You're right I'm making the same point several times, I'm sorry if it gets repetitive. I do it to try to highlight the point from several angles and to reduce ambiguity.
That said, I didn't intend my 6 paragraphs to mean "Qualified architects ..". Architecture is a discipline concerned with aesthetics, it deals with the design of spaces and how humans interact with them. It does not deal with the structural integrity of those spaces; this is why architectural firms employ and contract structural engineers, and why building plans carry separate architects and engineering seals.
An architect (and you'll note I'm making the same point a second time) is as qualified to make comments on the structural safety of steel girders as, say, an anthropologist, or a chello player.
So, and now I'm making the same point a third time: No, I'm not saying "qualified architects do not claim it was controlled demolition"; because there is no such thing as an architect who is qualified to assess that. What I'm saying is that there are 30 structural engineers on the list, and that among them there is only one who has relevant experience, and he is not making the claim that it was controlled demolition.
OK, "qualified structural engineers do not claim it was controlled demolition." (let alone obviously one, let alone thousands of them saying so.) Fair?
As evidenced by your previous comments in this thread, had he put it so succinctly, you would have asked for more clarification.
I'll put it in one sentence: "9/11 truthers are just as purposefully ignorant and ill-informed as climate change deniers and no longer deserve the time and effort of the mentally capable to rehash a conspiracy theory that is so thoroughly and completely debunked."
That said, I didn't intend my 6 paragraphs to mean "Qualified architects ..". Architecture is a discipline concerned with aesthetics, it deals with the design of spaces and how humans interact with them. It does not deal with the structural integrity of those spaces; this is why architectural firms employ and contract structural engineers, and why building plans carry separate architects and engineering seals.
An architect (and you'll note I'm making the same point a second time) is as qualified to make comments on the structural safety of steel girders as, say, an anthropologist, or a chello player.
So, and now I'm making the same point a third time: No, I'm not saying "qualified architects do not claim it was controlled demolition"; because there is no such thing as an architect who is qualified to assess that. What I'm saying is that there are 30 structural engineers on the list, and that among them there is only one who has relevant experience, and he is not making the claim that it was controlled demolition.