• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Credibility of 9/11 "Experts"

Free episodes:

Astroboy

Illegitimate Clone
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.
 
For a guy who said he came here for UFO talk you sure do spend a lot of time "debunking" an issue that you claim is nonsense. Rather odd.
 
cottonzway said:
For a guy who said he came here for UFO talk you sure do spend a lot of time "debunking" an issue that you claim is nonsense. Rather odd.

That's because I'm an arrogant prick from MIB who likes the sound of my own voice.

That's what my robot girlfriend tells me anyway. Somebody bitch slap me.

[size=medium]SLAP![/size]

Knock it off Robot.

[size=large]THWACK! [/size]

Hey, ignore that last order.

[size=x-large]BOING![/size]

Must... Call... 9...1...1..........Ring...

"Hello, 911Truth.org"

Dough!

Robot, shutdown now.

[size=xx-large]STOMP![/size]

Damn you Vista!

<embed FlashVars='videoId=124308' src='http://www.thedailyshow.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>
 
“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.”

Why should we agree with your hypothesis over anyone else’s just because you are an architect? Since when did an architect be an expert in bringing a building down?

As Dennis. J. Kollar has a Bachelor of Science Degree in civil engineering and you DON”T, his opinion holds less weight than yours?....I think NOT.
And as an Architect you have no knowledge of how controlled demolition works because you have never performed one or even seem to know anyone who has performed one!

You definitely have the knowledge and access to people who know how to erect buildings but you don’t seem to know or mention any professional people who Demolish buildings for a living.
Anyone who has seen a controlled Demolition of any of the hundreds that have been televised can tell pretty quickly what one looks like, you don’t need any degree for that.

How many buildings have you demolished in your time?

Why would the original engineers or architects or whoever design a building that was unable to withstand being hit by an aircraft?
Buildings all over the world have been hit by aircraft and none have gone down in the manner of the twin towers.
All you have said so far is “I am an Architect and I know more than you and you because I know what it takes to construct one of these buildings etc., etc.”
“Hmm, sounds like he's a welder with a degree in Civil Engineering.”

Sounds like an Architect with NO other degree!

All we are left is here, is an Architects opinion of a profession he is not qualified for (Demolition).
So your opinion is all that is left and it is up to those who have seen the tragedy to decide whether they think that it was staged or not.
 
Well, by your own way of thinking Astro, what makes you an expert on expertism? You're an architect. I guess we would need to ask a expert bullshit artist, to see who's bullshiting. Maybe ask Bush what he thinks. He'll probably say the conspiracy theorists are full of it, and side with the official story. That's enough to make you join the conspiracy side, no? :)
 
Paranormal Packrat said:
Well, by your own way of thinking Astro, what makes you an expert on expertism? You're an architect. I guess we would need to ask a expert bullshit artist, to see who's bullshiting. Maybe ask Bush what he thinks. He'll probably say the conspiracy theorists are full of it, and side with the official story. That's enough to make you join the conspiracy side, no? :)

I believed I've already thoroughly debunked myself when I noted that I was not as qualified as a structural engineer and took myself out of the picture.

You're right. I've got plenty of conspiracy ideas. I'm just trying to gather my bullshit together in a nice big pile so I can poop it out in a coherent manner.

I've come to the conclusion that I take myself too seriously and need a good spanking.

Thank you, sir! May I have another.
 
Astroboy said:
Paranormal Packrat said:
Well, by your own way of thinking Astro, what makes you an expert on expertism? You're an architect. I guess we would need to ask a expert bullshit artist, to see who's bullshiting. Maybe ask Bush what he thinks. He'll probably say the conspiracy theorists are full of it, and side with the official story. That's enough to make you join the conspiracy side, no? :)

I believed I've already thoroughly debunked myself when I noted that I was not as qualified as a structural engineer and took myself out of the picture.

You're right. I've got plenty of conspiracy ideas. I'm just trying to gather my bullshit together in a nice big pile so I can poop it out in a coherent manner.

