was 911 an inside job?
- Thread starter MASTERWES311
- Start date
Not plausible. The bodies like the CIA and the FBI are filled by men and women who are pledged to protect the country. They are overwhelmingly patriotic and well motivated people and any hint of interference in reacting to a threat of this magnitude would be strongly resisted.
Now, just for the record, let me state my "credentials" go as far as Bush. I loathe the guy. Him and Cheney both. A lot. But I really don't think they could have been involved. No, I don't think it was an inside job.
It's not something I would rate as absolutely impossible, but I don't think it occurred here. I also think that, even if it WAS an inside job, it's all but unproveable at this point. So, it's an unhelpful, distracting, useless discussion to have, and it has to be one of the worst topics for forum discussions. Just my 2 cents.
It's not something I would rate as absolutely impossible, but I don't think it occurred here. I also think that, even if it WAS an inside job, it's all but unproveable at this point. So, it's an unhelpful, distracting, useless discussion to have, and it has to be one of the worst topics for forum discussions. Just my 2 cents.
Nope.
No it was NOT an inside job. I do believe however that our government knew more about the events leading up to 911 than we (the public) were led to believe. What bothered me greatly (besides the obvious) during the days after 911 was seeing all the Washington "Big-Wheels" standing on the steps of the capital singing God Bless America...Only days before these were the same buffoons that voted to take all references of the 10 commandments out of all public buildings, court houses, libraries, schools,etc.
99% of the conspiracy theories floating around 9/11 don't even strike me as worth looking into. It WASN'T a plane that hit the Pentagon??? An internal explosion at the WTC Twin Towers?? Come on.
I will say though, that while I haven't looked into it very thoroughly, some of the info. about Tower 7 (I think that's the one) at the WTC, and how, when it came down, some of that info. does strike me as rather odd (esp. the "countdown" stuff in the vids I've seen, w/ cops involved and such)....
But still, on the whole, I'm thinking "No."
I will say though, that while I haven't looked into it very thoroughly, some of the info. about Tower 7 (I think that's the one) at the WTC, and how, when it came down, some of that info. does strike me as rather odd (esp. the "countdown" stuff in the vids I've seen, w/ cops involved and such)....
But still, on the whole, I'm thinking "No."
They were probably aware that something was going to happen but with no specific details on which to act.With hindsight (which is 20/20 vision) perhaps the clues were there but I'm certain that nobody expected anything like that to happen.Neither of course would they have allowed it if they had known.
dick van cock
Closed Account
Yes, it was an inside job!
... and the holocaust never happened!
... and the holocaust never happened!
How can anyone worry about such nonsense when there are leprechauns in Mobile, Alabama...
*leprechauns* :eek:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8
H
*leprechauns* :eek:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8
H
Finally read the NIST and peer-reviewed ASCE analysis of the towers collapse ...
Over the last few months, I've been hit with a lot of the analysis of the towers and the over-proliferation of simple facts. People started talking about the temperature of burning kerosene and the melting point of steel. So instead of being ignorant of all the facts the naysayers were saying, I decided to actually read the NIST findings and the peer-reviewed ASCE analysis.
Then, being an engineer who has elementary static engineering mechanics that have been commonly known for the last century plus, I felt like an idiot. It's one of those things that had I continued down the same course as my father, in civil engineering, I would know this off the top-of-my-head. But since I went down the electrical engineering route, and was involved with aerospace for half my career, I didn't realize the simple truths with steel integrity and static engineering mechanics like I do with many of the falsehoods in the Moon Landings conspiracy theories when it comes to dynamic engineering mechanics.
Reality: The Steel Didn't Melt
This is just like anything else, people think steel had to melt to cause the towers to collapse, just like there must be air for the flag to wave or a golf ball to wobble on the Moon. Basic, 18th century physics at work here, combined with almost 150 years of engineering and technology know-how and structural integrity in common practice. Steel bent, and eventually broke, not melted, due to several, compounding factors. As such, the argument over temperatures and melting points is utterly off-point.
