FYI - for those of you who may not know - David Ray Griffin has a great site :

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html


David Ray Griffin has been a professor of philosophy of religion and theology at the Claremont School of Theology in California for over 30 years. He is co-director of the Center for Process Studies there and the author or editor of over 20 books.

I encourage everyone to check out his site.
ja

Damn!! I should have not bothered getting my engineering degree!! Should have just got a degree in religion and theology at the Claremont School of Theology in California, and then I would be an expert on structural engineering!!

Would have saved so much time, no need to study maths, physics, statics, momentum, moments stress, strain, elasticty and so on. That stuff was so tricky. I realise now that I have wasted my time, studying all that stuff. Could have been an expert in engineering, just by studying theology!!

Who would have thought studying religion and theology makes you an expert in structural engineering!!

Anyway, he basically says the same stuff over and over again, thats been debunked a thousand times over.

Boring, nothing new here.

A theologian can offer NO expert opinion on issues of structural engineering. Just because he is a proffesor in religion and theology, does not mean he is an expert in the field of structural engineering!

Another non-thinker responds.

hamba a theologian is an academic whose expertise is in theology.

It doesn't mean he or she subscribes to a particular religious dogma.

Your right though. It does sound like you shouldn't have gotten your engineering degree because they obviously didn't teach you how to think beyond personal prejudice.

What David Ray Griffin is, is a thinker. Something you obviously are not!

I'm an atheist and an engineer and I feel David Ray Griffin's contribution to 9/11 studies has been enormous because he has applied his intelligent, open mind to all the issues surrounding 9/11.

You, in a smug, typically arrogant 'no-it-all' engineer attitude dismiss anyone who you you feel lacks what you consider to be valid academic credentials, regardless of what they have to say.

Smarten up man and learn to judge content and not the package!

MM

Hamba,

Would you consider being interviewed for a documentary on the science of 9/11? I've already done quite a few Ph.D.s, including Sozen at Purdue. There were several of my questions that Dr. Sozen could not answer, perhaps you can.

Please contact me.

ace [at] acebaker [dot] com

Yes, would love to!!

Will email you today!

MM

I read through it. He uses the standard stuff that has been used time and time again, that has been debunked time and time again.

He may be thinking, but he is misinformed. He is just saying the same stuff over and over again.

My point is that, alot of people see - proffesor and think ahh expert!! But, being a proffesor in theology, does not imply expert in the field of structural engineering.

I want to highlight and stress this point. People need to understand, that not everyone is an expert. People can be mislead into trusting a source that does not have reputable experience in the field, in which they are supplying a critical review.

You've previously claimed you studied an engineering course at university, but that you were a professional video editor. I assume by the previous statement you mean that you completed the engineering course not that you are a practising (licensed?) engineer?

Given this, how is it that you have not seen fit to make a single engineering based correction to the work of Bazant, NIST, Greening etc? I mean einsteen is an engineering student I believe and is constantly questioning models over at PhysOrg with actual engineering questions wheras you seem to be content to simply attack the people involved (see the numerous posts accusing me of having sockpuppets, of being immoral, corrupted etc)?

If you are seriously an engineer please read some of R Mackey's extensive criticism of DRG and rebut it. Thanks.

Hamba and whomever else thinks this stuff has been debunked. Dr. Griffin goes to a great deal of detail even painstaking at times. Who on your side of the camp has put anything together that is worthwhile and not the same 'pancaking theory'. This theory is just blue sky stuff. The architects even say this is bs that they build with these types of situations engineered into the design. They were built specifically not to pancake and not to allow any of the stairwells to act as chiminey's. History channel aside who has debunked any of this stuff.
SO - ok - fair enough - an author by any other name is still an author.
Here's a real physics professor:
Dr. Steven Jones brings to bear his 20 years of experience and peer-reviewed research in the field of physics.

http://williambowles.info/911/911_scholars2.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/StevenJones.html

You are an engineer - or so you claim - then explain in the minutia talk of engineers what your thoughts are on the total collapse of 3 buildings.
oh and while you are at it - please debunk some more engineers and architects at:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

That Physics proffesor got put on leave by his university (BYU) because of his radical theoris.

Members of AE4truth seem to have some suspicious credentials. I have a post elsewhere on this board, where I detailed a few memebers I found, who have doubtful expertise in the field of structural engineering.

