well, their ability to evaluate a situation is still very limited. And a PhD does not suddenly imbue you with all of those qualities you mention - that really depends on what your PhD is.

Basically, the best people to assess 9/11 are those that have very specific knowledge about the various factors involved. It is, after all, an extremely compliacted set of events, and so ideally things should get blurred by assessments by those who really aren't qualified enough.
 
misterwibble said:
Have any of you people actually dealt with academics in any professional capacity? One thing I've learnt is that nearly all professors think they're an expert in everything, let alone their specialist field.

My experience of career academics was that many of them were very nice, if sometimes difficult, people, experts in their field and occasionally world leaders in the study of some obscure niche of academia - but I'm not sure I would have asked some of them to wire up a plug.

I can perfectly understand that skeptics cynicism at the existence of a few letters at the end of someones name might in turn be viewed with cynicism by non-skeptics (for want of a less volatile definition) but the fact is that these kind of qualifications do not automatically disable all the machinery of human fallibility that the rest of us are subject to. What is more is the fact that the battlefields of academia are peopled by very clever individuals with the same qualifications who disagree vehemently on particular subjects - which kind of negates any acceptance that what the individual believes should not be questioned.

Yes, I'd have to accept that someone with a post-grad qualification in engineering knew vastly more about the subject than I did but I'd probably first like to know how and where their qualification was earned and I might temper the automatic trust I place in qualifications with the thought that although Mengele, Crippen and Shipman were all far more qualified on the subject than I am I might just stay at home and treat that verruca myself.
 
Well, their ability to evaluate a situation is still very limited. And a PhD does not suddenly imbue you with all of those qualities you mention - that really depends on what your PhD is.

don't you think there are exceptions to this Jerry ?
 
techybloke666 said:
don't you think there are exceptions to this Jerry ?

Not really, no. That is, of course, unless the PhD covers areas that are specific to the relevant details of 9/11.

I say this because IMHO you'd need to have very specific and specialised knowledge base in order to make an assessment. I don't see the point of accepting just any academic qualification just because it's an academic qualification, be it a degree, PhD, or whatever. 9/11 is a very specific set of circumstances and events, after all, so one would hope that those with the correct and specific qualifications would've stepped forward and said something by now. This is not the case though.

I also don't think that any of the academics listed will offer anything up for peer review - mostly because their peers will have to ask what qualifications that person has to make such assessments. Again, just having a degree, PhD, is not enough.
 
so you would say that a person with a PHd in Applied Statistics wouldnt be expert enough for you to be allowed to coment on Crime then ?
 
All this speculation about the abilities of academics to interpret evidence is IMHO bullshit.

There is a finite amount of physical evidence. This evidence has been evaluated for the 911 Commission Report and has been published for public scrutiny.

Now, as far as i am aware if the Academics for Truth or whatever they call themselves had ANY evidence that ran contrary to the 911Commissions evidence evaluations they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

A mere difference of opinion does not count, conjecture and speculation does not count as it means absolutely nothing. As doctors, scientists, academics and egg-head types you'd think they'd be used to the concept of proof by now. ;)
 
Theres more things wrong with the Commision report than the Parson preached about.
 
techybloke666 said:
so you would say that a person with a PHd in Applied Statistics wouldnt be expert enough for you to be allowed to coment on Crime then ?

I'd allow him to analyse and comment on the Applied Statistic element of the crime. However, their analysis of the blood splatters or psychological profile is no more or less valid than mine or Micky Mouses.
 
techybloke666 said:
so you would say that a person with a PHd in Applied Statistics wouldnt be expert enough for you to be allowed to coment on Crime then ?

It's not about 'allowing' anything. It's about whether someone with one academic qualification is qualified enough to make an assessment of something not related to their area of knowledge/qulaification. He or she probably wouldn't be qualified enough for anyone to comment on things to do with crime, if any aspects of said crime were outside the remit of his or her profession and academic qualification. They could only make an informed opinion on aspects of crime if it fell within the remit of Applied Statistics.
 
They could only make an informed opinion on aspects of crime if it fell within the remit of Applied Statistics

Oh I see

So David Cantors PHd in Applied Statistics has no impact on him being expert in the field of Criminology ?
 
NO i'm saying it does and Jerry is mistaken to so easily ignore Learned people. their opinions shouldnt be ruled out solely due to their type of qualifications.

Just like Cantor brilliant criminologist but has his PHd in Applied Statistics.

Thinsg are not always so clear cut
 
techybloke666 said:
Oh I see

So David Cantors PHd in Applied Statistics has no impact on him being expert in the field of Criminology ?

Presumably where statistics apply to the field of criminology (as they frequently do) he is amply qualified to comment.
 
techybloke666 said:
NO i'm saying it does and Jerry is mistaken to so easily ignore Learned people. their opinions shouldnt be ruled out solely due to their type of qualifications.

