Is discrimination on the basis of trutherism acceptable?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I jusat put up a post in the 9/11 section that I am quoting here:There are no "real architects" who have signed that petition. A persomn who signs that petition stops being an architect or an engineer in the same way that a brain surgeon who suddenly decides to try shrinking tumors by dangling crystals over peoples heads is no longer able to effectively work in his field.

The AE911Truth petition isn't an expression of political dissent. It is a confession of professional incompetence.

Were I a property developer looking to hire people to put buildings up on my land, and I noticed the names of one or more job applicants on a "petition" which states; "We the undersigned haven't got a frakking clue how fire affects various materials and have no understanding of the forces which can cause or result from structural failure" then I will not hire them. In fact I would fire such persons for incompetence if they were already hired.

"Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" is a scientific impossibility and an oxymoron.

About 3 years ago, I met a man who was an out of work welder here in Edmonton, Alberta. He had been let go from his previous job because his constant proselyting on behalf of the conspiracist religion was driving his coworkers nuts, and the average truthers utter ignorance of how fire works is a serious safety threat when one works with open flames in the oil industry.

So my question is, is this acceptable. Is it legal?

Can a person be denied or released from employment for expressing a belief in out of the mainstream theories that are in direct defiance of everything they should have learned during their training?

[Arus808]

If such beliefs leads to a dangerous work environment (both physical and mental) and there is 1) complaints against said worker by fellow workers logged with HR and 2) evidence that his beliefs are impacting his work ethics and performance, then yes firing him for believing in Conspiracies which lead to the problems above are well in accordance with a reason to let him go


and most states are At-Will employment so they could have fired him for ANY reason or even no reason at all.

[LightinDarkness]

Its been a while since I had a public law class, but I'm pretty sure its perfectly legal as long as there is a "nexus of interest" between the professed conspiracy religion and the job the person has. For example, a twoofer who had a job in say, fire safety inspections, would be professing a belief in how fire works which could actively endanger lives. As long as the professed conspiracy belief does not interfere with the person's ability to do their job, its fine. If the same twoofer was a cashier at WAL-MART, they couldn't be fired for it - at least not on the basis of professing a belief in conspiracy.

Of course, I think this gets more murky when we start to talk about harassment. I would consider having a 9/11 twoofer evangelize in my workplace everyday harassment personally, but I am not sure what the law says about that.

[LightinDarkness]

I just remember there is a free speech exception for public employees. Government employees are not entitled to free speech in the work force if the agency in question determines that the exercise of such speech would hinder agency operations. That restriction is in force whenever a government employee is operating in his or her capacity as a representative of the government.

OMG...GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CANNOT EXPOSE THE INSIDE JOB...CONSPIRACY!

[UNLoVedRebel]

Can a person be denied or released from employment for expressing a belief in out of the mainstream theories that are in direct defiance of everything they should have learned during their training?
All depends on what's said. On the majority of 9/11 truthy claims, I would say yes. Most of them are based on hatred or profound ignorance, which deserves immediate termination if it's a skilled job.

Let's put it into perspective. You go to a Doctor's office to get your kid vaccinated (MMR, rubela, etc). Your doctor tells you not to do it because it's a brainwashing scheme orchestrated by the government. Would you a) take his advice or b) sue him for medical malpractice?

[Mongrel]

Another couple of things spring to mind;

1) Given how fervent some people can get when it comes to fringe opinions (not just truthers) it's possible that he could have been creating a hostile work environment.

2) Without access to the records of the chap in the OP it's impossible to say why he got fired. Given how many truthers see conspiracies wherever they go it's not impossible that he was fired because he couldn't do his job properly (or was spending far too much time 'preaching'), whack that through a conspiracy filter and suddenly it's "I was fired because I'm a Truther"

[~enigma~]

I jusat put up a post in the 9/11 section that I am quoting here:

About 3 years ago, I met a man who was an out of work welder here in Edmonton, Alberta. He had been let go from his previous job because his constant proselyting on behalf of the conspiracist religion was driving his coworkers nuts, and the average truthers utter ignorance of how fire works is a serious safety threat when one works with open flames in the oil industry.

So my question is, is this acceptable. Is it legal?

Can a person be denied or released from employment for expressing a belief in out of the mainstream theories that are in direct defiance of everything they should have learned during their training?
It's a good start.

[dudalb]

If he acting in such a way as to disrupt the workplace, yeah, his employer has a right to fire him.

[TheDaver]

And just to make it clear before the Truthers squat all over this thread – we’re mostly talking about being fired for proselytizing 9/11 Truth, not for simply believing in it.

[Arus808]

In case that word is too big for the normal troofer
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize



I have to repeat this as well:

Most states in the union are At-Will employment. so the person could be fired for any REASON or even NO reason at all.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And just to make it clear before the Truthers squat all over this thread – we’re mostly talking about being fired for proselytizing 9/11 Truth, not for simply believing in it.

Actually, to make it clear, I am talking about firing them for their beliefs. Not whether they talk about them or not.

