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

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

Which means you dug up a quotation from two years ago for the purpose of posting an irrelevant response.

Here's the quotation to which you were pretending to respond:

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

 

[Grassy Knowlington]

9/11 was Job Security for the Military Industrial Complex.

...

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.

(My bolding). Quite so, but 'new' or 'alternative' theories are not necessarily representative of the world however much time passes and however many adherents there are.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by cicorp
Today the AE911Truth petition list is up to 1464. At one time, .001% believed the world was round, not flat. Science takes time.

Actually, this is a very good quote. No informed person has believed anything except this for thousands of years. In fact, Athenian Greeks even knew how round the Earth was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
Only the ignorant and the uneducated have doubted this for as long as there has been natural inquiry. This is why we don't ask Moon rock experts if they think thermite was used to dustify the World Trade Center.

Originally Posted by cicorp
The number today is not as important as the fact it is increasing every month.

And actually, it's not increasing every month. That's another one of those things that I can produce numbers for. It's called science and every time it's used, it's clear which kind of thinking powers the world of 911 Truth.

 

[beachnut]

...
He quit a job making more as an architect to help America wake up.
... Today the AE911Truth petition list is up to 1464. At one time, .001% believed the world was round, not flat. Science takes time.

LOL, but Gage's lies are equal to saying the world is flat. Gage is not using science, and no matter how long you take, Gage's claims will remain for infinite time moronic delusions. Science free.

Science? That is a good one, the 1464 can't grasp gravity, let alone science, physics or math.

Not a single engineer from my college, or grad school agrees with Gage's delusions - hundreds. I can't find an engineer out of hundreds who agrees with Gage. I am more likely to meet a bear than one of the fringe few paranoid conspiracy theorists from Gage's club of lies. Albeit the bears outnumbers Gages failed followers in the hundreds of thousands. What we have here is an Internet where all the crazy people on 911 can meet and act like a flat earth society. Bigfoot nuts outnumber Gage's failed crew. Or do they; I don't have to worry, 911 truth does no math, have no clue 9 years has elapsed.

Oops, still holding at less than 0.01 percent.

Here is a list of all the evidence 911 truth and Gages 1464 failures have.
1.

Short and complete. Not a bit in the bucket. 9 years, and the list of evidence for all the 911 truth claims remains empty. zero

 

[Scott Sommers]

LOL, but Gage's lies are equal to saying the world is flat. Gage is not using science, and no matter how long you take, Gage's claims will remain for infinite time moronic delusions. Science free.

Science? That is a good one, the 1464 can't grasp gravity, let alone science, physics or math.

Not a single engineer from my college, or grad school agrees with Gage's delusions - hundreds. I can't find an engineer out of hundreds who agrees with Gage. I am more likely to meet a bear than one of the fringe few paranoid conspiracy theorists from Gage's club of lies. Albeit the bears outnumbers Gages failed followers in the hundreds of thousands. What we have here is an Internet where all the crazy people on 911 can meet and act like a flat earth society. Bigfoot nuts outnumber Gage's failed crew. Or do they; I don't have to worry, 911 truth does no math, have no clue 9 years has elapsed.

Oops, still holding at less than 0.01 percent.

Here is a list of all the evidence 911 truth and Gages 1464 failures have.
1.

Short and complete. Not a bit in the bucket. 9 years, and the list of evidence for all the 911 truth claims remains empty. zero

There's a simple test of how influential these ideas really are. How many textbooks are used in departments of civil engineering that talk about the controlled dustification of the WTC Buildings - or whatever it is that you believe? Can you find me a single department that teaches this sort of thing? I've actually looked through textbooks on the construction of large steel-framed buildings. Lots of them are available for free from Google Books.

I can understand that for political reasons you might accept all sorts of things. The Flat Earth Society is actually a Christian group that advocates a form of literal interpretation of the Bible regardless of what science has to say on the matter. It's members are willing to accept this belief regardless of any physical evidence. But it's members don't go running around pretending there's some undetectable consensus among scientists.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

If he said that, he was lying

Lying is defined as stating something as true that someone knows to be false, a serious accusation.
What is your supporting evidence that Dr. David Griscom "knows" that the paper he reviewed, critiqued, and finally approved was not good? Or if you are alleging that he claimed to be speaking out for a different reason than to defend the content, what is that reason?

