AE911Truth and the actual # of engineers in America...

[Telltale Tom]

Careful.
Let's do the math:


In my youth, I ran 100m in about 14 seconds (I admittedly wasn't the fastest of runners). I assume that you are now not much faster than that.
1 yard = 0.9144, so I ran 100 yards in 12.8 seconds, or at 7.8yards/s (average)
Free-fall time from the roof of the Twin Towers is a little under 10 seconds.
In 10 seconds, I could run 78 yards.


So assuming I jump of the tower at my best average dash speed, I'd make it as far as 78 yards before I hit the ground.

Not 100 yards.

If you are within 10% of the world class sprinters, you could barely make 100 yards.

:D

Except you forgot to take account of two factors

1. Prevailing wind: You forgot to take into account prevailing wind. There was 56 million cubic feet of air in each tower that blew out in about 14 seconds. According to some of our calculations at ae911truth this resulted in wind speeds of 160mph coming out of the windows. This would certainly be wind assisted according to the Olympic definition and I am sure that pretty much anyone could make 100 yards

2. Banana Effect. As you know the walls unpeeled like a banana and the debris field typically extended about 400ft from each face. You can look at any video and see the impact of the wind pressure blowing the walls out. If the typical debris field was 400ft its not surprising that some bits blew 600ft. I suggest that a very small explosive could do this rather than a big one.

[Oystein]

Tom,
as I am currently in a debate with a hopeless truther from Dallas, Texas, I played the same game with Dallas:
http://discusstingthingsthatmatter.blogspot.com/2011/04/more-trivia-from-dallas-tx.html
(that is not my blog, but I can post there, so it's my post)

Summary:
In Dallas, there are 58 firms that answer to "civil" or "structural engineering"
There are 759 civil or structural engineers in Dallas, TX with a license from the state of Texas.
Of these, precisely 0 (zero) bothered to sign the ae911truth petition.

I guess my debate partner should take it upon himself to convince the engineering community of his home town. Or at least one of them! :D

[Telltale Tom]

Oystein,

Just because ae911truth have next to zero support from the the structural engineering community, does not mean that they are wrong.

At one time almost the whole structural community believed that the world was flat. Hey it could happen again... you never know

[Grizzly Bear]

Tom, not only do you have the same nick as mine IRL you also are the parody master I could only wish I was!

[dafydd]

Oystein,

Just because ae911truth have next to zero support from the the structural engineering community, does not mean that they are wrong.

At one time almost the whole structural community believed that the world was flat. Hey it could happen again... you never know

Nah, not up to your usual trolling standard. Didn't do anything for me.

[lockstock]

Actually I have learned many things from JREF, more than from most 9/11 sites. For example, yesterday I made a new post on 911Blogger and referenced the work of Oody from JREF. Previously 911Blogger had no news about the April Gallop case. JREF is to thank for bringing more information to the debate.


Unfortunately, you seem to have left in Veale's nonsense that Judge Walker should recuse himself.

Neither Georgie senior or Georgie junior is a defendent in Miss Gallop's lawsuit. So where's the conflit of interest? Furthermore, I beleive it has already been pointed out by another JREF poster (much better versed in the legal system than I) that Judge Walker's relation to Bush is not considered a conflict of interest on legal grounds. So if you want to allow JREF to add to the 'debate' why not remove that snippet from your blog as it has already been shown to be a non-issue.

[TruthMakesPeace]

It ranks up there with your LIE about there being 1400+ architects and engineers who have signed the AE petition. There are 1400+ 'architectural and engineering professionals' who have signed it (thought I doubt the numbers are that high but I'll give it to you).

Architectural and engineering professionals ARE NOT ALL architects and ENGINEERS. you have people like draftsmen included, you have degreed but not licensed engineers. There is a VAST difference.

OK, nothing wrong with being specific. I don't see anyone labeled "draftsman" so false accusation there. Let's get an exact count then.

Here is a break down of how the 1470 are distributed, as they are clearly labeled on the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Petition, as of April 15, 2011. It is an impressive list anyway. I copied the data in to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, to make it easier to count them.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

240 Architects (Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
84 Architectural Professionals (Degreed Only)
274 Engineers(Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
549 Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)
323 Non-U.S. Architects and Engineers & Arch. and Eng. Professionals
1470 Total

They also have a separate list of over 10000 Supporters and Students.
But who cares? They can be anyone, even me. :)

You can double check the count, search, and analyze the list in Excel:
http://ANETA.org/AE911Truth/AE911Truth20110415.xls

[Scott Sommers]

OK, nothing wrong with being specific. I don't see anyone labeled "draftsman" so false accusation there. Let's get an exact count then.

Here is a break down of how the 1470 are distributed, as they are clearly labeled on the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Petition, as of April 15, 2011. It is an impressive list anyway. I copied the data in to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, to make it easier to count them.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

240 Architects (Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
84 Architectural Professionals (Degreed Only)
274 Engineers(Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
549 Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)
323 Non-U.S. Architects and Engineers & Arch. and Eng. Professionals
1470 Total

They also have a separate list of over 10000 Supporters and Students.
But who cares? They can be anyone, even me. :)
You can double check the count:
http://ANETA.org/AE911Truth/AE911Truth20110415.xls

Thank you, I do not doubt your accuracy. The problem being addressed here is the meaning of these numbers.

Do these names indicate people who signed a petition? If so, some of these people signed a very long time ago. They may have changed their mind. They may have forgotten they signed. They may be dead. Is there any way that a name can expire? If not, in what way is this a petition?

Do these names indicate members of an organization? In what way is AE911 an organization? They do not have meetings. In fact, the only 'member' who seems to represent them is Gage. Almost every member has only ever placed their name on his list and then disappeared. The group runs a website and sends Gage around to talk here and there. So what does having a name as a member mean? The group has no impact at all on any professional organization from which its members are said to be drawn.

As I've said above, I interpret this as a list of people who have at one time or another said they agree with Gage. This is not a very meaningful professional message.

Also, how many of those 800+ engineers are mechanical engineers, etc. Tony Szamboti is a mechanical engineer. The civil engineers I have spoken with about this think that painters and bricklayers know about as much about high-rise construction as a mechanical engineer. Does that matter to you?

[ozeco41]

The petition reads:
"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7."

The key element being in the sentence: "..[specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.] We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation."

Nearly ten years on and they have yet to establish a prima facie case to answer on that trigger point of "sufficient doubt".

It remains clear that they are after publicity not an investigation.

And you can bet that a lot of those who signed and are still prepared to stand by their signing do so out of some muddled thinking about "another investigation would settle the doubts."

Whilst we, familiar with truther tactics, would bet odds on there would be a goalpost shift.

[Oystein]

...
Here is a break down of how the 1470 are distributed, as they are clearly labeled on the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Petition, as of April 15, 2011. ...

240 Architects (Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
84 Architectural Professionals (Degreed Only)
274 Engineers(Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
549 Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)
323 Non-U.S. Architects and Engineers & Arch. and Eng. Professionals
1470 Total
...

So there are 514 Architects and Engineers. Good.
The other day, I took a close look at those engineers that are listed with an address in Texas, the 2nd-most populous state in the Union, representing a good 8% of the US population. We may presume that Texas has a similar percentage of all engineers the USA.

Here is what I found:

274 engineers, total
- 24 engineers from TX, total (8.8%, close to prediction)
-- 4 of these 24 (17%) are not listed as active licensed engineers with the state of Texas. Possibly their license expired, they retired, moved out of state, or never were active and licensed to begin with. A sign of an ageing, out-of-date petition
--20 of these 24 are not listed as active licensed engineers with the state of Texas
--- 6 of these 20, or 25% of the 24 signing engineers from TX, hail from engineering professions related to building construction:
---- 3 of these 6 are civil engineers
---- 2 of these 6 are structural engineers
---- 1 of these 6 is an architectural engineer
--- the other 14 hail from engineering professions not related to building construction

At the same time, the state of Texas has approximately 12500 civil engineers, 2800 structural ones, and 70 architectural engs - total about 15400. 6 out of 15400, that's 0.04%.
Texas has a total of 29,000 licensed and active engineers, all professions; around 55% of these are relevant for building construction (arch., civil, structural, fire protection, metallurgy).

If Texas is about representative, then I'd estimate the total number of engineers in the USA to be approx. 350,000. Out of these, close to 200,000 would be competent to assess building performance. of these, approx. 69 (25% of 274) would be found on AE911s list.



Somehow, AE911truth tries to get the message across that "thousands" of the professionals best qualified to assess building performance support their mission. The truth is, that less than a hundred, out of hundreds of thousands, thusly qualified engineers signed up.

[Oystein]

...I interpret this as a list of people who have at one time or another said they agree with Gage

But a number of them may even be mistaken about this; surely, some only thought at the time they agree with Gage, when in fact they did not, because they did not know the full lunacy of his arguments, or they believe themselves in lunacies that not even Gage thinks to be true. That this is so becomes apparent from many of the personal statements.

[Animal]

So there are 514 Architects and Engineers. Good.
The other day, I took a close look at those engineers that are listed with an address in Texas, the 2nd-most populous state in the Union, representing a good 8% of the US population. We may presume that Texas has a similar percentage of all engineers the USA.

Here is what I found:

274 engineers, total
- 24 engineers from TX, total (8.8%, close to prediction)
-- 4 of these 24 (17%) are not listed as active licensed engineers with the state of Texas. Possibly their license expired, they retired, moved out of state, or never were active and licensed to begin with. A sign of an ageing, out-of-date petition
--20 of these 24 are not listed as active licensed engineers with the state of Texas
--- 6 of these 20, or 25% of the 24 signing engineers from TX, hail from engineering professions related to building construction:
---- 3 of these 6 are civil engineers
---- 2 of these 6 are structural engineers
---- 1 of these 6 is an architectural engineer
--- the other 14 hail from engineering professions not related to building construction

At the same time, the state of Texas has approximately 12500 civil engineers, 2800 structural ones, and 70 architectural engs - total about 15400. 6 out of 15400, that's 0.04%.
Texas has a total of 29,000 licensed and active engineers, all professions; around 55% of these are relevant for building construction (arch., civil, structural, fire protection, metallurgy).

If Texas is about representative, then I'd estimate the total number of engineers in the USA to be approx. 350,000. Out of these, close to 200,000 would be competent to assess building performance. of these, approx. 69 (25% of 274) would be found on AE911s list.



Somehow, AE911truth tries to get the message across that "thousands" of the professionals best qualified to assess building performance support their mission. The truth is, that less than a hundred, out of hundreds of thousands, thusly qualified engineers signed up.

There are approximately 90,000 licensed architects and 250-300,000 licensed engineers the last time I looked. The larges portion of engineers practice in the Mechanical, Electrical, and Civil areas ( All fields that require an Engineering Seal for submission of drawings.) Structural Engineers are typically a subset of Civil engineers, though some states are beginning to separate out structural as a separate category. I would estimate the number of structural engineers as less than 100k, and only about 25% of those would be qualified to do high rise design. I would estimate the number of architects qualified to design high rises (and by high rises I am talking 30+ stories.....the building code classifies anything over 75 ft as a high rise) to be less than 10% of the licensed architects.

[Telltale Tom]

So there are 514 Architects and Engineers. Good.
The other day, I took a close look at those engineers that are listed with an address in Texas, the 2nd-most populous state in the Union, representing a good 8% of the US population. We may presume that Texas has a similar percentage of all engineers the USA.

Here is what I found:

274 engineers, total
- 24 engineers from TX, total (8.8%, close to prediction)
-- 4 of these 24 (17%) are not listed as active licensed engineers with the state of Texas. Possibly their license expired, they retired, moved out of state, or never were active and licensed to begin with. A sign of an ageing, out-of-date petition
--20 of these 24 are not listed as active licensed engineers with the state of Texas
--- 6 of these 20, or 25% of the 24 signing engineers from TX, hail from engineering professions related to building construction:
---- 3 of these 6 are civil engineers
---- 2 of these 6 are structural engineers
---- 1 of these 6 is an architectural engineer
--- the other 14 hail from engineering professions not related to building construction

At the same time, the state of Texas has approximately 12500 civil engineers, 2800 structural ones, and 70 architectural engs - total about 15400. 6 out of 15400, that's 0.04%.
Texas has a total of 29,000 licensed and active engineers, all professions; around 55% of these are relevant for building construction (arch., civil, structural, fire protection, metallurgy).

If Texas is about representative, then I'd estimate the total number of engineers in the USA to be approx. 350,000. Out of these, close to 200,000 would be competent to assess building performance. of these, approx. 69 (25% of 274) would be found on AE911s list.

Somehow, AE911truth tries to get the message across that "thousands" of the professionals best qualified to assess building performance support their mission. The truth is, that less than a hundred, out of hundreds of thousands, thusly qualified engineers signed up.

Prove it Oystein, name the names. Who are these heroic 24 engineers, the 0.1% or less, who have layed their reputations on the line in support of ae911truth.

And Cicorp don't forget that you were going to find more than three structural PE's from New York. We need our 0.1% there as well.

[TruthersLie]

OK, nothing wrong with being specific. I don't see anyone labeled "draftsman" so false accusation there. Let's get an exact count then.

Oh goody, they updated their list... because when I checked when they claimed to have 1100 architectural and engineering professionals there were several major problems including: counting landscape engineers as engineers, having architectural or engineering firm OFFICE MANAGERS as "architectural and engineering professionals" and last but very important, the website couldn't count. IT claimed 1100, but adding up all the members showed there were 994 members... But hey, if you want to believe in this group go ahead.


Here is a break down of how the 1470 are distributed, as they are clearly labeled on the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Petition, as of April 15, 2011. It is an impressive list anyway. I copied the data in to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, to make it easier to count them.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

240 Architects (Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
84 Architectural Professionals (Degreed Only)
274 Engineers(Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
549 Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)
323 Non-U.S. Architects and Engineers & Arch. and Eng. Professionals
1470 Total

Oh goody.

Thank you for taking the time to separate the list. So we only have 514 architects and engineers on your list. Oh heck.. I'll even give you some of the 323 non us architects and engineers... but remove the "professionals" you know..the degreed AND licensed ones, the ones who can claim to be an architect or engineer. Lets just say there are 200... that makes it 714. That would be HALF of what you are claiming. Why are you lying about the membership?

Stop claiming there are 1400+ architects and engineers. That is a TRUTHER LIE.

Why do you and AE911twoof do that?
Why did they tout their original intent was "degreed and licensed architects and engineers" only to change it to "degreed and/OR licensed architects and engineers?" Was it too hard to get the original group? Were those number too low?
Why have they since shifted from that to "architectural and engineering professionals?"


They also have a separate list of over 10000 Supporters and Students.
But who cares? They can be anyone, even me. :)

You can double check the count, search, and analyze the list in Excel:
http://ANETA.org/AE911Truth/AE911Truth20110415.xls

Sorry... I already did... when they were inaccurate about 1100.

Appeal to authority rejected.

But when will this list of over 1400 architectural and engineering professionals manage to publish just one peer reviewed refutation of any thing that NIST did?

Since you are a member, maybe you should check into that. When can we expect to see a peer reviewed refutation of anything said by NIST in any real engineering journal? With 1400+ it should be easy.

(not like the bs you tried to pass off as Kevin Ryan (waterboy)'s attempt to "refute" Ryan Mackey's whitepaper. 11 pages is not a "refutation" of a 250+ page document.)

[Scott Sommers]

But a number of them may even be mistaken about this; surely, some only thought at the time they agree with Gage, when in fact they did not, because they did not know the full lunacy of his arguments, or they believe themselves in lunacies that not even Gage thinks to be true. That this is so becomes apparent from many of the personal statements.

quite right. That's another problem. It's striking how old many of signatories are. I've often wondered how many could have signed because they were not clear what was being claimed.

[ozeco41]

quite right. That's another problem. It's striking how old many of signatories are. I've often wondered how many could have signed because they were not clear what was being claimed.
Given the mix of professionals I would not be at all surprised if many of them, at the time, thought "Another look at it won't do any harm - it would convince the doubters"

That is sort of the professional easy way out if you don't anticipate the consequences. Remember that it is framed as a petition and petitions usually have a short life span - signatures collected - petition forwarded and it vanishes off the scene. But this one is doomed never to be presented and for ever to list those who signed. So the expectations of those who signed have not been met.

Then years later with your name still on the list the easy way forward is to take the passive track and ignore it because to take the active track and get your name removed could draw embarrassing attention to yourself.

People who take "easy options" such as I have suggested are not always your clearest thinkers in my experience.

[ergo]

quite right. That's another problem. It's striking how old many of signatories are. I've often wondered how many could have signed because they were not clear what was being claimed.

How old are some of these people, Scott?

This seems to be a recurring concern of yours, so let's get some numbers on the table.

[Björn Toulouse]

But a number of them may even be mistaken about this; surely, some only thought at the time they agree with Gage, when in fact they did not, because they did not know the full lunacy of his arguments, or they believe themselves in lunacies that not even Gage thinks to be true. That this is so becomes apparent from many of the personal statements.





I was scrolling through some of the names on the list and ran across this one - Orison Whipple Hungerford (http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=976402). This is the birth name of the old Bronco TV series actor Ty Hardin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ty_Hardin). Given his activities after his acting career fizzled, I am not in the least surprised to see his name on the petition. In the 80's, he organized a militia group called the Arizona Patriots that was anti-Semitic and advocated the stockpiling of weapons and ammo causing an FBI investigation that resulted in his group being raided, weapons confiscated, and some members being arrested. Hardin fled briefly to Costa Rica for a time. He was also into the sovereign citizen idiocy.

You may enjoy reading "Ty's Special Message" (http://www.tyhardin.net/AllAboutTyHardin.htm) on his own website, poor grammar and all.

[BasqueArch]

quite right. That's another problem. It's striking how old many of signatories are. I've often wondered how many could have signed because they were not clear what was being claimed.

How old are some of these people, Scott?

This seems to be a recurring concern of yours, so let's get some numbers on the table.

Doolittle Raid Flight Engineer Dorian Gray
Recants AE911Truth Signature
Believes Lee Harvey Oswald Did Land On The Moon.

[Oystein]

Prove it Oystein, name the names. Who are these heroic 24 engineers, the 0.1% or less, who have layed their reputations on the line in support of ae911truth.

And Cicorp don't forget that you were going to find more than three structural PE's from New York. We need our 0.1% there as well.

Lic.No.|prof|Name|lic. issued|status
62510|CIV|KHAMMASH, AHMAD YASIR|1987|active
79499|CIV|SEBESTA, MARK ELLER |1994| active
84707|CIV|KOSMOSKI, PETER JOHN| 1999| active
74357|CSE|WRIGHT, DONALD REGINALD| 1993| active
50732|ELE|WILKERSON, PAUL RONALD| 1982| active
61564|ELE|ABBOUSHI, TARIF AZMI| 1987| active
68722|ELE|Macknight, David Allan| 1990| active
73615|ELE|SNIDER, RICHARD JOSEPH| 1992| active
84826|ENV|Stein, Mitchell Scott| 1999| active
85196|ENV|PHILLIPS, BRUCE ALAN| 1999| active
15373|MEC|FRIAS, ROBERT| 1957| active
49490|MEC|WALKER, CHARLES BURLEIGH, JR.| 1981| active
52814|MEC|SCHOCH, KURT RICHARD| 1983| active
78532|MEC|Solomon, Ahmad G| 1993| active
93176|MEC|HENTSCHEL, ROBERT CARL, Jr.| 2004| active
108086|MEC|Rohach, Timothy Jon| 2011| active
66027|MEC, ARC|ZUNIGA, DAVID MICHAEL| 1989| active
32839|SAN|Hays, A. J., Jr.| 1971| active
54239|STR|Germanio, Lester Jay| 1983| active
80191|STR|Faseler, Steven Louis| 1995| active
57737|ELE|Robert Olan Blanton| 1985| EXPIRED
46148|CIV|METCALF, BILL HENRY| 1979| INACTIVE
44310|STR|Lewelling, John Charles| 1979| INACTIVE
not found|MEC|Robert Anthony Parma| ?| not found

[ergo]

--20 of these 24 are not listed as active licensed engineers with the state of Texas


And yet your table shows 20 out of 24 as active.

Am I missing something?

And what is the point you're making again? :boggled:

[Oystein]

And yet your table shows 20 out of 24 as active.

Am I missing something?

And what is the point you're making again? :boggled:

Oops, copy&paste-error! Thanks for pointing that out!
I first wrote "-- 4 of these 24 (17%) are not listed as active licensed engineers...", then copied that line, changed "4" into "20" deleted the "(17%)", but forgot to delete the "not".
:o

[ergo]

So, in other words, 83% of them are licensed and active, and 4 of them are retired. How damning.

[Scott Sommers]

How old are some of these people, Scott?

This seems to be a recurring concern of yours, so let's get some numbers on the table.

This is a very reasonable question.

I have no systematic calculations of this, but just a cursory examination of the top names on the right-hand side of the petition found a several members in their 60s and 70s.