An engineer or architect is allowed to believe in Jesus, Allah, Yaweh or the Earth Mother. An engineer is allowed to vote for republicans, democrats, greens or even the Monster Raving Loony Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_Raving_Loony). These rights are guaranteed and are entrenched in our society are not under attack here. However, engineers and architects are not allowed to believe that fire cannot cause the collapse of a steel framed building.

Were I an employer and I discovered an employees name on Richard Gages AE9/11T petition, I would fire his ass. It wouldn't matter if he had spoken about it in the workplace or not. I would have to in order to protect the lives of my employees and tenants.

In 1995, the Sampoong Department Store in Seoul, South Korea collapsed, killing 501 people and injuring 937 others. The cause of the collapse was traced to a faulty design that the owners of the store had tried to cover up. Several city officials and executives of development company that built the store were jailed for their role in concealing the dangers in the stores bad design.

Someone who believes that jews (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/06/blame-it-on-jews.html) are a greater threat to structural stability than even a normal fire, must not be entrusted to design buildings with the proper safety features. Like in the aftermath of the Sampoong collapse, if you have an engineer deliberately making bad design decisions because he has his head rammed up his ass, holding beliefs in defiance of all established science, then you cannot allow his ignorance to threaten public safety or the vulnerability of your company or organization to lawsuits.

And to the 9/11 twoofers who will "squat all over this thread", you are all idiots. You have the right to be. But you don't have the right to kill innocent people with your stupid.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Let's put it into perspective. You go to a Doctor's office to get your kid vaccinated (MMR, rubela, etc). Your doctor tells you not to do it because it's a brainwashing scheme orchestrated by the government. Would you a) take his advice or b) sue him for medical malpractice?

I think a test case is coming for the anti-vaxxers. Every person that dies (http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html) as an indirect result of anti-vaxxer rhetoric is a potential wrongful death suit against them.

The extent to which 9/11 truthers and anti-vaxxers can be held liable for the deaths they contribute to in a court of law is yet to be determined.

[deep]

And to the 9/11 twoofers who will "squat all over this thread", you are all idiots. You have the right to be. But you don't have the right to kill innocent people with your stupid.


From the AE911T petition (bolding mine):
"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and 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 collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and 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."So the architects & engineers who sign that petition are supporting a new investigation, as opposed to endorsing a certain conclusion. They may have individual beliefs or theories, but that up there is what they signed.

You say that signing the petition is a "confession of professional incompetence".

Let me ask you this: have you read the petition before? Based on several of your comments, it sounds like you believe that all AE911T members believe very specific things that are not listed above.

Anyway, unless that changes something, I don't see how any rational person could tell you this is "acceptable".

[deep]

And to the 9/11 twoofers who will "squat all over this thread", you are all idiots. You have the right to be. But you don't have the right to kill innocent people with your stupid.


Uhh.. would you also please clarify the bolded text above? As in.. explain what in the world you're talking about?

[Arus808]

Thanks for derailing deep, but to address

So the architects & engineers who sign that petition are supporting a new investigation, as opposed to endorsing a certain conclusion. They may have individual beliefs or theories, but that up there is what they signed.


which proves they do not understand what AE911truth is all about, or haven ot BOTHERED to do one second of investigation on their own.

You say that signing the petition is a "confession of professional incompetence".

YES by penning their name to such DUBIOUS and unsupported claims, they by their PROFESSION are proving professional incompetence on their part;



as this has NOTHING to do with being fired for espousing your beliefs to such an extent, that it hinders or causes the work environment to be unpleasant; signing a petition based on the lies of the founder does not qualify under this

[UNLoVedRebel]

Uhh.. would you also please clarify the bolded text above? As in.. explain what in the world you're talking about?

Should we get rid of fire safety regulations in favor of regulations that prevent governments from trying to pass off a fire induced collapse as a controlled demolition?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

From the AE911T petition (bolding mine):
"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and 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 collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and 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."So the architects & engineers who sign that petition are supporting a new investigation, as opposed to endorsing a certain conclusion. They may have individual beliefs or theories, but that up there is what they signed.

Whoever wrote this petition is either not an architect or engineer or they are incompetent in their field. We know this because whoever wrote it believes that it is possible that explosives were the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC7.

None of the alleged architects and engineers caught this egregious error, which tells us they are incompetent as well.

Let me ask you this: have you read the petition before? Based on several of your comments, it sounds like you believe that all AE911T members believe very specific things that are not listed above

Judging from the petition they willingly signed, we know they are so stupid, they they actually believe that it is possible that explosives brought down WTC 1, 2 and 7. That's pretty damn incompetent for someone who is supposed to know a thing or two about what makes buildings fall down.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Uhh.. would you also please clarify the bolded text above? As in.. explain what in the world you're talking about?

It's simple, Deep.

If you don't think fire can destroy buildings, and you design buildings for a living, how can you be trusted to include appropriate safety features into your designs to deal with fire or other causes of collapse?

The Sampoong department store killed 500 innocent people because idiots who didn't know what they were doing started making critical design decisions.

