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

[RKOwens4]

Since it's kind of a slow day, I thought some of you might find this interesting. We all know that truthers like to say that there are over 500 members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (537 right now, to be exact). However, what truthers don't do is put this number in perspective against the number of architects and engineers overall. As someone who recently changed his major to mechanical engineering, I was just looking on the website for the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics and found that the number of engineers in America is even larger than I'd thought.

In 2006 (the last year that this survey was done), there were about 1.5 million employed engineers in the United States. I did a search for architects and found that in 2006, there were about 132,000 architects employed in the United States. Sources:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#emply (engineers)
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm#emply (architects)

That adds up to 537 out of about 1,632,000 employed architects and engineers who support 9/11 truth, or 1 in 3,039. But wait, the key word here is EMPLOYED. If you look at the members list of the 537 provided on the website for AE911Truth, you'll find that many of them are retirees, people who once worked in architecture or engineering but left the field decades ago (like Jeff King) and professors who teach architecture or engineering. So we have to include these as well in our overall number. There's probably no way to get an exact number on any of these, but to use a conservative estimate the number would probably easily bring the total up to over 2,000,000. But wait, there's more. AE911Truth has members from countries all around the world. The 2,000,000 figure includes only those in the United States. The U.S. is 5% of the world's population, but I doubt that the number of architects and engineers is proportionate to population worldwide. Still, when we include the number of architects and engineers worldwide, using even a conservative estimate would multiply this by about 5 times, bringing the number to 10 million. Finally, we end up with 537 architects and engineers out of 10 million who support 9/11 truth, or 1 in 18,622. Truthers, still want to brag about the number of architects and engineers who support your ideas? Is 537 still an impressive number to you?

[DGM]

Also with no membership requirements (dues, meeting participation and such) for 9/11 truth there's no way to know how many of their members are still active (or ever were). Basically if your names on the list it's there until you force them to remove it. If you don't realize it's there, (like your son or someone else put it there) you'll remain a member for life regardless of what you believe.

[JamesB]

Even that is underestimating it, since they have titles like "software engineer". I am technically a software engineer, even though I have no formal engineering or scientific training.

[lapman]

It should also be noted that less than 30 of the 537 are structural engineers and high-rise arichitects.

[RKOwens4]

Good points. One more thing to remember is that a lot of these members are probably hoaxes and non-existent persons. I've been a "member" of Scholars for 9/11 Truth for months, under the name Unfahig Gelehrte (which translates into "incompetent scholar"). I remember a lot of forum posters here and elsewhere saying that they managed to register names with AE911Truth as jokes just to demonstrate how these people don't check up on your credentials to make sure that you actually have the degree you say you do or even that you're a real person (AE911Truth just calls the person, Scholars does nothing).

I'd be willing to bet that a huge percentage of AE911Truth's members were registered by misguided truthers claiming to be structural engineers or whatever, just to boost the group's numbers.

[Jontg]

Attrition is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

[Bobert]

So is lithiam.

[GodisEnergy]

Good points. One more thing to remember is that a lot of these members are probably hoaxes and non-existent persons. I've been a "member" of Scholars for 9/11 Truth for months, under the name Unfahig Gelehrte (which translates into "incompetent scholar"). I remember a lot of forum posters here and elsewhere saying that they managed to register names with AE911Truth as jokes just to demonstrate how these people don't check up on your credentials to make sure that you actually have the degree you say you do or even that you're a real person (AE911Truth just calls the person, Scholars does nothing).

I'd be willing to bet that a huge percentage of AE911Truth's members were registered by misguided truthers claiming to be structural engineers or whatever, just to boost the group's numbers.

Can you enter the forum, with my experience is they let you become a member but then if your credentials arent there they dont let you enter the forum

[UNLoVedRebel]

Can you enter the forum, with my experience is they let you become a member but then if your credentials arent there they dont let you enter the forum

Truther websites' vetting has been known to get a little sloppy. Remember when Patriotsquestion911 and S4T had Mike Rotch? If they hadn't taken his name down, I would be joining them along their merry quest. If Mike Rotch (my crotch) is a truther, then damn it, so am I.

[dtugg]

Truther websites' vetting has been known to get a little sloppy. Remember when Patriotsquestion911 and S4T had Mike Rotch? If they hadn't taken his name down, I would be joining them along their merry quest. If Mike Rotch (my crotch) is a truther, then damn it, so am I.


Patriotsquestion911 has Frank DeMartini on their list, and he died on 9/11.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Patriotsquestion911 has Frank DeMartini on their list, and he died on 9/11.

It also has Edna Cintron.:jaw-dropp

[RKOwens4]

It also has Edna Cintron.:jaw-dropp

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had retired FDNY Batallion Chief Arthur Scheuerman as a member, even though Arthur Scheuerman appeared on a Hardfire show with Ron Wieck and Mark Roberts speaking out AGAINST the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I even emailed them about this when I noticed it (about 6 months ago) and sent them a link to his Hardfire discussion. To this date, they haven't corrected this lie of theirs and his name still appears as a member.

[cyclonic]

Richard Lowe is their comedy engineer.

http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999319

[Brainster]

They also have a swimming pool engineer (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/11/richard-gages-new-engineer.html) who had his license to be a PE revoked by New Jersey.

[eromitlab]

Patriotsquestion911 has Frank DeMartini on their list, and he died on 9/11.

The last time I came across a truthist referencing that site in a 9/11 "discussion", I cited the inclusion of Mr. DeMartini on their list as kind of a sarcastic "gotcha" in re the list's credibility. This is the response I got:
In the age of information you could contact these people if you so choose. You are just apathetic for whatever reason. It is the responsibility of the the people to question their government. Jefferson said it was the most patriotic thing to do.

proof of truthist stupidity (http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/7a3xw/willie_nelson_hell_yeah_theres_a_reason_to/c063jru)
Truthists are enamored with Gage and the 500+ credibility-free clowns (or should I say, amusement engineers) on his site that ought to be named appealtoauthority.com. However, with intellectual heavyweights like the one I quoted, they would likely be just as enamored with a few shiny objects and a loud voice growling that 9/11 was an inside jobby job.

[ElMondoHummus]

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.

[parky76]

I work with many Masters in Architecture and Engineering..and several PEs and RAs. None of them either care about these theories..nor give them a second thought.

Somehow, the more credentials and experience one has with architecture or engineering, the less likely one is to believe in controlled demolition at the WTC.

[Stupid]

When I hammered some truthers for the reason why the "vast amount" of the world's engineers and scientists agree with NIST's findings, here is one common example of what many of them said.

As expected :confused: , all ......
"Engineers and scientists are just as apt to make mistakes as anyone else. Engineers can be bribed or intimidated. Experts often make mistakes. The human condition dictates that all of us are prone to mental/emotional problems as well as stupidity. The scienctific community has failed to come up with a believable description of how the towers fell. Like the craven mainstream media, most structural engineers seem to be afraid to go against the status quo. And from an analytical stand the problem is most complex and not in the realm of what what would be considered as routine."







=S=

[parky76]

Engineers and scientists are just as apt to make mistakes as anyone else. Engineers can be bribed or intimidated.

--yet no proof of any bribes

Experts often make mistakes.

--as do those who think it was a CD

The human condition dictates that all of us are prone to mental/emotional problems as well as stupidity.

--as are those who believe in CD.

The scienctific community has failed to come up with a believable description of how the towers fell.

