ElMondoHummus
23rd July 2008, 12:43 PM
Arther Scheuerman wrote a column for the 911 Truthiness blog (http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/?p=167):
Its amazing to me how the ‘controlled demolition’ people most of whom have little or no knowledge or experience or expertise in the building collapse or building demolition area of expertise, just dismiss the reports of the top experts in their fields and take some bird brained radio talk shows babble as gospel. The BBC report utilized the top experts in the field. Shyam Sunder the NIST lead investigator, Gene Corley the American Society of Civil Engineers lead investigator both of whom have years and years if engineering experience. Gene Corley who was also the lead investigator in the Oklahoma City disaster, - which was destroyed by explosives, - said there was “no evidence of explosives” at the WTC site. He and Johanthan Barnett another experienced Fire Protection Engineer were on the scene and examining the steel. Dr. Barnett described the devastation caused by the interior collapse of Building 5 from fire. These are all top experts in their fields and have to get everything right in order to maintain their positions. I doubt an inexperienced person could prove them wrong on anything related to the towers collapse without years of study, but they keep trying. The vaguest possibility is immediately touted as the truth without any research or fact checking. The BBC put on the top building demolition expert Mark Loizeaux who explains how the towers collapse could not have been a controlled demolition and all he gets is blasted for being in on the conspiracy.
Four years later without inspecting any steel the Architect Richard Gage is listening to some equally uninformed Professor and has an enlightening experience and from then on he knew that the buildings “had to be brought down by explosives”. ‘That’s the only way that you could have all the exterior columns in Building 7 fail within a fraction of a second’. How do you know all the columns failed at the same moment?
Link: http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/?p=167
Granted, a good deal of it is simply a reiteration of the various arguments that have been used to refute conspiracy peddlers, but it's still a worthy read.
Its amazing to me how the ‘controlled demolition’ people most of whom have little or no knowledge or experience or expertise in the building collapse or building demolition area of expertise, just dismiss the reports of the top experts in their fields and take some bird brained radio talk shows babble as gospel. The BBC report utilized the top experts in the field. Shyam Sunder the NIST lead investigator, Gene Corley the American Society of Civil Engineers lead investigator both of whom have years and years if engineering experience. Gene Corley who was also the lead investigator in the Oklahoma City disaster, - which was destroyed by explosives, - said there was “no evidence of explosives” at the WTC site. He and Johanthan Barnett another experienced Fire Protection Engineer were on the scene and examining the steel. Dr. Barnett described the devastation caused by the interior collapse of Building 5 from fire. These are all top experts in their fields and have to get everything right in order to maintain their positions. I doubt an inexperienced person could prove them wrong on anything related to the towers collapse without years of study, but they keep trying. The vaguest possibility is immediately touted as the truth without any research or fact checking. The BBC put on the top building demolition expert Mark Loizeaux who explains how the towers collapse could not have been a controlled demolition and all he gets is blasted for being in on the conspiracy.
Four years later without inspecting any steel the Architect Richard Gage is listening to some equally uninformed Professor and has an enlightening experience and from then on he knew that the buildings “had to be brought down by explosives”. ‘That’s the only way that you could have all the exterior columns in Building 7 fail within a fraction of a second’. How do you know all the columns failed at the same moment?
Link: http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/?p=167
Granted, a good deal of it is simply a reiteration of the various arguments that have been used to refute conspiracy peddlers, but it's still a worthy read.