I know most of you who believe that 9/11 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition will not believe me and ignore facts so let's look at the people who are experts that support your ideas.
You would all agree that credibility is central to believing a source wouldn't you? Otherwise you should believe everything that Kal Korf, Billy Meier, and Adamski say.
First, you have to understand how buildings are put together and who does what. Who are qualified experts in determining a buildings structural characteristics? Only Licensed Structural Engineers.
How do I know? I used to be an Architect and I've worked with them on a daily basis. Architects, however, cannot sign structural design drawings legally. In fact, an Architect is not qualified to design structural members of any building. Architects are generalists who depend on Structural Engineers to design the structural elements, Electrical Engineers to design the power and lighting systems, and Mechanical Engineers to design the plumbing and air conditioning systems. Architects are in charge of aesthetic and functional design and is the lead in coordinating the efforts of the other Engineering disciplines because they base their work on his floor plans.
Architects, however, are required to have general practical knowledge of the engineering disciplines but it is not in depth. Their are structural (long span, short span), electrical, and mechanical parts to the muli-part, multi-day Architectural exams.
Let's take a look of who isn't professionally qualified to make comments on structural issues/design:
Physicists (Steven Jones) - They don't design buildings let alone do structural analysis. Smart? Yes. Knows buildings? Definitely not.
Architects (AIA) - I will put myself in here cause of my explanations above. That means you, Richard Gage, you fucking moron. You're an embarrassment to all Architects.
Civil Engineers (CE) - They design dams, water treatment plants, and other large industrial projects. The also have to hire Structural Engineers to do design. They don't design high rise building structures. Ever.
Mechanical Engineers (ME)- Like I said, they do plumbing and air conditioning.
Electrical Engineers (EE)- Lighting, power, and computers.
Software Engineers - Microsoft Word? Yes. Buildings? No.
Theologians (David Ray Griffin)- Need I say more?
Other "Scholars" and Doctors - Again, not Structural Engineers
Guys with degrees in Engineering but not licensed - Would you let an Intern operated on you? No, thanks doc, I'll wait for the licensed professional.
Guys with describe themselves as "PE" - This means Professional Engineer. But of what? It's vague and can mean anything. You may have a license to engineer trash compactors.
Engineering degrees from other countries - I don't what their terms mean so can't comment on it other than I still don't see any true Structural Engineers.
If you don't degree with me that credibility lies with the necessity of professional Structural Engineers opinions then you don't know jack about the construction industry so you need to educate yourself. Do some independent research (ie, not conspiracy sites) into the field before you spout off half-baked misinformed opinions.
Now that we're done with that, let's look at who we have left. Let's look at the professional licensed Structural Engineers from the website of "experts" on the ae911 Truth website who are licensed:
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=ENG
BTW, the "ae" in ae911 is an industry term for Architects and Engineers.
After eliminating all "experts" except Licensed Professional Structural Engineers and ones with credentials that are verifiable we are left with one guy, Dennis J. Kollar
He claims to be a licensed Structural Engineer but look at his Bio:
"I began my career in the 1980's as a Structurally Certified Welder and held various welding positions in a shop fabrication environment. I received my B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee in 1993 with an emphasis in Structural Engineering. I have several years experience in Municipal Engineering and site design and 10+ Years experience in the structural design of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional structures of steel, concrete, masonry and timber."
Hmm, sounds like he's a welder with a degree in Civil Engineering.
Now let's look at his professional opinion:
"For me the most convincing aspect that the 911 collapse was a controlled demolition is the recorded explosions on the 9/11 Eyewitness DVD. The explosions, along with the uniformity and totality of the collapses, when added to the 100's of so-called coincidences on, before and after that day, add up to more evidence of a Government involved crime than has convicted most people in our prisons today."
This doesn't sound very professional or analytical of structural issues. Doesn't say why a plane couldn't have brought down the buildings. It sure does look like a political statement with that last statement.
What are we left with? One guy with questionable and probably inflated credentials If this is what constitutes "expert" opinion and the entirety of the proof rests on the opinions of this man then it truly is a sad statement of the 9/11 "truth" movement.
As far as "insiders" coming out you need to listen what they are not saying as much as what they do say. They mention conspiracy, yes. But of what? Withheld how much the government knew previous to the attacks? Perhaps. Incomplete information. Sure. But so far I haven't seen anyone who says the planes did not cause the destructions of the buildings.