---and the CD proponants have come up with a believable story of how/when the explosives were laid??


Like the craven mainstream media, most structural engineers seem to be afraid to go against the status quo.

---proof of this??

And from an analytical stand the problem is most complex and not in the realm of what what would be considered as routine."

in other words "bla bla bla......moo moo"

=)

[ElMondoHummus]

When I hammered some truthers for the reason why the "vast amount" of the world's engineers and scientists agree with NIST's findings, here is one common example of what many of them said.

As expected :confused: , all ......


"Engineers and scientists are just as apt to make mistakes as anyone else. Engineers can be bribed or intimidated. Experts often make mistakes. The human condition dictates that all of us are prone to mental/emotional problems as well as stupidity. The scienctific community has failed to come up with a believable description of how the towers fell. Like the craven mainstream media, most structural engineers seem to be afraid to go against the status quo. And from an analytical stand the problem is most complex and not in the realm of what what would be considered as routine."




=S=

That's a typical response, and notice how completely unsupported it is. Anyone can speculate about mistakes or malfeasance on the part of human beings, but that doesn't come close to invalidating the narrative. There's no evidence, for example, that the NIST team (http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/) was either bribed or intimidated. And besides, that isn't the crux of AE911T's argument about why the NIST report is wrong. Believe it or not, they make a positive one about the evidence itself. They get it completely wrong, but they do in fact discuss the evidence directly.

It is absolutely true that "experts" make mistakes. But the events behind the towers collapse is not built on one "experts" opinion, or even a limited narrative put forth by a small group, like Cold Fusion was. Rather, it's built upon multiple, confirmed observations and multiple, converging threads of evidence. On top of that, the dominant narrative is also backed by independent verification by other organizations (that's something R.Mackey points out occasionally). It's insane to make the argument that person did; ignoring the lack of support for it, it's a logical leap. It's one thing for a given expert or group of experts to be wrong in specifics, but it's a whole other thing to have the entire narrative wrong, and it's yet another level to make that pronouncement without examination of the entire narrative being presented.

Pretend that a composer - Mozart, Bizet, Puccini, whomever - juxtaposed some off-key notes in a passage. If that's wrong, then that's an error by an expert. Now, go from that claim and say that the composer's whole piece is off-key. Is that really a valid extrapolation? Assuming the notes are truly off key, then no, it's not. You can't say that without actually examining the whole piece in question. Yet that is the exact leap being pushed here by that truther, except for the fact that off-key notes in this context are clear, unambiguous problems, whereas the basis of truther criticisms are not. Experts make mistakes, therefore the NIST explanation of the collapse is false... that's just a silly statement to make. It belies the complete lack of comprehension on the part of the truther regarding the totality of the evidence, how multiple threads of it converge, how hypotheses can be identified and tested (like what Sisson and Biederman did to validate their hypothesis of the eutectic reaction's timeframe), how it's predictive, etc. This isn't a narrative that can be undone by identification of a single flaw anymore than the Great Pyramids can be collapsed by the removal of a single block. Yet, the conspiratorial minded would have you think the narrative is a house of cards! One has to ignore so much to draw that conclusion.

In addition, the fellow is flat out wrong about one thing: The "scientific community" (*giggle*... didn't know they hung out together so much...) did indeed come up with a believable description. The fallacy that this person is rebelling against is the strawman that conspiracy peddlers have built. This story has nothing to do with the "status quo" and everything to do with the fact that known phenomena - heat weakening, thermal expansion, eccentric loading, etc. - were identified as being the reason the towers collapsed. The problem is indeed most complex, and because of the size of the towers and the magnitude of the damage, it can indeed be considered out of the "realm of what would be considered routine". But that's not the same as saying the event is not properly understood. It is.

The person making that post is putting forth platitudes, not evidence or arguments. It's empty reasoning, a syllogism of nothings.

[lapman]

The scienctific community has failed to come up with a believable description of how the towers fell.

---and the CD proponants have come up with a believable story of how/when the explosives were laid??
Let's not forget how much and what type. Add to that how "they" were able to get 100% of all audio recording devices to not record the sound of said explosives, while "many people heard them."

[Norseman]

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had retired FDNY Batallion Chief Arthur Scheuerman as a member, even though Arthur Scheuerman appeared on a Hardfire show with Ron Wieck and Mark Roberts speaking out AGAINST the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I even emailed them about this when I noticed it (about 6 months ago) and sent them a link to his Hardfire discussion. To this date, they haven't corrected this lie of theirs and his name still appears as a member.

I think this post could provide some answers to your question RKOwens:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3301082#post3301082

ETA:

As I said in the post Scheuerman is not the type of member that Gage and Jones wants. Confirmed by Arthur Scheruerman himself in an note to Pomero earlier this year:

I just received this note from Arthur Scheuerman:

"Sorry for the delay. I just had a triple bypass operation with an aortic valve replacement.Yes you can place the sentence and maybe question why I am blocked from the A & E engineers for 9/11 truth web sites. They don't want any real questions. "

Arthur


I'm glad to hear that the issue of his involvement with Gage's bogus group has been cleared up, but conspiracy theories are not very important in the grand scheme of things. If you found the chief's appearance on 'Hardfire' informative, here's the opportunity to contribute a line or two wishing him a speedy recovery.
My emphasis.

Though they do not like his questions and views they are happy to still list him as member of both Scholars and Architects.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Since it's kind of a slow day, I thought some of you might find this interesting. We all know that truthers like to say that there are over 500 members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (537 right now, to be exact). However, what truthers don't do is put this number in perspective against the number of architects and engineers overall. As someone who recently changed his major to mechanical engineering, I was just looking on the website for the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics and found that the number of engineers in America is even larger than I'd thought.

In 2006 (the last year that this survey was done), there were about 1.5 million employed engineers in the United States. I did a search for architects and found that in 2006, there were about 132,000 architects employed in the United States. Sources:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#emply (engineers)
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm#emply (architects)

That adds up to 537 out of about 1,632,000 employed architects and engineers who support 9/11 truth, or 1 in 3,039. But wait, the key word here is EMPLOYED. If you look at the members list of the 537 provided on the website for AE911Truth, you'll find that many of them are retirees, people who once worked in architecture or engineering but left the field decades ago (like Jeff King) and professors who teach architecture or engineering. So we have to include these as well in our overall number. There's probably no way to get an exact number on any of these, but to use a conservative estimate the number would probably easily bring the total up to over 2,000,000. But wait, there's more. AE911Truth has members from countries all around the world. The 2,000,000 figure includes only those in the United States. The U.S. is 5% of the world's population, but I doubt that the number of architects and engineers is proportionate to population worldwide. Still, when we include the number of architects and engineers worldwide, using even a conservative estimate would multiply this by about 5 times, bringing the number to 10 million. Finally, we end up with 537 architects and engineers out of 10 million who support 9/11 truth, or 1 in 18,622. Truthers, still want to brag about the number of architects and engineers who support your ideas? Is 537 still an impressive number to you?

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?

[parky76]

i think its safe to assume that any architects and engineers that dont involve themselves, in any way, with the 9-11 truthers, pretty much agree with what really happened (a.k.a. the OCT)

what is it with truthers and acronyms? lolol

[Homeland Insurgency]

So how many architects and engineers independently support the official theory?