Just like Cantor brilliant criminologist but has his PHd in Applied Statistics.

Thinsg are not always so clear cut

But they are, the man is an EXPERT in criminology. He is perfectly qualified both professionally and academically to comment. This is not the case for the Acedemics for Truth (sorry, still don't know if that's right) is it?
 
My point exactly

what it says at the end of your name does not always show off what you are capable of.

some of these accedemics may well be very good in other fields too, and until that was varified on way or the other one can't just decount them.
 
techybloke666 said:
So David Cantors PHd in Applied Statistics has no impact on him being expert in the field of Criminology ?

No, but that also doesn't mean that anyone with that particular PhD could also be considered an expert in the same way that he is. I'd argue that he's an exception rather than the rule.
 
techybloke666 said:
some of these accedemics may well be very good in other fields too, and until that was varified on way or the other one can't just decount them.

Well, no reference has been made on the relevant websites that explain where their specialisations and experience base lie, especially WRT to any aspects of 9/11. One would've thought that this would be the best thing to do in order to qualify their opinions in some way. Until that's made clear, we can't just assume that they're at all qulaified to comment on the matter in a professional or academic capacity, simply because they have some sort of academic qualification.
 
techybloke666 said:
some of these accedemics may well be very good in other fields too, and until that was varified on way or the other one can't just decount them.

Indeed, along with Footballers for Truth, Eastenders Fans for Truth and Investment Bankers for Truth. The source of their grouping, as you've said, is irrelevent as all groups could have the relevent expertise.

And this is also the case for the expert evaluation given to the 911 commission. Except for one VERY important point, they were able to evaluate the evidence. The groups now bringing forth alternative theories are ONLY able to theorise on evaluations of evidence, not the actual evidence itself.
 
I'd argue that he's an exception rather than the rule.

now theres a surprise ;)

I accept that the physical evidence is now removed, but the timings evidence etc etc is far from an unkown quantity.

Timelines for example seem to have been moved, and a lot of what they say is related to that side as well as Molten metal etc.

Perhaps we need to know their exact skills matrixes to allow a fair trial.

we should'nt send them to prison on hearsay ??????
 
techybloke666 said:
now theres a surprise ;)

Well, how many people with a PhD in Applied Statistics are also experts in criminology? Not many, I suspect.

Perhaps we need to know their exact skills matrixes to allow a fair trial.

we should'nt send them to prison on hearsay ??????

No, but we also shouldn't just simply take their opinions at face value just becasuse they have (possibly unrelated) academic qualifications. If they can show they have expertise in the specfic areas needed in order to counter anything in the 9/11 Commission, etc. then they need to make that clear. If not, it's really just a bunch of people with dregrees, PhDs, etc. voicing their opinions (and possibly not professional opinions at that).
 
Well, how many people with a PhD in Applied Statistics are also experts in criminology? Not many, I suspect.

who knows thats your opinion Jerry there may be loads of people out there with PHd's in subjects that are not particualry linked to their expertise in their chosen career.



No, but we also shouldn't just simply take their opinions at face value just becasuse they have (possibly unrelated) academic qualifications. If they can show they have expertise in the specfic areas needed in order to counter anything in the 9/11 Commission, etc. then they need to make that clear. If not, it's really just a bunch of people with dregrees, PhDs, etc. voicing their opinions (and possibly not professional opinions at that).

your still painting em useless before we have had a chance to look over them individually for their skills.
 
monster_magnet said:
Now, as far as i am aware if the Academics for Truth or whatever they call themselves had ANY evidence that ran contrary to the 911Commissions evidence evaluations they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.


They have been, or at least shouting about it quite loudly.

They claim to have amassed a wealth of evidence to support their theories, they would like this evidence to be examined.
 
Jerry_B said:
jimv1 said:
I think the wider point is that if you fail to disprove with the points some people make, your best course of action is to question their qualifications and therefore their experience.

I disagree. Unless they have specific knowledge about the subject at hand and the disciplines involved and needed in order to make an informed assessement, their statements can be taken as any more than opinions. One could also argue that these opinions aren't anything to do with professional opinions either.

If alot of highly-qualified professionals who deal with exactly the sort of factors that were involved with 9/11 all came forward and had issues with things, that would be a different matter.

Well if you follow your own example you are hardly qualified to comment on anything that other people think as you are not them, don't have their experience or qualifications or a special insight into their mind.
 
coldelephant said:
monster_magnet said:
They claim to have amassed a wealth of evidence to support their theories, they would like this evidence to be examined.

I've just randomly had a look at one of their peer review documents
here page 5 This video here is supposed to mention molten and metal. It doesn't. Now if the supporting evidence that ones theory is based on is questionable what does that make the theory?
 
It has to be said that that report is long with lots of "evidence" whereas that report from Blanchard was an attack personally on Alex Jones !
 
Back
Top