If truthers were allowed to be engineers, we'd have buildings coming down all over the place every time someone dropped a match.

[deep]

Whoever wrote this petition is either not an architect or engineer or they are incompetent in their field. We know this because whoever wrote it believes that it is possible that explosives were the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC7.

None of the alleged architects and engineers caught this egregious error, which tells us they are incompetent as well.


The "error" you're referring to amounts to evaluating a certain hypothesis, using the scientific method. If it's as absurd as you seem to believe it is, it would be falsified.

That being said, if you're unwilling to consider the possibility that these architects/engineers who sign the petition are professionally competent, then there's certainly no sense in trying to convince you otherwise.

To answer your original question: you're entitled to your own opinion, obviously, but I'm pretty sure you could get dragged into court if you fired someone for signing up.

[Arus808]

its already been falsified. that's the point deep. Two reports by NIST have falsified everything stated in that petition.

[dtugg]

If I ran a business and had a employee who I found out is a twoofer, I would fire him on the spot for being an idiot.

[Alferd_Packer]

A birther recently lost his DOD security clearance and got fired.

http://washingtonindependent.com/51177/birther-soldier-fired-from-his-civilian-defense-contracting-job

[Nosi]

Thanks for derailing deep, but to address




which proves they do not understand what AE911truth is all about, or haven ot BOTHERED to do one second of investigation on their own.



YES by penning their name to such DUBIOUS and unsupported claims, they by their PROFESSION are proving professional incompetence on their part;



as this has NOTHING to do with being fired for espousing your beliefs to such an extent, that it hinders or causes the work environment to be unpleasant; signing a petition based on the lies of the founder does not qualify under this

And you are certain that the "John Smith" who's name is on the petition is the John Smith in your employ?

[zaphod2016]

A birther recently lost his DOD security clearance and got fired.

http://washingtonindependent.com/51177/birther-soldier-fired-from-his-civilian-defense-contracting-job

Interesting stuff.

I am truly torn on the great debate presented in this thread. My knee-jerk libertarian response is that any discrimination based on any political belief, no matter how nutty, is immoral. I.e. if I perform my job properly, the fact that I believe alien space lizards shot JFK is inconsequential.

However, in the case of the birther, we have an employee being insubordinate. That's grounds for dismissal, regardless of the underlying political motive.

As far as the engineers go, it is a valid argument: incompetence has and will lead to innocent deaths. The question is, does participation in AE911 display a clear lack of professional competence?

From the text of the petition:


We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and 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.


Note the liberal use of weasel words.

As noted by Sword of Truth, the possibility of explosives was already thoroughly debunked by NIST. Therefore, I would be suspicious of any engineer who belonged to AE911.

If this were on a resume, I would likely pass over the applicant.

If this were from an established employee, I would be unlikely to dismiss them immediately, but I would be sure to keep a close eye on their work. Unless their work displayed a clear lack of competence, I would consider their participation in AE911 a faux pas, and not involve myself either way.

[deep]

Note the liberal use of weasel words.

As noted by Sword of Truth, the possibility of explosives was already thoroughly debunked by NIST. Therefore, I would be suspicious of any engineer who belonged to AE911.


The members of AE911 support a new investigation - given their position, why would you expect them to accept the conclusion(s) offered by NIST?

Your comment about "weasel words" is even more puzzling - how else would you suggest they comment on an untested hypothesis?

[UNLoVedRebel]

To answer your original question: you're entitled to your own opinion, obviously, but I'm pretty sure you could get dragged into court if you fired someone for signing up.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4903950#post4903950

[jakesteele]

Sweet Jesus, Good Lord, God in Heaven!!!

Welcome to AmeriKa!
The Land of 'Your Decree' and Home of the Slave.

So why not extend it to any pilots, demo guys, CIA people, Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials and Engineers that have this fatally flawed reasoning?

Hell, we might as well make a clean sweep and make the streets safe for our wifes and daughters. Let's make it safe to go outside again. We can round them up and put them in our detention camps and re-indoctrinate them to the Unchanging, Everlasting Truth that we see much more clearly than the sheeple, the wogs, woo's, CTers, Xians, the nutters, etc.

Hell, why stop there? Let's go get Jenny McCarthy and any mom that chose not to have their children vaccinated and any kind of woo that ever damaged a poor misguided soul, also. Hell, let's get them all, I say!!

I feel like burning some books, how about you?

[eirik]

To the OP: Discrimination is wrong. But I would not consider this particular case "discrimination". It's not illegal to treat people unequal. It is illegal to do this on certain grounds:

"Discrimination toward or against a person of a certain group is the treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination#Employment_discrimination

This typically means unequal treatment on the grounds of race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. is illegal. That is what a typical anti-discimination law regulates.

Having fringe ideas and being respected as an intelligent person at the same time is not a human right. Being a truther is an active choice, much like acting like an idiot. actually that is exactly what it is:D

[T.A.M.]

It's simple, Deep.