When the airplanes hit the towers, two (2) of the three (3) main structural truss and other systems were compromised. But the remaining one (1), intact structure survived and, indeed, would be enough to hold the building on its own. But that's with no other load factors and their corresponding vectors affecting the load assumptions in the design, let alone not a reduction in the integrity of steel due to increased temperatures and pressure.
As other materials started to lose integrity before steel, they started to give way, causing additional loads with fulcrum and other "simple machines" working against it via new vectors the steel's truss and superstructure was not designed for (at least not alone). At the same time, the steel itself was bending due to the heat reaching temperatures where it does bend at lower loads than when not, and reaching critical points where tensile and other load thresholds that keep steel from bending, and even breaking, were surpassed.
It was the:
- Combination of additional loads, at vectors that were not designed in the remaning superstructure and last truss left uncompromised
- The temperature, caused by the burning of kerosene for countless dozens of minutes, that caused the steel's own structural integrity to be reduced
- To a lesser affect, but still significant enough, the firestorm also caused increased pressures, much like has been used in intense and concentrated bombings (only in the confines of a space like internal to a building, with air still provided via holes large enough to support it)
- And the resulting bending and, in some cases, breaking of the steel, that compounded upon one another
- Causing more structures below it to take on more load, and cascading down with more, increased load
This is supported by countless video of the event, as floors sagged, new loads (with their vectors) introduced, and the known, structrual integrity of steel at increased temperatures.
Furthermore, we saw a similar "engineering failure in action" just more recently in California. This was in the I-80 triple overpass outside of the Bay area. A gasoline tanker caught fire, the fire raged (at a lower temperature than kerosene I might add) on the middle overpass, above another one, and the upper deck eventually collapsed, steel and all. Once again here, the steel didn't melt, it bent and eventually broke at points, as the other materials collapsed, added loads (with vectors) reduced the effectiveness of the truss design. The the integrity of the steel itself was also reduced by the temperature, with the resulting bends stretched beyond the thresholds of the tensile and other, allowable values by the steel.
I don't do civil engineering every day, and most of my past civil engineering analysis (growing up in a consulting engineering household) was how to build tolerant, redundant and stable structure designs and trusses. It was partially re-inforced by my eventual engineering core classes, such as static engineering mechanics and basic materials, but not to the point that I could write a system of equations that would describe the factors and eventual failures of the truss and superstructure under the loads (and their vectors) when the steel was under increased temperature (and reduced structual integrity).
In reviewing the NIST and then peer-reviewed ASCE material in requested, I got their description of the system. Elementary triple integral calculus derivations, combined with the threshold values, show that over the time and added loads -- with the removal of over half of the initial support due to impact -- made me realize it was only a matter of time before they came down.
As with the Moon Landings, people like to use simple facts in a discrete argument to explain things, and often based on facts that were -- in reality -- not even relevant to the issue. Just like the fact that air is allegedly required for the flag to wave or a ball to wobble in a vacuum on the Moon, the fact that steel must allegedly melt to fail was not even relevant to the issue. Again, if I was a civil engineer with years of analysis of structural failures, I would have realized this off the top-of-my-head like I do when people start talking about Armstrong/Aldrin's waving after opening the values of the ascent engine or Shepard's ball wobbling after his swing. Instead, I'm blind-sided, once again, by simple assumptions and critiques that go against basic, 18th/19th century engineering principles when I remember them.
Just thought it was enlightening to read these things and understand how and why a select few people can pry upon the greater ignorance of the majority who are without this exposure. Even I, a degreed engineer with some past civil engineering exposure (although not professional for myself), didn't first realize the obviousness of the truth from an engineering mechanics perspective until I started reading the report. Then I felt like an idiot, and sorry for anyone who believed it when I could more than understand why they might be taken to argue otherwise, based on the simple assumptions the conspiracy theorists put forth.
I can go beyond just imagining the frustration the NIST and ASCE must feel when these arguments come up. I can understand them because I see them when people talk about the Moon Landings being faked. Anyone who even stops to argue with someone over the melting points of steel and temperature of burning kerosene should recognize it's not even part of the argument. Just like I've seen countless other arguments put forth, based on assumptions, when it comes to light sources and BC-era Aristole assumptions of physics when it comes to the Moon Landings. The key is to realize that someone's not an engineer, and you have to get them to realize the context of their argument is their own undoing.