Dartmond Cherk
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=991937
who is probably well into his 70s, perhaps even 80s.

Daniel B. Barnum
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999974
who might also be his 80s

Fred A. De Santo
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=998956
who might be in his 60s or 70s

Charles W. Ekstedt Sr.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=983841
who was 66 when he signed it

Others include
James H. Bell
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=979034
J. Michael DeRIENZO
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=973371
James Edward Rasmussen
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=978141
Jerry Erbach http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=991910

I suspect that between 10-20% of AE9/11T members were over 60 nwhen they became signatories. This appears to be somewhere near the distribution found in the American population for this age group. Nor do I mean to imply all or even any would be dottering fools.

But you do have wonder someone like Larry Dodge who graduted with his first degree in 1963
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999176
making him at least in his mid-70s and maybe 80s who describes his experience as, "I do my own structural engineering for residential projects, and consult with structural engineers for commercial projects." Why lists his professional experience as, "design, construction documents and administration, urban planning and design," what he thinks he actually knows about an incident like 9/11.

But this really does raise the question that with so many elder names on the 'petition', how do know they're all still alive? Or if Dicky keeps taking his time with this, how will you know if and when any of them die? If Dicky's still doing this iin 5, 10, 20 years, certainly some will have died. Do you think their names are still valid because they once did sign the 'petition'?

Do you know the 'petition' contains the names of people who describe themselves as "landscape architects"
Dale Williams
My job consists of helping to control billboards along landscaped sections of California's freeways and being a liaison between HQ and district offices for planting, rest area, mitigation projects.
Frederick Jon Wepfer
Registered Landscape Architect
I also have 17 years in private practice and have designed schools, performing arts theaters, fire stations. city buildings, and custom houses. I have designed major highway landscape restoration and have written guidelines for major architectural treatment of Interstate 90 infrastructure in Washington State.

John Robert Russell
Professor Emeritus Landscape Architecture

There are more, but I got bored with all this.

There are people on this list who describe their experience as resroring museums, urban planers, interior designs for homes. Is this what Joshua Blackeney and Anthony Hall think is the 'membership' of AE911T?

Honest question here ergo. Do you really think a document like this looks impressive? It has a professor of landscape architecture on it. Is that what you think you're describing when you talk about the large number of signatires of the AE911T 'petition'?

[ergo]

I have no systematic calculations of this, but just a cursory examination of the top names on the right-hand side of the petition found a several members in their 60s and 70s.

... I suspect that between 10-20% of AE9/11T members were over 60 nwhen they became signatories. This appears to be somewhere near the distribution found in the American population for this age group. Nor do I mean to imply all or even any would be dottering fools.


Unfortunately your post from earlier tonight contradicts your attempted disclaimer here.


It's striking how old many of signatories are. I've often wondered how many could have signed because they were not clear what was being claimed.


Clearly, you feel that the professional or mental competence of anyone over 60 might be in question. An attitude that is confirmed in your previous post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6994109&postcount=158):

It is an Internet petition. Many of the people who signed it are over 60.


It's an interesting position to take since you yourself will be over 60 in a little over a decade.

I wonder what you think about these people who are all pushing or over 60?


James Randi, b. 1928 Age: 82

Leslie E. Robertson, b. 1928 Age: 82

Zdenek Bazant, b. 1937 Age: 74

John L. Gross, Received B.Sc. 1969 b. 1949?? Minimum age: 60

William L. Grosshandler Received B.Sc. 1968 b. 1948?? Minimum age: 61

H. S. Lew Received B.Sc. 1960 b. 1940?? Minimum age: 70

Frank Gayle Received B.Sc 1975 b. 1955? Minimum age: 55

Harold E. Nelson, 50 years professional experience. Ret. 1992 Minimum age: 70+

James R. Lawson, 47 years professional experience. Minimum age: 65?

Michael Shermer, b. 1954. Age: 57

Do you know who those folks are, Scott? And are you similarly concerned about the engineers who signed their name to the NIST reports? How do you know they haven't changed their minds? How do you know they were of right mind when they participated in the NIST study? What do you know of each of their involvement in that?

Honest question here ergo. Do you really think a document like this looks impressive? It has a professor of landscape architecture on it. Is that what you think you're describing when you talk about the large number of signatires of the AE911T 'petition'?


My guess is that engineering and architecture are similar to other academic specialties, and that first and second year students are taking a basic core curriculum which gives them some common grounding in their subsequent chosen fields. If you paid attention, you would see that one of those landscape architects is a building designer too. You also don't know their other academic history or what, in some cases, their undergrad degree was in. So, no, this doesn't surprise or bother me. I think the real question is why it should bother you so much.

[twinstead]

My guess is that engineering and architecture are similar to other academic specialties, and that first and second year students are taking a basic core curriculum which gives them some common grounding in their subsequent chosen fields. If you paid attention, you would see that one of those landscape architects is a building designer too. You also don't know their other academic history or what, in some cases, their undergrad degree was in. So, no, this doesn't surprise or bother me. I think the real question is why it should bother you so much.

LOL. "I Guess". Nice rationalization. I'm convinced then. TO THE STREETS!

(BTW, just the short list you posted of some of the contributors to the NIST blow any list of your engineers out of the water. Thanks for illustrating the problem we have)

[BasqueArch]

.....
I suspect that between 10-20% of AE9/11T members were over 60 nwhen they became signatories. This appears to be somewhere near the distribution found in the American population for this age group. Nor do I mean to imply all or even any would be dottering fools.
,,,,,


Over Age 60 J-Refers Join Flight Engineer Dorian " Lost My Car Keys Again" Gray
Will Mail Scott Sommers Protest Letter
As Soon As Stamps Found

[Grizzly Bear]

LOL. "I Guess". Nice rationalization. I'm convinced then. TO THE STREETS!

(BTW, just the short list you posted of some of the contributors to the NIST blow any list of your engineers out of the water. Thanks for illustrating the problem we have)

I actually agree slightly with ergo here. There are sub genres of architecture and at least in my case I had a choice between landscape architecture, interior design, and my current studies before I applied for the upper division courses. Here in Florida I'm not sure how that'll work down the road since the schools are starting to adopt a 5 year program that combines bachelor studies with the master's curriculum, rather than the 4 + 2 I'm finishing.

In fact, you can get a masters in architecture without getting the bachelors, but you wind up in the 4 + 3 program (4 years non arch bachelor + 3 year architecture masters).

Note that these are requirements to become licensed and the take the licensing exams.

Moreover I think the real point being missed is the overall numbers of their professional petition signers is quite staggeringly low, not just for "architects and engineers" but also their computer engineers, programmers, and all. This means despite all of the money Gage might have been putting in his marketing strategies the ideas he pushes are quite fringe oriented. Gage is in a position that in any legitimate case would encourage dissent if the findings were as he suggests. So no it's not the types of professionals he has in his petition it's the fact that after a decade he could only find 1400 people who'd buy his campaign.

Now, if saying that these guys account for less than a fraction of 1% of the total professional population isn't sufficient, there's the issue of competence. Still being in college I remember pretty well what is and isn't taught, and their research capabilities as architects is deplorable. Freshmen lower division students are taught the core value of case studies, and conceptual design, alot of which AE's members appear incapable of even meeting standards for. This is forgivable for people just entering the field of study, but inexcusable for people who've practiced for 20 years or more and are past the stage of learning through internships such as IDP, and college

[Oystein]

So, in other words, 83% of them are licensed and active, and 4 of them are retired. How damning.

I didn't say or imply that's "damning". I was just being precise. Losing 4 out of 24 over a period of 4 years due to biographical reasons is fairly expected and just highlights the obvious: That the list gets more and more outdated by the day. So to have the numbers properly in perspective (compare number of signatures to number of all available engineers), you apparantly need to take off 10-20% of the signers at this time. If we are talking about the list again in 4 years, maybe well need to subtract 25% or 30%, and so on.
If you put this to the extreme and keep the petition open for a million years, you might end up with a million signatures, but only very few, 0.0x% of the then active engineering crowd, will be still active then.

[Animal]

So, in other words, 83% of them are licensed and active, and 4 of them are retired. How damning.


Just because the license is "active" doesn't mean the license holder is not retired. I know plenty of architects who have maintained their licenses until they died, long after they retired.

[Oystein]

Just because the license is "active" doesn't mean the license holder is not retired. I know plenty of architects who have maintained their licenses until they died, long after they retired.

This is quite beside the point. Retired or not, a licensed engineer is a licensed engineer and can be regarded as competent in his field of expertise.

But we aren't looking at licenses and active status to assess individual competence - it is quite clear that one can be competent to assess the NIST report even if one isn't young, licensed, active or even an engineer, and a young active licensed engineer can be utterly incompetent on that topic. The only thing that matters is whether one is right or wrong.

The reason we are looking at licenses is to compare the number of petition signers with the total number of their peers: what proportion of the relevant population did and did not sign? We argue that the numbers published by ae911truth and repeated at nauseam by their faithful believers is badly inflated: They include non-licensed and non-active people with some archiecture or engineerig degree, and count 500+, and then include "professionals", that is non-engineers and non-architects that somehow work in these branches to arrive at "1400+"; it is hard or impossible to estimate the total number of such "professionals" and put it into relation with the signers. However, we can count rather exactly the licensed, active engineers in all states, and count the number of licensed, active engineers that signed. And find that not even 1 in 1,000 of them could be convinced to signing, and that proportion apparently gets smaller the more qualified people are "on paper".

[ergo]

I guess I'm not clear on this concept that retiring means your opinion no longer counts, and that your 30, 40, or 50 years of professional experience suddenly becomes null and void. In that case, we may have to cross a few of the NIST engineers off the list. But last time I checked, retirees often find themselves in a new profession or occupation. Sometimes they teach. Sometimes they write. Sometimes they consult. If they're political figures, they often go on lecture tours. Their knowledge and experience is considered valuable. Their opinions are considered to be informed. I don't see why this would be any different for retired architects or engineers. Indeed, it's the retired ones whose opinions may have more weight here, since they are the ones who were active in their fields at the time these buildings, and their counterparts, were designed and built.

[ergo]

And find that not even 1 in 1,000 of them could be convinced to signing, and that proportion apparently gets smaller the more qualified people are "on paper".

It's an invalid comparison because you have no idea how many have actually exposed themselves to this information, or why they haven't bothered, or what their real opinion is, or why they might not want to stick their neck out professionally. (Gee, I can't imagine.)

The entire premise of this thread is invalid. The real question is, as others have pointed out before: how many a & e's who really investigate the matter end up supporting the official story? That's what you need to ask yourselves. There are very few people who have the time to study these matters, and even fewer who have the time to become activist about it. That's a simple, unchanging reality.

[TruthersLie]

so then with 1400 architectural and engineering professionals, when can we expect to see any one of them publish a refutation of ANY PART of nist?

I mean if they are over 65 and RETIRED, then they have the time for it.

Have you emailed your members and asked them to refute bazant or nist? It should be easy

[Animal]

I guess I'm not clear on this concept that retiring means your opinion no longer counts, and that your 30, 40, or 50 years of professional experience suddenly becomes null and void. In that case, we may have to cross a few of the NIST engineers off the list. But last time I checked, retirees often find themselves in a new profession or occupation. Sometimes they teach. Sometimes they write. Sometimes they consult. If they're political figures, they often go on lecture tours. Their knowledge and experience is considered valuable. Their opinions are considered to be informed. I don't see why this would be any different for retired architects or engineers. Indeed, it's the retired ones whose opinions may have more weight here, since they are the ones who were active in their fields at the time these buildings, and their counterparts, were designed and built.

You lose ground quickly in the building professions if you are not actively engaged. Even when you are, you can quickly lose ground if in areas of knowledge that you do actively participate in. I have had my license for over twenty years and have continuously worked, but there are parts of the profession I am woefully behind the times

[AZCat]

You lose ground quickly in the building professions if you are not actively engaged. Even when you are, you can quickly lose ground if in areas of knowledge that you do actively participate in. I have had my license for over twenty years and have continuously worked, but there are parts of the profession I am woefully behind the times

That's why "retired" is not a good indicator of knowledge. I've known retired engineers who were far better after a couple of strokes than some of the actively-practicing licensed idiots I've worked with.

[ozeco41]

...But we aren't looking at licenses and active status to assess individual competence - it is quite clear that one can be competent to assess the NIST report even if one isn't young, licensed, active or even an engineer, and a young active licensed engineer can be utterly incompetent on that topic. The only thing that matters is whether one is right or wrong...

Don't we loose track of that fact so often. The trolling truthers objective is to prolong debate so that it doesn't get anywhere. The only purpose of them raising this "numbers and qualifications" topic is to have discussion going round in circles and not progressing.

The reason why the numbers of AE911 professionals is of some interest is because Gage has set up the block of them who signed his petition as a perpetual appeal to authority. The petition is a petition in name only - and few if any of the signatories have expressed any opinion on any 9/11 topic other than that which is implicit in the narrow subject of the petition.

But ergo et al continue to get mileage by keeping trolling these "threads which go nowhere" and will do so whilst ever we have members responding. The discussion is irrelevant other than as food for trolling. Ditto the "molten metal" thread. and several others.

[TruthMakesPeace]

The petition reads:...The key element being in the sentence: "..[specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.] We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation."

Nearly ten years on and they have yet to establish a prima facie case to answer on that trigger point of "sufficient doubt".

There is a sufficient case for a new investigation, such as the clearly defined list of the 10 Qualities of Controlled Demolition on the AE911Truth page that the collapse of WTC 7 matches.

The problem is that there is insufficient public awareness about the case. Most Americans still have never heard a 3rd tower came down, WTC 7. It should be front page news on the controlled main stream media.

At least on uncontrolled media, the web, 9/11 is increasingly near the top of Google. Today www.WTC7.Net is #1 on Google for "WTC 7". A Google for "9/11" shows sites like www.911Truth.org and www.JournalOf911Studies.com have risen towards the top. Polls in other countries such as Germany, show 89.5% doubt the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Otherwise intelligent people still look at WTC 7 and actually believe it came down by fire alone! It would be hilarious if not so sad. A child can see the similarities of WTC 7 and a Controlled Demolition.

Unfortunately the majority of Americans have been deceived and don't even know it. But fortunately people are waking up. About every week the number of AE911Truth petition signers goes up. Every day, the number of views on YouTube videos about WTC 7 and other aspects of 9/11 goes up. A sleeping giant is waking up about 9/11.

The number of people who have been duped by the OCT goes down and down every day. Sadly a lot of those who have been duped are on JREF, clinging to others for support who still believe the 9/11 Fairy Tale.

If an architect or engineer wants to be off the AE911Truth list, all he has to do is email them. But the number of petition signers keeps going up. Today it is up to 1484.

[TruthMakesPeace]

so then with 1400 architectural and engineering professionals, when can we expect to see any one of them publish a refutation of ANY PART of nist?
NIST and Bazant have been refuted, extensively, and easily found on Google. Head in the sand much?

Sorry no one has delivered a refutation report on a silver platter to you. But here is a link right on the AE911Truth home page.
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/469-answers-from-nist.html

Have you emailed your members and asked them to refute bazant or nist? It should be easy
Yes it was easy, and has been done. It's easily found via Google.

Bazant's stupid "pile driver theory" violates the Law of Conservation of Momentum. Anyone can do this experiment in his kitchen with 4 eggs and a glass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMcJnq6zh4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROuBvSZaFVE&feature=related

[ozeco41]

Misposted

[TruthersLie]

NIST and Bazant have been refuted, extensively, and easily found on Google. Head in the sand much?

I eagerly await your link to a respected peer reviewed physics or engineering journal. It should be easy. Please provide the citation


Sorry no one has delivered a refutation report on a silver platter to you. But here is a link right on the AE911Truth home page.
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/469-answers-from-nist.html


this was published in which respected peer reviewed journal? Oh wait. It wasn't. Is this by the same group you claim has 1400+ architects and engineers, but who in fact only have 514 architects and engineers, and has 700 architectural and engineering professionals pretending to be architects and engineers?

Which respected peer reviewed journal published their refutation?


Yes it was easy, and has been done. It's easily found via Google.


Then you can link me to these journal articles which refute NIST and bazant. Where are they? In which journal?


Bazant's stupid "pile driver theory" violates the Law of Conservation of Momentum. Anyone can do this experiment in his kitchen with 4 eggs and a glass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMcJnq6zh4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROuBvSZaFVE&feature=related

ROFLMAO. I love it when non engineering folks try to tell you about experiments. The first problem is one of SCALE. I know that you don't know what it is, but trust me it is really fraking up your claims.

So how many architects and engineers does that group have again?
Why do you continue to LIE about their membership numbers?
Have you stopped slandering the SEC yet?
Have you figured out basic accounting and the "missing" 2.3 trillion yet?

[ergo]

The only thing that matters is whether one is right or wrong...

:) If this is what will help you understand, then I can go along with this, for a little while. This is how religious fundamentalists understand things, too, so we have to simplify our explanation somewhat here:

If all that matters is what's right and what's wrong, then the next time you're wondering, just remember: the NIST reports are wrong. They are wrong in both small detail and in larger conclusion. They mix correct facts with incorrect facts. They apply incorrect models. They do not complete their analysis. They rely on Bazant, who is also wrong. He is wrong in both assumptions and larger conclusions. The models he applies are incorrect. They neither conform to observables nor to known gravitational collapses. The official collapse explanation is wrong. It is incorrect. It is false.

It's like this: you're planning a road trip from NYC to Washington D.C. It's a straight north to south trip that's been done many times and is is done many times by many people. The route is obvious. You can see it on a map. You may have some choices as to which specific highways to take , but you know the general direction you're going and how long it will take you to get there. The NIST reports are like, instead of getting on the highway that will take you to Washington, they say you need to go to Iowa first. Iowa is really out of the way. It's almost not worth it. Not do-able in the time you have. It would be better to take a plane to Iowa. But they say, no, take the car. So, by the time you get to Iowa, you've forgotten your original road trip to Washington. And then you have to stay and rest in Iowa for a bit before heading back, and maybe you get caught up in some stuff happening in Iowa. By the time you make it to Washington from Iowa, your trip has gone from a simple 3.5 hour trip to a 30+ hour trip, for no apparent reason, since the route from NY to Washington was simple and obvious from the start.

Defending the NIST reports is like driving to Iowa on your way to Washington. Can you call that "wrong"? I don't know. You can call it stupid, especially if you had no reason to go to Iowa. You can say that NIST was wrong in telling you that you needed to go Iowa first, since it's clear by the map, and by your own experience, and the experiences of millions of others, that you didn't need to at all.

[Dave Rogers]

Bazant's stupid "pile driver theory" violates the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

No, it doesn't. I've done the calculations, and so have plenty of other people. If you do them honestly, you'll get a collapse time of around 12 seconds based on conservation of momentum only.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

:) If this is what will help you understand, then I can go along with this, for a little while. This is how religious fundamentalists understand things, too, so we have to simplify our explanation somewhat here:

If all that matters is what's right and what's wrong, then the next time you're wondering, just remember: the NIST reports are wrong.

This from someone who doesn't know or understand the differences between into and onto, doesn't get "center of mass," nor understand the ideas of exponential, limiting vocabulary and even articles.

But since you claim they are wrong, and you twoofs have 1400 architectural and engineering professionals (with like 500 of them retired), you should EASILY have peer reviewed engineering PROOF that NIST is wrong. Where is it?


They are wrong in both small detail and in larger conclusion.

Provide a peer reviewed engineering or science journal which states they are wrong. It should be simple.


They mix correct facts with incorrect facts. They apply incorrect models. They do not complete their analysis.

Provide a peer reviewed engineering or science journal which states they are wrong. It should be simple.


They rely on Bazant, who is also wrong. He is wrong in both assumptions and larger conclusions. The models he applies are incorrect. They neither conform to observables nor to known gravitational collapses. The official collapse explanation is wrong. It is incorrect. It is false.

Provide a peer reviewed engineering or science journal which states they are wrong. It should be simple.


It's like this: you're planning a road trip from NYC to Washington D.C. It's a straight north to south trip that's been done many times and is is done many times by many people. The route is obvious. You can see it on a map. You may have some choices as to which specific highways to take , but you know the general direction you're going and how long it will take you to get there. The NIST reports are like, instead of getting on the highway that will take you to Washington, they say you need to go to Iowa first. Iowa is really out of the way. It's almost not worth it. Not do-able in the time you have. It would be better to take a plane to Iowa. But they say, no, take the car. So, by the time you get to Iowa, you've forgotten your original road trip to Washington. And then you have to stay and rest in Iowa for a bit before heading back, and maybe you get caught up in some stuff happening in Iowa. By the time you make it to Washington from Iowa, your trip has gone from a simple 3.5 hour trip to a 30+ hour trip, for no apparent reason, since the route from NY to Washington was simple and obvious from the start.

blah blah blah.
have you figured out into vs onto?
center of mass vs debris field the size of the moon?
about?
exponential?