If you don't think fire can destroy buildings, and you design buildings for a living, how can you be trusted to include appropriate safety features into your designs to deal with fire or other causes of collapse?

The Sampoong department store killed 500 innocent people because idiots who didn't know what they were doing started making critical design decisions.

If truthers were allowed to be engineers, we'd have buildings coming down all over the place every time someone dropped a match.

No, we would have buildings made out of straw, to match the men they build on these forums every day!

Thank you, I will be here all week.

TAM:D

[eirik]

Sweet Jesus, Good Lord, God in Heaven!!!

Welcome to AmeriKa!
The Land of 'Your Decree' and Home of the Slave.

So why not extend it to any pilots, demo guys, CIA people, Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials and Engineers that have this fatally flawed reasoning?

Hell, we might as well make a clean sweep and make the streets safe for our wifes and daughters. Let's make it safe to go outside again. We can round them up and put them in our detention camps and re-indoctrinate them to the Unchanging, Everlasting Truth that we see much more clearly than the sheeple, the wogs, woo's, CTers, Xians, the nutters, etc.

Hell, why stop there? Let's go get Jenny McCarthy and any mom that chose not to have their children vaccinated and any kind of woo that ever damaged a poor misguided soul, also. Hell, let's get them all, I say!!

I feel like burning some books, how about you?

Do you get out much? This obviously isn't very healthy for you.

[T.A.M.]

Sweet Jesus, Good Lord, God in Heaven!!!

Welcome to AmeriKa!
The Land of 'Your Decree' and Home of the Slave.

There are not enough shaking head emoticons.


So why not extend it to any pilots, demo guys, CIA people, Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials and Engineers that have this fatally flawed reasoning?

personally I want my pilot to be of a sound, logical, reasonable mind. If he believes 9/11 was an inside job, he has neither. As for the others...well you will likely find an idiot rogue in every bunch...lets hope they are weeded out by their sane peers.


Hell, we might as well make a clean sweep and make the streets safe for our wifes and daughters. Let's make it safe to go outside again. We can round them up and put them in our detention camps and re-indoctrinate them to the Unchanging, Everlasting Truth that we see much more clearly than the sheeple, the wogs, woo's, CTers, Xians, the nutters, etc.

Clean the streets for our families? I agree.
Round them up? not so much.
Put them in the camps? Wait until we finish building them first.
Re-indoctrinating them? I prefer to call it re-educating them in logic and rationality.


Hell, why stop there? Let's go get Jenny McCarthy and any mom that chose not to have their children vaccinated and any kind of woo that ever damaged a poor misguided soul, also. Hell, let's get them all, I say!!

Jenny and the anti-vaxxers? No, I simply say scold them for the leeches they are, living off the herd immunity nice and safely, while they hypocritically condemn the use of vaccines that keep their children from getting ill, gravely in some cases.


I feel like burning some books, how about you?

only the ones written by David Ray Griffin, and others of his ilk...they make great fire starters.

TAM:)

[eirik]

And you are certain that the "John Smith" who's name is on the petition is the John Smith in your employ?

I would resolve this mystery by merely asking.

-"John, is this your name on this architects-demanding-questions-anti-reptilian-space-laser-jooh-boxcutters-LOL- petition?"

-"Yes, that's me. Why? You want in?"

-"You're so fired."

[deep]

Having fringe ideas and being respected as an intelligent person at the same time is not a human right. Being a truther is an active choice, much like acting like an idiot.


How do you define "truther"?

It sounds like you're including anyone who supports a new investigation. Is that right?

[eirik]

It includes anyone who, contrary to the evidence, believes explosives brought the towers down. Why?

It also includes anyone believing MIHOP and off course even LIHOP.

[MarekM]

Many states prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of perceived mental disability. So if you're one of the individuals that constantly refer to truthers as paranoid, delusional, and schizophrenic, they might have a case against you.

Of course, in this particular situation, you would have a strong defense given the truther's inability to perform essential job functions and/or likelihood to infringe on the safety of others.

[deep]

It includes anyone who, contrary to the evidence, believes explosives brought the towers down. Why?


Because the members of AE911 have signed a petition to show their support for a new investigation, as opposed to aligning themselves with a specific belief. They refer to CD only as a hypothesis.

I don't see how they collectively fit your definition of "truther".

[eirik]

So if you're one of the individuals that constantly refer to truthers as paranoid, delusional, and schizophrenic, they might have a case against you
No, I'm not, but I see your point. But insulting people, guessing(qualified or not) if they have a medical diagnosis is not illegal(libel asides, but that is another ballpark).

Because the members of AE911 have signed a petition to show their support for a new investigation, as opposed to aligning themselves with a specific belief. They refer to CD only as a hypothesis

Oh, only a hypothesis. Yhat changes everything. They are apparantly so stupid they missed the prior investigations. Why don't they publish their critisism of these in a peer reviewed journal? Hint: that would be devastating to their case.

I don't see how they collectively fit your definition of "truther".
I really don't care.

I really have no idea why you find the definition relevant, since the petition in question particularly mentions explosives.

