• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

architects and engineers for truth, population 1

What I wanna know is.....when will these twoofers - or any twoofers - present their stunning research for peer-review?
 
Horatius said:
And have any of these alleged people posted anything of substance, anywhere? Because so far, it looks to be nothing more than LCF in exile over there.
Click to expand...

CHF said:
What I wanna know is.....when will these twoofers - or any twoofers - present their stunning research for peer-review?
Click to expand...
To be fair, the forum there just opened, right? I wasn't really expecting a great debate, given the small number of members.

Plus, it's a holiday here in the US.

Plus most of the a&e's are from California. They'll get around to it in time. :)
 
Ladies and gentlemen, from the sounds of things not only will this place be a Stundie garden, but the censorship will be worse than Loose Change! How unglorious.

Also interestingly absent are any structural engineers. I mean, a land surveyor??? Kind of out of his area of expertise doncha think?
 
Mobyseven said:
Ladies and gentlemen, from the sounds of things not only will this place be a Stundie garden, but the censorship will be worse than Loose Change! How unglorious.

Also interestingly absent are any structural engineers. I mean, a land surveyor??? Kind of out of his area of expertise doncha think?
Click to expand...
If the person in question attempts to use their area of expertise, in this case land surveyor, and it is not relevant, then they are committing a fallacious appeal to authority. To focus on it any more than that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
If the person in question attempts to use their area of expertise, in this case land surveyor, and it is not relevant, then they are committing a fallacious appeal to authority. To focus on it any more than that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Click to expand...

That's the focus I was going for.
 
Mobyseven said:
Ladies and gentlemen, from the sounds of things not only will this place be a Stundie garden, but the censorship will be worse than Loose Change! How unglorious.
Click to expand...

At least one moderator is iamtruth from chico911truth. A HC truther moderated website. No surprise there.
 
Clearly I should set up my own society for architects and engineers who are opposed to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

Oh, nope, wait....we've got a couple. The RIBA and AIA for starters, then ICE, and of course IStructE. And I can guarantee they've got more members.
 
Architect said:
Clearly I should set up my own society for architects opposed to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

Oh, nope, wait....we've got a couple. The RIBA and AIA for starters. And I can guarantee they've got more members.
Click to expand...

Don't they have a sanction for bringing the profession into disrepute?

Also, interesting that last time I looked the section set aside (on the woowoos website) for multistorey construction it was devoid of posts.

I wonder what Mr Gage's thoughts would be on how to design two 110 storey steel framed buildings to withstand the impact of commercial aircraft travelling at full whack, AND the subsequent fires.
 
uk_dave said:
Don't they have a sanction for bringing the profession into disrepute?
Click to expand...


I sit on the professional practice committee of one of our UK institutes (I'd tell you more, but woo-woo spam etc) and can tell you that we're mostly concerned with matters of consumer protection, particularly negligent conduct, rather than anyone who's daft enough to make a fool of themselves in the press. We'd only really show an interest if it transmogrified into attacks on other individual architects or (of course) the institute.

Unfortunately.
 
A structural engineer once told me that his professional body had issued an edict that their members were considered to be 'on duty' at all times and that if they were passing a building site and noticed anything which gave concern either structurally or from a H&S aspect, they were obliged to take action, even if the site had nothing to do with them.

Of course, this wasn't a legal requirement, just a membership requirement.

One would hope that the relevant architectural bodies might consider issueing an instruction that "Architects should behave professionally at all times and should on no account involve themselves in bloody stupid endeavours which are likely to lower public confidence in the profession and result in people pointing at architects in the street and laughing at them"
 
uk_dave said:
A structural engineer once told me that his professional body had issued an edict that their members were considered to be 'on duty' at all times and that if they were passing a building site and noticed anything which gave concern either structurally or from a H&S aspect, they were obliged to take action, even if the site had nothing to do with them.

Of course, this wasn't a legal requirement, just a membership requirement.
Click to expand...

Actually it's an ethical issue, and possibly extends into common law. It would be improper of any trained professional not to immediately alert the appropriate people to (in particular) H&S items. Dangerous buildings would be a particularly good example.

One would hope that the relevant architectural bodies might consider issueing an instruction that "Architects should behave professionally at all times and should on no account involve themselves in bloody stupid endeavours which are likely to lower public confidence in the profession and result in people pointing at architects in the street and laughing at them"
Click to expand...

What, like Portcullis House, the Millenium Dome, or the British Library? ;) Anyway there are broadly similar clauses, it's just that we have our hands pretty full with the negligence/incompetence/fraud issues as well as "normal" professional practice matters.
 
ref said:
At least one moderator is iamtruth from chico911truth. A HC truther moderated website. No surprise there.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and I see he's going to give Mr. Gage real professional credibility.
 
CptColumbo said:
Of course, all these credentials have been verified....Right?
Click to expand...


How do you suggest they verify their identities or credentials? Better yet- how do you typically verify the credentials of your trusted experts in this forum?

I'm not really looking for an answer, because I'm already pretty sure that:

1. You don't verify the credentials of any "friendlies" here in this forum in a way that would be acceptable for a "non-friendly" to verify their own credentials (i.e., a double standard).

2. Regardless of how they attempt to verify their credentials, someone will suggest that whatever they've provided could be "easily" faked, or cast some other doubt, and their credentials will be dismissed & laughed at.

For the person (or people) who claim that what they're doing is an "appeal to authority", it looks like NIST is in the same boat. Richard W. Bukowski, a member of the 9/11 investigation team, has a BS in Electrical Engineering. Another member has several Chemistry degrees. Countless others are Civil Engineers, which is one of the possible degrees for Land Surveyors, right? (Right.)

Additionally, even if he was a Sandwich Engineer for Subway, how exactly are they appealing to authority? The site is called "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth", and they're calling on congress for an independent investigation. As long as they're really all Engineers or Architects, I'm not sure how you can argue that they're appealing to authority as a group.

Before anybody calls "equivocation"- yes, the Sandwich Engineer example was a bit over the top.

I came here because I was curious how you guys would discredit this latest organization, and unsurprisingly, your criticism is still full of blatant double-standards, confirmation bias, and selective perception.

If I took your approach to "debunking", there really aren't too many things I couldn't debunk, because it's not hard to find some doubt in just about anything -- just as you guys do with anything related to 9/11 that doesn't support your opinion. Until you hold yourselves to the same standards you demand from others, it's pointless to even discuss this with any of you.
 
deep44.

Gage suggests that NYPD and FDNY had foreknowledge of controlled demolitions
Gage says he knows nothing about controlled demolitions, yet he says there is enough evidence to suggest the 3 buildings indeed were demolished.
Gage lists 11 reasons for WTC7 and was it 16 reasons for WTC 1 & 2 supporting controlled demolition, which all have been debunked ages ago.

After all this, do you really suggest we should take his organization or his opinions seriously?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom