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

 

[Baylor]

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.

 

[Baylor]

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

It also has Edna Cintron.

 

[RKOwens4]

It also has Edna Cintron.

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 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
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.

 

[Thunder]

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 , 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=

 

[Thunder]

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 , 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 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.