[arthwollipot]

I have to repeat this as well:

Most states in the union are At-Will employment. so the person could be fired for any REASON or even NO reason at all.What - you have no unfair dismissal laws at all?

Wow.

[eirik]

OP: Your question, "is it legal".

In the EU: To deny yes, to dismiss, probably not. But not because it's discrimination.

[Brainache]

What - you have no unfair dismissal laws at all?

Wow.

They also seem to think that paid annual leave is some sort of commie plot.

Barbaric I tell ya!

[Arus808]

What - you have no unfair dismissal laws at all?

Wow.


unfair dismissal? please that went out in the 80's ^_^

[deep]

I really don't care.

I really have no idea why you find the definition relevant, since the petition in question particularly mentions explosives.


You don't care? You would rather just label everyone in their entire organization and be done with it?

They mention the possibility of explosives - it's a hypothesis that would be evaluated as part of a new investigation. They do not suggest that the US Government was involved in any way, shape, or form - that's why I'm having a hard time understanding why you consider them to be "truthers".

Don't forget - I'm using your own definition of "truther".

[Brainache]

You don't care? You would rather just label everyone in their entire organization and be done with it?

They mention the possibility of explosives - it's a hypothesis that would be evaluated as part of a new investigation. They do not suggest that the US Government was involved in any way, shape, or form - that's why I'm having a hard time understanding why you consider them to be "truthers".

Don't forget - I'm using your own definition of "truther".

But competent engineers and architects have already ruled out the possibility of explosives. They know that the forces from the impact, fires and gravity were enough to make those towers collapse. They know that no sounds of explosives were recorded by any of the many cameras in the area. They know that windows were not shattered by the blast from explosives big enough to sever the collumns in the WTC.

If any architect or engineer is still, in 2009 (!), wondering if there might have been bombs in the WTC then that alone proves their incompetence. Why do you find this difficult to understand?

[Hokulele]

You don't care? You would rather just label everyone in their entire organization and be done with it?

They mention the possibility of explosives - it's a hypothesis that would be evaluated as part of a new investigation. They do not suggest that the US Government was involved in any way, shape, or form - that's why I'm having a hard time understanding why you consider them to be "truthers".

Don't forget - I'm using your own definition of "truther".


Any structural engineer or large-scale architect (ones applying for a job working on superstructures) who entertains the possibility of explosives is incompetent for the work I would be hiring them to do. So yes, I don't care.

By your definition of "truther".

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You don't care? You would rather just label everyone in their entire organization and be done with it?

They've labelled themselves.

They mention the possibility of explosives - it's a hypothesis that would be evaluated as part of a new investigation. They do not suggest that the US Government was involved in any way, shape, or form - that's why I'm having a hard time understanding why you consider them to be "truthers"

Deep, honey... we've been through this already.

It has been well established that there is no possibility that explosives brought down the towers. It is no more possible for explosives to have destroyed the Twin Towers than it is for a Romulan Warbird to have travelled back in time and blown down the buildings with photon torpedoes.

If you believe otherwise, then you are incompetent as an engineer or architect and there is a significant likelihood that you will design an unsafe building and kill innocent people with your stupid.

[1337m4n]

They mention the possibility of explosives - it's a hypothesis that would be evaluated as part of a new investigation. They do not suggest that the US Government was involved in any way, shape, or form - that's why I'm having a hard time understanding why you consider them to be "truthers".

Why is nobody saying what needs to be said to this clown?

Deep, you are a naive idiot, blindly defending your...religion is the only word to describe it, against any and all criticism..

Have you even READ the website of the organization you worship so? The organization you believe to be the savior of all mankind? The organization whose farts you sniff just so you can have a part of them inside of you? The organization you masturbate to day and night? You spam JREF with post after post about how great and perfect and wonderful AE911Truth is and how you love them and want to sex Gage, yet you don't even know anything about them! Some worshipper you are.

I present you with the About Us page (http://www.ae911truth.org/aboutus.php) of the website of your Glorious God, Lord Richardius Gagus:

About Us

We are a non-partisan association of architects, engineers, and affiliates, who are dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the “collapses” of the WTC high-rises on 9/11/01.

We call upon Congress for a truly independent investigation with subpoena power. We believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the World Trade Center buildings #1 (North Tower), #2 (South Tower), and #7 (the 47 story high-rise across Vesey St.) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives.

We believe that this website, as well as the other referenced sites, contains the information necessary to demonstrate to all with an open mind that this is the case, and that such an investigation is warranted and overdue. We believe that the available relevant evidence invalidates the government's story of these “collapses”.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are encouraged to take an active role by reporting the results of their research on 9/11 by means of lectures, articles, and methods of disseminating the truth about the 9/11 WTC building “collapses”.


You are a Truther, deep44, and your pathetic attempts to hide that fact with your "maybe/perhaps/possibly" vocabulary only serve to earn you more contempt.

Or maybe you're not a Truther--maybe your just blind, deaf, dumb, and a sheep.