[parky76]

are you expecting there to be a internet forum for folks who agree with the true story of what happened on 9-11?

its already been supported by the most important architectual and engineering firms, societies, and schools of thought.

their seal of appoval is good enough for me.

[Nyarlathotep]

The 500 or so Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth are to the Twoofer movement what the handful of biologists that the Creationists have co-opted are to the ID movement and prove the same points.

That there are always some people that, regardless of hos much training they have in a subject, will put their beliefs ahead of their training

And that the woos will always sieze on that fact as some sort of victory, depsite how insignificant the numbers may actually be.

Someone should start the anti-twoofer equivalent of Project Steve (http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve)

[Grizzly Bear]

So you don't have any? Out of what RKO claims is 10 million?
Whether it comes from you or anyone else... an argument from silence is not proof of absence ;)

More telling is that groups like AE911 need to include people who aren't even engineers or architects into their list of 500. Now, if you're going to have someone brag numbers wouldn't you at least want them to be reasonably honest?

Better yet, if they're going to set out to demonstrate their theories don't you think they should come closer to a more reasonable comparison than dropping cardboard boxes? Oh I forgot this is a valid comparison to you isn't it?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Whether it comes from you or anyone else... an argument from silence is not proof of absence ;)

More telling is that groups like AE911 need to include people who aren't even engineers or architects into their list of 500. Now, if you're going to have someone brag numbers wouldn't you at least want them to be reasonably honest?

Better yet, if they're going to set out to demonstrate their theories don't you think they should come closer to a more reasonable comparison than dropping cardboard boxes? Oh I forgot this is a valid comparison to you isn't it?

So none out of 10 million for the debunkers is what percentage?

Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence the truthers in regards to Architects & Engineers independently weighing in on the official version have more then just absent.

And I'm glad you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just don't be selective with that.

[A W Smith]

So none out of 10 million for the debunkers is what percentage?

Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence the truthers in regards to Architects & Engineers independently weighing in on the official version have more then just absent.

And I'm glad you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just don't be selective with that.




Model building codes have been modified and standard practices have changed as a direct results of the collapse of the WTC. One generally doesn't have to be outspoken about it. It's a consensus.

[parky76]

Model building codes have been modified and standard practices have changed as a direct results of the collapse of the WTC. One generally doesn't have to be outspoken about it. It's a consensus.

i think he is suggesting that since most folks arent outspoken about 9-11 on a daily basis...doesnt mean they arent secretly crypto-truthers.

:D

[A W Smith]

i think he is suggesting that since most folks arent outspoken about 9-11 on a daily basis...doesnt mean they arent secretly crypto-truthers.

:D


I did a job is Staten Island today, I noticed many streets renamed after firefighters. I do not suppose many in Staten Island believe firefighters brought down any of the WTC buildings like truthers assert. Or they certainly wouldn't be naming streets after them.

[parky76]

um..did you happen to see that little memorial to the FDNY on Hylan Blvd??

[A W Smith]

um..did you happen to see that little memorial to the FDNY on Hylan Blvd??


I was a bit north by arthur Kill Road

[tanabear]

The 500 or so Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth are to the Twoofer movement what the handful of biologists that the Creationists have co-opted are to the ID movement and prove the same points.

That there are always some people that, regardless of hos much training they have in a subject, will put their beliefs ahead of their training

And that the woos will always sieze on that fact as some sort of victory, depsite how insignificant the numbers may actually be.

Someone should start the anti-twoofer equivalent of Project Steve (http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve)

So how many architects and engineers have gone on record stating that they support Zdenek Bazant's crush-down/crush-up hypothesis? How many even know what that is? Can you provide me with a list?

[UNLoVedRebel]

So how many architects and engineers have gone on record stating that they support Zdenek Bazant's crush-down/crush-up hypothesis? How many even know what that is? Can you provide me with a list?

A list isn't necessary. It passed peer-review from an accredited academic journal and remains unchallenged.

[dtugg]

A list isn't necessary. It passed peer-review from an accredited academic journal and remains unchallenged.

You forgot, Hiewa has proved Bazant wrong by using pizza boxes, matchboxes, and a bathroom scale.

[1337m4n]

Hey tanabear, how many meteorologists have gone on record saying that the sky is blue?

[beachnut]

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?
Did you miss it? Less than 0.01 percent are with you and the crazy ideas, lies, false information and fantasy of 9/11 truth.

You have 0.01 percent (less than), and you can't find more architects. Why not? At least you have 0.01 percent who believe nut case ideas, the engineers are less than 0.0001 percent. But who is counting the nut case idea believers. Oops...


Why are those architects in A&E unable to comprehend 9/11 events? What makes people give up logic and accept nut case fantasy ideas like Gage does?

[eromitlab]

So none out of 10 million for the debunkers is what percentage?

Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence the truthers in regards to Architects & Engineers independently weighing in on the official version have more then just absent.

And I'm glad you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just don't be selective with that.

Only truthists feel the need to assemble "look at all these smart people with degrees and training and titles who agree with us!!!!!!" lists like ae911twoof, "patriots"question911, 911summary, a handful of georgewashington blog posts, scholars for 9/11 "truth", lawyers for 9/11 "truth", firefighters for 9/11 "truth", et cetera. Only truthists feel they must appeal to authority to validate their evidence-free proof, fact-free accusations and ignorance-fueled speculation.

If truthists had any real confidence in what they were saying, they'd bug as many engineers as they could to try and get a statement from them one way or another... or maybe they're just afraid of what the results of such an undertaking might be.

HI, maybe you'd care to educate all of us on how these lists change anything. The arguments are still bunk and not corroborated by anything but cut-and-paste conspiracy websites that reference unnamed sources when they're not referencing each other and youtube videos that chose ominous music over fact-checking. How does having such a small percentage of the world's engineers and architects "on your side" matter, especially considering the only thing they're doing about this horrible crime they think they've uncovered is support Richard Gage travelling around to give speeches and drop an occasional box?

[Cuddles]

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.

While this is certainly true, it's also worth bearing in mind the claim in question. AE911 aren't making a sensible argument, they're merely making an appeal to authority. Sure, you can just respond by pointing out that that's a logical fallacy, but there are many people who won't care or don't understand that. On the other hand, if you also point out that not only is it a logical fallcy but that it's also a rather pathetic one that involves nothing more than appealing to a tiny number of mostly unqualified people with a distinct lack of authority, the argument can be much more convincing. Pointing out logical fallacies is useful, but pointing out that they can't even use them properly can be just as useful.

[BigAl]

um..did you happen to see that little memorial to the FDNY on Hylan Blvd??
Can you be a little less vague? I might want to take a look at whatever it is you are referring to.

[parky76]

Can you be a little less vague? I might want to take a look at whatever it is you are referring to.

Take the Verazano to SI. Get off at the Fingerboard exit. Make a left. The intersection between Fingerboard and Hylan I believe is where its at. It is in a triangle between the roads. Never saw it before..so kinda hard to recall exact location. Plus I was lost, looking for a pool.

[BigAl]

Take the Verazano to SI. Get off at the Fingerboard exit. Make a left. The intersection between Fingerboard and Hylan

I know what you speak of. I always assumed it was a memorial to all victims of 9/11.

[tanabear]

A list isn't necessary. It passed peer-review from an accredited academic journal and remains unchallenged.