No? Then stop blathering and go find out about them.


Defending the NIST reports is like driving to Iowa on your way to Washington. Can you call that "wrong"? I don't know. You can call it stupid, especially if you had no reason to go to Iowa. You can say that NIST was wrong in telling you that you needed to go Iowa first, since it's clear by the map, and by your own experience, and the experiences of millions of others, that you didn't need to at all.


Provide a peer reviewed engineering or science journal which states they are wrong. It should be simple.

[Animal]

NIST and Bazant have been refuted, extensively, and easily found on Google. Head in the sand much?

Sorry no one has delivered a refutation report on a silver platter to you. But here is a link right on the AE911Truth home page.
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/469-answers-from-nist.html

The only things found on that page are the same old same old claims that were proven false years ago......pyroclastic dust clouds, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint, through the path of greatest resistance, etc. etc. :rolleyes:

Yes it was easy, and has been done. It's easily found via Google.

Bazant's stupid "pile driver theory" violates the Law of Conservation of Momentum. Anyone can do this experiment in his kitchen with 4 eggs and a glass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMcJnq6zh4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROuBvSZaFVE&feature=related

Yes, the structure of the WTC was so much like eggs in a glass, your "proof by youtube" just wipes away actual research :rolleyes:

[tsig]

NIST and Bazant have been refuted, extensively, and easily found on Google. Head in the sand much?

Sorry no one has delivered a refutation report on a silver platter to you. But here is a link right on the AE911Truth home page.
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/469-answers-from-nist.html


Yes it was easy, and has been done. It's easily found via Google.

Bazant's stupid "pile driver theory" violates the Law of Conservation of Momentum. Anyone can do this experiment in his kitchen with 4 eggs and a glass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMcJnq6zh4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROuBvSZaFVE&feature=related

Yep, pure science all the way.

[aggle-rithm]

So the question of whether this gigantic list of engineers and architects means anything hinges on two issues:

1. Are these people qualified and competent, and
2. Do they actually agree with the A&E manifesto?

A simple test would be to have a number of them...say, 50%...publish papers outlining problems with the NIST report in a peer reveiwed journal. I think that's a very reasonable percentage that would convince everyone here that there are a substantial number of qualified architects and engineers who believe in an inside jobby-job.

[aggle-rithm]

Bazant's stupid "pile driver theory" violates the Law of Conservation of Momentum. Anyone can do this experiment in his kitchen with 4 eggs and a glass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMcJnq6zh4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROuBvSZaFVE&feature=related

Wow. You've got a lot of nerve calling Bazant's theory "stupid" and then posting those two videos.

The guy in the first one would have much more credibility if he'd bothered to change out of his pajamas.

[newton3376]

Yep, pure science all the way.

I don't see the problem....

After all we can use many different things....cardboard boxes, lemons, pizza boxes, apples, etc to model the WTC...you need to get up to date on modern modeling methods tsig..

:)

[Telltale Tom]

So, in other words, 83% of them are licensed and active, and 4 of them are retired. How damning.

Yes ergo, but although 20 Texas PE's is bad, our real problem is in New York which is awful. You would have thought that New York structural PE's could have been bothered to look at the evidence. Out of the 5 NY structural PE residents that signed the petition, we have

Abbas Behnambakhsh NOT REGISTERED (NY P. E. no. 077094; B.S. C.E.)
Donal Butterfield REGISTERED (RA11145 NY, PE39888 NY; BCE, MUD)
Ephraim Resnick INACTIVE (NY PE 042761; Worked for 50 years in construction design in and around NYC; Retired in August, 2001)
Richard Paul Sheridan NOT REGISTERED (51289 1974 Dec.; Civil Engineering)
Robert J. Randall REGISTERED (52752 NY; Structural design of nuclear submarines, power plants, commercial & residential buildings.)

Butterfield Donal: Got his license in 1963 - 48 years ago, the guy must be well over 70, but fortunately still pays his dues. and Robert J. Randall apparently is not a resident of NY anymore, but of Centreville, Md

So out of 5 signatories there is only one NY resident, which is 20%.

Unfortunately the other 10,000 are too cowardly. 0.01% is about a quarter of normal.

[AZCat]

:) If this is what will help you understand, then I can go along with this, for a little while. This is how religious fundamentalists understand things, too, so we have to simplify our explanation somewhat here:

If all that matters is what's right and what's wrong, then the next time you're wondering, just remember: the NIST reports are wrong. They are wrong in both small detail and in larger conclusion. They mix correct facts with incorrect facts. They apply incorrect models. They do not complete their analysis. They rely on Bazant, who is also wrong. He is wrong in both assumptions and larger conclusions. The models he applies are incorrect. They neither conform to observables nor to known gravitational collapses. The official collapse explanation is wrong. It is incorrect. It is false.

I'm curious - what is the basis for these claims? Did you do your own work or are you basing this on the work of someone else? If the former, then you seem to have made quick progress since the last time I checked (you were struggling with free-body diagrams). If the latter, then how do you judge the validity of those claims versus the claims made by NIST and the other participating organizations?

[ergo]

Abbas Behnambakhsh NOT REGISTERED (NY P. E. no. 077094; B.S. C.E.)
Donal Butterfield REGISTERED (RA11145 NY, PE39888 NY; BCE, MUD)
Ephraim Resnick INACTIVE (NY PE 042761; Worked for 50 years in construction design in and around NYC; Retired in August, 2001)
Richard Paul Sheridan NOT REGISTERED (51289 1974 Dec.; Civil Engineering)
Robert J. Randall REGISTERED (52752 NY; Structural design of nuclear submarines, power plants, commercial & residential buildings.)

Butterfield Donal: Got his license in 1963 - 48 years ago, the guy must be well over 70, but fortunately still pays his dues. and Robert J. Randall apparently is not a resident of NY anymore, but of Centreville, Md

So out of 5 signatories there is only one NY resident, which is 20%.

So being over 70 disqualifies you? In what way? That would knock out Leslie Robertson and Zdenek Bazant, among other NIST/Bazant apologists (not to mention James Randi). Can we assume that Robertson and Bazant don't have a clue what they're talking about?

And they also need to live in NY? They can't just work there? :D While you're at it, do you happen to know if any of them are gay? Or diabetic? That might cast doubt on their ability to assess building collapses, too. Oh, and did you bother searching for "NY"? Or just "New York"? How about New Jersey? No? Gee.

Just wondering how far down Stupid Alley we can take this... ;)

By the way, which structural engineers in NY and Texas support the Bazant/NIST or otherwise official collapse hypothesis? What names do you have?

[ozeco41]

...Just wondering how far down Stupid Alley we can take this... ;)
Yes.

It is amusing to observe you playing the game. :)

[TruthMakesPeace]

So how many architects and engineers independently support the official theory? How many of them are debunkers?
Employed or not.
And just how do they support it?

Yes, the present number is a very low percentage. The percentage of people who believed the world was flat, not round, was once that low.

The important thing is that the number is steadily increasing. I will send AE911Truth an email to ask if they can show a graph, to see if it is increasing at a faster rate.

It takes about 1/2 hour to get on the AE911Truth list. The Validation Team calls each potential signer personally, and requires them to fax their credentials. They are keenly aware of, and guarding against anyone submitting a false name, as 1 bad apple is what debunkers will focus on. If anyone wanted off the list and was not done promptly, they know it would be all over JREF the next day.

The signers support it with their signatures. Some make statements and videos. Some speak with Richard Gage. So support varies.

On the other hand, we don't see any Architects and Engineers standing up for the OCT. Why don't they rally to support the Bush-Cheney theory against all the criticism? Do they not care about their former president, or truth in general? Why are they not out there defending and promoting the OCT?

www.AE911Truth.org may have only 1485 signers (up again). But how many signatures do they have on www.AE911OCT.com? One? Those who are not aware there is an issue about 9/11, or have not looked in to it, cannot be counted on "their side".

www.PatriotsQuestion911.org may have only a couple thousand listed, but
www.PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com only has about 20 signers. ;)

[ergo]

www.PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com

:D !!

That deserves a thread of its own!

[beachnut]

:D !!

That deserves a thread of its own!

http://www.patriotsdonotquestion911.com/

The best 911 truth can do, fantasy. You guys have failed for 9 years, on target for 10, and infinite fail. It is a lock.

Gage's list, his petition, his member, those few fringe who can't figure out 911. Less than 0.01 percent of all AE. Good news only a few are clueless on 911, and Gage has the list.


...
Bazant's stupid "pile driver theory" violates the Law of Conservation of Momentum. ...
If you knew what the Law of Conservation of Momentum was, you would not post such an idiotic statement. This post pretty much proves you have no clue what physics is, and it is not surprising you don't understand Gage is fraud. AE is Gage's meal ticket for begging for money - if you figure this out, you will be upset you were duped by Gage's nonsense and evidence free presentations.

None of Gage's dupes have been able to produce a paper to support the lie you posted.

[beachnut]

Yes, the present number is a very low percentage. The percentage of people who believed the world was round, not flat, was once that low. It is not low, it is very low, less than 0.01 percent. And of all who have signed up, they have zero evidence. Why do your expert have zero evidence. Why do your experts fail to understand what happen on 911 give over 9 years? It is a comedy.


The important thing is that the number is steadily increasing. I will send AE911Truth an email to ask if they can show a graph, to see if it is increasing at a faster rate. Explain why over 1400 nuts can't produce a real paper on 911? Why can't over 1400 nuts investigate 911 and figure it out after 9 years? Where is their Pulitzer? Forgot, there is no Pulitzer for nonsense and delusions.

It takes about 1/2 hour to get on the AE911Truth list. The Validation Team calls each potential signer personally, and requires them to fax their credentials. They are keenly aware of, and guarding against anyone submitting a false name, as 1 bad apple is what debunkers will focus on. If anyone wanted off the list and was not done promptly, they know it would be all over JREF the next day. Passengers on Flight 93 figure out 911 in minutes, you and AE can't do it given the answers, given the evidence, and over 9 years to do research.


The signers support it with their signatures. Some make statements and videos. Some speak with Richard Gage. So support varies. That is all they have, signatures, no evidence, only signatures. Empty of evidence, they have nothing.


On the other hand, we don't see any Architects and Engineers standing up for the OCT. Why don't they rally to support the Bush-Cheney theory? Where is their web site? Where is an AE911OCT.com? How many signatures do they have? Zero. www.PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com (http://www.PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com) only has about 20. ;)
Darn, I am an engineer. You posted another failed statement.

Good job, all 911 truth can do is make up fraud. Another fraud by 911 truth. www.PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com (http://www.patriotsdonotquestion911.com/) good job...

You posted a made up web site to support your made up nonsense.


Those who are not aware there is an issue, or have not looked in to it, cannot be counted on the AE911OCT side. You looked into 911 and fell for the delusions of 911 truth.

It has been over 9 years, AE 911 truth is in the Bigfoot years, total nonsense based on delusions. Gage is doing this to earn money, that is the only goal.

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, the present number is a very low percentage. The percentage of people who believed the world was flat, not round, was once that low.

And we can expect the truth movement to be just as successful. I realise it may be a typo, but I'm Stundieing that.

Dave

[Oystein]

It's an invalid comparison because you have no idea how many have actually exposed themselves to this information, or why they haven't bothered, or what their real opinion is, or why they might not want to stick their neck out professionally.

It would be Gage's first and foremost duty to CONTACT ALL active, licensed engineers. Maybe we should ask him if he has a tally of how many he has contacted during the 4 years or so that he has been soliciting their signatures. How many civil engineering conferences did he attend? How many pages of advertising did he buy in which cilvil enineering journals did he buy, and what was their circulation? How many direct mailing did he sent to civil engineers throuout the country? Have there been any drives to call them on the phone systematically? I think ae911truth should be able to detail their activities with regard to reaching the desired population.

I tell you what: I will soon reach out to all Dallas, Texas structural engineers. When I do, I'll let you know about responses and numbers :)

The entire premise of this thread is invalid. The real question is, as others have pointed out before: how many a & e's who really investigate the matter end up supporting the official story? That's what you need to ask yourselves. There are very few people who have the time to study these matters, and even fewer who have the time to become activist about it. That's a simple, unchanging reality.

We can do a count on that: Those who really investigated the matter wrote papers.
As far as I acan see, the vast majority of engineers who did so do support the planes-and-fires theory.

[ergo]

It would be Gage's first and foremost duty to CONTACT ALL active, licensed engineers.

Why? How often after they've already been verified?

Maybe we should ask him if he has a tally of how many he has contacted during the 4 years or so that he has been soliciting their signatures. How many civil engineering conferences did he attend? How many pages of advertising did he buy in which cilvil enineering journals did he buy, and what was their circulation? How many direct mailing did he sent to civil engineers throuout the country? Have there been any drives to call them on the phone systematically? I think ae911truth should be able to detail their activities with regard to reaching the desired population.

Why? What concern is it of yours?

I tell you what: I will soon reach out to all Dallas, Texas structural engineers. When I do, I'll let you know about responses and numbers :)

Send them the Bazant 2008 paper and make sure they look at the pictures in the back.

We can do a count on that: Those who really investigated the matter wrote papers.

As far as I acan see, the vast majority of engineers who did so do support the planes-and-fires theory.

How many would that be? I'm guessing 12. And merely supporting "planes and fires" is not supporting the official collapse hypothesis. Since the collapses of the towers came as a shock to most engineers, it's important to get at the real mechanism of collapse. The correct explanation has to explain the behaviour of the collapses as well.

[ergo]

To get a grasp of how many 1,484 architects and engineers is, here's an exercise. Go to the page listing the signatories (http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php#supporters), put your cursor after Gage's name, and then scroll down through the page using your down arrow. (Not the page down, but the line down arrow.) You'll be sitting there for a good two to three minutes while the names scroll by. When you're just doing a search of the list for particular terms, you don't get a proper sense of the numbers.

[Oystein]

You lose ground quickly in the building professions if you are not actively engaged. Even when you are, you can quickly lose ground if in areas of knowledge that you do actively participate in. I have had my license for over twenty years and have continuously worked, but there are parts of the profession I am woefully behind the times

I have to agree with ergo that being retired is no more an indication for incompetence as being a young, active and licensed engineer is an indication for competence in this particular case.


Again: It does not matter what degree you got and in what year. All that matters is whether you are right or wrong.

Every single engineer who signed Gage's petition is wrong, regardless of his or her license status or age.

The entire debate here is only about the number of engineers (and architects) that signed, and if that number is high, impressive, significant, or whatever.

Again: Even if 3 million engineers had signed the petition: If they believe that any highrise was demolished by explosives or incendiaries, they are wrong.

All we are discussing here is numbers, and assessing if the numbers are high..



Truthers claim:

The number of architects and engineers that signed is 1400+.
This is a high number
This high number is in itself significant enough to warrant the doubts expressed in the petition, and a new investigation


We should point out that the opposite is true:

Only a little more than 500 architects and engineers signed up
This is a miniscule number, a tiny fraction of the intended population, representing less than 0.1% of the licensed, active engineers in America
Regardless of how many signed the petition, the arguments put forward by ae911truth are wrong. Therefore, no doubts and no new investigation are warranted.
The so-called petition is not even a petition, the entire operation is a fraud that pay Richard Gage a living income.

[Grizzly Bear]

I should add to that. Every exchange I've had individually with TM proponents they've based their criteria on not only numbers, but also directly by age and raw time spent as a professional. For example, I'm a 6th year master's program student in architecture turning 24 in August; the common response to these details almost always turns into Gage being "right" purely on the grounds of his seniority in the field rather than whether any of the claims themselves are right or wrong. In their responses, I am always "wrong" solely because of my age.

Gage, and anyone who supports his cause as a professional fail in areas that are easy for 1st year students to accomplish, and being a student myself still I can compare Gage's practices with both my own and how my underclassmen are performing. My underclassmen, perform the research tasks far better in any topic.

If the "truthers" can't get beyond raw numbers and explain the merits of the claims, then they've lost all sense of credibility

[Oystein]

Why? How often after they've already been verified?

Maybe I didn't make my itention clear: Gage should already have alerted pretty much all engineers of his concerns; most particular all structural engineers, as they all have to deal with the changes in building codes suggested by NIST as a consequence of their WTC findings.

If Gage's concerns were valid, you could bet that a LOT more than 0.02% of all structural engineers would pay very keen interest and investigate. (I found, at least for the state of Texas, that specifically structural engineers are the least likely to sign Gage's petition. I have an intuition this may have something to do with Gage being wrong on all issues related to structural engineering).

So to answer your question "how often": Each engineer at least once, of course before they sign.

Why? What concern is it of yours?

If Gage has failed, after 4 years, to even reach out systematically to the engineering community, then we can safely conclude that ae911truth is not about engineering and the opinion of the engineering community, but merely a business outfit desigbed to fool the general non-engineering population.

If Gage is sincere, he has tried that outreach a few times over, and could document it.
If he hasn't or can't, he is not sincere (or incompetent).

Send them the Bazant 2008 paper and make sure they look at the pictures in the back.

Good idea! It's never wrong to get profressional feedback :)
Then again, we don't want to overburden those poor poor engineers that can't even be bothered to take 5 minutes out of their busy schedules to sign a petition, eh?

[QUOTE=ergo;7102770]How many would that be? I'm guessing 12. And merely supporting "planes and fires" is not supporting the official collapse hypothesis. Since the collapses of the towers came as a shock to most engineers, it's important to get at the real mechanism of collapse. The correct explanation has to explain the behaviour of the collapses as well.

I do believe that at least those engineers and architects that have to suffer NIST's results in the form of changed building codes already have those worries close to their hearts. So if the consensus among the structural engineering community was "thermal expansion could never cause progressive collapse", and yet they are made henceforth liable for preventing against thermal expansion of long-span beams as spelled out by NIST's recommendations, you could bet some wave of opposition in the professional venues (journals, conferences).

So - have you seen any structural engineering journal or heard any structural engineering conference whine about these code changes?

[Dave Rogers]

I should add to that. Every exchange I've had individually with TM proponents they've based their criteria on not only numbers, but also directly by age and raw time spent as a professional. For example, I'm a 6th year master's program student in architecture turning 24 in August; the common response to these details almost always turns into Gage being "right" purely on the grounds of his seniority in the field rather than whether any of the claims themselves are right or wrong. In their responses, I am always "wrong" solely because of my age.

Cicorp committed a different variant of this fallacy a day or two ago, claiming that David Griscom is more right than other scientists in the TM because he's published more papers, and that my publication count entitles me to criticise Steven Jones but not David Griscom (or some such nonsense). It seems that the truther view of science is that, when two scientists disagree, all that's necessary to determine who's right is a pile of papers and a ruler.

Dave

[Oystein]

To get a grasp of how many 1,484 architects and engineers is, ...

You repeat that lie of 1,484 architects and engineers.



There are no 1,484 architects and engineers on that list!




Gage now calls them "a&e professionals", meaning some of them are not licensed to work as an architect or engineer.

There are only 514 US architects and engineers on that list!



...here's an exercise. Go to the page listing the signatories (http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php#supporters), put your cursor after Gage's name, and then scroll down through the page using your down arrow. (Not the page down, but the line down arrow.) You'll be sitting there for a good two to three minutes while the names scroll by. When you're just doing a search of the list for particular terms, you don't get a proper sense of the numbers.

Here is another excercise:

- Mark a length of 274 feet on the ground (about 83.5 meters, in SI units), 1 foot per licensed, active engineer who signed
- Walk that length. Should take you a minute, or slightly less.
- Now mark a length 350,000 feet on the ground (more than 106 kilometers), or 1 foot per licensed, active engineer in the USA
- Walk that length. At a swift, steady hiking pace, you'll walk 18 hours straigth. Young and fit hikers would do this in 3 days, most ordinary but healthy people will more likely spread it over 5 days.

I suspect that about the same proportions hold for licensed architetcs, or the unlicensensed engineers and architects who are included in your 1,484.

Now you know how irrelevantly small the number of signatories is.

[TruthMakesPeace]

To get a grasp of how many 1,484 architects and engineers is, here's an exercise....You'll be sitting there for a good two to three minutes while the names scroll by. When you're just doing a search of the list for particular terms, you don't get a proper sense of the numbers.

Here's a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of the AE911Truth.org Petition signers, which makes is so much easier than a web page, to see how many they have, arranged by category, and to search with Ctrl+F for words, such as "PhD" or "C.E." or US states. (Presently it is offered by another group. I emailed AE911Truth suggesting they offer the .XLS on their web site.)
http://ANETA.org/AE911Truth

[Oystein]

Here's a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of the AE911Truth.org Petition signers, which makes is so much easier than a web page, to see how many they have, arranged by category, and to search with Ctrl+F for words, such as "PhD" or "C.E." or US states. (Presently it is offered by another group. I emailed AE911Truth suggesting they offer the .XLS on their web site.)
http://ANETA.org/AE911Truth

Thanks for your effort!