Over the last few months, I've been hit with a lot of the analysis of the towers and the over-proliferation of simple facts. People started talking about the temperature of burning kerosene and the melting point of steel. So instead of being ignorant of all the facts the naysayers were saying, I decided to actually read the NIST findings and the peer-reviewed ASCE analysis.
Then, being an engineer who has elementary static engineering mechanics that have been commonly known for the last century plus, I felt like an idiot. It's one of those things that had I continued down the same course as my father, in civil engineering, I would know this off the top-of-my-head. But since I went down the electrical engineering route, and was involved with aerospace for half my career, I didn't realize the simple truths with steel integrity and static engineering mechanics like I do with many of the falsehoods in the Moon Landings conspiracy theories when it comes to dynamic engineering mechanics.
Reality: The Steel Didn't Melt
This is just like anything else, people think steel had to melt to cause the towers to collapse, just like there must be air for the flag to wave or a golf ball to wobble on the Moon. Basic, 18th century physics at work here, combined with almost 150 years of engineering and technology know-how and structural integrity in common practice. Steel bent, and eventually broke, not melted, due to several, compounding factors. As such, the argument over temperatures and melting points is utterly off-point.
When the airplanes hit the towers, two (2) of the three (3) main structural truss and other systems were compromised. But the remaining one (1), intact structure survived and, indeed, would be enough to hold the building on its own. But that's with no other load factors and their corresponding vectors affecting the load assumptions in the design, let alone not a reduction in the integrity of steel due to increased temperatures and pressure.
As other materials started to lose integrity before steel, they started to give way, causing additional loads with fulcrum and other "simple machines" working against it via new vectors the steel's truss and superstructure was not designed for (at least not alone). At the same time, the steel itself was bending due to the heat reaching temperatures where it does bend at lower loads than when not, and reaching critical points where tensile and other load thresholds that keep steel from bending, and even breaking, were surpassed.
It was the:
- Combination of additional loads, at vectors that were not designed in the remaning superstructure and last truss left uncompromised
- The temperature, caused by the burning of kerosene for countless dozens of minutes, that caused the steel's own structural integrity to be reduced
- To a lesser affect, but still significant enough, the firestorm also caused increased pressures, much like has been used in intense and concentrated bombings (only in the confines of a space like internal to a building, with air still provided via holes large enough to support it)
- And the resulting bending and, in some cases, breaking of the steel, that compounded upon one another
- Causing more structures below it to take on more load, and cascading down with more, increased load
This is supported by countless video of the event, as floors sagged, new loads (with their vectors) introduced, and the known, structrual integrity of steel at increased temperatures.
Furthermore, we saw a similar "engineering failure in action" just more recently in California. This was in the I-80 triple overpass outside of the Bay area. A gasoline tanker caught fire, the fire raged (at a lower temperature than kerosene I might add) on the middle overpass, above another one, and the upper deck eventually collapsed, steel and all. Once again here, the steel didn't melt, it bent and eventually broke at points, as the other materials collapsed, added loads (with vectors) reduced the effectiveness of the truss design. The the integrity of the steel itself was also reduced by the temperature, with the resulting bends stretched beyond the thresholds of the tensile and other, allowable values by the steel.
I don't do civil engineering every day, and most of my past civil engineering analysis (growing up in a consulting engineering household) was how to build tolerant, redundant and stable structure designs and trusses. It was partially re-inforced by my eventual engineering core classes, such as static engineering mechanics and basic materials, but not to the point that I could write a system of equations that would describe the factors and eventual failures of the truss and superstructure under the loads (and their vectors) when the steel was under increased temperature (and reduced structual integrity).
In reviewing the NIST and then peer-reviewed ASCE material in requested, I got their description of the system. Elementary triple integral calculus derivations, combined with the threshold values, show that over the time and added loads -- with the removal of over half of the initial support due to impact -- made me realize it was only a matter of time before they came down.