Thomas Eagar's paper (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html) on the collapse of the towers, which advanced the "pancake" collapse hypothesis, appeared in JOM. NIST, in their investigation, came to the conclusion that the pancake collapse hypothesis is not tenable. In other words, just because makes it into a peer-reviewed journal does mean that it is scientifically valid. The experimental method is the ultimate arbiter of competing scientific hypotheses, not peer review.

Besides, your statement that it is unchallenged is not correct. The Journal of Engineering Mechanics published a paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf) by James Gourley in which he finds fault with the crush-down/crush-up explanation. Since his criticism has also passed peer-review, what makes Bazant's paper more credible?

Hey tanabear, how many meteorologists have gone on record saying that the sky is blue?

I hear weatherman use the term "blue skies" occasionally when they are giving the forecast. "Blue skies tomorrow with a high around 75F." If you want an explanation you can try these links. Here (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/shv/Meteorological_Inquiries.htm), here (http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/almanac/arc2008/alm08oct.htm) and here (http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html).

Nevertheless, I'm sure most non-meteorologists know that the sky is blue or sometimes blue. I'm not sure how many people, engineers included, are aware of a crush-down/crush-up.

While this is certainly true, it's also worth bearing in mind the claim in question. AE911 aren't making a sensible argument, they're merely making an appeal to authority.

In what ways is AE911 Truth making an appeal to authority? And in what ways are their arguments not sensible? They are making the claim that explosive charges can destroy buildings. Why is this not a credible argument? Maybe because government propaganda says differently. They are not making an appeal to authority, they are appealing to the evidence.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Only truthists feel the need to assemble "look at all these smart people with degrees and training and titles who agree with us!!!!!!" lists like ae911twoof, "patriots"question911, 911summary, a handful of georgewashington blog posts, scholars for 9/11 "truth", lawyers for 9/11 "truth", firefighters for 9/11 "truth", et cetera. Only truthists feel they must appeal to authority to validate their evidence-free proof, fact-free accusations and ignorance-fueled speculation.

If truthists had any real confidence in what they were saying, they'd bug as many engineers as they could to try and get a statement from them one way or another... or maybe they're just afraid of what the results of such an undertaking might be.

HI, maybe you'd care to educate all of us on how these lists change anything. The arguments are still bunk and not corroborated by anything but cut-and-paste conspiracy websites that reference unnamed sources when they're not referencing each other and youtube videos that chose ominous music over fact-checking. How does having such a small percentage of the world's engineers and architects "on your side" matter, especially considering the only thing they're doing about this horrible crime they think they've uncovered is support Richard Gage travelling around to give speeches and drop an occasional box?

eromitlab, maybe you'd care to tell me why you don't have a problem with the op.

[eromitlab]

eromitlab, maybe you'd care to tell me why you don't have a problem with the op.

Why would I have "a problem with the op"? (And by "op", I presume you mean original post. I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm wrong.) RKOwens4 did an excellent job of showing how unimpressive ae911twoof's "impressive" number of architectural and engineering professionals is. And HI, you've done an impressive job of refuting none of the points I made. Care to take a crack at any of 'em? Again, I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm wrong.

[boloboffin]

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics published a paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf) by James Gourley in which he finds fault with the crush-down/crush-up explanation. Since his criticism has also passed peer-review, what makes Bazant's paper more credible?

Gourley's paper did not pass peer review. His comments on Bazant's paper was followed immediately by Bazant's comments on his paper. Bazant demonstrated easily that Gourley needed to consult a textbook on structural engineering.

Do you get that? Gourley's paper was published by JEM to demonstrate precisely why his theories could not and would never pass peer review. It is a cautionary tale. "This is not how you do it," said JEM.

When you point to Gourley's paper as if its contents were endorsed in the slightest by JEM, you are making an appeal to authority in the face of its consummate rejection by that group.

In what ways is AE911 Truth making an appeal to authority?

The above is one of their most recent. Their listing of architects and engineers who question 9/11, their very reason for existence, is a massive appeal to authority. We are supposed to have questions because all of these "experts" have questions. It is why Gage organized the group in the first place.

And in what ways are their arguments not sensible? They are making the claim that explosive charges can destroy buildings. Why is this not a credible argument? Maybe because government propaganda says differently.

Baloney.

No. 1, no one would ever argue against such a claim. Everyone knows that explosive charges can destroy buildings. AE911Truth truly would be mad to stand and fight for the truth of this proposition to be advanced. Please point any government propaganda that claims buildings cannot be destroyed by explosive charges. What a foolish thing for you to say.

No. 2, the claim they are making is that explosive charges destroyed three particular buildings. They do this by making a list of what they call characteristics of controlled demolition, and then attempt to prove each one exists in the case of these three buildings. (This is something they have by necessity backed away from. Now they only suggest that it might be possible.)

However, it's all still baloney. The list is something they constructed themselves from a complete misunderstanding of what they see. They itemize things they think they can observe about the collapses of the buildings and then present the list as objective, on the basis of what? Their own authority. It is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy that they have employed, but since they cannot hardly prove a single item of their own improvised list, it's more like the Texas footshooter fallacy.

They are not making an appeal to authority, they are appealing to the evidence.

They are selectively picking and present the evidence they feel proves their case, and they rely upon their own unexamined reputations to make the difference up. No better example of an appeal to authority could be provided.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Why would I have "a problem with the op"? (And by "op", I presume you mean original post. I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm wrong.) RKOwens4 did an excellent job of showing how unimpressive ae911twoof's "impressive" number of architectural and engineering professionals is. And HI, you've done an impressive job of refuting none of the points I made. Care to take a crack at any of 'em? Again, I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm wrong.

Isn't the op and RKO stating "look at all these smart people with degrees and training and titles who agree with us!!!!!!"? I mean who is the 10 million?

[TexasJack]

Isn't the op and RKO stating "look at all these smart people with degrees and training and titles who agree with us!!!!!!"? I mean who is the 10 million?

Perhaps you missed this, no surprise, but David Scott, the chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat thinks the truth movement is a joke, and he doesn't know anyone in his profession who believes in a CD.

I am chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. I am a practicing tall building engineer. I have written papers on fire induced progressive collapse. I witnessed the collapse of the towers. I participated in the rescue and then the clean up and all the time I was questioning how and why. I was involved in a review of the new GSA standards for progressive collapse. And I worked with Libeskind on his design for Freedom Tower.

I cannot see why you could assume that this makes me have a conflict of interest. What interests? I just want the truth.

The ae911truth movement is not interested in truth. It presents one side of the argument and ignores all the facts that indicate that they may be wrong.

(2) Where is the data to back up your claim about the "vast majority of tall building professionals"?

"The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers."

As Chairman of the CTBUH I am well connected to most of the leading practitioners of tall building design. The Council represents organizations with well more than 100,000 employees. I do not know anyone or organization in the Council that supports the controlled demolition theory. The ASCE has an engineering membership of 120,000 and they participated in the production of the NIST report. NIST itself employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel and hosts about 2,600 associates.

Against this you have the ae911truth movement which has support from approximately 80 licensed structural or civil engineers, who have signed its petition. Now in proportion to the industry the level of support that the 911truth movement is tiny. However I can understand why 80 people did, because the response from government was slow and the one side videos the 911truth movement show are very compelling, if you do not review them critically.

Some people will never believe we landed on the moon and some people will never believe that the planes that crashed into the towers, eventually brought them down. From my perspective both of these statements are equally preposterous. However the 911truth movement only provides one side of the argument and any organization that does so is not interested in truth. There are numerous answers to the questions they raise and the overwhelming evidence is that CD played no part in the collapse.