One question - on that page you link to, there is this graph:
http://aneta.org/AE911Truth/index.13.gif

It has been pointed out in this forum that gage changed the definition of who gets counted towards that number at least twice, from "licensed a&e" to just "a&e" to "a&e professionals". Consequently, the number may have risen faster after 12/2008 than before 12/2008 because of that changed definition rather than a heightened interest among a&e.
Did you take that into account somehow? If not, maybe a disclaimer is in order.

[Animal]

Yes, the present number is a very low percentage. The percentage of people who believed the world was flat, not round, was once that low.

The number is not a low percentage.......it is not even close to being 1%

The important thing is that the number is steadily increasing. I will send AE911Truth an email to ask if they can show a graph, to see if it is increasing at a faster rate.

But it is not increasing at even the same rate of new licensees, thus the percentage is falling.


It takes about 1/2 hour to get on the AE911Truth list. The Validation Team calls each potential signer personally, and requires them to fax their credentials. They are keenly aware of, and guarding against anyone submitting a false name, as 1 bad apple is what debunkers will focus on. If anyone wanted off the list and was not done promptly, they know it would be all over JREF the next day.

The signers support it with their signatures. Some make statements and videos. Some speak with Richard Gage. So support varies.

On the other hand, we don't see any Architects and Engineers standing up for the OCT. Why don't they rally to support the Bush-Cheney theory against all the criticism? Do they not care about their former president, or truth in general? Why are they not out there defending and promoting the OCT?

For starters, most of us have jobs and a life. The only reason I come here is for entertainment and to laugh at troofers.


www.AE911Truth.org may have only 1485 signers (up again). But how many signatures do they have on www.AE911OCT.com? One? Those who are not aware there is an issue about 9/11, or have not looked in to it, cannot be counted on "their side".

www.PatriotsQuestion911.org may have only a couple thousand listed, but
www.PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com only has about 20 signers. ;)

Most professionals are aware that a few kooks see an issue with 9/11. Most professionals realize that those few kooks are not worth the time and efoort to respond to. :rolleyes:

[aggle-rithm]

Here's a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of the AE911Truth.org Petition signers, which makes is so much easier than a web page, to see how many they have, arranged by category, and to search with Ctrl+F for words, such as "PhD" or "C.E." or US states. (Presently it is offered by another group. I emailed AE911Truth suggesting they offer the .XLS on their web site.)
http://ANETA.org/AE911Truth

Here is a graph showing the rate of publication in peer-reviewed journals for members of AE911Truth:


0 __________________________________________________ ___

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

[ergo]

Again: It does not matter what degree you got and in what year. All that matters is whether you are right or wrong.

Oystein, this is a moronic argument, and one I've already addressed here. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7099332&postcount=292)

Who decides who's right and wrong? Qualified professionals. Who are yours? You have only a handful.

[DGM]

Who decides who's right and wrong?


The facts decide who's right or wrong. The ability to interpret the facts is where education comes in.

[ergo]

http://ANETA.org/AE911Truth


Thanks, cicorp. Interesting. Notice the precipitous climb in late 2008. This either has something to do with the final NIST report on WTC7 coming out, or the defeat of the Bush administration. No doubt professionals who had wanted to speak out before felt a little more safe with Bush and his creepy "you're either with us or against us" bunch gone. And they had plenty of ammunition to do so.

[Dave Rogers]

Thanks, cicorp. Interesting. Notice the precipitous climb in late 2008. This either has something to do with the final NIST report on WTC7 coming out, or the defeat of the Bush administration.

I thought we'd already established that it came from Gage fiddling the statistics by broadening his definitions.

Dave

[DGM]

Thanks, cicorp. Interesting. Notice the precipitous climb in late 2008. This either has something to do with the final NIST report on WTC7 coming out, or the defeat of the Bush administration. No doubt professionals who had wanted to speak out before felt a little more safe with Bush and his creepy "you're either with us or against us" bunch gone. And they had plenty of ammunition to do so.
........Or Gage changed the rules to include A&E professionals.


:rolleyes:

ETA Beaten to the post by Dave Rogers.........................again.

[ergo]

Still a much larger and more qualified bunch than anything bedunkers have come up with.

[DGM]

Still a much larger and more qualified bunch than anything bedunkers have come up with.
Why would "debunkers" even try to "come up" with a list? The earth is not the center of the known universe, do you need a list of scientist telling you that?


:confused:

[ergo]

.
Never any sources
Never any names
Never any facts
in their numerous claims

[ElMondoHummus]

Good grief, why are you truthers continuing to hammer the notion of numbers? Did you not read the beginning of the thread? Back over 2 years ago, by the 16th post which was written a mere day after the OP, I had already pointed out the fallacy of your stance:
Before I start, I need to make this clear that this isn't a criticism of RKOwens4's post. He makes a good point about the validity of the engineering expertise that the AE911T group claims to have, and I agree with that point. Their credentials are indeed overstated.

But, that said, to me it doesn't matter how many engineers they have. The acid test has always been the claim itself, not the authorities behind one stance or another. That is the essence of objective analysis: "Does the claim stand or fall on its own merits?". By itself, the number of people making a claim does not impress me when the number is cited by itself without corresponding arguments for why the number matters. I'm impressed when I learn that a majority of scientists support one hypothesis over another when I also understand the rationale behind their support, and the logic they apply to come to a conclusion (the Cold Fusion issue is a good example of this). I am not impressed with a number alone, and I am most certainly not impressed when I discover that the individual motivations behind support for a thesis are revealed to be either based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations, or just plain flawed. And that's the case with the AE911T list. When you read through the reasons the members give for joining, you see nothing but the canards and mistakes that have been shown to be wrong over and over here and in other forums. You don't see any original thinking, and you most certainly do not see any attempt to modify stances based on developing knowledge. How many people continue to stand behind the thermite fantasy despite the utter lack of characteristic effects, let alone the absolute misrepresentation of information that Steven Jones commits?

Knowledge develops, and when it does, hypotheses must develop as well. You see very little of this in the so-called truth movement. Credit Steven Jones for at least trying to follow along that line, but criticize others for failing to do so. And include the AE911T group in that.

Anyway, the point is that the individual rationales for people joining that list are flawed; that much is obvious by reading the rationales provided. They continually cite disproven issues as being the driving force for them joining. So to me, it doesn't matter if the individual adding him/herself to the list is a software engineer, or is credentialed in fire safety for large structures, the point is that the belief itself is wrong regardless of the credentials held by the person stating it. Einstein himself would be wrong if he stated something that violates physical laws, nevermind his expertise in physics. His credentials don't matter. And neither do the ones held by the members of AE911T. I'm not impressed by the members individual reasons for joining that group, I'm not impressed by the "scholarship" the organization produces, and I'm most certainly not impressed by the conspiracy peddlers continual use of that group as a lazy appeal to authority. The problem has always been and will always be the details of the truther argument itself. And until the flaws are solved, it doesn't matter who says they believe in it. So in the end, it doesn't matter what their claimed expertise is, or what the number of "real" engineers is in that organization. What matters is their stance, and the utter separation from reality it has.
Repeat: It doesn't matter if the AE911T list is a million signatures long. If they forward a disproven, internally contradicting myth, they're wrong. Regardless of their numbers.

Not a single bit of that has changed in the intervening years. I suggest you conspiracy peddlers give it up. The list means nothing. This has already been demonstrated.

[ElMondoHummus]

Why would "debunkers" even try to "come up" with a list? The earth is not the center of the known universe, do you need a list of scientist telling you that?


:confused:

Pfff... if he's trying to assert that his list is more distinguished than anyone elses, I recommend he actually looks at the credentials of the Purdue team who assembled the crash simulation, the UCal Davis "Delta" group, the Worcester team, the Arup/University of Edinburgh researchers who independently researched the fire and structural effects aspects, and the NIST teams and subcontracted researchers. You'll find few, if any, software engineers or anything like that among that bunch.

But again, it doesn't matter. As I said above: It's not who makes the claim, it's what the claim itself is. Those claims have been shown to be wrong, regardless of how long the list of advocates for it is.

[ergo]

Repeat: It doesn't matter if the AE911T list is a million signatures long. If they forward a disproven, internally contradicting myth, they're wrong. Regardless of their numbers



I would agree with this, except your assumptions are incorrect. Nothing of what they say has been "disproven." But feel free to give it a shot, El Mondo. And there's no "internally contradicting myth". That's just your uninformed opinion. However, we can apply those descriptions to NIST/Bazant.

[Grizzly Bear]

Nothing of what they say has been "disproven."
What is it that they say that isn't already disproven by their incompetence? :rolleyes:

[TruthersLie]

Yes, the present number is a very low percentage. The percentage of people who believed the world was flat, not round, was once that low.

The important thing is that the number is steadily increasing. I will send AE911Truth an email to ask if they can show a graph, to see if it is increasing at a faster rate.


While you are at it, can you check and see about the numbers of architects and engineers (not your LIE about architect and engineering professionals being architects and engineers) (oh have you stopped using that lie yet?)


It takes about 1/2 hour to get on the AE911Truth list. The Validation Team calls each potential signer personally, and requires them to fax their credentials. They are keenly aware of, and guarding against anyone submitting a false name, as 1 bad apple is what debunkers will focus on. If anyone wanted off the list and was not done promptly, they know it would be all over JREF the next day.

It has been repeatedly in the early days of the petition. But it was good of them to take the measures proactively and try to fix the problem.

It was good of them to fix the problem with the list being inaccurate in its adding of the members when they claimed to have 1100 but had just under 1,000 (992iirc)


The signers support it with their signatures. Some make statements and videos. Some speak with Richard Gage. So support varies.


Goody. While you are contacting them, can you ask when they can have a peer reviewed refutation of any of the NIST report? I'm still waiting for that citation you said you had for me.


On the other hand, we don't see any Architects and Engineers standing up for the OCT. Why don't they rally to support the Bush-Cheney theory against all the criticism? Do they not care about their former president, or truth in general? Why are they not out there defending and promoting the OCT?

How many scientists are running around making sure everyone knows the world is a sphere? Please point any out...

And your ignorance is staggering. You have hundreds of engineers who worked on parts of the NIST report. Their names are very easy to find. Why don't you email a few of them with your claptrap from ae911 and see what they say.


www.AE911Truth.org may have only 1485 signers (up again). But how many signatures do they have on www.AE911OCT.com? One? Those who are not aware there is an issue about 9/11, or have not looked in to it, cannot be counted on "their side".

www.PatriotsQuestion911.org may have only a couple thousand listed, but
www.PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com only has about 20 signers. ;)

appeal to authority rejected again.
This is like your piss poor attempt with general stubblebine...rather laughable.

have you looked up and corrected your SLANDER of the SEC yet? Have you contacted the investigators (whose names I gave you) about those PUT orders? have you figured out basic accounting yet?

[Grizzly Bear]

But again, it doesn't matter. As I said above: It's not who makes the claim, it's what the claim itself is. Those claims have been shown to be wrong, regardless of how long the list of advocates for it is.
A point that unfortunately isn't something that gets through their heads. If you don't agree with their theories then you have not looked at the evidence in their eyes. If you're silent, you automatically consent to their theories but fear reprisals for going public. If you are younger, then you are wrong because of seniority. The movement has all kinds of excuses for avoiding the issue of discussing the merits of its claims and weasels it until the original point is forgotten.

[TruthersLie]

To get a grasp of how many 1,484 architects and engineers is, here's an exercise. Go to the page listing the signatories (http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php#supporters), put your cursor after Gage's name, and then scroll down through the page using your down arrow. (Not the page down, but the line down arrow.) You'll be sitting there for a good two to three minutes while the names scroll by. When you're just doing a search of the list for particular terms, you don't get a proper sense of the numbers. Truther LIE highlighted. They do not have 1484 architects and engineers. They have 1484 architectural and engineering professionals. They have just over 700 architects and engineers (if you include about 200 of the NON US architectural and engineering professionals as actual architects and engineers). Why do you feel the need to lie? Is that number just too embarrassing for you?


to get a grasp of how many peer reviewed refutations of NIST those 1484 architectural and engineering professionals is just open a blank word document.

That is the number of words that these 1484 architectural and engineering professionals have had published refuting ANYTHING from NIST or Dr. Bazant.

Your pile of fail has arrived. Try not to step into it or onto your dick again.

[TruthersLie]

I would agree with this, except your assumptions are incorrect. Nothing of what they say has been "disproven." But feel free to give it a shot, El Mondo. And there's no "internally contradicting myth". That's just your uninformed opinion. However, we can apply those descriptions to NIST/Bazant.

When can we expect 1, 2 or 10 of your wonderful 1400+ architectural and engineering professionals to publish a peer reviewed refutation of NIST/Bazant?

We've only been waiting for 2+ years since the NIST final draft on wtc7 came out.

Where are the papers?

[beachnut]

.
Never any sources
Never any names
Never any facts
in their numerous claims
AE truth, the do nothing group. The only product of AE truth is funding Gage. If you can't get a Pulitzer in the first year, you have failed to find evidence. Like you, Gage and his band of can't think for themselves followers, have zero evidence. Your post contain nothing to support your delusional claims. You have to post the evidence to support your claims and you can't.

The evidence for 911 is in the public domain after countless FOIA requests. I have the raw FDR information and thousands of documents supporting 19 terrorists did 911, and you have zero to support your failed opinions.

I have 14,692 items, over 6.7 GB of data on 911, and it supports 19 terrorists did 911. You have zero evidence, zero engineering knowledge which leaves you regurgitating lies from 911 truth. You have no tools to save you from being fooled by liars who spread false information which you mistake for but can't list as evidence. You persist at spewing false information and making up nonsense about 911 based on opinion when you need evidence. When you become capable of comprehending you are evidence free, you will start to break from the anti-intellectual movement of lies, 911 truth. god speed

[Oystein]

Oystein, this is a moronic argument, and one I've already addressed here. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7099332&postcount=292)

Who decides who's right and wrong? Qualified professionals. Who are yours? You have only a handful.

You have none.

[Oystein]

Still a much larger and more qualified bunch than anything bedunkers have come up with.

More qualified bunch?
If you subtract all those who have no expertise with building codes for highrises, ae911truth has fewer than the experts listed as contributors to the NIST reports. As I pointed out earlier, there are less than 100 engineers on the list who would, by profession, be qualified to assess the collapse of a steel-frame highrise. If you subtract from these all those who state falsehood and repeated lies in their profile statements, your number quickly dwindels down near zero.

[ergo]

Sorry, but JREF bedunkers are not qualified, collectively or singularly, to assess the expertise of professionals supporting 9/11 inquiry.

The 1,484 architecture and engineering professionals really bothers bedunkers. Because they have so few on their side - maybe about 12 - who are actually willing to use their real names and speak publicly on the matter. And they've got these stupid models with one-way impact forces that they have to defend, craters in the middle of buildings to explain and plumes of ejecta never before seen in natural collapses that rival Sideshow Bob's hair. They have to defend this. It makes them look like idiots, and that gets wearing. We understand. But then we lose patience and need to call idiocy where we see it. And we see idiocy. Willful idiocy.

[Animal]

Sorry, but JREF bedunkers are not qualified, collectively or singularly, to assess the expertise of professionals supporting 9/11 inquiry.

The 1,484 architecture and engineering professionals really bothers bedunkers. Because they have so few on their side - maybe about 12 - who are actually willing to use their real names and speak publicly on the matter. And they've got these stupid models with one-way impact forces that they have to defend, craters in the middle of buildings to explain and plumes of ejecta never before seen in natural collapses that rival Sideshow Bob's hair. They have to defend this. It makes them look like idiots, and that gets wearing. We understand. But then we lose patience and need to call idiocy where we see it. And we see idiocy. Willful idiocy.

Maybe when there numbers get to 1% of the licensed professional in the country, but until then, they are the equivalent of a pimple on a gnat's ass.
Troofers are bothered that their 1484 "architecture and engineering professionals" are not accepted as anything more than the kooks that they are.

Every profession has its kooks, and professional are bothered when that small percentage of their profession tarnish the profession's image with their kookiness.

[ergo]

Yup. Stupid models with one-way impact forces, craters in the middles of buildings, and plumes of ejecta that look like Sideshow Bob's hair. Not to mention a building that descends like it's falling off a cliff.

What kinds of intellectual contortions does one have to go into to accept these in one's mind as "mere coincidence" or even "natural"? It must be excruciating.

Kind of like Sideshow Bob's hair.

[beachnut]

... The 1,484 architecture and engineering professionals ... Willful idiocy.
Yes, they act like idiots by signing up for Gage's fraud, too lazy to read and research 911, they fail by signing up for fraud. 1,484 have no evidence, are mindless drones (on 911 issues) who do nothing to help understand 911, they willfully remain in ignorance.
1,484 who failed for over 9 years to figure out 911; your heros who do nothing but mindlessly sign up for insane claims.

Another person signed up, now you have 1,485 who can't figure out 911. Less than 0.01 percent of all engineers. Why do so few sign up for the lies of Gage? Because only a fringe few fall for insane claims without checking them out - you have found that subset of people who refuse to think before they sign up, mindless followers, not skeptics.

[Animal]

Yup. Stupid models with one-way impact forces, craters in the middles of buildings, and plumes of ejecta that look like Sideshow Bob's hair. Not to mention a building that descends like it's falling off a cliff.

What kinds of intellectual contortions does one have to go into to accept these in one's mind as "mere coincidence" or even "natural"? It must be excruciating.

Kind of like Sideshow Bob's hair.

It is understandable for those ignorant WRT building construction have to conjure of a comforting explanation that they can comprehend such as "controlled demolition" that can be emotionally satisfying where events are placed in an understandable, moral context.

[ozeco41]

Yup. Stupid models with one-way impact forces, craters in the middles of buildings, and plumes of ejecta that look like Sideshow Bob's hair. Not to mention a building that descends like it's falling off a cliff.

What kinds of intellectual contortions does one have to go into to accept these in one's mind as "mere coincidence" or even "natural"? It must be excruciating.

Kind of like Sideshow Bob's hair.

It is understandable for those ignorant WRT building construction have to conjure of a comforting explanation that they can comprehend such as "controlled demolition" that can be emotionally satisfying where events are placed in an understandable, moral context...and only one little problem they always overlook.

It needs a damn sight more imagination to create a fantasy CD than to explain the actual 'natural' collapse.

[The Platypus]

Sorry, but JREF bedunkers are not qualified, collectively or singularly, to assess the expertise of professionals supporting 9/11 inquiry.

The 1,484 architecture and engineering professionals really bothers bedunkers. Because they have so few on their side - maybe about 12 - who are actually willing to use their real names and speak publicly on the matter. And they've got these stupid models with one-way impact forces that they have to defend, craters in the middle of buildings to explain and plumes of ejecta never before seen in natural collapses that rival Sideshow Bob's hair. They have to defend this. It makes them look like idiots, and that gets wearing. We understand. But then we lose patience and need to call idiocy where we see it. And we see idiocy. Willful idiocy.
:bs:

[aggle-rithm]

Still a much larger and more qualified bunch than anything bedunkers have come up with.

So, when should we expect them to change the world?

Publishing a few papers would be a good start. When are they going to get around to that? What do they have to do that's more important?

[Telltale Tom]

Still a much larger and more qualified bunch than anything bedunkers have come up with.

Well ergo I don't think that statement is quite the truth.

Didn't the chairman of the CTBUH Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat say that they saw no evidence whatsoever in the controlled demolition theory proposed by the truth movement. The Council claim to have 462,226 affiliated members, that you would call architectural and engineering professionals.

I really think that Cicorp is being truthful when he states that ae911truth has negligible support from the ae community. Whereas you are not being truthful in pretending that we have. Its nuts to pretend that we, at ae911truth,have support from the ae community.

But just because we do not have support does not mean to say we are wrong. There could be many other explanations.

[ergo]

It really bugs you guys. :) I don't blame you. 1,484 to 12. Yeesh.

[frank3373]

There is a sufficient case for a new investigation, such as the clearly defined list of the 10 Qualities of Controlled Demolition on the AE911Truth page that the collapse of WTC 7 matches.

Otherwise intelligent people still look at WTC 7 and actually believe it came down by fire alone! It would be hilarious if not so sad. A child can see the similarities of WTC 7 and a Controlled Demolition.

Unfortunately the majority of Americans have been deceived and don't even know it. But fortunately people are waking up. About every week the number of AE911Truth petition signers goes up. Every day, the number of views on YouTube videos about WTC 7 and other aspects of 9/11 goes up. A sleeping giant is waking up about 9/11.

The number of people who have been duped by the OCT goes down and down every day. Sadly a lot of those who have been duped are on JREF, clinging to others for support who still believe the 9/11 Fairy Tale.

If an architect or engineer wants to be off the AE911Truth list, all he has to do is email them. But the number of petition signers keeps going up. Today it is up to 1484.
>What is earth-shatteringly stupid about all of these claims is that there is no independent verification for any of them. No physics department anywhere. No civil engineering firm anywhere. No group of working civil engineers. No representatives from the demolition industry.