How do you define "truther"?

It sounds like you're including anyone who supports a new investigation. Is that right?

Yes. He may not be, but I am. Anybody who supports wasting tax-paid resources with a new investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center is an idiotic Truther and should be dismissed as such.

Do you dispute this? Perhaps you can name for me one person who "supports a new investigation", yet doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the likes of Gage, Griffin, and Jones. Can you do it?

[eirik]

I think Brainache, Hokulele, Sword Of Truth and 1337m4n about says it all. I second.

[JihadJane]

Sword_Of_Truth, thanks for your Stalinist musings.


But competent engineers and architects have already ruled out the possibility of explosives. They know that the forces from the impact, fires and gravity were enough to make those towers collapse. They know that no sounds of explosives were recorded by any of the many cameras in the area. They know that windows were not shattered by the blast from explosives big enough to sever the collumns in the WTC.

If any architect or engineer is still, in 2009 (!), wondering if there might have been bombs in the WTC then that alone proves their incompetence. Why do you find this difficult to understand?


I.e.: There wasn't a big bang, therefore I believe.

The NIST reports present hypotheses - their best guesses, as far as we know.

Do the NIST report authors claim to know what happened? They would be making a fraudulent if they did.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sword_Of_Truth, thanks for your Stalinist musings.

Do you believe that someone who doesn't think that fire can cause a steel framed building to collapse should be allowed to design buildings?

[deep]

Why is nobody saying what needs to be said to this clown?

Deep, you are a naive idiot, blindly defending your...religion is the only word to describe it, against any and all criticism..


I'm sure it may seem that way, but my argument is quite simple: AE911T is an organization of 700+ architects & engineers who support a new 9/11 investigation. That's it. I'm not asking you to accept their opinions, believe them, or even listen to what they have to say.

As simple as that may sound - you seem unable or unwilling to accept it. You + others in this thread genuinely believe that signing the AE911T petition is a confession of professional incompetence. Where's your evidence to support that extraordinary claim? How are all of these professionally incompetent architects & engineers still employed?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How are all of these professionally incompetent architects & engineers still employed?

Good question. Their employers may not be aware of their signatures on this petition.

It may be a good idea to track down where all of these people work and alert their employers so that proper action can be taken.

As the Sampoong department store disaster demonstrates, someone acting in the role of architect or engineer who does not know what they are doing is a serious potential threat to public safety. These people who signed the AE911T petition should be dealt with preferably sooner rather than later.

[deep]

Do you believe that someone who doesn't think that fire can cause a steel framed building to collapse should be allowed to design buildings?


Loaded question - it presupposes that every member of AE911T believes that "fire cannot cause a steel framed building to collapse".

That's not the same as having "no precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire".

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Loaded question - it presupposes that every member of AE911T believes that "fire cannot cause a steel framed building to collapse".

That's not the same as having "no precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire".


So you admit that fire alone CAN cause a steel framed skyscraper to collapse?

[deep]

So you admit that fire alone CAN cause a steel framed skyscraper to collapse?


I have no reason to rule it out as a possibility, but that's not really relevant to this discussion.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I have no reason to rule it out as a possibility, but that's not really relevant to this discussion.

Do you understand why controlled demolition is an impossibility? And why no investigation into it is necessary?

[Brainache]

...
I.e.: There wasn't a big bang, therefore I believe.

The NIST reports present hypotheses - their best guesses, as far as we know.

Do the NIST report authors claim to know what happened? They would be making a fraudulent if they did.


They certainly claim to know that it wasn't explosives.

Do you think it is possible to sever those big core collumns using explosives without producing a big bang? If so: why do you think this?... and: How is such a thing possible?

(please let's not go back to "Hush-a-boom".)

[arthwollipot]

AE911T is an organization of 700+ architects & engineers...I wonder how many architects and engineers there are in the USA in total?

[eirik]

To the OP: It should not be acceptable. It should be mandatory.

[JihadJane]

Do you believe that someone who doesn't think that fire can cause a steel framed building to collapse should be allowed to design buildings?

As you have presented no evidence that this is what your architects believe why are you asking this question?

I hope you're not a member of the "I create my own reality" pseudoskeptics club.

How is the program to rebuild US skyscrapers in line with NIST's recommendations going?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Do you believe that someone who doesn't think that fire can cause a steel framed building to collapse should be allowed to design buildings?As you have presented no evidence that this is what your architects believe why are you asking this question?

I hope you're not a member of the "I create my own reality" pseudoskeptics club.
ae911truth image:
http://www.uspoolcorp.com/Flame-Engulfed-Steel-Frame-High-Rise-Buildings-Do-Not-Collapse.jpg
How is the program to rebuild [sic] US skyscrapers in line with NIST's recommendations going?
Very well.
In conjunction with recommendations from the NIST study, ICC is considering a full gamut of proposals ranging from structural enhancements to prevent disproportionate collapse, to enhanced situational awareness for emergency responders, to a full threat-and-risk-based assessment of structures on an individual basis. Measures to increase the reliability of fire sprinkler operation also have been proposed to minimize the probability that a deliberate event would be able to disable the active fire protection.

