Hey just out of curiosity what field of engineering are you, I am only asking because “engineer” can refer to alot of feilds with almost no overlap within them. For example I have an uncle who is a plastics engineer, and can tell you anything about the plastics he worked on and most anything about the rest, however if I ask him about road design, or stop and go light timeing, he is near clueless, same with electricity ect ect. So I ask because the Field of engineering is important for your area of credibility to be established.
Second as you mentioned the high rises that have collapsed due to fire, we are starting to get into the periphery of what I know though agian I stress this is only the perefery, however highrises tend to not burn down due to how they have to be constructed, that being in a manner that is highly fire resistant so that the occupants could suvive a typical fire. I would like to note however that this is not a typical fire, we also have an aircraft that barreled in causeing an added impact force, and took out both some fire breaks and extra suport, so this is not within the staandard code developments, nor would I say it collapsed due to fire. Second as someone has pointed out, Highrises HAVE collapsed due to a fire, agian they are not often, but it does happen, do you know how distructive fire even is?
Yes I can say that all the Engineers on that CONSPERCY THEORY website are incorrect. I would not say they are crackpots, but I would say that they are wrong. There are psychological elements on why its easy to fall into beliveing and arguing for that, assuming that website is in good faith, as for the websites for pilots and firefighters, same, well except for the pilots I really hope they are not crashing into high rises. I can discuss my knoledge of Cons and why people fall for them with you, and I use Con in the most braud sense of the word. I would also like to point out numbers … you bring up “Dozens” There is a scientific paper with I think about 100 maybe 1000 scientists, many of who are climate scientists saying that climate change is not real, and if it was it would be a bennifit to society, I am sure I could find a few dozen bilogists who assert evolution is wrong, HECK I know of a few dozon mathimiticans who think the consept of infinity is wrong. What I am saying is that dozens is a really small number when we are talking about a feild as big as ALL ENGINEERS (and architects as far as I care to disern is a type of engineer), that is hardly an argument.
Harrit is a quack, first off his argument for why this is not the airplanes is that thermite was present, thermite is Iron Rust, and Aluminum, I would not be surpised if both of those where there, not as thermite but existing, in a building made of steal, in a rapid oxidation (Fire) and with an airplane that is made in whole or part with Aluminum, just to think of sources off my head. Also Thermite creates fire the same thing you said could not cause a collapse. Second the Journal that it was published in had to retract that article due to failing proper peer review, and third over 20,000 engineers and architects signed there name to a counter article refuting that claim (you may note tens of thousands is far greater than dozens). This being to say I do not find his paper to be any sort of relyable, especialy when his “smoking gun” would be expected.
You mention that it would be hard to put a controled demolition up, and this is correct, its kind of hard to get thousands of people to all willingly go to there death, without anyone having any sort of log or having told someone before the event “Yeah honey, I am not going to work tomorrow, they where putting in explosives and I am not sure I trust that.” Also you mentioned much more plausable this way… agian … Aircraft have LOTS of energy both as chemical and Kennetic, and you are saying that the energy stored in a flying aircraft taking down a building is less likely than thousands of randos not spilling the beans?
Your the only one mentioning holographic planes, we all know there where no holographic planes
Also yes it was a coincidence, you know how many people where suposed to go there and did not, or get on a plane that went down, this is called survivors bias, we expect this, especialy given how high profile those towers where.
TL;DR, Learn Critical Thinking and please use that skill
Hey just out of curiosity what field of engineering are you, I am only asking because “engineer” can refer to alot of feilds with almost no overlap within them. For example I have an uncle who is a plastics engineer, and can tell you anything about the plastics he worked on and most anything about the rest, however if I ask him about road design, or stop and go light timeing, he is near clueless, same with electricity ect ect. So I ask because the Field of engineering is important for your area of credibility to be established.
Second as you mentioned the high rises that have collapsed due to fire, we are starting to get into the periphery of what I know though agian I stress this is only the perefery, however highrises tend to not burn down due to how they have to be constructed, that being in a manner that is highly fire resistant so that the occupants could suvive a typical fire. I would like to note however that this is not a typical fire, we also have an aircraft that barreled in causeing an added impact force, and took out both some fire breaks and extra suport, so this is not within the staandard code developments, nor would I say it collapsed due to fire. Second as someone has pointed out, Highrises HAVE collapsed due to a fire, agian they are not often, but it does happen, do you know how distructive fire even is?
Yes I can say that all the Engineers on that CONSPERCY THEORY website are incorrect. I would not say they are crackpots, but I would say that they are wrong. There are psychological elements on why its easy to fall into beliveing and arguing for that, assuming that website is in good faith, as for the websites for pilots and firefighters, same, well except for the pilots I really hope they are not crashing into high rises. I can discuss my knoledge of Cons and why people fall for them with you, and I use Con in the most braud sense of the word. I would also like to point out numbers … you bring up “Dozens” There is a scientific paper with I think about 100 maybe 1000 scientists, many of who are climate scientists saying that climate change is not real, and if it was it would be a bennifit to society, I am sure I could find a few dozen bilogists who assert evolution is wrong, HECK I know of a few dozon mathimiticans who think the consept of infinity is wrong. What I am saying is that dozens is a really small number when we are talking about a feild as big as ALL ENGINEERS (and architects as far as I care to disern is a type of engineer), that is hardly an argument.
Harrit is a quack, first off his argument for why this is not the airplanes is that thermite was present, thermite is Iron Rust, and Aluminum, I would not be surpised if both of those where there, not as thermite but existing, in a building made of steal, in a rapid oxidation (Fire) and with an airplane that is made in whole or part with Aluminum, just to think of sources off my head. Also Thermite creates fire the same thing you said could not cause a collapse. Second the Journal that it was published in had to retract that article due to failing proper peer review, and third over 20,000 engineers and architects signed there name to a counter article refuting that claim (you may note tens of thousands is far greater than dozens). This being to say I do not find his paper to be any sort of relyable, especialy when his “smoking gun” would be expected.
You mention that it would be hard to put a controled demolition up, and this is correct, its kind of hard to get thousands of people to all willingly go to there death, without anyone having any sort of log or having told someone before the event “Yeah honey, I am not going to work tomorrow, they where putting in explosives and I am not sure I trust that.” Also you mentioned much more plausable this way… agian … Aircraft have LOTS of energy both as chemical and Kennetic, and you are saying that the energy stored in a flying aircraft taking down a building is less likely than thousands of randos not spilling the beans?
Your the only one mentioning holographic planes, we all know there where no holographic planes
Also yes it was a coincidence, you know how many people where suposed to go there and did not, or get on a plane that went down, this is called survivors bias, we expect this, especialy given how high profile those towers where.
TL;DR, Learn Critical Thinking and please use that skill