Hey, don't listen to me. Credibility doesn't mean anything. BM has a spot for you.
You would all agree that credibility is central to believing a source wouldn't you? Otherwise you should believe everything that Kal Korf, Billy Meier, and Adamski say.
First, you have to understand how buildings are put together and who does what. Who are qualified experts in determining a buildings structural characteristics? Only Licensed Structural Engineers.
How do I know? I used to be an Architect and I've worked with them on a daily basis. Architects, however, cannot sign structural design drawings legally. In fact, an Architect is not qualified to design structural members of any building. Architects are generalists who depend on Structural Engineers to design the structural elements, Electrical Engineers to design the power and lighting systems, and Mechanical Engineers to design the plumbing and air conditioning systems. Architects are in charge of aesthetic and functional design and is the lead in coordinating the efforts of the other Engineering disciplines because they base their work on his floor plans.
Architects, however, are required to have general practical knowledge of the engineering disciplines but it is not in depth. Their are structural (long span, short span), electrical, and mechanical parts to the muli-part, multi-day Architectural exams.
Let's take a look of who isn't professionally qualified to make comments on structural issues/design:
Physicists (Steven Jones) - They don't design buildings let alone do structural analysis. Smart? Yes. Knows buildings? Definitely not.
Architects (AIA) - I will put myself in here cause of my explanations above. That means you, Richard Gage, you fucking moron. You're an embarrassment to all Architects.
Civil Engineers (CE) - They design dams, water treatment plants, and other large industrial projects. The also have to hire Structural Engineers to do design. They don't design high rise building structures. Ever.
Mechanical Engineers (ME)- Like I said, they do plumbing and air conditioning.
Electrical Engineers (EE)- Lighting, power, and computers.
Software Engineers - Microsoft Word? Yes. Buildings? No.
Theologians (David Ray Griffin)- Need I say more?
Other "Scholars" and Doctors - Again, not Structural Engineers
Guys with degrees in Engineering but not licensed - Would you let an Intern operated on you? No, thanks doc, I'll wait for the licensed professional.
Guys with describe themselves as "PE" - This means Professional Engineer. But of what? It's vague and can mean anything. You may have a license to engineer trash compactors.
Engineering degrees from other countries - I don't what their terms mean so can't comment on it other than I still don't see any true Structural Engineers.
If you don't degree with me that credibility lies with the necessity of professional Structural Engineers opinions then you don't know jack about the construction industry so you need to educate yourself. Do some independent research (ie, not conspiracy sites) into the field before you spout off half-baked misinformed opinions.
Now that we're done with that, let's look at who we have left. Let's look at the professional licensed Structural Engineers from the website of "experts" on the ae911 Truth website who are licensed:
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=ENG
BTW, the "ae" in ae911 is an industry term for Architects and Engineers.
After eliminating all "experts" except Licensed Professional Structural Engineers and ones with credentials that are verifiable we are left with one guy, Dennis J. Kollar
He claims to be a licensed Structural Engineer but look at his Bio:
"I began my career in the 1980's as a Structurally Certified Welder and held various welding positions in a shop fabrication environment. I received my B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee in 1993 with an emphasis in Structural Engineering. I have several years experience in Municipal Engineering and site design and 10+ Years experience in the structural design of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional structures of steel, concrete, masonry and timber."
Hmm, sounds like he's a welder with a degree in Civil Engineering.
Now let's look at his professional opinion:
"For me the most convincing aspect that the 911 collapse was a controlled demolition is the recorded explosions on the 9/11 Eyewitness DVD. The explosions, along with the uniformity and totality of the collapses, when added to the 100's of so-called coincidences on, before and after that day, add up to more evidence of a Government involved crime than has convicted most people in our prisons today."
This doesn't sound very professional or analytical of structural issues. Doesn't say why a plane couldn't have brought down the buildings. It sure does look like a political statement with that last statement.
What are we left with? One guy with questionable and probably inflated credentials If this is what constitutes "expert" opinion and the entirety of the proof rests on the opinions of this man then it truly is a sad statement of the 9/11 "truth" movement.
As far as "insiders" coming out you need to listen what they are not saying as much as what they do say. They mention conspiracy, yes. But of what? Withheld how much the government knew previous to the attacks? Perhaps. Incomplete information. Sure. But so far I haven't seen anyone who says the planes did not cause the destructions of the buildings.
Hey, don't listen to me. Credibility doesn't mean anything. BM has a spot for you.