All of these provisions represent strategies the code can undertake to ensure the additional egress time is available for full-building evacuation if needed. They understandably also amount to greater design limitation and greater expense than the current codes prescribe. The ICC process has thus far been very deliberative and respectful of both objectives. The final outcome will be a balanced, thoughtful approach to the complex issues at hand, and in the end that occupants of super-high-rise buildings going forward will be markedly safer as a result.
To stay or not to stay: Egress and the I-Codes
Lewis, G.
2008 Consulting-Specifying Engineer 43 (5), pp. 56-58

[Stellafane]

I look at it this way: I'd fire a geographer who told me she believed the earth is flat. And I'd fire a doctor who insisted germs don't exist and all diseases are caused by evil spirits. And I would readily put any architect or structural engineer who believed 9/11 was an inside job into the same category.

[deep]

Do you understand why controlled demolition is an impossibility? And why no investigation into it is necessary?


No, I have no reason to believe it's impossible.

I'm curious - how long have you believed that CD is an impossibility? Was it immediate, after the NIST report, or..?

[deep]

I wonder how many architects and engineers there are in the USA in total?


Just based on some quick Googling, I would guess around 1.9 million (200,000 architects, 1,700,000 engineers) -- and that was in 1999.

[T.A.M.]

Just based on some quick Googling, I would guess around 1.9 million (200,000 architects, 1,700,000 engineers) -- and that was in 1999.

So let me ask you. Do you think that out of those 1.7 Million Engineers, that a few more than a hundred or so, would begin to speak out, if there was any kind of REAL evidence that NIST got it wrong, and that the USG engineered the collapses of the WTCs.

I am asking you this because as of late, I am seeing glimmers of logic and rationality in your posts...and I am hopeful.

TAM:)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, I have no reason to believe it's impossible.

Uhhh... yes you do have reasons. The same ones we do in fact. We've tried to explain this to you but you just... won't... listen.

Which is why, if you were an architect or engineer, we'd have little choice left but to fire you. Better that you be thrown out on the street than risk having a building that you design kill its occupants because it's designer is a moron.

I'm curious - how long have you believed that CD is an impossibility? Was it immediate, after the NIST report, or..?

Irrelevant. CD of the World Trade towers on 9/11 is an impossibility whether I, you or anyone believes it or not. The laws of science operate with cold disregard for human feelings. They simply exist. They are not open for interpretation.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I look at it this way: I'd fire a geographer who told me she believed the earth is flat. And I'd fire a doctor who insisted germs don't exist and all diseases are caused by evil spirits. And I would readily put any architect or structural engineer who believed 9/11 was an inside job into the same category.

Add to that list any aerospace engineer who believes that the Moon landing was faked.

Anyone who thinks that aerospace technological development came to a halt in the 1940s has no business working with modern aircraft and spacecraft.

[deep]

So let me ask you. Do you think that out of those 1.7 Million Engineers, that a few more than a hundred or so, would begin to speak out, if there was any kind of REAL evidence that NIST got it wrong, and that the USG engineered the collapses of the WTCs.


I don't know - there are too may unknowns. How many of those 1.7 million engineers are even aware that AE911T exists? How many of them have read the NIST report? What are the relevant social and/or psychological considerations?

Regardless, even if we assume that every other engineer in the world disagrees with AE911T - does that mean they don't have any "real evidence"? Is the majority consensus always right? Of course not.. I know you're aware of the numerous historical precedents.

I just don't see this as a very productive argument. You can already say, "around 0.03% of US engineers are members of AE911T" - it doesn't really need any lipstick.

[deep]

Irrelevant. CD of the World Trade towers on 9/11 is an impossibility whether I, you or anyone believes it or not. The laws of science operate with cold disregard for human feelings. They simply exist. They are not open for interpretation.


Regarding your belief that CD is "impossible", this summarizes my point of view:
"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them."- Arthur C. Clarke, 1963

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Regarding your belief that CD is "impossible", this summarizes my point of view:
"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them."- Arthur C. Clarke, 1963

You quoted what I said but you didn't read it.

Human emotion does not trump science. This includes flowery quotes from famous people.

You only show the lack of your own expertise when you resort to argument by soundbite.

[JihadJane]

I look at it this way: I'd fire a geographer who told me she believed the earth is flat. And I'd fire a doctor who insisted germs don't exist and all diseases are caused by evil spirits. And I would readily put any architect or structural engineer who believed 9/11 was an inside job into the same category.

You should be a bit more thoughful about your fundamentalist, revamped McCarthyism.

What has architecture and structural engineering necessarily got to do with whether or not 911 was an inside job?

Early investigators into the 911 crimes gave virtually no attention to the subject of how the towers disintegrated. Indeed, they advised fellow truth seekers against getting drawn in by the glamor of apparently irrefutable physical evidence. It is as easy for those who control the crime scene to manipulate and/or destroy physical evidence as it is to use scientists to obfuscate.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You should be a bit more thoughful about your fundamentalist, revamped McCarthyism.

