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

[Cuddles]

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

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

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

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

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

AE911Truth.org list is verified, and takes 1/2 hour to get on

AE911Truth...
There are more degreed and practicing engineering or science professionals posting at the JREF Forum as "debunkers," than there are in AE911Truth, even if we don't clean their roster for fake names, those who signed on years ago and never did another single thing.

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified. Volunteers call each potential signer personally and check them out. It takes about 1/2 hour of conscious effort. They have to find their license or diploma, and fax it, to get on the list. The Verification Team knows that if a false name gets on, that "bad apple" or fake name will be used to discredit the whole list.

You can press Ctrl+F to find over 100 PhDs and Civil Engineers on the page. Search for variations such as Ph.D., Civ.Eng., and C.E. (I have suggested to their Webmaster they make degrees consistently spelled.)

And JREF Forum posters have personally published more reviewed journal papers on the subject than the entire Truth Movement.

A survey of JREF degrees would be interesting.

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

 

[Dave Rogers]

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified. Volunteers call each potential signer personally and check them out. It takes about 1/2 hour of conscious effort. They have to find their license or diploma, and fax it, to get on the list. The Verification Team knows that if a false name gets on, that "bad apple" or fake name will be used to discredit the whole list.

You can press Ctrl+F to find over 100 PhDs and Civil Engineers on the page. Search for variations such as Ph.D., Civ.Eng., and C.E. (I have suggested to their Webmaster they make degrees consistently spelled.)


A survey of JREF degrees would be interesting.

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

Given that every line of reasoning from AE911T that leads to a conclusion of conspiracy has been demonstrated, repeatedly, to involve either one or more untrue premises, an invalid line of reasoning, or (most commonly) both, and in the overwhelming majority of cases to be directly contradicted by easily accessible evidence, the identities and qualifications of those making the claims are of little importance.

Or, put more simply: If you're wrong, a flashy CV doesn't make you right.

Dave

 

[Scott Sommers]

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified. Volunteers call each potential signer personally and check them out. It takes about 1/2 hour of conscious effort. They have to find their license or diploma, and fax it, to get on the list. The Verification Team knows that if a false name gets on, that "bad apple" or fake name will be used to discredit the whole list.

You can press Ctrl+F to find over 100 PhDs and Civil Engineers on the page. Search for variations such as Ph.D., Civ.Eng., and C.E. (I have suggested to their Webmaster they make degrees consistently spelled.)


A survey of JREF degrees would be interesting.

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

This is a strange comparison. AE911T is supposedly an elite lobby group designed to make a statement. JREF is an Internet forum designed as a hobby that anyone can join. I am quite sure there are many people here who are students, housewives, and soldiers. Shouldn't there be? But then, on second thought, maybe this is a fair comparison.

Having said that, my understanding is that the signatories of the NIST report reads like a Who's Who of structural design and engineering. I wonder how the AE911T engineers compare to that?

What are you going to do when your petition gets laughed out of Congress?

 

[Edx]

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified.

Is Ander "Heiwa" Bjorkman on that list of "verified" engineers?

If so, you have no credibility on that point alone.

 

[twinstead]

What are you going to do when your petition gets laughed out of Congress?

Claim Congress is "in on it" and continue ranting in relatively obscure internet forums until the sun supernovas. Of course they'll blame that on thermite, too.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Responding to R.Mackey's post of 23 November 2008:

And JREF Forum posters have personally published more reviewed journal papers on the subject than the entire Truth Movement.

A survey of JREF degrees would be interesting.

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae

cicorp thinks a paper on "Moon rocks" is "on the subject" of 9/11?

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

Niels Harrit has not written 55 journal papers on the subject of 9/11.
Steven Jones has not written 50 journal papers on the subject of 9/11.

Writing in November 2008, R.Mackey correctly pointed out that one of the JREF Forum's occasional posters, David Benson, had personally written more reviewed journal papers on 9/11 than had the entire Truth Movement up to that time. After all, 1 > 0.

 

[WildCat]

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

And the total number of AE911truth member papers on 9/11 stands at, let's see.... ZERO.

I wonder why that is cicorp?

 

[1337m4n]

Cicorp is replying to a post made over 2 years ago as if it were made yesterday.

Why would you resurrect a 2+ year old thread but not pay attention to what date the post was made?

I get the feeling that we are not the ones being lied to. Cicorp is trying to convince lurkers who might not pay attention to post dates that R. Mackey is unscrupulous.