(3) How are all of the numerous videos which document the "collapse" of WTC 7 as a perfect controlled demolition not credible scientific evidence?

"We have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings."

Well, if you only look at the 911truth videos then you have to remember that you are only looking at one side of the argument. Much of the evidence is circumstantial and is presented in a highly biased and emotive way. I have taken several of my family members through the ae911truth presentation and videos when they first came out and there was nothing that I saw, that could not be explained as a reasonable part of a collapse. Much of this information can be extracted from the NIST reports or from various contradictory web-sites..

My main concern is that the debate is that the CD theory is a distraction. 9/11 raises many issues about building performance, terror attacks and how structural steel behaves in extreme fire conditions. These issues need to be properly discussed and debated and every time the conversation starts, then CD takes us wildly of course.

Sincerely yours,
~xxxxxxxxx

.................................................. ................
Post by D Scott - CTBUH Chairman
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=697314&page=2

[R.Mackey]

Thomas Eagar's paper (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html) on the collapse of the towers, which advanced the "pancake" collapse hypothesis, appeared in JOM. NIST, in their investigation, came to the conclusion that the pancake collapse hypothesis is not tenable.

This is wrong. Eagar's hypothesis was completely "scientifically valid." It was reasonable. However, it turned out that it was incorrect. There is more than one way a structure can fail. Eagar explored one option, and after much closer review of the video and structural calculations, it turned out that a different option was what really happened.

Science allows for speculation. Before all the data is in, we are allowed and even encouraged to propose possibilities. However, those possibilities must make sense. Eagar's was theoretically possible and consistent with the very limited data he had, so there was no reason not to publish it.

If we didn't publish works in progress, it would be very difficult for other teams to learn all of the competing hypotheses in order to test them.

In other words, just because makes it into a peer-reviewed journal does mean that it is scientifically valid. The experimental method is the ultimate arbiter of competing scientific hypotheses, not peer review.

Now this is correct. Peer review does not necessarily imply validity. However, it is a useful check of quality. Papers that fail peer review, on the other hand, are rarely valid, depending on the specific reviewer comments.

Also, the experimental method is indeed the final word, and this is the very definition of science -- repeatability is king. This is why, at this stage, the Truth Movement hypotheses have all disappeared. The majority of them are not even testable, while on the other side of the fence, every single facet of the "official theory" supported by NIST, U Purdue, and others is supported by observation and experiment. They also have been published and peer reviewed, of course.

Just to further illustrate this point, both NIST and Dr. Quintiere's results were reviewed and passed (yes, NIST was reviewed, look it up), but they have a fundamental difference between them. Which one is correct? We will never know, and I strongly suspect the correct answer is in between. It can't be both. But both are scientifically valid, as you put it.

Science is all about managing uncertainty. It isn't about eliminating uncertainty.

[DGM]

This is wrong. Eagar's hypothesis was completely "scientifically valid." It was reasonable. However, it turned out that it was incorrect. There is more than one way a structure can fail. Eagar explored one option, and after much closer review of the video and structural calculations, it turned out that a different option was what really happened.

Science allows for speculation. Before all the data is in, we are allowed and even encouraged to propose possibilities. However, those possibilities must make sense. Eagar's was theoretically possible and consistent with the very limited data he had, so there was no reason not to publish it.

If we didn't publish works in progress, it would be very difficult for other teams to learn all of the competing hypotheses in order to test them.



Now this is correct. Peer review does not necessarily imply validity. However, it is a useful check of quality. Papers that fail peer review, on the other hand, are rarely valid, depending on the specific reviewer comments.

Also, the experimental method is indeed the final word, and this is the very definition of science -- repeatability is king. This is why, at this stage, the Truth Movement hypotheses have all disappeared. The majority of them are not even testable, while on the other side of the fence, every single facet of the "official theory" supported by NIST, U Purdue, and others is supported by observation and experiment. They also have been published and peer reviewed, of course.

Just to further illustrate this point, both NIST and Dr. Quintiere's results were reviewed and passed (yes, NIST was reviewed, look it up), but they have a fundamental difference between them. Which one is correct? We will never know, and I strongly suspect the correct answer is in between. It can't be both. But both are scientifically valid, as you put it.

Science is all about managing uncertainty. It isn't about eliminating uncertainty.
Not to derail this thread too badly but, Have you heard back from the "journal" that supposedly reviewed Steven Jones' work?

[back to the regularly scheduled nonsense]

[R.Mackey]

Not to derail this thread too badly but, Have you heard back from the "journal" that supposedly reviewed Steven Jones' work?

[back to the regularly scheduled nonsense]

Not beyond what I'd already heard, which is, "gee, that's great, submit your own paper (and your own publishing fee)."

Big surprise.

Since then, totally unrelated, my e-mail at work has been absolutely inundated with "invitations" to publish in some-or-other Online Journal. There's no correlation, of course, it's just further evidence of the proliferation of scams pretending to be journals. They are everywhere, they are a scourge, and they impress absolutely nobody in the sciences.

I've said before and I say again, Dr. Jones knows how to write a good paper. I encourage him to do so. He hasn't yet. There's a reason.

ETA: Some additional reading on Bentham (http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html). This is not just me noticing this problem, and not just Dr. Jones contributing to it.

[eromitlab]

Isn't the op and RKO stating "look at all these smart people with degrees and training and titles who agree with us!!!!!!"? I mean who is the 10 million?

Okay, I think I see what you're on about... because there isn't a comparable bevy of "look at all these smart people with degrees and training and titles who agree with us!!!!!!" lists of professionals who come out in favor of the "official story" all over the internet, and "debunkers" don't wave those lists in truthist's faces to convince them when facts cannot, those professionals don't subscribe to the "official story" and they're just waiting for Richard Gage to show up with a truthist-sponsored free lunch and a slideshow. Is that about right?

There is no need to stoop to the level of ae911twoof and publish an appeal-to-authority list of "official story" believing experts, just as there's no reason to publish a list of experts that believe in the moon landing, or that Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese, or that Tim McVeigh blew up a truck bomb in front of the Murrah Building. It's widely accepted fact that anyone who can rub a few neurons together can see is true. If Gage wants to solicit more engineers and find out that the vast majority of them think truthist theories are moronic at best, he can. Or, if he wants to continue having truthists give him money so he can give a free lunch to someone who's already sold themselves up the river of 9/11 denial and can't wait to sign away their professional credibility, he can do that too. Bottom line, what he thinks is a professional consensus, and what truthists want to be a professional consensus... isn't.

BTW, I notice you still haven't addressed any of the points I originally made.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Perhaps you missed this, no surprise, but David Scott, the chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat thinks the truth movement is a joke, and he doesn't know anyone in his profession who believes in a CD.]

I'll give you Scott and his quotes supporting the official version. But like you he doesn't seem know any others.

Scott seems to claim some lists of his own though...

The ASCE has an engineering membership of 120,000 and they participated in the production of the NIST report. NIST itself employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel and hosts about 2,600 associates.

Again not independent and no personal endorsements of the official version.

So out of 10 million according to the op you have one? Good for you.

[Homeland Insurgency]

BTW, I notice you still haven't addressed any of the points I originally made.