Do you believe that fire can cause a building to collapse?

Do you think an architect or engineer who does not believe that fire can cause buildings to collapse should be allowed to design them?

What has architecture and structural engineering necessarily got to do with whether or not 911 was an inside job?

Now you're being deliberately ignorant.

[JihadJane]

Do you believe that fire can cause a building to collapse?

Yes.

Do you think an architect or engineer who does not believe that fire can cause buildings to collapse should be allowed to design them?

Can you name an architect or engineer who does not believe that fire can cause buildings to collapse and give documentary evidence of them holding such a belief?



Now you're being deliberately ignorant.

An impressive argument.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Can you name an architect or engineer who does not believe that fire can cause buildings to collapse and give documentary evidence of them holding such a belief?

Why don't you stop being afraid to answer a very simple question?

Should such an individual be allowed to design buildings?

Yes, or no?

[UNLoVedRebel]

It is as easy for those who control the crime scene to manipulate and/or destroy physical evidence as it is to use scientists to obfuscate.
You've never investigated a crime scene, have you?

[bob_cadaver]

Another couple of things spring to mind;

1) Given how fervent some people can get when it comes to fringe opinions (not just truthers) it's possible that he could have been creating a hostile work environment.

2) Without access to the records of the chap in the OP it's impossible to say why he got fired. Given how many truthers see conspiracies wherever they go it's not impossible that he was fired because he couldn't do his job properly (or was spending far too much time 'preaching'), whack that through a conspiracy filter and suddenly it's "I was fired because I'm a Truther"
I'm willing to bet this scenario is a likely cause of that termination. Constantly going on and on about a topic your coworkers may not wish to hear about when you should be working coupled with incorrectly yattering on about elements of your job you should be competent in seems like a good enough basis for firing most anyone. It does go towared creating a hostile work environment as well as show incompetence; any manager would be looking for the least little thing to get rid of such a worker.

[JihadJane]

Why don't you stop being afraid to answer a very simple question?

Should such an individual be allowed to design buildings?

Yes, or no?


That's funny. It looks to me like you're not answering my question.

As to yours...yes! I think an architect or engineer "who does not believe that fire can cause buildings to collapse" should certainly be allowed to design buildings if that's what they feel like doing. I doubt whether anyone would employ or certify them though.

Now, Sword_Of_Truth, can you actually name an architect or engineer who "does not believe that fire can cause buildings to collapse" and give documentary proof that this is what they believe? I very much doubt it.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Now, Sword_Of_Truth, can you actually name an architect or engineer who "does not believe that fire can cause buildings to collapse" and give documentary proof that this is what they believe? I very much doubt it.
Who wrote this (http://www.uspoolcorp.com/Flame-Engulfed-Steel-Frame-High-Rise-Buildings-Do-Not-Collapse.jpg) and presented it dozens of times, the latest being a few days ago in the nation's capital? I'll give you three choices:

a) Richard Gage
b) Richard Gage
c) Richard Gage

[Sword_Of_Truth]

As to yours...yes! I think an architect or engineer "who does not believe that fire can cause buildings to collapse" should certainly be allowed to design buildings if that's what they feel like doing. I doubt whether anyone would employ or certify them though.

Wow... that was a lot of needless song and dance just to get you to admit you agree with me.

[leftysergeant]

Uhh.. would you also please clarify the bolded text above? As in.. explain what in the world you're talking about?

If twoofers ran the worldwe wopuld all be in mortal danger of airplanes and buildings falling out of the sky because all that sciency stuff we had been taught was useless, thus need not be applied to running civilization or industry any more.

[JihadJane]

Wow... that was a lot of needless song and dance just to get you to admit you agree with me.

I’m agreeing with your statement about architects and engineers who don’t believe that fire can cause buildings to collapse.


Are you now going name an architect or engineer who "does not believe that fire can cause buildings to collapse" and give documentary proof that this is what they believe?

If not, I'll assume your are just making things up.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Are you now going name an architect or engineer who "does not believe that fire can cause buildings to collapse" and give documentary proof that this is what they believe?

If not, I'll assume your are just making things up.

Unloved Rebel has done exactly that already... twice.

Is he on your ignore list or are you just naturally ignorant?

[tsig]

What - you have no unfair dismissal laws at all?

Wow.

In some states you can make them put it in writing.:)

Since you can quit at will the law says it's ok to fire you at will.

ETA: the exception is if you have a union contract then the procedures in the contract must be followed but we know that unions are socialistic and run by (communists, organized crime...) so we wouldn't want to organize or anything like that.

[arthwollipot]

In some states you can make them put it in writing.:)

Since you can quit at will the law says it's ok to fire you at will.

ETA: the exception is if you have a union contract then the procedures in the contract must be followed but we know that unions are socialistic and run by (communists, organized crime...) so we wouldn't want to organize or anything like that.Oh. (goes back to his commie pinko socialised medicine state)