As with the Moon Landings, people like to use simple facts in a discrete argument to explain things, and often based on facts that were -- in reality -- not even relevant to the issue. Just like the fact that air is allegedly required for the flag to wave or a ball to wobble in a vacuum on the Moon, the fact that steel must allegedly melt to fail was not even relevant to the issue. Again, if I was a civil engineer with years of analysis of structural failures, I would have realized this off the top-of-my-head like I do when people start talking about Armstrong/Aldrin's waving after opening the values of the ascent engine or Shepard's ball wobbling after his swing. Instead, I'm blind-sided, once again, by simple assumptions and critiques that go against basic, 18th/19th century engineering principles when I remember them.
Just thought it was enlightening to read these things and understand how and why a select few people can pry upon the greater ignorance of the majority who are without this exposure. Even I, a degreed engineer with some past civil engineering exposure (although not professional for myself), didn't first realize the obviousness of the truth from an engineering mechanics perspective until I started reading the report. Then I felt like an idiot, and sorry for anyone who believed it when I could more than understand why they might be taken to argue otherwise, based on the simple assumptions the conspiracy theorists put forth.
I can go beyond just imagining the frustration the NIST and ASCE must feel when these arguments come up. I can understand them because I see them when people talk about the Moon Landings being faked. Anyone who even stops to argue with someone over the melting points of steel and temperature of burning kerosene should recognize it's not even part of the argument. Just like I've seen countless other arguments put forth, based on assumptions, when it comes to light sources and BC-era Aristole assumptions of physics when it comes to the Moon Landings. The key is to realize that someone's not an engineer, and you have to get them to realize the context of their argument is their own undoing.
911 was an incredible coincidence, the way those planes crashed into the towers at the exact moment when the CIA blew them up with high explosives planted there the night before
It takes brains to pull off something like this. So no...not an inside job.
When political arguments override technical reality ...
Every conspiracy theory that has come up about 9/11 has had its technical flaws, beyond the social ones. Every conspiracy with a sizeable number of people always has social issues, beyond just the technical ones.
As an engineer, theories that the Moon Landings were faked have technical assertions that are laughable in engineering societies I am active with. The assertions on the inability of planes to bring down the towers are also laughable in equivalent engineering societies many of my colleagues are active with.
Which brings us back to only the social ones. Then again, people on this board assert the US was behind World War I and II, and countless other things. At some point, blaming one country for everything gets rather old.
Especially when I'm the first to admit that the US, especially its CIA from the '50s through '70s, really screwed a lot of countries up. I can point to our foul-ups rather easily, and you can see the socio-political impacts that are still on-going today. Just like you can see the even longer-term socio-political impacts of Imperialism by European powers as well.
There have been countless scandals in the US that come out, with far less people and in far reduced time. For the Moon Landings or 9/11 to be conspiracies, you'd have to have no one in a much larger group of people talk. And the probability of that gets far, far less.
As far as the technical ones, such as the steel in the towers, it's now a matter of ignorance. Even I -- an engineer -- was ignorant of all the details until I sat down and read the NIST findings, and the subsequent comments of the ASCE. Luckily I was educated enough to understand them.
I feel for people who are not, and will choose political alignment over technical reality. Just like they continue to do so when it comes to the Moon Landings. You can have renowned experts in the room and debunk the conspiracy theories and some people will still choose political alignments, even after those "sitting on the fence" wake up to the fact that someone took advantage of their ignorance.
Which is why it's not about "right" or "wrong."
Which is why it's not about "dumb" or "smart."
It's all about why you should be educated, so you can separate the truth from those prying on ignorance.
For if we are not educated, and lack of understanding is our mainstay, we are surely doomed.
And just like the arguments I hear on the moon landings, the conspiracy theories on the towers just make me shake my head.
It's one thing to push forth social arguments, but it's another to see people proliferating alleged "facts" from a standpoint of ignorance.
I can't say I'm right or wrong on social matters, but sometimes I really hate being one of the few people on this board that can understand the technical ones.