People here post that there are no peer-reviewed journal articles that support the Truther claims. What I find more telling is that no Truther has ever SUBMITTED any of their claims for an independent review by anybody. The fact that Truthers don't seek to validate their ideas is to me far more damning than not having a peer reviewed article to show. Honest people, looking to arrive at the truth, request to have their documentation and ideas verified.

These arguments are nothing more than a string of unsubstantiated statements. There is no "clearly defined list of the 10 Qualities of Controlled Demolition" unless you can find demolition experts and civil engineers who agree with such a list and who further agree that the WTC building collapse matches those criteria.

[Telltale Tom]

It really bugs you guys. :) I don't blame you. 1,484 to 12. Yeesh.

I think it bugs you :) 462,226 to 1,484 to 12 Yeesh.

But I don't think many others are bothered, even me and Cicorp

[frank3373]

If a child can see the similarities between WTC 7 and a controlled demolition, why don't you stop ********ting us, and get at least ONE civil engineer out of the tens of thousands of working civil engineers in America to support your statement? Get one demolition company to support your claim. One group of University physicists to support this claim.

What is the point of making statements for which you have no verification?

[Grizzly Bear]

Because comparing numbers is like measuring the lengths of the unmentionable "accessories" to see who has the longer one to them?

[ergo]

The number of people who have been duped by the OCT goes down and down every day. Sadly a lot of those who have been duped are on JREF, clinging to others for support who still believe the 9/11 Fairy Tale.



I've actually been thinking that they may be the last ones--the last to know, so to speak, in part because of their self-perception as defenders of the OCT. But chances are, not even the NIST engineers believe the official collapse explanations. They were paid to come up with something, but I doubt they actually believe it. I don't think Bazant even believes it. Personally, I think he just prides himself on coming up with an explanation for something that's very hard to explain using natural failure modes. And if FOX news or CNN were to start reporting tomorrow that the Twin Towers came down by planted explosives, the vast majority of Americans who currently believe the OCT wouldn't question it. Nor would the current silent majority of engineers. I don't think we'd find them suddenly uprising and saying, "That's a lie! It's obvious the fires did it!"

So I don't think there's any real informed consensus on this. 9/11 truth by far has the most ground covered legitimately. And that can only grow.

.

[ergo]

What is the point of making statements for which you have no verification?

Um...are you aware of what the thread is about?

[slojoe]

Sorry, but JREF bedunkers are not qualified, collectively or singularly, to assess the expertise of professionals supporting 9/11 inquiry.

The 1,484 architecture and engineering professionals really bothers bedunkers. Because they have so few on their side - maybe about 12 - who are actually willing to use their real names and speak publicly on the matter. And they've got these stupid models with one-way impact forces that they have to defend, craters in the middle of buildings to explain and plumes of ejecta never before seen in natural collapses that rival Sideshow Bob's hair. They have to defend this. It makes them look like idiots, and that gets wearing. We understand. But then we lose patience and need to call idiocy where we see it. And we see idiocy. Willful idiocy.


Alas ergo, you're off the mark. It's 1485 (http://ae911truth.org/) - proving P. T. Barnum (allegedly (http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html)) right once again. However, the important number is $89,349 (http://rememberbuilding7.org/wp-content/w3tc/pgcache/_index.html.gzip), which is a truer measure of this group's intent.

So while you're holding forth about willful idiocy, consider the phenomenon of useful idiocy, and don't forget to visit the online store (https://www.ae911truth.net/store/?redir=store), where you can find the Special Activist Pack (http://www.ae911truth.net/store/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=138).

A $289 value. Save 20% off our already discounted bulk pricing!

(Designed only for the Serious Activists... Do you Qualify?? )

:dl:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson

[tsig]

Alas ergo, you're off the mark. It's 1485 (http://ae911truth.org/) - proving P. T. Barnum (allegedly (http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html)) right once again. However, the important number is $89,349 (http://rememberbuilding7.org/wp-content/w3tc/pgcache/_index.html.gzip), which is a truer measure of this group's intent.

So while you're holding forth about willful idiocy, consider the phenomenon of useful idiocy, and don't forget to visit the online store (https://www.ae911truth.net/store/?redir=store), where you can find the Special Activist Pack (http://www.ae911truth.net/store/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=138).

A $289 value. Save 20% off our already discounted bulk pricing!

(Designed only for the Serious Activists... Do you Qualify?? )

:dl:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson

But look at what all you get:

Includes:
10 - BFT 2hr in orange envelope
10 - BFT Companion Edition in blue envelope
10 - Nanothermite in yellow envelope
10 - SF Press Conference in black envelope

1 - BFT 2hr in plastic case
1 - BFT Companion Edition in plastic case
1 - Nanothermite in plastic case
1 - SF Press Conference in plastic case

20 - Street Brochures
50 - 9/11 Investigator
20 - Postcard mailer
20 - TT Evidence card
20 - WTC 7 Evidence card
20 - Chart card

1 - Third Beam Wall Poster
1 - Bumper sticker
5 - Cubicle sticker
1 - T-shirt (please specify size! S-XXL)


Wow! Nanothermite, blow up your own buildings for fun and profit.

Good engineering must always bee done wearing the right T-shirt.

[tsig]

I don't see the problem....

After all we can use many different things....cardboard boxes, lemons, pizza boxes, apples, etc to model the WTC...you need to get up to date on modern modeling methods tsig..

:)


Yes, I feel so out of date. One guy wearing a bathrobe in his kitchen used four eggs and one glass* and made all those computer models obsolete. I guess we should abandon our computers and go to writing on rocks and throwing them in the river and waiting for them to float upstream in order to communicate.

*bet two girls, one cup could also bee used.:degrin:

[The Platypus]

It really bugs you guys. :) I don't blame you. 1,484 to 12. Yeesh.


It looks like you are that one bothered by the fact that most experts and most people don't believe the delusions you've bought into and are trying to peddle. So much so that all you can resort too is one of the most pathetic performances of spewing lies and obnoxious juvenile taunts, that i've ever seen.

[Dave Rogers]

Good grief, why are you truthers continuing to hammer the notion of numbers? Did you not read the beginning of the thread? Back over 2 years ago, by the 16th post which was written a mere day after the OP, I had already pointed out the fallacy of your stance:
Repeat: It doesn't matter if the AE911T list is a million signatures long. If they forward a disproven, internally contradicting myth, they're wrong. Regardless of their numbers.

I'm starting to see a pattern here. Truthers start from false data, then apply an invalid chain of reasoning, to arrive at a conclusion that contradicts other data. They then hope that debunkers can't decide whether to point out that the starting data is false, that the reasoning is invalid, or that the conclusion is impossible, and therefore won't know where to start. It's the "three wrongs make a right" style of argument.

Dave

[aggle-rithm]

I've actually been thinking that they may be the last ones--the last to know, so to speak, in part because of their self-perception as defenders of the OCT. But chances are, not even the NIST engineers believe the official collapse explanations. They were paid to come up with something, but I doubt they actually believe it. I don't think Bazant even believes it. Personally, I think he just prides himself on coming up with an explanation for something that's very hard to explain using natural failure modes. And if FOX news or CNN were to start reporting tomorrow that the Twin Towers came down by planted explosives, the vast majority of Americans who currently believe the OCT wouldn't question it. Nor would the current silent majority of engineers. I don't think we'd find them suddenly uprising and saying, "That's a lie! It's obvious the fires did it!"

So I don't think there's any real informed consensus on this. 9/11 truth by far has the most ground covered legitimately. And that can only grow.

.

Uh-huh. So when is your group going to actually DO something?

I mean, besides electronically signing a petition. Surely with this vast wealth of brainpower, they are qualified to do more than sign their names?

This is one reality you CANNOT talk your way out of. Despite this enormous pool of expertise you claim is on the side of the truthers, no one has able to publish a single paper supporting their viewpoint.

[aggle-rithm]

It does not surprise me at all that truthers have been able to come up with 1400 engineers who believe in an inside jobby-job.

It would be a cinch to find 1400 gainfully employed biologists who don't believe in evolution. Ditto geologists who think the earth is 6000 years old.

As a programmer, I have personally met people who think that Visual Basic 6 is the apex of technological achievement.

No matter what profession you're in, you'll find a certain percentage of crackpots who struggle with concepts that form the very basis of their own profession. Engineers are no exception...in fact, they are statistically more likely to have extreme ideological views than the general population.

[BasqueArch]

It does not surprise me at all that truthers have been able to come up with 1400 engineers who believe in an inside jobby-job.

It would be a cinch to find 1400 gainfully employed biologists who don't believe in evolution. Ditto geologists who think the earth is 6000 years old.

As a programmer, I have personally met people who think that Visual Basic 6 is the apex of technological achievement.

No matter what profession you're in, you'll find a certain percentage of crackpots who struggle with concepts that form the very basis of their own profession. Engineers are no exception...in fact, they are statistically more likely to have extreme ideological views than the general population.

Half of all engineers are below average.

[slojoe]

It does not surprise me at all that truthers have been able to come up with 1400 engineers who believe in an inside jobby-job.

It would be a cinch to find 1400 gainfully employed biologists who don't believe in evolution. Ditto geologists who think the earth is 6000 years old.

As a programmer, I have personally met people who think that Visual Basic 6 is the apex of technological achievement.

No matter what profession you're in, you'll find a certain percentage of crackpots who struggle with concepts that form the very basis of their own profession. Engineers are no exception...in fact, they are statistically more likely to have extreme ideological views than the general population.


Also, expertise in engineering is no guarantee of effective reasoning skill. As has been pointed out repeatedly to Truthers, the reasons signatories give for their position is highly flawed.

[TruthersLie]

Sorry, but JREF bedunkers are not qualified, collectively or singularly, to assess the expertise of professionals supporting 9/11 inquiry.

The 1,484 architecture and engineering professionals really bothers bedunkers. Because they have so few on their side - maybe about 12 - who are actually willing to use their real names and speak publicly on the matter. And they've got these stupid models with one-way impact forces that they have to defend, craters in the middle of buildings to explain and plumes of ejecta never before seen in natural collapses that rival Sideshow Bob's hair. They have to defend this. It makes them look like idiots, and that gets wearing. We understand. But then we lose patience and need to call idiocy where we see it. And we see idiocy. Willful idiocy.

OH goody. You have stopped using the trutherlie. Woo Hoo!!!

I fully stand by the NIST reports, the (under 40 but over 25) hard science papers written and published in peer reviewed engineering journals which support parts of NIST and Bazant.

how many do you have again? With 1400+ architectural and engineering professionals you should be able to have at least 50 peer reviewed engineering journal articles which state that NIST and Bazant are wrong. Where are they?

[TruthersLie]

It really bugs you guys. :) I don't blame you. 1,484 to 12. Yeesh.

peer reviewed engineering pages published which support NIST?
over 10,000

Peer reviewed engineering pages which state NIST and/or Bazant are wrong?
0

scoreboard
scoreboard
scoreboard

When will your tame architectural and engineering professionals manage to get anything published which say NIST is wrong? It should be easy.

[TruthersLie]

I've actually been thinking that they may be the last ones--the last to know, so to speak, in part because of their self-perception as defenders of the OCT. But chances are, not even the NIST engineers believe the official collapse explanations. They were paid to come up with something, but I doubt they actually believe it. I don't think Bazant even believes it. Personally, I think he just prides himself on coming up with an explanation for something that's very hard to explain using natural failure modes. And if FOX news or CNN were to start reporting tomorrow that the Twin Towers came down by planted explosives, the vast majority of Americans who currently believe the OCT wouldn't question it. Nor would the current silent majority of engineers. I don't think we'd find them suddenly uprising and saying, "That's a lie! It's obvious the fires did it!"

So I don't think there's any real informed consensus on this. 9/11 truth by far has the most ground covered legitimately. And that can only grow.

.

Argument from ignorance.

Why don't you write to the engineers of the NIST reports and ask them. It wouldn't be hard to find their names and email addresses. Here I'll give you a start
www.nist.gov

Feel free. Oh wait.. instead you will just make a BS statement.

[Jono]

Also, expertise in engineering is no guarantee of effective reasoning skill. As has been pointed out repeatedly to Truthers, the reasons signatories give for their position is highly flawed.

Yesterday I found out that the elderly polish gentleman who works beside me used to be a civil engineer (he used to design and construct busses). As it turns out, as I had to inquiry on the given topic, he felt "something was wrong" with the collapse of the Towers, that they couldn't have collapsed like that without some "planted device". Naturally, I asked him if he knew anything about the structures, the damage, the fire etc. Nope, he had no idea, he'd only seen a bit on a youtube-vid. He didn't even know what a "truss" was?!

This is why I bother more with the content of what people say or claim, as opposed to what education they went through once upon a time.

[ergo]

I've always said that understanding natural vs. induced collapses doesn't require an education beyond secondary school. But I do love the dancing goalposts here. Suddenly, "Qualifications don't matter! So there!" because bedunkers realize they can't compete :D

This conversation is very amusing.

Anyway, if we want to just say that all that matters is whose arguments are right and whose are wrong, we can settle this right now. Yours are wrong. We've been telling you this for a long time. If you disagree with me, find some structural engineers outside of NIST to confirm the Bazant/NIST collapse hypotheses. Let's say five. Find five structural engineers. Real names, please, and source. Shouldn't be too hard, right?

[TruthersLie]

I've always said that understanding natural vs. induced collapses doesn't require an education beyond secondary school

So then we can tell that you never finished secondary school. Thanks for demonstrating that.

Very simple. Very easy. Just tell us when these 1400+ architectural and engineering professionals will publish their ground breaking refutation of NIST/Bazant (two different groups with two different dicussions) in any peer reviewed engineering journal.

So we have between 25 and 50 peer reviewed engineering journals which agree with NIST/Bazant.

How many do you have again?

scoreboard
scoreboard
scoreboard

come on ergo... just when will these retired members do something worth talking about? They have the time to write the papers... it shouldn't be hard with all that experience.

[Animal]

Argument from ignorance.

Why don't you write to the engineers of the NIST reports and ask them. It wouldn't be hard to find their names and email addresses. Here I'll give you a start
www.nist.gov

Feel free. Oh wait.. instead you will just make a BS statement.

And then there is this
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6622517#post6622517

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Can't find the thread to put this in, so I guess this thead will do.

A&E for 9/11 Truth on Facebook is censoring people. I've been censored 4 times already with other accounts.

Those people don't want the truth!

[aggle-rithm]

I've always said that understanding natural vs. induced collapses doesn't require an education beyond secondary school.

That is correct. Natural collapses occur only in nature.

When buildings collapse, it always has something to do with human activity.

For instance, I heard that on 9/11/2001 there were a couple of plane crashes in the vicinity. Perhaps that had something to do with it.

[aggle-rithm]

Can't find the thread to put this in, so I guess this thead will do.

A&E for 9/11 Truth on Facebook is censoring people. I've been censored 4 times already with other accounts.

Those people don't want the truth!

They never have. When called on their hypocrisy, they miss the point entirely, saying "It's our organization, we can do whatever we want!"

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

They never have. When called on their hypocrisy, they miss the point entirely, saying "It's our organization, we can do whatever we want!"

Yeah, and I don't buy into that whole "non-profit" BS. Gage is profitting from it & the Twoofers are dumb & stupid to give him their money.

[aggle-rithm]

If you disagree with me, find some structural engineers outside of NIST to confirm the Bazant/NIST collapse hypotheses. Let's say five. Find five structural engineers. Real names, please, and source. Shouldn't be too hard, right?

Please define your terms. What do you mean by "confirm the Bazant/NIST collapse hypotheses"?

Do you mean that they performed experiments that proved the hypotheses correct?

Do you mean that they wrote their own papers that came to similar conclusions?

Do you mean that they wrote their own papers that came to the exact same conclusions in every detail?

Or, do you simply mean that they don't believe anything other than fire and/or structural damage caused the collapses?

I only ask for specificity because we've had a lot of experience with backpedalling when we answer these kinds of challenges.

[aggle-rithm]

Yeah, and I don't buy into that whole "non-profit" BS. Gage is profitting from it & the Twoofers are dumb & stupid to give him their money.

It beats working, especially when no one will hire you...

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It beats working, especially when no one will hire you...

Who does Gage thinks he is, Robin Hood? :D

[aggle-rithm]

Who does Gage thinks he is, Robin Hood? :D

Maybe Bizzaro-World Robin Hood....steals from the poor and gives to his secret bank account in the Bahamas.

[ergo]

Please define your terms. What do you mean by "confirm the Bazant/NIST collapse hypotheses"?

Do you mean that they performed experiments that proved the hypotheses correct?

Do you mean that they wrote their own papers that came to similar conclusions?

Do you mean that they wrote their own papers that came to the exact same conclusions in every detail?

Or, do you simply mean that they don't believe anything other than fire and/or structural damage caused the collapses?


Basically just looking for some names here outside of NIST. And also not involved in the current WTC project.

Five independent structural or mechanical engineers who have stated somewhere verifiable that they support the NIST/Bazant model of the collapses, and preferably why, but I'd accept simply a statement of support, with their real name and where they've made the statement. It can't just be saying "it was fires" or "it wasn't CD." They have to have actually looked into it themselves, understand the current model, understand the counter-arguments, perhaps have attended an AE event? and say that they support NIST/Bazant. Surely not every engineer who has looked into the evidence ends up at AETruth?

;)

[aggle-rithm]

Basically just looking for some names here outside of NIST. And also not involved in the current WTC project.

Five independent structural or mechanical engineers who have stated somewhere verifiable that they support the NIST/Bazant model of the collapses, and preferably why, but I'd accept simply a statement of support, with their real name and where they've made the statement. It can't just be saying "it was fires" or "it wasn't CD." They have to have actually looked into it themselves, understand the current model, understand the counter-arguments, perhaps have attended an AE event? and say that they support NIST/Bazant. Surely not every engineer who has looked into the evidence ends up at AETruth?

;)

What's wrong with this list?

And then there is this
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6622517#post6622517

[ergo]

We've already been over that. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6869710#post6869710) :)

Unless you can point out which papers specifically support NIST/Bazant and where in the paper this can be verified.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Basically just looking for some names here outside of NIST. And also not involved in the current WTC project.

Five independent structural or mechanical engineers who have stated somewhere verifiable that they support the NIST/Bazant model of the collapses, and preferably why, but I'd accept simply a statement of support, with their real name and where they've made the statement. It can't just be saying "it was fires" or "it wasn't CD." They have to have actually looked into it themselves, understand the current model, understand the counter-arguments, perhaps have attended an AE event? and say that they support NIST/Bazant. Surely not every engineer who has looked into the evidence ends up at AETruth?

;)


These folks figured it out, THEN gave their results to NIST: WEIDLINGER ASSOCIATES® INC report on WTC tower collapses.
(http://www.wai.com/project.aspx?id=1817&type=400)

Lead structural engineer for investigation that determined that the collapse of one WTC tower did not cause or contribute to the collapse of the other.

An investigation of the collapses of the World Trade Center towers was performed by a pre-eminent group of engineering firms led by Weidlinger Associates. The study, conducted on behalf of the attorneys for Silverstein Properties, Inc., is the most comprehensive study to date of why the Twin Towers stood for as long as they did and why they ultimately collapsed. The results of the study were released to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal agency charged with conducting an in-depth investigation of the causes of the collapses. The study established that the strength and redundancy of the superstructure of the towers initially allowed them to withstand the high-speed impact of the Boeing 767s and that the subsequent collapses were initiated separately by a combination of immediate damage from the impact of the airliners and the resulting fires on the floors that were struck.

[ergo]

What part of

support the NIST/Bazant model of the collapses


don't you get?

[ElMondoHummus]

These folks figured it out, THEN gave their results to NIST: WEIDLINGER ASSOCIATES® INC report on WTC tower collapses.
(http://www.wai.com/project.aspx?id=1817&type=400)

There's also the Arup/University of Edinburg researchers who've studied this topic.

------

Folks, the fundamental distortion being peddled here is that there are few to no engineering professionals/organizations/firms outside of the ones contracted by NIST that agree with the findings or are even aware of them. This is not merely a distortion of truth, it is an inversion of it. The fact that the International Code Council is looking over the findings and hasn't rejected any yet is evidence that tall structure professionals are indeed aware of the NIST findings impact on their profession. The other fact that codes in Europe, Asia, and the US too have been modified and will continue to be modified as further ratification by the ICC occurs is also strong evidence that these findings aren't only known, but accepted and are slowly but surely affecting codes and therefore practices.

Remember that there's actually a prime example of the NIST findings in practical use: The Beijing TVCC building fire. Arup came out and said that lessons learned from the Twin Tower fires influenced the design.

This assertion that the only engineers that agree with NIST are the ones associated with them somehow is simply wrong. The opposite is true.

[aggle-rithm]

We've already been over that. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6869710#post6869710) :)

Unless you can point out which papers specifically support NIST/Bazant and where in the paper this can be verified.