I've come to the conclusion that I take myself too seriously and need a good spanking.

Thank you, sir! May I have another.

Nah, I didn't get your stomp post. I was like, HUH?

Wow. Many people won't be so humble. You've now gained credibility in my eyes.
 
Do you actually think that your slipshod, want-to-be analysis actually refutes anything? You rest a case against Jones' "Why Indeed Did the Towers Collapse" on the assertion that he's not a structural engineer? They found molten steel at the bottom of the pile of rubble 6 weeks AFTER the attack! And molten steel was pouring out of the building after a plane crashed into it! It's on tape! What's more, his essay disproves, by EXPERIMENT, the govt's silly nonsense about the steel actually being aluminum from the airplane wreckage! He personally melted airplane aluminum and steel, compared the results with the 9/11 footage, obtained a sample of 9/11 tower 1 and 2 wreckage, did a lab-analysis of it, and much, much more. Have you ever heard of a syllogism? A) Jet-fuel cannot melt steel. B) Steel melted sometime during the 9/11 attack. C) Something other than jet-fuel melted steel at the 9/11 site.

All you can say is that Jones isn't a structural engineer? Where is your brain?

Do you think that your meaningless one-liner about Griffin actually matters? Have you even read his books!? Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report, Ommissions and Distortions? Have you read the New Pearl Harbor? Have you read anything?

Where does this silly idea come from, that a person can only speak intelligently on a subject he's got a PhD in? Haven't you ever heard of independent study? I can read a book about biology, read peer reviewed journals, and review labwork -- I don't need some snotty academic in a labcoat to present me with a diploma in order to know about it. Similarly, Griffin can study the details of the 9/11 event and educate himself even though his PhD is in Philosophy and Religion.

"Homer was a poet, not a warrior. What does he know about who is the best fighter?"
 
There is an element of the logical fallacy "All 'x' are 'y' (where y is a characteristic that all 'xs' possess) therefore all 'not x' are 'not y'" here (even if we ignore Chuckleberry's excellent rebuttal of the 'scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz' argument about formal qualifications).
 
grannysmith said:
There is an element of the logical fallacy "All 'x' are 'y' (where y is a characteristic that all 'xs' possess) therefore all 'not x' are 'not y'" here.

No, there isn't. X cannot melt steel. Period. End of story. Therefore not X melted steel. According to Jones, not X was thermate, since the wreckage was covered in magnesium, sulfur, and a number of other compounds typically left over after a thermate explosion.
 
Chuckleberryfinn said:
grannysmith said:
There is an element of the logical fallacy "All 'x' are 'y' (where y is a characteristic that all 'xs' possess) therefore all 'not x' are 'not y'" here.

No, there isn't. X cannot melt steel. Period. End of story. Therefore not X melted steel. According to Jones, not X was thermate, since the wreckage was covered in magnesium, sulfur, and a number of other compounds typically left over after a thermate explosion.

Sorry, I was referring to Astroboy's : Licensed Structural Engineers possess credibility, therefore, non- Licensed Structural Engineers possess no credibility, approach.

I shoulda quoted but I edited to add approval of your particular critique of formal/informal qualifications to speak with credibility (which nixed the original 'response to op, less need to quote' format of my post).
 
Now that my ass is sore I believe we are getting somewhere.

I will take the side of the controlled demolition hypothesis. Let's work together.

Why don't we all research as much information about controlled demolitions because this is what we all believed happened? We can then see if it fits our theory. Of course to be fair we can't use data from biased source. So we won't use information provided by debunking sites, Popular Mechanics, government sources. Nor will we use Jones work or the proof provided by 911 conspiracy sites.

Everyone who makes an argument must provide sources to back up their position. Anyone who breaks the rules and uses information that references banned sources will have their arguments nullified.

I would like one small concession however. If we can find some secret gov technology that is damning can we use it as proof?

Can we all agree on this approach? Can you think of any other rules that would make our research fair?
 
How about Danny Jowenko? Owner of this company:

http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,3,2

Is that a "Crediable" source?

