18-06-2012, 03:22 AM
Ed,
Iam all for people reaching their own conclusions about the world around them. My point about Griffin and Magulis, is not that they are unintelligent, for certainly they are even brilliant. But the fact remains that the destruction of the WTC was a rather complex and technically challenging matter to understand and explain. One can take a cartoon like approach and declare that they were exploded, that even a child could see it... that Al Qaeda couldn't engineer such things ergo it was an inside job. Logical but not based on a technical understanding about the destruction.
Margulis know boo about physics and engineering and so what is the value of her professional opinion in this matter? No more than Jane Doe if they are both speaking about matters they are not experts in. The same applies to Griffin who wrote a book about Building 7. I don't think he know a thing about the structure or any of the engineering that went into that building. All DRG does is clip bits and pieces of people who HE assumes to be experts and to have had their own conclusions vetted and so forth. He's not equipped to even understand some engineering and physics and he's admitted so much to me when I asked him to comment on some technical issue about the WTC. DRG is the sort of research that assembles all nature of quotes from all sorts of sources and connects the dots as he sees them. Nothing inherently wrong with this, except he can't possibly know about some topics he is writing about. It boils down to an appeal to authority argument.
I've been saying this for several years whether it is Lemkin, Fetzer, Boldwyn, Griffin, Lindaur, Margulis, Gourley, MacQueen and many others... very quick to declare what happened without the requisite background to explain it, or falsify other explanations. It's follow the lemmings and parade of the parrots.
NIST is no better. They were tasked to drill into the physics, engineering and science and really produced a sub standard report... which to many amounts to a cover up... But of what? If you believe it was CD... NIST provided cover for the guys who did the CD. If you think there was a lot of incompetence all over the place from the design to the failure to defend, then the coverup was providing protection for that crowd.
I am interested in an accurate depiction of what actually happened to the structures... The truth movement has not provided it nor as NIST.
I'm not going to take one side or the other. And I have been able to do some *basic research* to inform my understanding. Most can't so all they can do is pick the experts that they want to *parrot*. None of the above are experts... and I will not be repeating what they say.
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
I am not fooled. I'm a skeptic.
Iam all for people reaching their own conclusions about the world around them. My point about Griffin and Magulis, is not that they are unintelligent, for certainly they are even brilliant. But the fact remains that the destruction of the WTC was a rather complex and technically challenging matter to understand and explain. One can take a cartoon like approach and declare that they were exploded, that even a child could see it... that Al Qaeda couldn't engineer such things ergo it was an inside job. Logical but not based on a technical understanding about the destruction.
Margulis know boo about physics and engineering and so what is the value of her professional opinion in this matter? No more than Jane Doe if they are both speaking about matters they are not experts in. The same applies to Griffin who wrote a book about Building 7. I don't think he know a thing about the structure or any of the engineering that went into that building. All DRG does is clip bits and pieces of people who HE assumes to be experts and to have had their own conclusions vetted and so forth. He's not equipped to even understand some engineering and physics and he's admitted so much to me when I asked him to comment on some technical issue about the WTC. DRG is the sort of research that assembles all nature of quotes from all sorts of sources and connects the dots as he sees them. Nothing inherently wrong with this, except he can't possibly know about some topics he is writing about. It boils down to an appeal to authority argument.
I've been saying this for several years whether it is Lemkin, Fetzer, Boldwyn, Griffin, Lindaur, Margulis, Gourley, MacQueen and many others... very quick to declare what happened without the requisite background to explain it, or falsify other explanations. It's follow the lemmings and parade of the parrots.
NIST is no better. They were tasked to drill into the physics, engineering and science and really produced a sub standard report... which to many amounts to a cover up... But of what? If you believe it was CD... NIST provided cover for the guys who did the CD. If you think there was a lot of incompetence all over the place from the design to the failure to defend, then the coverup was providing protection for that crowd.
I am interested in an accurate depiction of what actually happened to the structures... The truth movement has not provided it nor as NIST.
I'm not going to take one side or the other. And I have been able to do some *basic research* to inform my understanding. Most can't so all they can do is pick the experts that they want to *parrot*. None of the above are experts... and I will not be repeating what they say.
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
I am not fooled. I'm a skeptic.