The following 2 engineering associations - ASCE and IStructE, contain numerous journal articles that have been peer reviewed that explain the collapse of the buildings. These two organisations are well established in the field of structural engineering. Well respected and have thousands of members. No objections to the official account of the collapse has ever been filed by any member.

Do a search through there journal database and see for yourself.

AS mentioned bye^n, R. MAckey ahs addressed and rebutted DRG's paper in detail already.

Firstly, R. Mackey has written a 200 page rebuttal of DRG's claims which is pretty damn worthwhile and painstaking. Secondly, find me a source for the claim 'they were built specifically not to pancake' please.

Yes and here is Gregory Ulrichs comments on Mackeys 1st section and to say he is disappointed is an understatement.

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/Imp...lapseClaims.htm

I am a professor merely because I profess that I am actually an engineer but that is only because I have a Loco-Motive that I station off the rails. Some people that hold a PhD in Engineering may also use philosophic mantras like Ockhams/Occams Razor and get themselves lathered up only to leave out evidence and attempt to shave us just to save us.

But they still can't explain why there are two spellings of Ockhams Razor and are now perplexed at which one is easier to spell, "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one". I personally tryed to shave with Ockhams Razor and yet my beard keeps growing back to perplex me even further, only to observe I used the Disposable Version of Occams Razor. When the power downs don't allow me to use my electric razor I am stumped along with the stubble I stub my finger on as I rub my chin hoping to figure this out eventually.

To put it simply is to Imply with an S only to seem Smart yet Smoke at the base of the buildings confounds all logic in a natural collapse. Perhaps using my Eyes and Ears makes me smarter than the Brainiac accredited and degreed professors as the best engineers are sometimes those that are backwards, as they attempt to backward engineer their solutions.

Sorry hamba but saying it doesn't make it so, that's just a typically lame tactic your using which just reduces your credibility.

Again you are stating opinion as fact. David Ray Griffin, unlike you, sources what he debunks and provides a thorough explanation as to his reasoning.

A lot of people probably don't like your suggestion that they are in awe of anyone with professor credentials and are unable to think when confronted by them. Being a professor in theology does not mean the man has abandoned his ability to think! There are thousands of opinions being express in 9/11 forums but extremely few are being made by structural engineers.

I totally agree. People can be mislead. I would suggest that that is your sole purpose in posting at this website.

MM

Your point?

Apparently you use filters when you read my posts e^n.

I've frequently explained why I don't use math and engineering calculations to rebutt these people.

ALL those hypotheses are based on assumptive data. You can prove any theory you wish if the data isn't empirical. NIST can claim the fires were hot enough and their model was pristine.

Bazant can claim his calculations are rock solid because his assumptions as to how the towers behaved are 100% correct.

Greening, a chemist, can have his ego orgasms toying with all kinds of hypotheses.

Well I admire and respect Einsteen. He is doing what he wants to do and I have no issue with his decision to challenge people like yourself in the manner that he has chosen.

Yes. That is unfortunate. What can I say e^n?

I call 'em the way I see 'em.

You and I have had numerous encounters, and the way I see you, you see Loose Change as an ego playground where you use use sock puppets, you exercise no morality that I have observed, and I really can't think of a good thing to say about you. In my opinion you are as bad as, if not worse, as those criminals responsible for 9/11. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

I have read Ryan's stuff.

You really have to wonder about someone who chooses that particular image to represent his persona.

I have argued with Ryan as you well know and I have also proven in JREF that he is quite willing to lie when he feels that he can get away with it.

I have read 2 of David Ray Griffen's books (I doubt you have bothered since you are so deeply mired in your beliefs) and my only criticism of him is that he sometimes attempts to explain aspects of 9/11 that are too detail oriented to hold the attention of the reader.

MM

I went to see Dr. Griffin.
He is very articulate and knowledgeable concerning the events of 911. He and his fellow truthers would like to have a debate with any of the debunkers. I would like to see that as well. Fema would look like a bunch of preschoolers - oops sorry preschoolers I didn't mean to insult any of you.
Like he himself said about his non Engineer degree - "I can read".
He takes personal affront as do I at being considered a conspiracist when, in fact, it is they who have attempted to spread the conspiracy - however ludicrous.