I noticed you couldn't come up with one out of 10 million. Congratulations

[funk de fino]

Utterly pathetic and ridiculously predictable

[TexasJack]

I'll give you Scott and his quotes supporting the official version. But like you he doesn't seem know any others.

Scott seems to claim some lists of his own though...



Again not independent and no personal endorsements of the official version.

So out of 10 million according to the op you have one? Good for you.

So you agree the CD theory is a joke, I'm glad we have established that. Now as far as "endorsements", engineers don't hold press conferences to announce they support the NIST report and it's findings. In fact I'm sure there are many that have discrepancies with it. The fact that they are not coming out of the woodwork claiming CD, after Gage has contacted them, is very telling. Scott is a prominent member in the industry, and as he has said, he hasn't come across anyone of the thousands he knows that agrees with the joke truth movement. How does that make you feel?

There is a very simple concept that you and other truthers fail to understand, it's called burden of proof. NIST has met that burden of proof and it's held up to the scrutiny of its peers. Now, if you want to impeach the evidence that NIST has presented, you must counter with evidence of your own. The handful of joker engineers and architects have failed to do so. What your asking for is a list equal to people who don't believe in Bigfoot. The list is unnecessary, but I don't expect truthers to understand simple logic.

[WildCat]

I noticed you couldn't come up with one out of 10 million. Congratulations
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/10/standards-affected-by-nists.html


This is a blog dedicated to all the engineers that have spoken out about what happend on 9/11 but were quotemined by the "truthmovement". I have also added Engineers that just commented on the events that day.

Sorry to make you cry HI.

More from that site:
Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Civil_Engineers) of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Architects) of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Mechanical_Engineers) of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE) of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Chemical_Engineers) of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Aeronautics_and_Astronautics ) of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?
Hear that sopund HI? It's the sound of your fantasy being destroyed. Ouch!

[Homeland Insurgency]

So you agree the CD theory is a joke, I'm glad we have established that.

See? There you go again asserting what others think when they've said no such thing.

Now as far as "endorsements", engineers don't hold press conferences to announce they support the NIST report and it's findings.

Really? So what is Scott spouting off about?

In fact I'm sure there are many that have discrepancies with it.

Good for you.

The fact that they are not coming out of the woodwork claiming CD, after Gage has contacted them, is very telling.

Actually it doesn't tell anything.

Scott is a prominent member in the industry, and as he has said, he hasn't come across anyone of the thousands he knows that agrees with the joke truth movement. How does that make you feel?

When did he bring it up to all of the thousands?

There is a very simple concept that you and other truthers fail to understand, it's called burden of proof. NIST has met that burden of proof and it's held up to the scrutiny of its peers. Now, if you want to impeach the evidence that NIST has presented, you must counter with evidence of your own. The handful of joker engineers and architects have failed to do so. What your asking for is a list equal to people who don't believe in Bigfoot. The list is unnecessary, but I don't expect truthers to understand simple logic.

There is a very simple concept that you and other DEBUNKERS fail to understand. You claim to know what happened on 9/11. You need to prove it not us. So far you don't even have a handful backing you up.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Sorry to make you cry HI.

That's okay. Sometimes I do that when I'm laughing hysterically. Hopefully I won't wet myself.

More from that site:

More what? More none out of 10 million?

Hear that sopund HI? It's the sound of your fantasy being destroyed. Ouch!

I don't even know what a sopund is. Did you hurt yourself?

[WildCat]

That's okay. Sometimes I do that when I'm laughing hysterically.
I know, 0 truther papers in a peer reviewed journal after 7 years is pretty funny!

Hopefully I won't wet myself.
Sounds like quite a problem you have there. That's why your mommy puts rubber sheets on your bed.

More what? More none out of 10 million?
Nice try. Those 10 million are satisfied with building reports. "None" is the number of truther papers in peer reviewed journals.

I don't even know what a sopund is. Did you hurt yourself?
I guess typos is all you have now. How sad.

[TexasJack]

Really? So what is Scott spouting off about?
What he's spouting off about is truthers coming on to his forum and spouting nonsense.


When did he bring it up to all of the thousands?
Read it again.


Actually it doesn't tell anything.
Sure it does, Gage can only recruit a few professionals out of the millions worldwide.

There is a very simple concept that you and other DEBUNKERS fail to understand. You claim to know what happened on 9/11. You need to prove it not us. So far you don't even have a handful backing you up.

Thanks for proving my point about burden of proof, I knew you wouldn't let me down.

[parky76]

we don't have to prove anything....to anyone. especially...to truthers. if they REFUSE to accept the facts...that is their problem..and their cross to bare.

[The Atheist]

Since when did argument by popularity become popular?

I trust you're all going to church next Sunday?

[A W Smith]

you miss the entire point HI. The reports have a direct bearing on the livelihood of millions of architects and engineers. More stringent building codes and regulations as a result of those report findings can make or break a clients project budget. If you think those millions of architects and engineers would keep silent if they disagreed with those reports you are very very very stupid.

[eromitlab]

Again not independent and no personal endorsements of the official version.

So out of 10 million according to the op you have one? Good for you.

Here's a question for you, HI. I highly doubt you'll answer it, but I'll offer it anyway. Look at the NIST report on WTC 7. Specifically, look at pages 5-14. Here's a link for you. (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf)Look at all those names of the people who contributed to the NIST report. All those names on those pages aren't architects and engineers, certainly; if you get down to "cooperating organizations", a lot of those are people who work in television. However, you have 13 experts on the first page who were leaders in some fashion on the report. You have 59 people on NIST's technical staff. 11 more experts and consultants. 27 more from the Department of Commerce and NIST institutional support. 22 NIST contractors... including Mark Loizeaux, who has made it quite clear what he thinks of truthers and their theories.
So, my question to you, HI, is this. Do you think that all those people would allow their names on the report that determined definitively that WTC was not a controlled demolition if they thought it was? Or, if the report listed their names and they didn't agree with the report's findings, don't you think they'd, oh I don't know, say something to that effect?

[Tweeter]

are you expecting there to be a internet forum for folks who agree with the true story of what happened on 9-11?

its already been supported by the most important architectual and engineering firms, societies, and schools of thought.

their seal of appoval is good enough for me.

Huh??
I wouldnt expect one, but what do you call this forum?
You may as well call it "Folks who believe anything the government says".

[UNLoVedRebel]

The experimental method is the ultimate arbiter of competing scientific hypotheses, not peer review.

All depends on the validity of the test. What has taught us more about the mechanics of the collapses, Bazant's calculations, or Heiwa's pizza box experiment?

[Homeland Insurgency]

you miss the entire point HI. The reports have a direct bearing on the livelihood of millions of architects and engineers. More stringent building codes and regulations as a result of those report findings can make or break a clients project budget. If you think those millions of architects and engineers would keep silent if they disagreed with those reports you are very very very stupid.

Actually the livelihood of millions of architects and engineers depends many times on government contracts. Or maybe even something like the rebuilding of the WTC site.

If you think they would speak up about something where they have absolutely nothing to gain but ridicule from others seeking those same lucrative contracts or just loyalist toeing the government line then it is you who are very very very stupid or very very very dishonest.

[parky76]

Huh??
I wouldnt expect one, but what do you call this forum?
You may as well call it "Folks who believe anything the government says".

right. keep telling yourselves that we believe "everything" the government tells us. that way you can disregard anyone who dares to disagree with you.

is that how it works? simply disregarding anyone and any argument that disagrees with you, by simply calling it "governmant loyalist"??