Again, the controlled demo stuff is limited in the 9/11 debate. It's questionable for either side. There are points that are NOT debatable though and those are the points I like to focus on. When hijackers trained at Naval bases, on record and confirmed, there is NO DEBATE about that. There is no debate that NORARD, NORTHCOM, FEMA, and the NRO were all running war games that day. There is no debate that the head of the ISI from Pakistan was in DC meeting with Porter Goss on the morning of 9/11/01, the guy who wired $100,000 to Atta. There is no debate that FBI agent Robert Wright had knowledge to help stop the attacks and was told to not investigate, later tried to talk about it and was hit a gag order that said he would go to jail if he talked about what he knows. There is no debate about the PNAC document that called for the event 10 months before it happened, written by the Neo-Con administration. There is no debate that 9/11 HERO Willie Rodriguez who saved more then a dozen firemen that day said there was an explosion on the B-2 level BEFORE the first plane it. I can go on and on....

Question though. Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report?
 
Chuckleberryfinn said:
There is no rational justification for banning any sources, debunking or otherwise.

I would think that since no one trusts the research done by the other side of this debate that finding true independent sources of information both sides agree are accurate would be highly valuable exercise. No?

Otherwise the debunker's information is just as valid and this just goes in a endless pointless circle.

Isn't this the problem with UFOlogy? Many people don't check the sources and try to do independent research?

As we speak I am waiting for a reply from a company that has created a thermite linear pyrotechnic cutting device. I am asking about what their product is and how it can be used. This can be used to support our position of controlled demolition. I am willing to go this far. I don't know where this will lead but I'm willing to find out. Dare you follow?
 
I'm not in a hurry to conclude when it comes to 9/11. Certain things like the Pentagon tape, and statements about the hijackers and building seven need released etc. It's just like Roswell. My mind isn't made up and neither theories have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt with me. Well, I am convinced that the planes weren't holograms, so minus that sort of thing.
 
cottonzway said:
How about Danny Jowenko? Owner of this company:

http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,3,2

Is that a "Crediable" source?

Again, the controlled demo stuff is limited in the 9/11 debate. It's questionable for either side. There are points that are NOT debatable though and those are the points I like to focus on. When hijackers trained at Naval bases, on record and confirmed, there is NO DEBATE about that. There is no debate that NORARD, NORTHCOM, FEMA, and the NRO were all running war games that day. There is no debate that the head of the ISI from Pakistan was in DC meeting with Porter Goss on the morning of 9/11/01, the guy who wired $100,000 to Atta. There is no debate that FBI agent Robert Wright had knowledge to help stop the attacks and was told to not investigate, later tried to talk about it and was hit a gag order that said he would go to jail if he talked about what he knows. There is no debate about the PNAC document that called for the event 10 months before it happened, written by the Neo-Con administration. There is no debate that 9/11 HERO Willie Rodriguez who saved more then a dozen firemen that day said there was an explosion on the B-2 level BEFORE the first plane it. I can go on and on....

Question though. Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report?

I tried to go to the website but I can't read French.

I don't questions any of the things you say but this disparate bits of information doesn't prove anything to me. I certainly doesn't prove that it is impossible for planes colliding into a building couldn't bring it down. If you want to focus on why it is impossible for the plane scenario to happen then I'd be glad to discuss it.

We all like to see patterns in disparate things that are not necessarily connected. That is human nature. People see Jesus on a toast. The other day someone said they heard gunfire. The reality was that someone committed suicide by jumping of the top of a building across from where I live. His head exploded when it hit the sidewalk and this popping sounded like gunfire. Very bloody scene and totally disgusting.

I'm going to eat lunch now.
 
cottonzway said:
Question though. Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report?

Remember, everything the government says is a lie.

Government: 2+2=4
Me: Wait, 2+2 IS 4.
Me: But that can't be true because everything they say is a lie.
Me: But that's not true because I know 2+2=4.
Me: But that's impossible because I know they only tell lies!

Then my head explodes. Sounds like gunfire though.
 
Back
Top