Or have the exposure to US military programs and classified details to understand the relationship between Airbus and Northrup-Grumman.
And the countless other aspects and discussions that people love to throw around as if they remotely have the education and/or exposure.
Every conspiracy theory that has come up about 9/11 has had its technical flaws, beyond the social ones. Every conspiracy with a sizeable number of people always has social issues, beyond just the technical ones.
As an engineer, theories that the Moon Landings were faked have technical assertions that are laughable in engineering societies I am active with. The assertions on the inability of planes to bring down the towers are also laughable in equivalent engineering societies many of my colleagues are active with.
Which brings us back to only the social ones. Then again, people on this board assert the US was behind World War I and II, and countless other things. At some point, blaming one country for everything gets rather old.
Especially when I'm the first to admit that the US, especially its CIA from the '50s through '70s, really screwed a lot of countries up. I can point to our foul-ups rather easily, and you can see the socio-political impacts that are still on-going today. Just like you can see the even longer-term socio-political impacts of Imperialism by European powers as well.
There have been countless scandals in the US that come out, with far less people and in far reduced time. For the Moon Landings or 9/11 to be conspiracies, you'd have to have no one in a much larger group of people talk. And the probability of that gets far, far less.
As far as the technical ones, such as the steel in the towers, it's now a matter of ignorance. Even I -- an engineer -- was ignorant of all the details until I sat down and read the NIST findings, and the subsequent comments of the ASCE. Luckily I was educated enough to understand them.
I feel for people who are not, and will choose political alignment over technical reality. Just like they continue to do so when it comes to the Moon Landings. You can have renowned experts in the room and debunk the conspiracy theories and some people will still choose political alignments, even after those "sitting on the fence" wake up to the fact that someone took advantage of their ignorance.
Which is why it's not about "right" or "wrong."
Which is why it's not about "dumb" or "smart."
It's all about why you should be educated, so you can separate the truth from those prying on ignorance.
For if we are not educated, and lack of understanding is our mainstay, we are surely doomed.
And just like the arguments I hear on the moon landings, the conspiracy theories on the towers just make me shake my head.
It's one thing to push forth social arguments, but it's another to see people proliferating alleged "facts" from a standpoint of ignorance.
I can't say I'm right or wrong on social matters, but sometimes I really hate being one of the few people on this board that can understand the technical ones.
Or have the exposure to US military programs and classified details to understand the relationship between Airbus and Northrup-Grumman.
And the countless other aspects and discussions that people love to throw around as if they remotely have the education and/or exposure.
My biggest problem is that a lot of these new conspiracy theorists, aside form their lack of credible arguments, are really just people that want to undermine the power/belief structure of people so that they can implant their own and use it as a means towards their own ends, which are probably worse than the one's that they claim to be against.
People like Ron Paul will soap-box all about Civil Liberties, telling people what they want to hear about getting out of Iraq, but he wants to ban gay marriage.
reminds me of a classic line, "Did you ever notice that the more they dole out freedom over there, the more they take it away over here?"
Alex Jones, whose famous for his 9/11 conspiracy theorizing, also has a conspiracy theory about the government trying to implement population control through women's health organizations, which is just a convoluted and manipulative way of saying that he is anti-abortion and anti-women's choice.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
People have accused me of pandering to the government MO and changing my position whenever I am critical of these kinds of people, but really I'm stressing the same point that I always have been and will be:
Keep your eyes open and watch out for the people that are trying to screw you.
People like Ron Paul will soap-box all about Civil Liberties, telling people what they want to hear about getting out of Iraq, but he wants to ban gay marriage.
reminds me of a classic line, "Did you ever notice that the more they dole out freedom over there, the more they take it away over here?"
Alex Jones, whose famous for his 9/11 conspiracy theorizing, also has a conspiracy theory about the government trying to implement population control through women's health organizations, which is just a convoluted and manipulative way of saying that he is anti-abortion and anti-women's choice.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
People have accused me of pandering to the government MO and changing my position whenever I am critical of these kinds of people, but really I'm stressing the same point that I always have been and will be:
Keep your eyes open and watch out for the people that are trying to screw you.