 

[Animal]

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified. Volunteers call each potential signer personally and check them out. It takes about 1/2 hour of conscious effort. They have to find their license or diploma, and fax it, to get on the list. The Verification Team knows that if a false name gets on, that "bad apple" or fake name will be used to discredit the whole list.

You can press Ctrl+F to find over 100 PhDs and Civil Engineers on the page. Search for variations such as Ph.D., Civ.Eng., and C.E. (I have suggested to their Webmaster they make degrees consistently spelled.)


A survey of JREF degrees would be interesting.

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

Your first problem is that there are not 1462 architects and engineers on their list. The actual number is around 500, only licensed individuals are legally entitled to be called architect or professional engineer.

Your second problem is that being a professional engineer does not automatically mean you have any knowledge of building structures. Building structures is a small subset of the engineering field.

Third, even when you get to the Civil engineering portion of the profession, structural engineering is a small subset of civil (and in fact is broken out as a separate degree / specially degree)

Fourth, structural engineers that are qualified and competent to design high rise structures are a small subset of all structural engineers.

Last, having a PH.D. is meaningless unless it is in the EXACT field being discussed.

 

[TruthersLie]

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified. Volunteers call each potential signer personally and check them out. It takes about 1/2 hour of conscious effort. They have to find their license or diploma, and fax it, to get on the list. The Verification Team knows that if a false name gets on, that "bad apple" or fake name will be used to discredit the whole list.

You can press Ctrl+F to find over 100 PhDs and Civil Engineers on the page. Search for variations such as Ph.D., Civ.Eng., and C.E. (I have suggested to their Webmaster they make degrees consistently spelled.)

so they finally fixed their online petition? When they were at 1200, I went over and did a very indepth count of their actual numbers. They had 999 architectural or engineering "professionals."

Their own online "petition" couldn't count.

Yet you want me to believe anything they say when their own petition couldn't count properly?

Different question.

Why did they change the title of the people "signing" it? It originally was degreed and licensed architects and engineers. Then it changed to degreed OR licensed architects and engineers. Now it is degreed OR licensed ARCHITECTURAL and ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS. Why the change?

I can remember back when there were landscaping engineers and wastewater engineers on that list.... Yet you want me to take their word for something? REally?

Ok fine.
Can you point me to ANY peer reviewed journal articles (in real journals, not bentham craptaculars) that cast any doubt on the NIST reports? I'll take any peer reviewed engineering or architectural journal in any language anywhere in the world. You have 1400 of them so you should easily be able to get past peer review somewhere... right?

A survey of JREF degrees would be interesting.

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm[/QUOTE]

 

[Scott Sommers]

A survey of JREF degrees would be interesting.

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

Admittedly, there are a significant number of top-tier publications there, but many of the listed publications are proceedings of international and regional conferences, as well as second-tier journals and chapters in edited book volumes. If we're counting that sort of publication, I'm pretty sure there are people here with some impressive numbers.

 

[beachnut]

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified. ....
Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

Yes I verified they can't figure out 911. 1462 can't think for themselves drones on 911 issues. Failures on 911 issue as you can't provide one thing they got rigth on 911. They have no evidence on 911 and you failed to help them.

What is funny, Jones' last three four papers are nonsense on 911. When will he write his United States Did the Haiti Earthquake insanity paper?

You proved 1462 nuts on 911 can't figure out 911, and a few of the leaders wrote idiotic papers on 911.

Hitler got a whole country to mess up, Gage only gets 70k a year. A country vs. 70k a year. Who is the bigger loser, Hitler, or Gage?

Is this 0.001 percent of all engineers an architects, or 0.01?
Got Math? My fellow engineer is three of the engineers at A&E, oops 0.00099. Three socks - fraud on a fraud. The list becomes a tool. If you want a crazy engineer in your firm, you have a list of hundreds who will be great yes men and women. They don't think for themselves on 911 issues, does that flaw translate into the workplace? How many joke names are on the list now, will all the accouterments of being real?

When will congress act on the request of morons on 911 issues who can't think for themselves?

Wow, 0.001 percent of A&E in the world. Impressive stuff; too bad 911 truth doesn't do math.

 

[DGM]

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers

This "petition" was started over 3 years ago. Any Idea as to when he plans to actually submit it?

I find it telling the "truthers" never seem to ask Gage this question.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Bjorkman not on AE911Truth petition list

Is Ander "Heiwa" Bjorkman on that list of "verified" engineers? If so, you have no credibility on that point alone.

I looked on this page with Ctrl+F for "Bjorkman" and he does not show up.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Just curious, is he not a real architect or engineer?

