Then you don't know engineers at all ...
well yeah, I meant mainly with social issues.
Then I won't dismiss those.
I think that I try to argue for science and reason more often than anything.
The problem I have there is that most people don't have the education/experience to argue such.
That goes for everything, from engineering mechanics to fiscal changes.
E.g., even the rate of change in deficit is a 2nd order integral from the debt.
I.e., it's why I (among others) successfully predicted the eradication of the surplus by 2001 back in late 1999.
but science isn't perfect either.
You have to distinguish between proven experiments and theoretical conjecture.
Everything NIST and the ASCE has put forth is established and proven physical laws with over 150 years of implementation.
Even Einstein's Relativity didn't change Newton's laws, it only augmented them.
No arbitrary arguments to the contrary will sway anyone, and especially not from people who do not have the education/experience in a field to make them.
Even Einstein was a highly regarded physicist in his field -- despite his early life, that was long before, he still had to acquire the education/experience.
Sir Issac Newton was the same way, he invented calculus after taking an interest in astronomy, which led him to trigonometry, which led him to geometry, which led him to algebra, and he realized what algebra couldn't explain.
Calculus does not invalidate algebra, it just simplifies it, allowing more complex systems to be described that algebra cannot (or would require exponentially more equations to do so equivalently).
there's also a huge gap in perception, because as you say of conspiracies, so-called science is often handed down second and third hand, and so on.
Because things often appeal to people when they are simple arguments.
E.g., the BC-era physics of Greek philosophers often seem "more natural" to most than 18th Century Newton's Laws.
I don't really feel any need to look deeply into the technical aspects of 9/11 or to try and dispute them because there is no purpose. it doesn't matter anyway.
I'm not following.
Understand some people who say the Moon Landings are faked use the same approaches as those who say 9/11 was forged and a conspiracy.
Those approaches include technical arguments that appeal to the ignorant majority, who will proliferate them in numbers, and seemingly make a stronger case.
Just because someone SAYS that these are the technical parameters of the situation, doesn't make it a fact. How do you know? unless you were there and you observed it, then you can never know if it's the truth or if it's just what someone made up that sounds true.
The physical realities of a buildings design, the visual recordings of the building as it started to undergo its structural failure, etc... are well explained by static engineering mechanics 101.
The NIST took it to a new, professional level and the peer-reviews done by the ASCE show there is no way to discredit that reality.
The only people you'll find that can "discredit" the claims are chemists who will focus on the "melting" argument that has nothing to do with why the structures failed.
Just because people may posses technical and scientific knowledge doesn't make then saints.
No.
But when a virtually absolute consensus among all experts is put forth, it does make an argument from those without the education/experience quickly look like one made from a 100% political standpoint.
Especially when they want to talk about steel melting when that is not what happened, and does not happen.
why would they be less inclined to lie to suit thier purposes than everyone else is?
What does NIST or the ASCE have to gain?
Let me re-phrase that, they could be considered criminally negligent if they lied to the public.
It would be exactly like virtually every lawyer and their bar associations telling you that you are not a free man.
It not only goes against the physical laws of the universe, but they could be thrown in jail for mis-representing those laws to the public.
Yes, a licensed professional engineer is the direct equivalent to a licensed attorney and a medical doctor, in period of education plus experience plus peer-review and professional standing.
If a building collapses and they are found criminally negligent, not only will the state prosecute them at the public's cost (instead of requiring a private lawsuit), they can be levied fines as well as serve jail-time.
Beyond the fact that their career -- which they've spent over a decade achieving in their field -- is over.
By all means do the research to get the true facts. but accepting the research of someone else just because they say that it's the truth and the fact?
Apparently you didn't read what I said.
I did not merely read the report like someone reads a book.
I spent several nights on this outside of reading.
I didn't merely recognize my own knowledge on the subject when I read it.
I read the ASCE assessments of the report, then even derived some of the same equations using my own, existing knowledge.
I then used my own reference materials to know the limits of the design and the physical realities of our universe.
You know, those few books you've probably seen engineers keep on their shelves -- we don't leave them there to "look smart."
If you're not an engineer, you would not remotely understand what I'm talking about.
I'm sorry, but I've had to fall back to that answer several times -- and sure enough -- young people I knew who went through an engineering college understood
exactly what I was talking about when I got out.
We aren't arts majors where we argue viewpoints and make stands.
We're not scientists who just relay information to each other about known or new information
(physicists, I would argue, are more like engineers, and are not like this -- they actually use the same approaches we do to describe systems).
I don't see how that is very much more credible than people that admit they are just pulling things out of thin air. accept that the later might be more honest.
Then you don't know the first thing about engineering, which is typical these days.
Engineers question everything themselves, and we're pretty much like that in general.
We don't like to get answers from others, we like to get answers -- using our own equations and approaches we derive -- on our own.
We're the people who didn't cheat off of other people's papers because we have to prove to ourselves we know how to describe a system and understand it.
Not only that, we're the ones who wouldn't let you cheat off our paper's unless you first stopped to listen to how we solved the problems, which you thought defeated the purpose as you "just wanted the answers."
To do anything less is not to learn a thing, which is against the whole point of studying engineering, to learn how to describe and understand a system of interactions.
We're not into answers, we're into describing and understanding systems, and to do anything less to "just get an answer" is not worth doing at all.
Yes, we purposely give ourselves work in the hope of understanding things.
It always comes down to whatever you want and choose to believe. that goes for everyone and everything.
Bullshit.
There are physical laws in the universe that are undeniable and we study them.
Even taking physical realities beyond what was even recorded or stated about the structure, there is only so much any truss or superstructure can take.
I can't "make up" the physical realities of steel or "bend them" to fit my argument.
I can make "safe assumptions" that are well beyond the documented realities of the design of the WTC, and still come to a system of equations and thresholds in the values that are inputed where the steel will still bend and will still break as integrity and tensile strength gives way.
after all it is science that demonstrates that while reality is objective, all perception is always subjective.
Perception made in ignorance is the problem, and you
can make determinations to a certainty.
Engineers have an uncanny ability to take a "best" or "worse" case scenario and still prove the probability or improbability of a situation.
It's called a limit, trend or other description whereby a system will always fail, even if you give it parameters that are much, much greater than could be possible.
You can argue all you want about belief and perspective, but the reality is that steel can always bend and eventually break, and it happens well before any melting point as its integrity is otherwise reduced by many factors.
It's like saying you can't build a ship that can reach space when the parameters in velocity are finite and well-known and there is no way to get around that law.
A political science major said to me in college that engineering was easy because all you do is memorize formulas.
I not only laughed, but so did about a half dozen other engineering majors who were also in the library who heard him say that.
We're not into getting answers or memorizing anything, but understanding how to describe and understand systems of interactions.
Any engineering report and analysis isn't about the conclusions, but the methods that were used to come to those conclusions.
You may only look at the conclusions, but engineers constantly scrutinize each other to ensure all factors were included when it came to describing the system and writing the systems of equations that describe all of its interactions.
