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

[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.

 

[Thunder]

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 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 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, here and here.

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 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 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. 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 of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members 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 of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members 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.