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Dr. Griscom published over 190 studies, and was chosen to examine Moon rocks

Responding to R.Mackey's post of 23 November 2008:
cicorp thinks a paper on "Moon rocks" is "on the subject" of 9/11?

That is a misinterpretation of my statement, and invalid assumption. No, I do not think Moon rocks are on the subject of 9/11.

I mentioned Dr. David Griscom's position as one of the scientists chosen to examine the Moon rocks, because it was very competitive. NASA's choice of him as a Primary Investigator, at a relatively young age at the time, is an indication of their respect for the quality of his work. Also, he has published over 190 studies in respected, peer reviewed, scientific journals.

Dr. Griscom was one of the peer reviewers of the study published in the not-so-respected Bentham journal. Usually reviewers remain confidential, known only to the publisher. But he spoke out, after seeing the study criticized mostly for the journal, not the content.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

AE911Truth petition list up to 1464. 9/11 was Job Security.

Yes I verified they can't figure out 911.

9/11 was Job Security for the Military Industrial Complex.
Whether rogue elements in the MIC caused it is a case for a court of law.
Cheney is a suspect, but innocent until proven guilty by a jury.

Before 9/11 Government procurements for computers were slowing.
My company benefited from 9/11. I felt patriotic helping the cause.
We sold more hardware and software than ever, bound for Afghanistan
and Iraq, plus installation and set up consulting.

But more and more things didn't add up. I eventually figured it out.
I now feel guilty about benefiting from a false flag op and illegal wars.
So, I use my free time to volunteer, research, blog, and listen.
JREF gives me some hope that maybe my President wasn't lying.
I was much happier believing the OCT.

Gage only gets 70k a year.

He quit a job making more as an architect to help America wake up.

morons on 911 issues who can't think for themselves?

If Truthers don't think for themselves, and so easily influenced, then why don't they believe all the propaganda about 9/11 that is hammered in to the public by the media, such as Fox TV?

Wow, 0.001 percent of A&E in the world.

The number today is not as important as the fact it is increasing every month. Today the AE911Truth petition list is up to 1464. At one time, .001% believed the world was round, not flat. Science takes time.

 

[Scott Sommers]

That is a misinterpretation of my statement, and invalid assumption. No, I do not think Moon rocks are on the subject of 9/11.

I mentioned Dr. David Griscom's position as one of the scientists chosen to examine the Moon rocks, because it was very competitive. NASA's choice of him as a Primary Investigator, at a relatively young age at the time, is an indication of their respect for the quality of his work. Also, he has published over 190 studies in respected, peer reviewed, scientific journals.

Dr. Griscom was one of the peer reviewers of the study published in the not-so-respected Bentham journal. Usually reviewers remain confidential, known only to the publisher. But he spoke out, after seeing the study criticized mostly for the journal, not the content.

This misses the point completely. Why was he asked in the first place? Despite his really cool experience examining Moon rocks, he does not appear to have the relevant qualification that a first-tier journal would demand from a reviewer. There are many, many qualified reviewers for such a paper. They act as reviewers for relevant journals. You can find their names easily. David Griscom is not among them. So please, stop this incessant pretending that he should have a voice in this matter. That Bentham allowed him to be a reviewer of this paper is the problem.

Jones and his gang could mussel these attacks on their papers in a minute by submitting them to a more appropriate venue. Don't you resent having to fight his fight for him, when he could fix this problems so quickly? If it does nothing else, it shows disrespect for his supporters.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dr. Griscom was one of the peer reviewers of the study published in the not-so-respected Bentham journal. Usually reviewers remain confidential, known only to the publisher. But he spoke out, after seeing the study criticized mostly for the journal, not the content.

If he said that, he was lying, and if you support it, so are you. The content of this paper has been comprehensively refuted in this forum on virtually every point. In fact, the insistence that it has been criticised for being presented in Bentham and not for the glaringly obvious flaws in its methodology is a classic example of Myriad's Masochistic Lie; it's transparently obvious that it isn't true, and that the content of this paper has been very heavily criticised.

Dave

 

[mercian]

He quit a job making more as an architect to help America wake up.

About £44,000 ... I doubt he was making more than this as an architect unless he was high up in a company. Do you know this for a fact?

The profession is generally not as well paid as people think (in the UK at least), and now I doubt if he has to do a normal 9-5?

Would you concede that he now depends solely on the controlled demolition theory for his livelihood? So even if he did change his mind (based on the evidence), he couldn't admit it because he'd lose face and salary?

This may be Ad Hominem but hey I'm JAQ's