Maybe you misunderstand me. As you can see from my comments in this thread, I have pointed out both valid examples to reinforce conspiracy and unclear logic that goes away from it.
I think it's pretty clear and you should know how I feel about the destruction of the WTC, but for the most part I have tried to offer an objective analysis in this thread and omit my own pure personal feelings.
A conspiracy is merely a calculated attempt to falsify or otherwise distract from the truth of an incident.
I support "conspiracy theorists" because I believe that examination and questioning and seeking the truth should be everyone's goal and prerogative.
But there are people who aren't doing that, they are actually conspirators, in the definition that I stated earlier.
A good way to spot these fakes is people who won't answer questions or refuse to be scrutinized. If someone expects you to believe them whole cloth, than you can almost always bet they are a liar.
Only liars need to be believed. people who know the truth, who knows that they are right, don't need to work at convincing others, because they will be able to see it on thier own.
I think it's pretty clear and you should know how I feel about the destruction of the WTC, but for the most part I have tried to offer an objective analysis in this thread and omit my own pure personal feelings.
A conspiracy is merely a calculated attempt to falsify or otherwise distract from the truth of an incident.
I support "conspiracy theorists" because I believe that examination and questioning and seeking the truth should be everyone's goal and prerogative.
But there are people who aren't doing that, they are actually conspirators, in the definition that I stated earlier.
A good way to spot these fakes is people who won't answer questions or refuse to be scrutinized. If someone expects you to believe them whole cloth, than you can almost always bet they are a liar.
Only liars need to be believed. people who know the truth, who knows that they are right, don't need to work at convincing others, because they will be able to see it on thier own.
"Third hand" conspiracy proliferation ...
I read your posts and you just seem to be objecting or questioning without much else or direction.
They are passed on to people "second hand" by people who came up with them "first hand" in the hope it pries on their collective ignorance.
By sheer numbers, they now tie-up the significantly few number of experts with the ignorance of non-experts.
It's pretty clear when virtually all experts overwhelmingly agree something is not or absolutely technical reality, then it's a strong case.
Such is the case for the Moon Landings as well as the Failures of the WTC structure.
I'm not talking about the social arguments (which are not and exact science), but the technical ones (which are).
If I start talking about the angular momentum on Alan Shepard's golf ball, people look at me if I'm talking voodoo.
But they were the ones that told me in the first place that it couldn't wobble in a vacuum without air.
They first asserted something that was wrong as of 18th century physics, based on BC-era Greek philosophy.
It was not I who did that, they went out of their way to do so with myself, just because they found out I worked for NASA.
And that was based on their hearing something second or third hand.
We've had this same argument on the red herring of nuclear waste.
We can go on in various other areas.
I actually took the time to read the NIST reports, and the ASCE comments, and as an engineer, I hit my head because it should had been obvious.
I feel like an utter ass because for the last few years, people keep feeding me, "steel doesn't melt at kerosene combustion temperatures" when that's wasn't the reality any more than "this type of motion requires air."
It had nothing to do with melting just like it had nothing to do with lack of air.
At some point, you have to ignore the majority and only engage those who have some idea of the science behind something.
People who want to know the truth are those who will want to educate themselves enough so they can understand it.
We must remain educated to be free, and no where does it say that "truth" is based on "majority assumption."
If anything, I've learned as an engineer that "majority assumption" is typically the opposite of the truth when it comes to applied science.
Although I grew up in the American generation that couldn't do complete math, so that might explain some of it.
But even I thought the argument was over steel melting, not realizing -- as I should have -- that it had nothing to do with the elementary static engineering mechanics that did explain it perfectly.
It used to be that we had colleagues we trusted to have such education/experience.
But today, the general consensus is to challenge anyone and everyone on the basic, fundamental laws behind many scientific disciplines, without any attempt to understand them.