OK, that's what I figured. You place arbitrary conditions on your initially reasonable-sounding demand so that no answer will meet the requirements.

Standard operating procedure for all types of woo.

I know this will go in one ear and out the other, but let me clue you in on how the real world works. If someone comes out with a detailed analysis that includes years of research and thousands of man-hours of modeling, then you will be unlikely to see responses to that analysis unless there are problems with it. If the analysis is essentially correct, then...what would the point be? It's generally considered not a great career move to submit a paper that basically rehashes what someone else has already done. Academic journals want something new, something that has not already been gone over with a fine-toothed comb.

An engineering journal would LOVE to publish something that is well-founded and challenges a previously widely accepted idea. Why can't AETruth come up with something like that? Is it the well-founded part that gives them problems?

[aggle-rithm]

What part of




don't you get?

Even if the NIST/Bazant model proves to be completely wrong, then that doesn't make the inside jobby-job "hypothesis" correct.

For one thing, in order for it to be correct, it would have to actually exist. But it doesn't, does it?

[ergo]

What specific code changes are you talking about, El Mondo? Any changes toward more safety would not be contested by the industry. I don't think this is a significant point.

And aggle-rithm, what's so friggin hard for you about this:

Five independent structural or mechanical engineers who ... understand the current model, understand the counter-arguments, perhaps have attended an AE event? and say that they support NIST/Bazant. Surely not every engineer who has looked into the evidence ends up at AETruth?

?? :boggled:

[aggle-rithm]

And aggle-rithm, what's so friggin hard for you about this:



?? :boggled:

So you're not looking for papers, you're looking for names?

What was it about the list of names provided made you think they didn't support the NIST/Bazant model?

And what makes you think that even if they DID NOT support this specific model, then by default they supported....what? The model provided by A&ETruth?

They haven't GOT a model.

They haven't got a hypothesis.

They haven't DONE ANYTHING.

They cannot even articulate what they themselves believe happened on 9/11. And neither can you.

I could provide you with a list of names of people who have published papers on ANYTHING...horticulture, for instance...and they will have demonstrated vastly greater competence than anyone in your pathetic "movement" ever has.

[BasqueArch]

So you're not looking for papers, you're looking for names?

What was it about the list of names provided made you think they didn't support the NIST/Bazant model?

And what makes you think that even if they DID NOT support this specific model, then by default they supported....what? The model provided by A&ETruth?

They haven't GOT a model.

They haven't got a hypothesis.

They haven't DONE ANYTHING.

They cannot even articulate what they themselves believe happened on 9/11. And neither can you.

I could provide you with a list of names of people who have published papers on ANYTHING...horticulture, for instance...and they will have demonstrated vastly greater competence than anyone in your pathetic "movement" ever has.
http://fatescrew.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/M09_clap001.gif
Don't forget your blood pressure meds.

[TruthersLie]

What specific code changes are you talking about, El Mondo? Any changes toward more safety would not be contested by the industry. I don't think this is a significant point.


<facepalm>

I love the argument from incredulity and ignorance.

When designing anything you do a min/max problem. You want to use the minimum cost to get the maximum benefit.

Now if you have to increase the "safety" factor of your building for no good reason, then you have to increase the cost of the building. By looking at the NIST recommendations, it has forced the cost of new structures to increase.

Why would building owners pay for that if it wasn't valid?

But keep on tilting those windmills.

Have you contacted ANY of the NIST papers authors to inquire if they actually believe what they have peddled?

Better yet, when will you contact that group of architectural and engineering professionals to inquire when they intend to publish a refutation of ANY part of the NIST reports or Bazant in any peer reviewed engineering journal in the world?

[The Platypus]

Basically just looking for some names here outside of NIST. And also not involved in the current WTC project.

Five independent structural or mechanical engineers who have stated somewhere verifiable that they support the NIST/Bazant model of the collapses, and preferably why, but I'd accept simply a statement of support, with their real name and where they've made the statement. It can't just be saying "it was fires" or "it wasn't CD." They have to have actually looked into it themselves, understand the current model, understand the counter-arguments, perhaps have attended an AE event? and say that they support NIST/Bazant. Surely not every engineer who has looked into the evidence ends up at AETruth?

;)

Do you really think that your fooling anyone with this act of yours that Gage's ridiculous list trumps the entire expert community?? Seriously... :rolleyes:

Whether you want to accept it or not, the vast majority of the experts are not on your side. It's laughable that you think your doing anything with these pathetic antics, but showing how 9/11 conspiracy is a game of delusion and dishonesty.

[ergo]

So it appears that our 9/11 bedunkers can't even come up with FIVE friggin' engineers who support the Bazant/NIST collapse hypotheses.

Not even FIVE. :eye-poppi

Unbelievable.

Sure, they can cite a few paid NIST engineers or others under contract, but apparently they don't know ANY independent engineers, structural or otherwise, who have done their own research on it, and can state publicly and with complete confidence that the NIST/Bazant models are correct.


Do you really think that your fooling anyone with this act of yours that Gage's ridiculous list trumps the entire expert community?? Seriously...

This is kind of the point, Plat. You don't have the entire expert community on your side. You don't even friggin' know who they are! How can you say they're on your side?! :D

You cite a handful of publicly available papers written by people who are being paid to say what they're saying, but you can't find any real, live engineers in the real, live engineering community who publicly support NIST/Bazant. So you hide behind the NIST reports and an assumed but always anonymous "majority" which, in reality, you know absolutely nothing about.

[The Platypus]

Oh no they got paid!!! Other than jobless 9/11 nuts, who doesn't get paid? So what... They work, they get paid, that's how things work in reality and implying they are somehow controlled by this is just your BS and paranoia.

Meanwhile, here you are, promoting your Gage, a known charlatan. A washed up minor architect, that now get's paid solely from fleecing fools. Of course your cult has you convinced that this is ok, while making false accusations against anyone who has credentials and opposes your cult. Wierd how people that are talented enough and successful in excelling their careers, becoming the top of their field, unlike Gage. And when some of them contributed to help the country try to figure out what happened in a historic tragedy, they are all now accused by your cult of all being shady and evil people because they got a paycheck from the gov't for their work, unless of course they have signed Gages little list. That's so ridiculous and obvious cult type BS employed against those that prove you wrong, how can i take a word you CTers say seriously...

Let's cut the crap. I am sure that you well know, as just about everyone else does, that your 1400 out of the entire community is a pathetically small fraction and this is why you are performing the defenses of an unruly juvenile.

I am also sure that you well know that the vast majority of experts have no time for silly conspiracy theories spread by juvenile online rebels without a clue, and it's no wonder why, just look at you. They ignore you and your cult and it's lame antics because they are too busy doing real work and real science to play silly games with silly people who have yet to even bring a valid challenge through any proper channel. Most of the population also ignores and laughs at y'all, and you are a prime example of why.

Please, continue to rant on JREF all you like, call people "bedunker", have as much of a tantrum and run around the internet acting like an obnoxious juvenile all you want, don't ever stop. It does far more damage to your agenda than 1000 "bedunkers" ever could which is why after 9 years, you are still and always will be in the lunatic fringe.

[slojoe]

Anyway, if we want to just say that all that matters is whose arguments are right and whose are wrong, we can settle this right now. Yours are wrong. We've been telling you this for a long time. If you disagree with me, find some structural engineers outside of NIST to confirm the Bazant/NIST collapse hypotheses. Let's say five. Find five structural engineers. Real names, please, and source. Shouldn't be too hard, right?


Ah, the old burden of proof ploy. :rolleyes:

The guy with the ridiculous claims he can't prove wants to set conditions for others as to what's acceptable proof.

And you want to be taken seriously.:pigsfly

[Animal]

It is always interesting to see to what extents some one will go to in order toprotect theor religion.

[aggle-rithm]

So it appears that our 9/11 bedunkers can't even come up with FIVE friggin' engineers who support the Bazant/NIST collapse hypotheses.

Not even FIVE. :eye-poppi

Unbelievable.



Oh, it would be a simple matter to send emails to hundreds of engineers and ask them if they agree with the generally accepted narrative concerning 9/11...however, that would be like emailing hundreds of geologists and asking them if they agree that the earth is not flat.

What would the point be? To indulge you in your meaningless games? I know from long experience with trolls such as yourself that no amount of evidence will change your mind in the slightest. We could give you exactly what you ask for, and you would simply move the goalposts and claim that, for whatever reason, what we provided doesn't meet your criteria.

Why don't you find something productive to do? How about turning off your computer for a few minutes, and going upstairs to help your mother cook dinner? This would be a far greater contribution to the world than your ridiculous dissemination of nonsense could ever be.

[ElMondoHummus]

The fact that the International Code Council is looking over the findings and hasn't rejected any yet is evidence that tall structure professionals are indeed aware of the NIST findings impact on their profession. The other fact that codes in Europe, Asia, and the US too have been modified and will continue to be modified as further ratification by the ICC occurs is also strong evidence that these findings aren't only known, but accepted and are slowly but surely affecting codes and therefore practices.

This requires emphasis, since I don't think it's clear to folks what the impact of this is. In 2008, the ICC approved multiple code changes specifically based on the findings of the NIST report (http://www.facilitiesnet.com/security/article/ICC-Approves-New-Code-Changes-Based-on-Recommendations-from-NIST-World-Trade-Center-Investigation--9850):ICC Approves New Code Changes Based on Recommendations from NIST World Trade Center Investigation

October 2008

Future buildings—especially tall structures—should be increasingly resistant to fire, more easily evacuated in emergencies, and safer overall thanks to 23 major and far-reaching building and fire code changes approved recently by the International Code Council (ICC) based on recommendations from the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

The recommendations were part of NIST's investigation of the collapses of New York City's World Trade Center (WTC) towers on Sept. 11, 2001. The changes, adopted at the ICC hearings held Sept. 15-21, 2008, in Minneapolis, Minn., will be incorporated into the 2009 edition of the ICC's I-Codes (specifically the International Building Code, or IBC, and the International Fire Code, or IFC)...

... The new codes address areas such as increasing structural resistance to building collapse from fire and other incidents...

... strengthening criteria for the bonding, proper installation and inspection of sprayed fire-resistive materials (commonly known as "fireproofing")...

Nine additional code change proposals based on the NIST WTC recommendations were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes.

These proposals address areas such as designing structures to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse... limiting the length of horizontal transfer corridors in stairways...

Changes that made the cut:

Greater reliability of sprinklers with a minimum of two water supply risers for each sprinkler zone in buildings more than 420 feet high. Each riser is required to supply sprinklers on alternate floors and will be placed in remotely located stair enclosures.
• Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures
• A one-hour increase in the fire-resistance rating of structural components and assemblies in buildings more than 420 feet high.
• Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns; other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses and spandrels having direct connections to the columns; and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads.
• Broadening the definition of the primary structural frame to include bracing members essential to vertical stability (such as floor systems or cross bracing) whether or not they carry gravity loads.

Code Changes For Future Consideration:
Requiring buildings more than 420 feet high to be designed to survive a building contents fire to burnout without more than local failure of the structural frame.
• Requiring structures not to suffer a collapse disproportionate to a local initiating failure caused by an accident or incident.

Interspersed among those changes to structural design are issues about recommendations about escape/egress; those I deleted.

This is still ongoing; the 2009 cycle for implementation this and next year only got around to approving the escape and communications recommendations (http://www.physorg.com/news195314692.html). But the point is that this is still ongoing, and so far has been accepted by regulatory bodies and their advising groups without reservation.

And it's influencing regulations outside the US (http://www.abcb.gov.au/index.cfm?objectID=FF6FF938-BE90-11DE-B8160050568C0CD7):
In light of these changes to the ICC and NFPA Codes, the Australian Building Codes Board is now reviewing these changes against the Building Code of Australia. The ABCB is in the process of identifying key recommendations falling within the scope of the BCA and ones that are outside of it. Ones that fall within the scope of the BCA will be reviewed again for further action. Any recommendations identified as having merit will be referred to the Board for consideration.

This goes back to this notion that there is no outside agreement with the findings of the NIST report: That is demonstrably untrue. Agreement has already been reached on mulitple points and further discussion on other points is still ongoing. To date, no findings have been refuted.

Is there any non conspiracy-fantasy based resistance to the NIST recommendations? Believe it or not, yes (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bomasoutherncolorado.org%2Fne ws%2F08April.doc&ei=pOmwTdn6OsXEgQej_OyEDA&usg=AFQjCNEOzeYGjrS77zbII_wQu7pbb3KUUA):
BOMA International was successful during 2007 in defeating a number of unnecessary and costly proposals to change the ICC International Codes, averting regulatory requirements that would have placed a heavy burden on BOMA members. These included changes from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that would have required stringent measures in high rise buildings to resist progressive collapse and install blast resistant elevator and stairway shafts, and a proposal requiring buildings to be declared “unsafe” if they were not designed and built to the most current code requirements. BOMA also secured rejection of numerous proposals to eliminate long-standing “trade offs” for certain fire protection requirements for buildings with active fire suppression systems such as sprinklers.
BOMA: Building Owners and Managers Association (http://www.boma.org/Pages/default.aspx). An advocacy group that, as part of it's business, watches for developments that affect owners/managers financial bottom lines. So note that this objection is all cost based. Again, even in the resistance to code updates, there is no stated objection regarding the actual findings of NIST, only the implementation of certain upgrades. The bottom line is that even among the informed opposition, NIST's basic findings regarding the collapse are not in dispute. They only argue what's to be done about it code-wise.

So, among code generating and regulatory bodies, no objections to the NIST findings have arisen. This firmly puts the notion that only NIST and associated professionals agree with the NIST report.

[Orphia Nay]

So it appears that our 9/11 bedunkers can't even come up with FIVE friggin' engineers who support the Bazant/NIST collapse hypotheses.

Not even FIVE. :eye-poppi

Unbelievable.

Sure, they can cite a few paid NIST engineers or others under contract, but apparently they don't know ANY independent engineers, structural or otherwise, who have done their own research on it, and can state publicly and with complete confidence that the NIST/Bazant models are correct.




This is kind of the point, Plat. You don't have the entire expert community on your side. You don't even friggin' know who they are! How can you say they're on your side?! :D

You cite a handful of publicly available papers written by people who are being paid to say what they're saying, but you can't find any real, live engineers in the real, live engineering community who publicly support NIST/Bazant. So you hide behind the NIST reports and an assumed but always anonymous "majority" which, in reality, you know absolutely nothing about.

:oldroll:

"GAITHERSBURG, Md.—Future buildings—especially tall structures—should be increasingly resistant to fire, more easily evacuated in emergencies, and safer overall thanks to 23 major and far-reaching building and fire code changes approved recently by the International Code Council (ICC) based on recommendations from the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)."

http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc_100108.cfm

Here is a list of committees in the ICC.

http://www.iccsafe.org/Membership/Pages/committees.aspx

Ad Hoc Committees ‎(6)
Exam Development Committees ‎(28)
Government Relations Committees ‎(1)
I-Codes Development Consensus Committees ‎(14)
International Councils ‎(5)
Interpretation Committees ‎(5)
Other Code Committees ‎(6)
Oversight Committees ‎(4)
Standards Development Consensus Committees ‎(6)
Task Force Committees ‎(1)

[aggle-rithm]

So it appears that our 9/11 bedunkers can't even come up with FIVE friggin' engineers who support the Bazant/NIST collapse hypotheses.


Here's a list just from the state of Alabama:

Alicia Bailey PE
Alicia Rudolph PE
Andrew Sullivan PhD
Barbara Turrens PE
Bill Donley PE
Brian Shelton PE
Chris Nobles PE
Clark Womble PE
Connie Gipson PE
Courtney Norris PE
D L “Denny” Sockwell PE
Danny Holmberg PE
Dave McKee PE
David Bledsoe PE
Don Lokey PE
Glenn Morgan PE
Harold Hite PE
J C “Buzz” Vance PE
J D “Don” Lokey PE
James Drake PE
Louis Herrington PE
Sharon Kimbrough PE
Stefan Graeber PE
Steve Merry PE
Steve Nelko PE
Steve Stewart PE
Talat Salama PhD, PE

Where did I get this list? It's the list of officers of the Alabama Society of Engineers. There contact information is available on their website.

How do I know they support the NIST/Bazant hypothesis? Because I assume that they didn't get to where they are by being irrational wingnuts.

I await your reasoning for rejecting this list.

I will then apply this same reasoning to YOUR list of architects and engineers, to show that they do not believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis.

So...we may as well get it over with. Your move.

[TruthersLie]

So it appears that our 9/11 bedunkers can't even come up with FIVE friggin' engineers who support the Bazant/NIST collapse hypotheses.

YOu've been given a huge list of research papers, feel free to contact the authors and ask. it isn't hard. Why haven't you done that yet?


Sure, they can cite a few paid NIST engineers or others under contract, but apparently they don't know ANY independent engineers, structural or otherwise, who have done their own research on it, and can state publicly and with complete confidence that the NIST/Bazant models are correct.


handwave noted. moving the goal posts noted.

When will these 1400+ architectural and engineering professionals manage to publish just one peer reviewed engineering refutation of ANY part of the NIST report or Bazant?

It should be easy.
scoreboard


This is kind of the point, Plat. You don't have the entire expert community on your side. You don't even friggin' know who they are! How can you say they're on your side?! :D

You cite a handful of publicly available papers written by people who are being paid to say what they're saying, but you can't find any real, live engineers in the real, live engineering community who publicly support NIST/Bazant. So you hide behind the NIST reports and an assumed but always anonymous "majority" which, in reality, you know absolutely nothing about.

So when will your group manage to get just one peer reviewed engineering paper published? It isn't that hard ergo. Rather simple. When will this happen?

[ergo]

Here is a list of committees in the ICC.

http://www.iccsafe.org/Membership/Pages/committees.aspx

Ad Hoc Committees ‎(6)
Exam Development Committees ‎(28)
Government Relations Committees ‎(1)
I-Codes Development Consensus Committees ‎(14)
International Councils ‎(5)
Interpretation Committees ‎(5)
Other Code Committees ‎(6)
Oversight Committees ‎(4)
Standards Development Consensus Committees ‎(6)
Task Force Committees ‎(1)


And...?

You can see in El Mondo's post above that the code changes haven't exactly been significant in terms of changing the way buildings themselves are designed, with the more significant and far-reaching proposals having so far, nine years after 9/11, been voted down as "unnecessary".

Now you're presenting a list of committees, as if committees that were involved in failed recommendations provides something. - ?? :D

Do you not understand the question?

[ergo]

Here's a list just from the state of Alabama:

....

How do I know they support the NIST/Bazant hypothesis? Because I assume


:rolleyes:

If you wanted to get five structural engineers from that list to publicly state their support for Bazant/NIST, then it would be your job to contact them, not mine. My focus would be on engineers in my own town.

[TruthersLie]

So we can add in "burden of proof" to things that ergo doesn't understand.

you are the one claiming NIST is wrong and Bazant are wrong.
The burden of proof rests on you.

The first thing you need to do is get any of your 1400 architectural and engineering professionals to publish in a peer reviewed engineering journal which states NIST and Bazant are wrong.

When can we expect one of these papers?

After that, then you can start approaching the registered PE's and Architects and ask them if they follow the recommendations and believe in the common narrative.

Burden of proof is on da twoof.

when will you get some?

[NoahFence]

He still thinks the dust clouds were pyroclastic. Gage hasn't told him otherwise yet.

[aggle-rithm]

:rolleyes:

If you wanted to get five structural engineers from that list to publicly state their support for Bazant/NIST, then it would be your job to contact them, not mine. My focus would be on engineers in my own town.

Riiiight.

We know how this works. Get them to post in a blog or a forum that they support Bazant/NIST, and you will say that their identity hasn't been verified. Have them announce it publicly on the radio and you will say you can't see their face, so it could be anyone. Have them say it on local television and you'll say it's not really "public", they must state their position on national television.

Etc., etc.

Now, your turn. Name five of the structural engineers on your list of 1500 who have publicly stated that structural damage and fire was insufficient to cause the failures on 9/11.

Signing a petition means nothing. There is no way to verify that they themselves signed it or that they knew how their names would be used.

And they must be structural engineers, not janitors at an engineering firm.

[A W Smith]

http://www.ctbuh.org/

[AZCat]

Anyway, if we want to just say that all that matters is whose arguments are right and whose are wrong, we can settle this right now. Yours are wrong. We've been telling you this for a long time. If you disagree with me, find some structural engineers outside of NIST to confirm the Bazant/NIST collapse hypotheses. Let's say five. Find five structural engineers. Real names, please, and source. Shouldn't be too hard, right?

I've already done this. No structural engineer who works for my firm buys the arguments of Richard Gage and his associates at AE9114Truth. Are the structural engineers willing to provide their names? Of course not! They're sane, which means they recognize that doing so would only make them targets for the lunatics in the truth movement. What would they gain? It's not like any of you are going to take them at their word when it doesn't match up to your fantasies.

