Who knows more about 9/11 on here?

[Luntoc]

I'm talking about the engineering and science aspect of 9/11. Not about the lost trillions, or hijackers still alive, I'm talking about the engineering and science aspect of 9/11. In other words, if I had to ask someone on here about their experts opinions who would it be?

[Pardalis]

R.Mackey.

[jaydeehess]

I'm talking about the engineering and science aspect of 9/11. Not about the lost trillions, or hijackers still alive, I'm talking about the engineering and science aspect of 9/11. In other words, if I had to ask someone on here about their experts opinions who would it be?

Very oddly phrased thread title!

Science and engineering are vast subjects. Do you have a specific question so that one might be able to best direct you to a poster who understands the particular topic?

[Luntoc]

Very oddly phrased thread title!

Science and engineering are vast subjects. Do you have a specific question so that one might be able to best direct you to a poster who understands the particular topic?If I wanted to know why the towers collapse, the specifics, not the easy understanding of the fires, structural damage and the fireproofing was knocked off, who would I ask? Like for example, what the deal with column 79 on WTC 7? I read it on another website but it was hard for me to understand.Whou would I ask?

[Newtons Bit]

R.Mackey.

I concur.

There's a few of us who are better with very specific subjects, however R.Mackey has the best grip of the whole science-based picture.

[T.A.M.]

R.Mackey
Newtons Bit

There is a list here somewhere of people's backgrounds...

Theres this...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137147

and here,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70895

Near the end of this thread above is a comprehensive list of most debunkers here, and their qualifications.

TAM:)

[jaydeehess]

If I wanted to know why the towers collapse, the specifics, not the easy understanding of the fires, structural damage and the fireproofing was knocked off, who would I ask? Like for example, what the deal with column 79 on WTC 7? I read it on another website but it was hard for me to understand.Whou would I ask?

Have you tried reading the NIST report which details specifically what the deal is with column 79 in WTC 7?

If so is there a term or passage that you did not understand and would like it re-phrased in laguage that is less technical?

[Hokulele]

If you have specific questions, just post them publically and those with the relevant expertise will answer. It doesn't matter who answers, as long as the answers are correct, no?

[twinstead]

Luntoc, if you desire pithy comments, indignant diatribes, and an inability to contribute much "sciency" stuff at all, then I'M you're man! Otherwise, there's many very knowledgeable people on this forum who would suit your purposes. Just ask a question.

[TruthersLie]

Luntoc.

The real issue is do you intend to ask real questions and accept the answers that people who have the education and experience present to you? Or will you be like people like PaulHeinz and Kylebisme, who post a twoof question, and when provided SPECIFIC DETAILED answers start handwaving and bsing?

If you are in the first category, I'd suggest you post a direct question and then take the answers given. If you are the second, I'd suggest you post a direct question and let us all sit back and watch the show.

[Dave Rogers]

I'm talking about the engineering and science aspect of 9/11. Not about the lost trillions, or hijackers still alive, I'm talking about the engineering and science aspect of 9/11. In other words, if I had to ask someone on here about their experts opinions who would it be?

Ryan Mackey, definitely. For more general topics, Mark Roberts, but I don't think there's much on the science and engineering side that Mackey doesn't have an impressive command of.

Dave

[Sword_Of_Truth]

R.Mackey.

This is where the thread ended, if anyone cares.

[Stellafane]

Who knows more about 9/11 on here?

More than anyone else? Chalk me up as another R. Mackey voter, m'kay?

More than any Truther? Then just about anyone -- hell, even I would probably do.

[~enigma~]

9/11=0.818181...

So the proper answer after 3 pages is that I do.

[Cuddles]

Perhaps you'd like to try again without the derails and bickering?

[triforcharity]

I would say that in general R.Mackey, as a general thing.

Engineering- There are too many to count.

Chemistry- Sunsteeler (SP?)

Actual eyewitness accounts- BigAl, I think Justin did too, and myself, but myself only as a rescue worker.

Political- David??? I dunno. Maybe Gravy also.

Lies of the truth movement and how to prove they are BS- AlienE, Gravy, Brainster, there are some others, but their names elude me.

Is that better for you Cuddles?? :D

[Bad_Doggie]

I'm talking about the engineering and science aspect of 9/11. Not about the lost trillions, or hijackers still alive, I'm talking about the engineering and science aspect of 9/11. In other words, if I had to ask someone on here about their experts opinions who would it be?

My must read posters, that provide interesting facts based science and engineering posts are: Mackey, Newton’s Bit, Dave Rogers, Architect. Their posts provide lots to learn and re-learn.

Posters now retired: Gravy, Apollo 20.

Woof!