:D

see, this is the TRUE and MAIN difference between debunkers...and truthers.

Debunkers, when they hear statemants from truthers, research, investigate, and if it turns out to be wrong...we call it "incorrect".

Truthers, when they hear statemants from debunkers, just simply call it lies, planted evidence, disinfo, NWO propaganda, or just simply call the debunker a "governmant loyalist".

Yeah...you guys really deserve a new investigation.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Here's a question for you, HI. I highly doubt you'll answer it, but I'll offer it anyway. Look at the NIST report on WTC 7. Specifically, look at pages 5-14. Here's a link for you. (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf)Look at all those names of the people who contributed to the NIST report. All those names on those pages aren't architects and engineers, certainly; if you get down to "cooperating organizations", a lot of those are people who work in television. However, you have 13 experts on the first page who were leaders in some fashion on the report. You have 59 people on NIST's technical staff. 11 more experts and consultants. 27 more from the Department of Commerce and NIST institutional support. 22 NIST contractors... including Mark Loizeaux, who has made it quite clear what he thinks of truthers and their theories.
So, my question to you, HI, is this. Do you think that all those people would allow their names on the report that determined definitively that WTC was not a controlled demolition if they thought it was? Or, if the report listed their names and they didn't agree with the report's findings, don't you think they'd, oh I don't know, say something to that effect?

I asked for independent endorsement of the official version. Not the official version trying to confirm the official version.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Since when did argument by popularity become popular?

I trust you're all going to church next Sunday?

Since a debunker started this thread declaring his views to be popular.

[Homeland Insurgency]

right. keep telling yourselves that we believe "everything" the government tells us. that way you can disregard anyone who dares to disagree with you.

is that how it works? simply disregarding anyone and any argument that disagrees with you, by simply calling it "governmant loyalist"??

:D

see, this is the TRUE and MAIN difference between debunkers...and truthers.

Debunkers, when they hear statemants from truthers, research, investigate, and if it turns out to be wrong...we call it "incorrect".

Truthers, when they hear statemants from debunkers, just simply call it lies, planted evidence, disinfo, NWO propaganda, or just simply call the debunker a "governmant loyalist".

Yeah...you guys really deserve a new investigation.

The only think debunkers do is offer up the official version as proof of the official version.

Especially Gravy.

[parky76]

Actually the livelihood of millions of architects and engineers depends many times on government contracts. Or maybe even something like the rebuilding of the WTC site.

If you think they would speak up about something where they have absolutely nothing to gain but ridicule from others seeking those same lucrative contracts or just loyalist toeing the government line then it is you who are very very very stupid or very very very dishonest.

ever heard of "whistleblower protections"?

people who spill the beans about corruption or criminal activity..are protected from retribution. and even without these protections, hundreds..even thousands of Americans have risked their jobs, pensions, even their safety, to spill the beans countless times when their government agency or private buisness has done something wrong.

it is so verrrrrrry convenient, and self-serving, to claim that the REAL reason there haven't more engineers and architects on the side of "da twoof", is because they are intimidated. but precedent shows the American people are BRAVE and COURAGEOUS in these typs of situations, and do their duty as Americans....even when their own livelyhoods are at risk.

:D

[A W Smith]

Actually the livelihood of millions of architects and engineers depends many times on government contracts. Or maybe even something like the rebuilding of the WTC site.

If you think they would speak up about something where they have absolutely nothing to gain but ridicule from others seeking those same lucrative contracts or just loyalist toeing the government line then it is you who are very very very stupid or very very very dishonest.

the design, engineering and construction of commercial buildings and skyscrapers are not contracts given by the government, the WTC complex is the exception rather than the rule. thanks for showing us the truther level of stupidity

[Homeland Insurgency]

the design, engineering and construction of commercial buildings and skyscrapers are not contracts given by the government, the WTC complex is the exception rather than the rule. thanks for showing us your level of stupidity

Thank you for yet again not showing any of the supposed 10 million who independently endorse the official version.

[Homeland Insurgency]

ever heard of "whistleblower protections"?

people who spill the beans about corruption or criminal activity..are protected from retribution. and even without these protections, hundreds..even thousands of Americans have risked their jobs, pensions, even their safety, to spill the beans countless times when their government agency or private buisness has done something wrong.

it is so verrrrrrry convenient, and self-serving, to claim that the REAL reason there haven't more engineers and architects on the side of "da twoof", is because they are intimidated. but precedent shows the American people are BRAVE and COURAGEOUS in these typs of situations, and do their duty as Americans....even when their own livelyhoods are at risk.

:D

Yes I have. In fact there are engineers and architects on the side of what you for lack of any facts call "da twoof". In fact the OP pointed some of them out.

Where is yours?

[A W Smith]

Thank you for yet again not showing any of the supposed 10 million who independently endorse the official version.
general consensus has no need to be published.

i have already proven my point
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4221808&postcount=66

[psikeyhackr]

As someone who recently changed his major to mechanical engineering,

In 2006 (the last year that this survey was done), there were about 1.5 million employed engineers in the United States. I did a search for architects and found that in 2006, there were about 132,000 architects employed in the United States.

As someone who debated mechanical vs electrical engineering in high school and went with electrical, what do all of those engineers say about "planned obsolescence"?

I knew that was going on in cars before I graduated from high school but I noticed no one mentioned it in college. I didn't even learn about The Current Wars.

http://www.snopes.com/science/edison.asp

My 1984 encyclopedia Britannica didn't contain electric chair information and the 2000 version only had two paragraphs and didn't say Edison was responsible for it.

Very strange things happen with information in this society. Of course physics doesn't give a damn about democracy or consensus. Any engineer should know that.

psik

[parky76]

oy vey

[twinstead]

The same old crap. Unless every expert on Earth explicitly, in writing (probably in triplicate), states they support the 'official story', then they are assumed to NOT support it. Even if the organizations they are a member of explicitly state support, unless every member writes a personal letter to HI declaring they support the 'official story', it can be assumed they do not.

This is utter garbage and nothing more than a childish debate technique.

[R.Mackey]

Argumentum ad numeram isn't a guarantee, of course, but remember it was AE911Truth that started it.

And they can't finish. There are more degreed and practicing engineering or science professionals posting at the JREF Forum as "debunkers," than there are in AE911Truth, even if we don't clean their roster for fake names, those who signed on years ago and never did another single thing, or those who basically agree with us but want more accountability (like Arthur Scheuerman).

And JREF Forum posters have personally published more reviewed journal papers on the subject than the entire Truth Movement. (Benson of BLGB is an infrequent poster).

I believe kids these days refer to this as "Epic Fail."

[eromitlab]

I asked for independent endorsement of the official version. Not the official version trying to confirm the official version.

Why should I answer your questions when you won't answer mine? Time and time again, you've asked for one name out of ten million architects and engineers who has come out against the "official story". I dare say Shyam Sunder thinks truthers are full of it. So does David Simon. Ask the rest of the project leaders on the NIST report, they'll agree. Now you're just wrapping yourself up in denial and moving goalposts because it's the only thing holding your fantasy conspiracy together.

And of course, you didn't answer my question. I knew you wouldn't before I even asked it.
I'm applying for the million. Thanks, HI!
For my next prediction, I predict some standoffish non-sequitor that allows you to continue living in your state of denial, followed by me putting you on ignore.