[ergo]

I'm not asking if they buy the arguments of AETruth. I'm asking if they buy the arguments of NIST and Bazant.

How many times does that need to be restated?

[DGM]

I'm not asking if they buy the arguments of AETruth. I'm asking if they buy the arguments of NIST and Bazant.

How many times does that need to be restated?
Why does it matter? Are they speaking out against NIST or Bazant?

[TheRedWorm]

I'm not asking if they buy the arguments of AETruth. I'm asking if they buy the arguments of NIST and Bazant.

How many times does that need to be restated?

Considering that they don't object to the changes NIST recommends, why should that be in doubt?

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok, this is really irritating: What the hell's this conflation of Bazant's work and NIST's report? They're not the same thing. NIST does reference Bazant twice in the reports:
The study performed by Northwestern University (Bazant 2002) was a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the WTC towers which addressed the question of why a total collapse occurred...

... The study by Northwestern did not address the details of impact damage, fire dynamics, or structural response of the towers. Rather, a generalized condition was assumed... and the question of why there was a total collapse was addressed. NIST agrees with the assessment of the tower's required structural capacity to absorb the released energy of the upper building section as it began to fall as an approximate lower bound. The likelihood of the falling building section alligning vertically with the columns below was small, given the observed tilting, so that the required capacity would be greater if interaction with the floors was also considered, as pointed out in the study.
Various aspects of the WTC towers and their collapses have been investigated by many researchers and engineers (Bazant and Zhou 2002, FEMA 2002, Kausel et al 2002...
... and mentions his paper once in a footnote, but other than that, why the conflation? There's no equivalency here. They are not the same study, nor are they components of one another. Callnig this the "Bazant/NIST hypothesis" or whatever betrays a serious and severe ignorance of what the multiple works by Bazant and the multiple reports by NIST are.

Do these truthers even realize that NIST, in the above quotes, point out the difference? Do they even realize that one's an academic paper that performs little more than an energy/work analysis and an enveloping case? And that the other is a report on an investigation aimed towards making recommendations for future practices?

Calling the established narrative the Bazant and NIST whatever is even worse than trying to name the famous physics theory the "Fizeau/Michelson-Morley/Trouton-Noble/Raleigh and Brace" theory. If you want to be strict about that theory's name, you can call it the "Lorentz-Einstein theory", or you can simply call it RELATIVITY. But either way, when you arbitrarily include previous researchers who merely have worked on a component of the observations, you're just plain doing things wrong. You're not only showing that you have no idea what you're talking about, and that you have no idea of the relative significance of each person's contribution to the overall body of knowledge, but that you're also picking people out randomly for a purpose other than understanding what really happened.

They are separate works that address separate issues. One's a hypothetical case that considers energy available vs. the structures' design. The other, as I said, is a "post mortem", so to speak. The former provides information, but the latter is the narrative of the collapse. Conflating the two is displaying sheer ignorance on the matter

[Grizzly Bear]

As I've asked before, why do you need names if the facts stand up for themselves. If Gage were ever right I'd have believed in him a long time ago, no name required

[Orphia Nay]

And...?

You can see in El Mondo's post above that the code changes haven't exactly been significant in terms of changing the way buildings themselves are designed, with the more significant and far-reaching proposals having so far, nine years after 9/11, been voted down as "unnecessary".

Where does it say that?

Now you're presenting a list of committees, as if committees that were involved in failed recommendations provides something. - ?? :D

Do you not understand the question?

You're not even trying to understand what's being said to you. The ICC has adopted many of NIST's WTC guidelines, and the ICC has so many members it needs dozens of committees.

Conceding this point might help you hold your head up, rather than look wilfully ignorant.

[tsig]

Basically just looking for some names here outside of NIST. And also not involved in the current WTC project.

Five independent structural or mechanical engineers who have stated somewhere verifiable that they support the NIST/Bazant model of the collapses, and preferably why, but I'd accept simply a statement of support, with their real name and where they've made the statement. It can't just be saying "it was fires" or "it wasn't CD." They have to have actually looked into it themselves, understand the current model, understand the counter-arguments, perhaps have attended an AE event? and say that they support NIST/Bazant. Surely not every engineer who has looked into the evidence ends up at AETruth?

;)

By those criteria you can strike most of your 1400 pros off your list.

[dropzone]

Then there are the many of us who took a few courses and worked our way up the Engineering ladder by LEARNING STUFF ON THE JOB. You know, the way apprentices became journeymen and then masters. I know I am just a journeyman. I can accept being told I am not an "engineer" by the guys with degrees and certifications, but I still know a **** of a lot more than the Truthers.

[ergo]

Where does it say that?

Maybe if you read the post...

BOMA International was successful during 2007 in defeating a number of unnecessary and costly proposals to change the ICC International Codes, averting regulatory requirements that would have placed a heavy burden on BOMA members. These included changes from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that would have required stringent measures in high rise buildings to resist progressive collapse and install blast resistant elevator and stairway shafts...

Again, what were the "big changes" implemented? Mostly to fireproofing measures. This doesn't speak to the dangers of top-down, steel-framed building collapses. :rolleyes:

And two others:

"Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures..." So, prior to 9/11, load-bearing walls were not required to have any structural integrity??

"Requiring structures not to suffer a collapse disproportionate to a local initiating failure caused by an accident or incident." So, prior to 9/11, redundancy was not required in structures? What exactly do they think they're saying here that's new?

These are redundant and empty recommendations. Not game-changing, and not terribly controversial to adopt. It seems to be windowdressing.

[ergo]

And El Mondo, if you don't understand the relationship of Bazant's collapse progression model --- the only one in currency, last time I checked ---- to NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis then what are you doing here?

[beachnut]

Maybe if you read the post...



Again, what were the "big changes" implemented? Mostly to fireproofing measures. This doesn't speak to the dangers of top-down, steel-framed building collapses. :rolleyes:

And two others:

"Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures..." So, prior to 9/11, load-bearing walls were not required to have any structural integrity??

"Requiring structures not to suffer a collapse disproportionate to a local initiating failure caused by an accident or incident." So, prior to 9/11, redundancy was not required in structures? What exactly do they think they're saying here that's new?

These are redundant and empty recommendations. Not game-changing, and not terribly controversial to adopt. It seems to be windowdressing.

You have failed to find where recommendation, changes have been made due to 911? Yes. Good job, you cherry pick stuff. Did you check everywhere, or stop when you found what you wanted? Like your knowledge of physics, limited. You fail to realize recommendations to improve buildings were adopted, some are proprietary, and you will never know about them, as some buildings, some builders exceed standards. Figure out 911 yet? AE 911 truth has not.

It would be funny if 911 truth understood Bazant's work, they don't. You don't either, and you can't explain his work because?

[Orphia Nay]

Goalpost move noted.

Shifting the discussion onto nitpicks about BOMA in no way changes the fact that the many members of the ICC approved of the NIST Report.

[ozeco41]

Goalpost move noted.

Shifting the discussion onto nitpicks about BOMA in no way changes the fact that the many members of the ICC approved of the NIST Report.

Another factor which is at least as significant as code changes is the awareness raised in the engineering profession by WTC 9/11 events.

No engineer involved in high rise design would ignore the learning from WTC collapse whether or not it was enforced by codes.

Needs no imagination to picture the preliminary client consultant meetings.

Client: "Can you assure us that the type of failures which occurred at WTC will not affect our building Mr/Ms Engineer?"

[ergo]

:rolleyes:

BOMA was able to defeat the more stringent recommendations -- the ones that might actually have addressed this terrible new phenomenon of top-down progressive collapse -- as unnecessary, despite all those committees you listed that supported them.

Damn, eh?

[ElMondoHummus]

Where does it say that?



You're not even trying to understand what's being said to you. The ICC has adopted many of NIST's WTC guidelines, and the ICC has so many members it needs dozens of committees.

Conceding this point might help you hold your head up, rather than look wilfully ignorant.

Haven't exactly been significant? That's the dumbest thing in the world for him to say! There were multiple points that spoke directly towards the specific elements of structural element failure identified in the NIST report:

• Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures
• A one-hour increase in the fire-resistance rating of structural components and assemblies in buildings more than 420 feet high.
• Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns; other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses and spandrels having direct connections to the columns; and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads.
• Broadening the definition of the primary structural frame to include bracing members essential to vertical stability (such as floor systems or cross bracing) whether or not they carry gravity loads..


•... Requiring buildings more than 420 feet high to be designed to survive a building contents fire to burnout without more than local failure of the structural frame.
• Requiring structures not to suffer a collapse disproportionate to a local initiating failure caused by an accident or incident.

In each of those cases, they explicity address the issues identified regarding structural element failure. The "... one-hour increase in the fire-resistance rating of structural components and assemblies in buildings more than 420 feet high" and speaks specifically towards the failures that led to the bowing and creep that occurred during the fires (and were witnessed in the "kinks" noted in pre-collapse pictures and video). The idea is for elements to hold out longer against fires. Ditto the part saying "... requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns; other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses and spandrels having direct connections to the columns; and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads"; that speaks towards better considering truss to column connections as well as any other component that's load bearing when desiging strucures. The proposals in their entiretly note that it was the systemic failing of all those elements affecting other elements that were connected that led to those failures. That's precisely why they're singled out!

And the last two notes - the big ones that BOMA opposed - were also all about keeping local "subsystems" (for lack of a better way of putting it; I'll leave it to engineers to correct me and describe it better) from affecting the entire structure as a whole. Implicit in all of those was the acceptance of the cascade of failures identified in the NIST reports, from the damage induced by the jets impacting to the fires affecting bare columns and trusses, to the shifting of loads to other still connected elements in those areas, to the fires continuing to work on still connected elements of the structure, even with intact fireproofing.

My God... it is manifestly evident that truthers do not even read the things they oppose. Those code changes and recommendations speak directly towards the specific items of failure identified in the NIST report. Directly. That's why resistance ratings are explicitly mentioned, as well as "other structural members including girders, beams, trusses, and spandrels having direct connections to the columns; and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads...". And that's also why the last two proposed elements were introduced; those spoke directly towards failures in areas of a structure being prevented from cascading and affecting other areas. Those cannot be read otherwise. If truthers were on the ball about all those proposals, they'd note BOMA's tooth-and-nail opposition to and defeat of the last two points and make hay of it (in which case, we'd in turn note that it was due to cost as well as uniqueness of circumstance, not denial or rejection of the validity of observations). But that would require understanding of those points, and our resident truther here doesn't give a damn about going that far. He'd rather skim the text presented and pretend the proposals "weren't significant" :rolleyes:. How he can say that in the face of the specific recommendations is beyond all rational comprehension, but that's why these guys are truthers to begin with. In the face of SPECIFIC, DIRECT information demonstrating the exact points and explanations NIST shed light on, they'd rather deny and whistle past them. Dumb, dumb, DUMB! And they wonder why no one takes them seriously anymore.

This is why. This is exactly why. Right here. It can't get any clearer.

[ElMondoHummus]

On top of my prior rant:

The original point was whether professionals outside of NIST accepted - or were even aware - of NIST's work. This has been amply demonstrated, and the truther claim proven false beyond all doubt.
Those few elements mentioned were only a smattering of the two-plus dozen recommendations that were accepted.
Again: trying to minimize and dismiss the accepted changes demonstrates a complete ignorance of what they identified. They spoke directly towards the failures NIST noted. The link between NIST's conclusions and the proposals accepted cannot be any clearer or more direct. It takes purposeful ignorance to deny this.

[beachnut]

:rolleyes:

BOMA was able to defeat the more stringent recommendations -- the ones that might actually have addressed this terrible new phenomenon of top-down progressive collapse -- as unnecessary, despite all those committees you listed that supported them.

Damn, eh?
You missed some major studies that show simple ways the WTC could be improved or built to handle aircraft impacts, pretty much repelling the aircraft intrusion for higher speeds. Can you find a study like that? Will it be required? Has no bearing on 911.

I know of no rule to building buildings to resist aircraft impacts, but the WTC was built to withstand an aircraft impact of 187 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy, 10 times stronger than the impact at the ESB. At a speed of 180 mph. A study, you have no clue about, and will never find (most likely), confirms and says the WTC towers would stand up to a 200 mph impact. The WTC was extremely strong, but the impacts on 911 were 7 and 11 times greater then the impact design of the WTC, the big reason the impacts and fires destroyed the WTC complex. The physics of which, you refuse to understand, and you proved it many posts ago, you and physics are not on talking terms. Don't feel bad, AE 911 truth fail to apply physics and ignore reality to adopt their failed claims.


How does your latest nonsense relate to 911?

[ergo]

Again: trying to minimize and dismiss the accepted changes demonstrates a complete ignorance of what they identified. They spoke directly towards the failures NIST noted. The link between NIST's conclusions and the proposals accepted cannot be any clearer or more direct. It takes purposeful ignorance to deny this.

Fireproofing. Those were the only ones that passed.

Where are the recommendations for using more concrete, for example? Or for strengthening truss designs and floor-to-column connections for buildings over a certain height? Weren't these all significant factors in the official collapse theory? Where are those recommendations?

[ElMondoHummus]

Where does it say that?
He's quite obviously taking about the BOMA opposed suggestions. That's the irony of this conspiracy addict's opposition: He doesn't understand that implicit in the rejection is the acceptance and opposition-acknowledged accuracy of NIST's findings. That organization opposed those specific elements explicitly because they spoke towards rare circumstances for rare sorts of combinations of failures leading to what they viewed as costly overengineering compensating for a problem unlikely to reoccur and supposedly better addressed in other ways. Like Newton's Bit said:
9/11 was a rather special event: the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 knocked out most of the water supply in lower Manhattan and the firefighters just didn't have the will to send more men into an extremely dangerous situation. That isn't, and shouldn't be, a design scenario.
This is what makes all this denial so stupid. Inherent in the rejection of the proposal is the acknowledgement of the accuracy of the findings. It's rejected on the opinion of the probability of repeat and the methods of addressing the circumstances that leads to the rejection. It sure as hell isn't rejection of the findings. Which is the entire point of bringing it all up. So once again: Can it get any clearer than that about how hellbent truthers are to ignoring the truth to make their narratives work? Their own rejections of factual information clearly, plainly demonstrates this.

[ergo]

^

http://i422.photobucket.com/albums/pp305/Meeposmini/Smileys/th_whistling-smiley.gif

[ElMondoHummus]

Or for strengthening truss designs and floor-to-column connections for buildings over a certain height? Weren't these all significant factors in the official collapse theory? Where are those recommendations?

Last direct response and then you're going back on ignore for your sheer ignorance.

• Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures
• A one-hour increase in the fire-resistance rating of structural components and assemblies in buildings more than 420 feet high.
• Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns; other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses and spandrels having direct connections to the columns; and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads.

Using more concrete isn't a direct code suggestion; it's one possible way of implementing the point the code speaks towards. And fire resistence is speaking towards the issue of truss design and floor to column connections. Why in God's name do you think they were explicitly mentioned? None of this is merely a suggestion for more and better fireproofing; they are points speaking towards how a structure responds to heating and fire-induced effects.

And last: The original point was the notion of non-NIST engineers rejecting or not even knowing about NIST's findings. Your claim was that there weren't any, and that's inherent in your childish "Name 5" taunt. Well, dig into the ICC's board listing; there are plenty of candidates to choose 5 from! Several times over. Your original claim you're now running away from has thus been proven false.

We're done here. You've been scored on in both where the goalposts were and where you tried to move them to. That's the end. Welcome back to ignore. I shouldn't have paid attention to the quotes in other people's responses to begin with; you were on ignore for a damn good reason.

[Orphia Nay]

Your posts to ergo were much appreciated, EMH - just not by him. Ignoring him now is a good move. He's not listening.

[ergo]

Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures

Because load-bearing walls had no structural integrity before 9/11? Can you explain this one for us?

[ElMondoHummus]

Your posts to ergo were much appreciated, EMH - just not by him. Ignoring him now is a good move. He's not listening.

No kidding. I'm going to bed now; it's 3am where I'm at, and I'm only up because of a semi-gouty ankle inducing insomnia http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/cry-smiley-1.gif. I see that I'd better log out before I fire off a post to the mods suggesting the forum be renamed after two movies: Dinner for Schmucks - the Groundhog Day edition... :cool:. I don't know if that'll earn a laugh or a yellow card, but there's no way it can fail to induce a reaction.

Thanks for the compliment, Orphia. You're always a pal. :D

[Orphia Nay]

No kidding. I'm going to bed now; it's 3am where I'm at, and I'm only up because of a semi-gouty ankle inducing insomnia http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/cry-smiley-1.gif. I see that I'd better log out before I fire off a post to the mods suggesting the forum be renamed after two movies: Dinner for Schmucks - the Groundhog Day edition... :cool:. I don't know if that'll earn a laugh or a yellow card, but there's no way it can fail to induce a reaction.

Thanks for the compliment, Orphia. You're always a pal. :D

Cheers, sweetie. :hug5 Sorry to hear about your semi-goutyness and insomnia. Truther Groundhog Day might be boring enough to send you to sleep, but possibly a bit too annoying.

[TruthersLie]

Fireproofing. Those were the only ones that passed.

Where are the recommendations for using more concrete, for example? Or for strengthening truss designs and floor-to-column connections for buildings over a certain height? Weren't these all significant factors in the official collapse theory? Where are those recommendations?

<facepalm>
do you realize why most of those recommendations were dealing with fireproofing?

I'll give you a hint... oh yea fires. doh.

As for the reason most of the other proposed changes have met resistance is that how many times will jets be flown into buildings? Hopefully not many more. You make the changes and it will cost millions on every project. For an event so unlikely as to be getting eaten by a Great White Shark in your bathtub be more likely.

See, for dirt dumb twoofs (not you ergo, for other dirt dumb twoofs) engineers realize that the events of 9/11 were not normal. They recognize that in office fires you can get water on them. You can fight the fires. They recognize that there was a very profound even which happened on 9/11...

try again.
have you figured out that laundry list of things you "told" me about yet? Still waiting. Of course with your list of reading for comprehension problems, I doubt it. Have you managed to figure out the New Pearl Harbor paper yet? or do you still not understand it?

[ozeco41]

... it's 3am where I'm at, and I'm only up because of a semi-gouty ankle inducing insomnia ...
Those two must come from participating in THIS forum - I've had both since I increased my activity here...

Gouty thumbs would you believe. Got the big toe gout under control but the meds seem to have chased the gout uphill to hands.....grrrr

...I will need more proof before I can sue you for passing it on. ;)

then again it could be this hanging on upside down in the bottom half of the world......

[AZCat]

Goalpost move noted.

Shifting the discussion onto nitpicks about BOMA in no way changes the fact that the many members of the ICC approved of the NIST Report.

This is a fundamental problem with discussions of technical matters with laypeople (which ergo has amply demonstrated he is). They don't understand the technical aspects, the context, or the process of modifying building codes and standards. It is frustrating and IMHO ultimately pointless to try to explain. Even in real life it's a struggle to convey to others who haven't the same investment in the details, and online discussions are worse.

[AZCat]

Again, what were the "big changes" implemented? Mostly to fireproofing measures. This doesn't speak to the dangers of top-down, steel-framed building collapses. :rolleyes:



Actually, fireproofing (or more generally fire protection) speaks quite loudly to the dangers of top-down, steel-framed building collapses, but I wouldn't expect a layperson to understand that.

[AZCat]

I'm not asking if they buy the arguments of AETruth. I'm asking if they buy the arguments of NIST and Bazant.

How many times does that need to be restated?

They certainly agree with NIST and Bazant far more than they do the piss-poor arguments produced by Gage's group.

[Telltale Tom]

Going back to the topic for just a minute; we managed to find one structural PE in the State of New York that has supported ae911truth. Donal Butterfield. Did we manage to find any more?

I hear that we asked him to lead our parade to mark the 10th anniversary but he declined, because he is nearly 80. Surely we can get a real structural engineer PE to sign our petition and lead our parade. I would have thought that many impressionable 15-year olds, in 2001 would be eligible for their PE by now. What are they teaching them at school.?

[ergo]

They certainly agree with NIST and Bazant far more than they do the piss-poor arguments produced by Gage's group.

The anonymous members of your anonymous firm? Oh, okay. :rolleyes:

[ElMondoHummus]

Those two must come from participating in THIS forum - I've had both since I increased my activity here...

Gouty thumbs would you believe. Got the big toe gout under control but the meds seem to have chased the gout uphill to hands.....grrrr


Wait... this can affect my thumbs?? :wide-eyed


...I will need more proof before I can sue you for passing it on. ;)


Yeah, bring it. I'll photoshop a picture of your head onto Paul Reuben's face and claim your injury was due to self-induced, er... manual labor. :eek::p:D

;)


then again it could be this hanging on upside down in the bottom half of the world......