BTW, here's an excellent quote from:
http://www.dimaggio.org/Glasgow/SPST/nov_2004.htm
"After a stirring conclusion under the ScottishPower Planetarium's beautiful night sky, a full half-hour of discussion and debate followed. Interestingly, even after Martin and Ken's superb presentation, there were 'hoax' claim believers in the audience who remained unconvinced. It did not take long though for everyone to see that these beliefs are based more on personal prejudice than fact."
In other words, even after the most intense technical dissertations, there will still be some people will align with political views instead of the physical laws.
This is different than the people who were duped in ignorance, and then see the other argument made from people who actually have education and experience in an area.
Likewise, these same type of people still question NIST and the ASCE, and that's the reality of the US we now live in, which is really sad.
If you want to question social aspects, that's different.
But when people want to question technical ones, it gets really old for those with the education/experience.
It's better that we just stick to the sub-1% that can understand where we come from.
Actually, I don't know what your theories are.
I read your posts and you just seem to be objecting or questioning without much else or direction.
The problem is when you start getting a majority of people spewing "third hand" conspiracy theories.
They are passed on to people "second hand" by people who came up with them "first hand" in the hope it pries on their collective ignorance.
By sheer numbers, they now tie-up the significantly few number of experts with the ignorance of non-experts.
It's pretty clear when virtually all experts overwhelmingly agree something is not or absolutely technical reality, then it's a strong case.
Such is the case for the Moon Landings as well as the Failures of the WTC structure.
I'm not talking about the social arguments (which are not and exact science), but the technical ones (which are).
When the questions aren't based on the reality of the situation, or especially not physics, hell yes!
If I start talking about the angular momentum on Alan Shepard's golf ball, people look at me if I'm talking voodoo.
But they were the ones that told me in the first place that it couldn't wobble in a vacuum without air.
They first asserted something that was wrong as of 18th century physics, based on BC-era Greek philosophy.
It was not I who did that, they went out of their way to do so with myself, just because they found out I worked for NASA.
And that was based on their hearing something second or third hand.
We've had this same argument on the red herring of nuclear waste.
We can go on in various other areas.
I actually took the time to read the NIST reports, and the ASCE comments, and as an engineer, I hit my head because it should had been obvious.
I feel like an utter ass because for the last few years, people keep feeding me, "steel doesn't melt at kerosene combustion temperatures" when that's wasn't the reality any more than "this type of motion requires air."
It had nothing to do with melting just like it had nothing to do with lack of air.
Or your honestly wasting their time, which you have been guilty of yourself. Honestly.
At some point, you have to ignore the majority and only engage those who have some idea of the science behind something.
People who want to know the truth are those who will want to educate themselves enough so they can understand it.
We must remain educated to be free, and no where does it say that "truth" is based on "majority assumption."
If anything, I've learned as an engineer that "majority assumption" is typically the opposite of the truth when it comes to applied science.
Although I grew up in the American generation that couldn't do complete math, so that might explain some of it.
But even I thought the argument was over steel melting, not realizing -- as I should have -- that it had nothing to do with the elementary static engineering mechanics that did explain it perfectly.
Actually, in most technical matters, people do not have the education/experience to understand something.
It used to be that we had colleagues we trusted to have such education/experience.
But today, the general consensus is to challenge anyone and everyone on the basic, fundamental laws behind many scientific disciplines, without any attempt to understand them.
BTW, here's an excellent quote from:
http://www.dimaggio.org/Glasgow/SPST/nov_2004.htm
"After a stirring conclusion under the ScottishPower Planetarium's beautiful night sky, a full half-hour of discussion and debate followed. Interestingly, even after Martin and Ken's superb presentation, there were 'hoax' claim believers in the audience who remained unconvinced. It did not take long though for everyone to see that these beliefs are based more on personal prejudice than fact."
In other words, even after the most intense technical dissertations, there will still be some people will align with political views instead of the physical laws.
This is different than the people who were duped in ignorance, and then see the other argument made from people who actually have education and experience in an area.
Likewise, these same type of people still question NIST and the ASCE, and that's the reality of the US we now live in, which is really sad.
If you want to question social aspects, that's different.
But when people want to question technical ones, it gets really old for those with the education/experience.
It's better that we just stick to the sub-1% that can understand where we come from.