[twinstead]

I wonder what 'independent endorsement of the official version' even means to HI.

[parky76]

This is utter garbage and nothing more than a childish debate technique.

its not even debating. its just useless typing in order to pass the time. nothing is being accomplished. none of this will bring a 15th investigation, a revolution, or any of the "perps" to justice. its just shootin the xxxx.

[Homeland Insurgency]

The same old crap. Unless every expert on Earth explicitly, in writing (probably in triplicate), states they support the 'official story', then they are assumed to NOT support it. Even if the organizations they are a member of explicitly state support, unless every member writes a personal letter to HI declaring they support the 'official story', it can be assumed they do not.


Very good. I can say the same thing. I think I will.

The same old crap. Unless every expert on Earth explicitly, in writing (probably in triplicate), states they DON'T support the 'official story', then they are assumed to support it. If the organizations they are a member of explicitly state support then every one of them must also be in support, even if they don't write a personal endorsement to anyone in seven years declaring they support the 'official story', it can be assumed they do.

[Homeland Insurgency]

I wonder what 'independent endorsement of the official version' even means to HI.

The same kind of independent endorsement against the official version pointed out in the op.

[Grizzly Bear]

The same kind of independent endorsement against the official version pointed out in the op.

I'm not as concerned with numbers as I am with quality of facts, and so far AE911 has done a good job at getting just about everything wrong.

It's a pity you aren't reading up on your architecture and engineering references...

[johnny karate]

Very good. I can say the same thing. I think I will.

The same old crap. Unless every expert on Earth explicitly, in writing (probably in triplicate), states they DON'T support the 'official story', then they are assumed to support it. If the organizations they are a member of explicitly state support then every one of them must also be in support, even if they don't write a personal endorsement to anyone in seven years declaring they support the 'official story', it can be assumed they do.

The point is that Richard Gage has been actively trying to get the support of industry and scientific professionals for several years.

I defy you to present any organization anywhere trying to elicit support for the official version and failing as spectacularly as Gage.

[parky76]

I see no evidence that any other Architects and Engineers, besides the ones who have attached their names to the A&E for 9-11 Truth group, disagrees with the NIST investigation's findings. There is no evidence whatsoever of any intimidation, overt threats, assumed threats, against architects or engineers who come out against the NIST findings.

Therefore, it is very fair and logical to assume, that most if not all architects and engineers, who have not actively signed up with the truthers, accept NIST's findings.

can anyone logically and rationally argue with this statemant?

you know what, I will take this one step further. I will ask AIA certified architects that I work with, in NYC, whether or not they have heard of ANY threats, intimidation, anything...that would suggest that openly disagreeing with the NIST findings are frowned upon by the association or any other groups.

I just sent the following email to the AIA:

"Good evening. My name is XXXX XXXX. I frequently have debates and arguments with individuals within the USA, who argue that NIST's findings regarding the WTC collapses are flawed, and that these buildings most likely came down as the result of a "controlled demolition". I am sure your organization has received one or two emails and phone calls from such fascinating individuals.

My question is, and hopefully you can simply direct me to a link of some sort, is whether or not the AIA released an official response or statemant regarding NIST's findings? Or has there been any emails or letters sent out to AIA members regarding how to respond to questions regarding the NIST and other investigations into the WTC collapses?

Thank you very much for your time,

-XXXX




"Great men are like meteors...giving light to the world as they are consumed"
~John Fitzgerald Kennedy

i will post their response as soon as it arrives.

[cyclonic]

How intelligent are AE911TRUTH architecs and engineers?
see for yourself.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wRRQhQsdEts

[dtugg]

When your the leader of your group is going around dropping cardboard boxes to "prove" that the towers couldn't have come down without explosives/thermite that is not a good sign for the legitimacy of said group.

[MikeW]

The same old crap. Unless every expert on Earth explicitly, in writing (probably in triplicate), states they support the 'official story', then they are assumed to NOT support it. Even if the organizations they are a member of explicitly state support, unless every member writes a personal letter to HI declaring they support the 'official story', it can be assumed they do not.
Actually even that wouldn't work. That is, if they did the truthers would just tell us it was a stunt, that anyone who took part only did so because they were frightened of losing Government contracts, and so all these engineers standing up for the NIST reports was actually very good evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. There's nothing, and I do mean nothing that the truthers can't find a way to ignore.

[TexasJack]

How intelligent are AE911TRUTH architecs and engineers?
see for yourself.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wRRQhQsdEts

Oh my, and here I was thinking that Charles "The Towers Were Brought Down by Nukes" Pegelow was the brains of the outfit. Funny part is she writes the number down about 7 times without ever catching on, plus the number is too long.

[lapman]

Very good. I can say the same thing. I think I will.

The same old crap. Unless every expert on Earth explicitly, in writing (probably in triplicate), states they DON'T support the 'official story', then they are assumed to support it. If the organizations they are a member of explicitly state support then every one of them must also be in support, even if they don't write a personal endorsement to anyone in seven years declaring they support the 'official story', it can be assumed they do.
What's idiotic about your statement is that most people don't proclaim endorsements for the generally accepted facts. Can you produce millions of endorsements from the scientific community that state that the Earth is round? Are the millions of websites dedicated to the roundness of the Earth? Yet there are web sites dedicated to the theory that the Earth is flat (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm). So, according to your standard, the Earth must be flat.

[apathoid]

Homeland Insurgent, have you ever thought to contact engineering professionals yourself? Maybe try your local universities engineering department and ask if they endorse NIST's findings?

If you want to prove that there is major doubt about the official version in engineering circles, this is how you can do it. You're wasting your time with AE911 engineers and debunker engineers. You'll find the truth elsewhere**. Best of luck.



** Not saying that our great JREF engineers are wrong...just looking at things from his perspective.

[JamesB]

The father of a friend of mine from high school is a college professor specializing in forensic architecture. He is even editor of one of the journals in the field. He said that Gage and the idiots are always sending them stuff but they just throw it away. I sent him the video of Gage and his cardboard box, he thought that was hilarious.

[parky76]

There is also no large organization for people who believe the Moon landings were NOT fakes. I guess that means the Moon landings were therefore, faked.

[RKOwens4]

Oh my, and here I was thinking that Charles "The Towers Were Brought Down by Nukes" Pegelow was the brains of the outfit. Funny part is she writes the number down about 7 times without ever catching on, plus the number is too long.

I wonder if she knows how to read.

[Cuddles]

In what ways is AE911 Truth making an appeal to authority?

Appeal to authority is the sole purpose for their existence. It's a group that exists only to list people who support a particular view. That's pretty much the dictionary definition of appeal to authority. The really sad part is that they fail so badly at doing it. They have a tiny number of people who, even if they were authorities, would only be a tiny proportion of relevant authorities, and of that tiny proportion, a large proportion either don't agree, aren't actually authorities or don't even exist.

And in what ways are their arguments not sensible? They are making the claim that explosive charges can destroy buildings. Why is this not a credible argument?

Well, there are two problems here. Firstly, that's not the arguement they make. Only an idiot would argue against the claim that explosives can be used to demolish buildings, and only an idiot would start a support group for people who believe that. What they actually claim is that explosives were used to demolish three specific buildings. That's a very different claim, which leads on to the second problem - it's a load of crap. There isn't a shred of evidence to support their nonsense, which is why the apex of their argument is an abject failure of an appeal to authority.