Yeah, what is it with you guys down there?
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/meanwhile_in_australia.jpg

[ergo]

It's been amusing watching the succession of argument tactics by bedunkers on this topic. First, it's that AE numbers are a tiny percentage of the actual numbers of engineers -- argument from authority and false or assumed majority. Then it's about their qualifications, how some of them are "only" electrical engineers or landscape architects. Then they say, "Never mind; qualifications don't matter," because they realize that would exclude 99.5% of bedunkers. Then it's about how old everyone on the list is. As if 30, 40 and 50 years of experience in the field disqualifies someone from having an informed opinion. Then it's about how nothing else matters but just being "right" or "wrong" -- an argument commonly used by anti-science and religious fundamentalists.

Now it's about how building code changes prove that the NIST explanation is right. Except that the code changes adopted were minor and relate mainly to fireproofing -- nothing that has significant bearing on the failure mechanics that NIST claims caused the collapses. At least if we consider the fact that there have been several towering infernos prior to and since 9/11 that have never caused global collapse of the buildings. Surely the fact that two of the tallest steel-framed towers in the world collapsed in exactly the same manner from lesser fires warrants a different emphasis for building code changes?

But we wouldn't expect bedunkers to understand this.

[AZCat]

The anonymous members of your anonymous firm? Oh, okay. :rolleyes:

That's right. Congratulations, ergo - you've managed to create a condition you and your ilk pretend to abhor: an environment where dissent (from your fantasy) is greeted with harassment, allegations of impropriety and dismissal. No wonder the rational professionals prefer to remain anonymous.

[AZCat]

Except that the code changes adopted were minor and relate mainly to fireproofing -- nothing that has significant bearing on the failure mechanics that NIST claims caused the collapses.

... says the non-professional. Thanks for your opinion, but it's pretty much worthless.

[ergo]

That's not a credible argument, AZCat, since the rhetorical climate since 9/11 favours those who support the official story. There would be no fear of recrimination, and there is no evidence that private citizens would experience harassment at the level that those who express 9/11 doubt do. So that's b.s.

[AZCat]

That's not a credible argument, AZCat, since the rhetorical climate since 9/11 favours those who support the official story. There would be no fear of recrimination, and there is no evidence that private citizens would experience harassment at the same level that those who express 9/11 doubt do. So that's b.s.

That's not true at all. The actions of "We Are Change" come to mind.

[ergo]

What have they done? And to whom?

[ergo]

So anyway, using the same bedunker appeal to anonymous and assumed majority, I'm going to declare that the majority of Americans, including those with the knowledge and experience in these matters, believe something is seriously awry with the official 9/11 explanations and that a good third also agree that there was something wrong with the explanation of how the towers were destroyed. And that more would come out publicly and declare their support for 9/11 inquiry but, due to the climate of scorn and derision that exists against such efforts, they are justifiably afraid to.

So my argument from an assumed majority, by bedunker logic, must be valid.

[AZCat]

What have they done? And to whom?

Again with the ignorance? Doesn't it get exhausting to claim it again and again? Maybe you could do a little investigating on your own. I realize that isn't your style (remember I witnessed your inability to figure out FBDs) but perhaps you could change it up a bit.

[AZCat]

So anyway, using the same bedunker appeal to anonymous and assumed majority, I'm going to declare that the majority of Americans, including those with the knowledge and experience in these matters, believe something is seriously awry with the official 9/11 explanations and that a good third also agree that there was something wrong with the explanation of how the towers were destroyed. And that more would come out publicly and declare their support for 9/11 inquiry but, due to the climate of scorn and derision that exists against such efforts, they are justifiably afraid to.

So my argument from an assumed majority, by bedunker logic, must be valid.

I'm sure you'll have as much success with that argument as the rest. I, on the other hand, have talked with other engineers - actual people - who find your arguments ludicrous. Sure, there are a few who don't agree, but they are a tiny minority.

[ergo]

That's not true at all. The actions of "We Are Change" come to mind.

Gosh, another vague claim and drive-by smear by a bedunker that never gets substantiated. I don't know what to think! I'm so confuuuused! ;)

[AZCat]

Gosh, another vague claim and drive-by smear by a bedunker that never gets substantiated. I don't know what to think! I'm so confuuuused! :D

I substantiated it, and it wouldn't be that hard for you to do so. Surely you can find a list of registered professional engineers for your particular jurisdiction, complete with addresses (and maybe even phone numbers). I had a shortcut because they're all in my building, but it wouldn't be much harder for you.

[slojoe]

This is a fundamental problem with discussions of technical matters with laypeople (which ergo has amply demonstrated he is). They don't understand the technical aspects, the context, or the process of modifying building codes and standards. It is frustrating and IMHO ultimately pointless to try to explain. Even in real life it's a struggle to convey to others who haven't the same investment in the details, and online discussions are worse.


As a lay person who has spent my adult life sussing out sufficient understanding of arcane technical matters from experts to build software for them to use, I can understand your frustration. I will point out that, in my experience, the key factor to the success of such discussion is not the relative knowledge difference, but rather the willingness of the participants to communicate. It is difficult, but can and has been done.

I see none of that with ergo, just rhetorical flim-flam designed to divert attention from the fact that his proposition (controlled demolition of the WTC buildings) is indefensible.

IMO, his goal is not to argue effectively with experts, but instead to keep up enough knowledgeable sounding patter to fool the casual observer into thinking he has a legitimate point of view. Of course, this requires said viewer to buy the false choice that doubts about the "official" explanations somehow bolster the credibility of the CD hogwash.

I guess everybody has to have their hobbies. :rolleyes:

[ergo]

Surely you can find a list of registered professional engineers for your particular jurisdiction, complete with addresses (and maybe even phone numbers). I had a shortcut because they're all in my building, but it wouldn't be much harder for you.

Why don't we pretend that I've already done it. Like you, I don't need to provide any names of people or firms.

Phew! That was easy!

In fact, I can keep doing this. I'll just claim, using argument from false or assumed majority, that more than 50% of the people on this list here

Here's a list just from the state of Alabama:

Alicia Bailey PE
Alicia Rudolph PE
Andrew Sullivan PhD
Barbara Turrens PE
Bill Donley PE
Brian Shelton PE
Chris Nobles PE
Clark Womble PE
Connie Gipson PE
Courtney Norris PE
D L “Denny” Sockwell PE
Danny Holmberg PE
Dave McKee PE
David Bledsoe PE
Don Lokey PE
Glenn Morgan PE
Harold Hite PE
J C “Buzz” Vance PE
J D “Don” Lokey PE
James Drake PE
Louis Herrington PE
Sharon Kimbrough PE
Stefan Graeber PE
Steve Merry PE
Steve Nelko PE
Steve Stewart PE
Talat Salama PhD, PE


agree that something is seriously awry with the official collapse explanations.

[beachnut]

Why don't we pretend that I've already done it. Like you, I don't need to provide any names of people or firms.

Phew! That was easy!

In fact, I can keep doing this. I'll just claim, using argument from false or assumed majority, that more than 50% of the people on this list here


agree that something is seriously awry with the official collapse explanations. That is what you do, make up lies about 911 and fail to back them.
And you are wrong, again, even in your pretend world.

AE have less than 0.01 percent of all engineers, a percent less than the mentally ill. In effect, falling for the lies of Gage is at a rate less than falling mentally ill, this is how far out fringe those who sign up mindlessly for Gages fraud are.

[AZCat]

Why don't we pretend that I've already done it. Like you, I don't need to provide any names of people or firms.

Phew! That was easy!

In fact, I can keep doing this. I'll just claim, using argument from false or assumed majority, that more than 50% of the people on this list here




agree that something is seriously awry with the official collapse explanations.

Except that yours is clearly untrue. Mine, I know, is true. And why would I need to provide this list of people or firms? It's not like you're going to grant them any authority anyway.

[Telltale Tom]

Ergo its fun to watch you make them spin and to see how they keep rising to it. Perhaps if you just argued one point to it's conclusion then you may make some headway, rather than take every opportunity to change the subject

It's been amusing watching the succession of argument tactics by bedunkers on this topic. First, it's that AE numbers are a tiny percentage of the actual numbers of engineers -- argument from authority and false or assumed majority. Not really, because they counted the people who signed the ae911truth petition and the number of engineers.

Then it's about their qualifications, how some of them are "only" electrical engineers or landscape architects. yes only if you are trying to define if the ae911truth petition has any credibility

Then they say, "Never mind; qualifications don't matter," because they realize that would exclude 99.5% of bedunkers. Yes indeed, most structural engineers have little experience in tall buildings. Perhaps as you suggest it is only 1 in 200 engineers. Ufortunately they all support the the official theory

Then it's about how old everyone on the list is. Well I think they are just making fun of us because our only structural PE in New York is about 80 As if 30, 40 and 50 years of experience in the field disqualifies someone from having an informed opinion. only if its relevant experience

Then it's about how nothing else matters but just being "right" or "wrong" -- an argument commonly used by anti-science and religious fundamentalists. Not sure I get this one. I thought scientists used to argue about being right, not anti-scientists

Now it's about how building code changes prove that the NIST explanation is right. No i dont think its just about code changes, I think they have some other arguments Except that the code changes adopted were minor and relate mainly to fireproofing -- nothing that has significant bearing on the failure mechanics that NIST claims caused the collapses. At least if we consider the fact that there have been several towering infernos prior to and since 9/11 that have never caused global collapse of the buildings. Surely the fact that two of the tallest steel-framed towers in the world collapsed in exactly the same manner from lesser fires warrants a different emphasis for building code changes? yes it would be interesting if codes required you to design tall buildings for plane impacts, fire burn out on multiple floors

But we wouldn't expect bedunkers to understand this. I rather think the only person who understands this is you,

[Grizzly Bear]

As a lay person who has spent my adult life sussing out sufficient understanding of arcane technical matters from experts to build software for them to use, I can understand your frustration. I will point out that, in my experience, the key factor to the success of such discussion is not the relative knowledge difference, but rather the willingness of the participants to communicate. It is difficult, but can and has been done
As far as I'm concerned a laymen can keep up with pretty any discussion as long as he or she follows the discussion, studies pertinent material and is willing to learn.

There are two areas of the laymen category; there are those who can participate on relative par with people who are career professionals, willing to learn, or study, and those who barge in thinking the know everything about the profession and that they are always right. The difference between both ends of that are well demonstrated in this thread. :)

[aggle-rithm]

That's not a credible argument, AZCat, since the rhetorical climate since 9/11 favours those who support the official story.

Yes, and for as long as I can remember, the rhetorical climate does not favor those who wear tinfoil hats and claim that the CIA is beaming messages into their brains.

But I'm sure you guys can get that situation turned around, right?

[aggle-rithm]

In fact, I can keep doing this. I'll just claim, using argument from false or assumed majority, that more than 50% of the people on this list here




agree that something is seriously awry with the official collapse explanations.

Then all that's left is to explain why none of these people, who are in fact leaders in their vocation, have not spoken up about it.

In fact, the only engineers or architects that do appear to be on the fringes of engineering and architecture.

For instance, where does Gage work? What guilds or organizations have had him as an officer?

[oody]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus
... it's 3am where I'm at, and I'm only up because of a semi-gouty ankle inducing insomnia ...
Those two must come from participating in THIS forum - I've had both since I increased my activity here...

There may be something to this. I've had a rare attack in the great toe starting several days ago myself, also after increasing my time spent here. I'll be upgrading my ignore list tout de suite.

[tsig]

It's been amusing watching the succession of argument tactics by bedunkers on this topic. First, it's that AE numbers are a tiny percentage of the actual numbers of engineers -- argument from authority and false or assumed majority. Then it's about their qualifications, how some of them are "only" electrical engineers or landscape architects. Then they say, "Never mind; qualifications don't matter," because they realize that would exclude 99.5% of bedunkers. Then it's about how old everyone on the list is. As if 30, 40 and 50 years of experience in the field disqualifies someone from having an informed opinion. Then it's about how nothing else matters but just being "right" or "wrong" -- an argument commonly used by anti-science and religious fundamentalists.

Now it's about how building code changes prove that the NIST explanation is right. Except that the code changes adopted were minor and relate mainly to fireproofing -- nothing that has significant bearing on the failure mechanics that NIST claims caused the collapses. At least if we consider the fact that there have been several towering infernos prior to and since 9/11 that have never caused global collapse of the buildings. Surely the fact that two of the tallest steel-framed towers in the world collapsed in exactly the same manner from lesser fires warrants a different emphasis for building code changes?

But we wouldn't expect bedunkers to understand this.

Why is fireproofing applied to steel?

[ergo]

Why is fireproofing applied to steel?

You're not getting the concept.

There have been many other instances of serious fires in steel-framed highrises. Fires that have burned for hours. In some cases, fires that have completely engulfed the buildings and caused local structural failures. Since none of these have ever caused these highrises to telescope to the ground, nor would this ever be expected, then the building codes changes necessary here would not be about how to protect steel from fires, since building designers and engineers already know how to do this, but rather why one-hour upper office fires brought two 110-storey steel-framed buildings to the ground. In other words, what mechanical failures were unique to these two (actually, three) rapid global failures. The building code changes that were adopted by the industry don't address this. The ones that do were rejected.

[NoahFence]

You're not getting the concept.

There have been many other instances of serious fires in steel-framed highrises. Fires that have burned for hours. In some cases, fires that have completely engulfed the buildings and caused local structural failures. Since none of these have ever caused these highrises to telescope to the ground, nor would this ever be expected, then the building codes changes necessary here would not be about how to protect steel from fires, since building designers and engineers already know how to do this, but rather why one-hour upper office fires brought two 110-storey steel-framed buildings to the ground. In other words, what mechanical failures were unique to these two (actually, three) rapid global failures. The building code changes that were adopted by the industry don't address this. The ones that do were rejected.

Anything else happen on 9/11 of any note?

[ergo]

Noah, the reason why so few respond to your posts is because the points you raise have been discussed ad nauseum. You're basically back in 9/11 kindergarten, raising irrelevant objections which, if you actually read a little more closely, are already addressed in the post you're replying to (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7115051&postcount=463). I am learning to respect my Ignore list. It saves me a lot of wasted time. (Although, I suppose, "waste of time" basically defines this forum. :rolleyes:)

[Justin39640]

Noah, the reason why so few respond to your posts is because the points you raise have been discussed ad nauseum. You're basically back in 9/11 kindergarten, raising irrelevant objections which, if you actually read a little more closely, are already addressed in the post you're replying to (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7115051&postcount=463). I am learning to respect my Ignore list. It saves me a lot of wasted time. (Although, I suppose, "waste of time" basically defines this forum. :rolleyes:)

You're arguing the same points that have been debunked for years. Why would you expect different responses?

[NoahFence]

You're arguing the same points that have been debunked for years. Why would you expect different responses?

My thoughts exactly.

He put me on ignore (and epic bailed) after I 'refuted and sourced' one truther lie....

[AZCat]

You're not getting the concept.

There have been many other instances of serious fires in steel-framed highrises. Fires that have burned for hours. In some cases, fires that have completely engulfed the buildings and caused local structural failures. Since none of these have ever caused these highrises to telescope to the ground, nor would this ever be expected, then the building codes changes necessary here would not be about how to protect steel from fires, since building designers and engineers already know how to do this, but rather why one-hour upper office fires brought two 110-storey steel-framed buildings to the ground. In other words, what mechanical failures were unique to these two (actually, three) rapid global failures. The building code changes that were adopted by the industry don't address this. The ones that do were rejected.

And you base this on what training, experience and analysis?

[slojoe]

My thoughts exactly.

He put me on ignore (and epic bailed) after I 'refuted and sourced' one truther lie....


Epic may be an understatement. He didn't post for two weeks. :scarper:

[000063]

Ladies and gentlemen, a truther. It's been amusing watching the succession of argument tactics by bedunkers on this topic. Note its repeated claims of amusement. If you look back at its earlier posts, it will repeatedly substitute so-called "witticisms" for actual content.

First, it's that AE numbers are a tiny percentage of the actual numbers of engineers -- argument from authority and false or assumed majority. Note how, like all conspiracy theorists, it removes things from context, forming what is known as a "straw man". In this case, it ignores the fact that the AE numbers are themselves examples of the fallacies it cites. (Argument from Authority and False/Assumed Majority) The "1,400 Engineers and Architects" frequently cited by AE911T seems impressive, until it is put in context. Specifically, the context of the over one million engineers in the United States, which reduces the membership of AE to only 1 in 1000 of the total population of engineers. And this is without factoring the fact that AE claims members from all over the world, and includes retired engineers as well.

Truthers will repeatedly claim that the flaws in the official story are "obvious", yet ignore the fact that they and their experts are the overwhelming minority. AE's attempt to Appeal to Authority is easily defeated by its own logic. Look up "Argumentum Ad Absurdum" in Chapter 9.

Then they say, "Never mind; qualifications don't matter," because they realize that would exclude 99.5% of bedunkers.Note the self-defeating claim; it would easily exclude most Truthers as well. Also note that the Truther is attempting to accuse his opposition of both using the AfA fallacy, and simultaneously trying to claim that qualifications don't matter. Again, you see the lack of context.

*Then it's about how old everyone on the list is. As if 30, 40 and 50 years of experience in the field disqualifies someone from having an informed opinion. Now it appears to be making stuff up entirely, though it is possible it is "strawmanning" some other logical point. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the relevant portion in time for the lesson today.

Then it's about how nothing else matters but just being "right" or "wrong" -- an argument commonly used by anti-science and religious fundamentalists.Use of this sort of emotional language is quite a clever tactic when used on a forum by and large priding itself on being scientific and non-religious, much less fundamentalist. Ultimately, however, it's just a smoke screen to hide the fact that some things are indeed about right and wrong.

Now it's about how building code changes prove that the NIST explanation is right. Except that the code changes adopted were minor and relate mainly to fireproofing -- nothing that has significant bearing on the failure mechanics that NIST claims caused the collapses.* Again, removing things from context. The events that initiated the failure mechanics in question are part of the causes as well, yet they're curiously missing from the truther's statement. Since said events are unlikely to be repeated, it would make little sense to attempt to implement changes for those into the building code, rather than the fire arising from them, the conditions of which are much more likely to be repeated.

At least if we consider the fact that there have been several towering infernos prior to and since 9/11 that have never caused global collapse of the buildings.* The flaw many truthers make is equating "unprecedented" to "impossible". According to some sources, the Axis learned the United States was working on the atomic bomb, and did not believe it was possible, though I wasn't able to find it in my messy notes on my messy desk.

[laughter from the class]

Surely the fact that two of the tallest steel-framed towers in the world collapsed in exactly the same manner from lesser fires warrants a different emphasis for building code changes? I believe I mentioned its tendency to ignore the root causes of the events. In this case, the fact that they were hit by heavily loaded planes and heavily damaged by them is entirely inconsequential, as is the fact that the fire itself was sparked by jet fuel, ignited on several floors simultaneously, and was largely unfought.

Well, looks like it's time for a break, if there aren't any questions. No? Alright, time for a cigarette.

[000063]

Anything else happen on 9/11 of any note?I seem to recall something about kites.

(YouTube # v=bATjvty5p8k)

[NoahFence]

Noah, the reason why so few respond to your posts is because the points you raise have been discussed ad nauseum. You're basically back in 9/11 kindergarten, raising irrelevant objections which, if you actually read a little more closely, are already addressed in the post you're replying to (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7115051&postcount=463). I am learning to respect my Ignore list. It saves me a lot of wasted time. (Although, I suppose, "waste of time" basically defines this forum. :rolleyes:)

So you're under the impression that the aircraft impacts had little or no affect on those buildings.

Yikes.

Again, did anything else happen that day or was it just fire?

[Telltale Tom]

I seem to recall something about kites.

(YouTube # v=bATjvty5p8k)

Welcome double -o, double-o 63. I guess you see yourself as some sort of secret agent.

You are not allowed to post links until you have 15 posts.

[TheRedWorm]

Welcome double -o, double-o 63. I guess you see yourself as some sort of secret agent.

You are not allowed to post links until you have 15 posts.


Linkified:
bATjvty5p8k

Welcome 000063. :)

[slojoe]

Ladies and gentlemen, a truther.....


A case study that one. Welcome 000063.

[ozeco41]

There may be something to this. I've had a rare attack in the great toe starting several days ago myself, also after increasing my time spent here. I'll be upgrading my ignore list tout de suite.
We are five complainants short of class action requirements in AU jurisdiction...

....and close to going off topic UNLESS most of the AE911Truth signatories suffer from gout.




in the big toe...


;)

[ozeco41]

Ladies and gentlemen, a truther. Note its repeated claims of amusement. If you look back at its earlier posts, it will repeatedly ....
Well, looks like it's time for a break, if there aren't any questions. No? Alright, time for a cigarette.
Welcome 000063.

I enjoyed your post.

As a general rule meta-process framing of posts may not always be understood...

...but go for it. :D

[000063]

Thanks, guys.Welcome double -o, double-o 63. I guess you see yourself as some sort of secret agent.Never thought about that.

If 00 is License to Kill, I suppose 0000 would be License to Save.