LOL, but Gage's lies are...Gage's club of lies...

You accuse Richard Gage of stating what he does not believe?
For example he does not truly believe WTC 7 came down by CD?

There's a lot of sloppy use of "lie" and "lying" on this forum, which is supposed to be for accurate thinking. We can certainly accuse someone of making an inaccurate statement, of being wrong, or even stupid. But accusing someone of lying requires supporting evidence of intent to say something opposite of what they believe to be true.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Lying is defined as stating something as true that someone knows to be false.
What is your supporting evidence that Dr. David Griscom "knows" that the paper he reviewed, critiqued, and finally approved was not good? Or if you are alleging that claimed to be speaking out for a different reason than to defend the content, what is that reason? Please provide a reference.

Because he has published many papers in first-tier journals, and as such, he knows how it's supposed be done. He would also be aware that Bentham journals are crap. Look at his CV. Does he have anything published in a Bentham journal? Go take a look at the current issue of Current Physical Chemistry. I have checked and not a single one of these authors is from a university based in the USA or Europe. Doesn't that seem strange? David Griscom doesn't publish in these journals, but he's willing to pretend that his friend's paper published there has been properly reviewed. Doesn't that seem strange? And just by coincidence, he happens to be one of the few scientists in the world who accept this 911 conspiracy trash - just by coincidence. Doesn't that seem strange? Couldn't Bentham have found a properly qualified reviewer for such an article?

There is no doubt that David Griscom would be aware he is not a properly qualified reviewer for such a paper. This would be obvious to anyone who has worked at a research university. Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant of how a research university works or is lying. So you tell me cicorp, which one of these two is Dr. David Griscom PhD?

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

I have checked (the current Bentham issue) and not a single one of these authors is from a university based in the USA or Europe. Doesn't that seem strange?

Yes. It seems strange that you would use race of the scientists as a criterion for judging a journal. There are many scientists with Asian names (Takashiro Akitsu, Wei Guan, Rajinder Singh, etc.) in Bentham as well as in highly respected journals. Apparently they are smart too.

There is no doubt that David Griscom would be aware he is not a properly qualified reviewer for such a paper.

Apparently the publisher, Dr. Griscom, and an increasing number of citizens, do doubt that statement. After getting 190+ published papers past peer review, Dr. Griscom knows the scientific method very well.

Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant of how a research university works or is lying. So you tell me cicorp, which one of these two is Dr. David Griscom PhD?

You have artificially limited me to 2 choices. But there is a 3rd choice. Dr. Griscom is a physicist familiar with testing materials to find out what chemicals they contain. He was even chosen to analyze Moon rocks for NASA. He was well qualified to judge the thermite paper. Have you actually read it?

 

[ergo]

I have checked and not a single one of these authors is from a university based in the USA or Europe. Doesn't that seem strange?

Funny, neither are you.

Perhaps you should write the editors and complain that America is not represented in the spring issue of Current Physical Chemistry. It's obviously a conspiracy of some kind.

 

[Scott Sommers]

It's great to see you remember our earlier conversations.

Most of my professors publish regularly in first-tier journals based in the USA and publishing in these is a requirement for graduation from my program. There are many journals with low standards that cater to faculty in schools that demand publication in English-language journals but don't provide adequate facilities and support for this to happen. Journals like those published through Bentham are designed for these people. That is to say, American and European-based journals that only publish from faculty in downstream countriues.

But I bet you knew this already. Right? Being a typical Truther, you'd know all about how scholarship and academic research works.

Are you ready to keep pretending you've read my paper? It's been said that given enough time and enough typewriters, a room full of monkeys could reproduce the works of Shakespeare. I bet if you keep guessing at what I wrote, eventually you'll say something that looks like it might not have been made up. Come on dude, don't let us down.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Numbers for AE911Truth Petition List getting longer monthly

Thanks for the interesting links.
And actually, it's not increasing every month. That's another one of those things that I can produce numbers for.

Interesting. You say the AE911Truth petition list has gone down some months? May we please see those numbers?
I agree the count could go down, if measured daily. For example, if an architect requests to be removed, or is no longer active, such as Henry Clark. But if measured monthly, the list has been getting longer. Due to the length of the architect's certificate verification process, the list count may go for days or weeks without increasing. Your numbers will clarify and verify this.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Lying is defined as stating something as true that someone knows to be false, a serious accusation.

Yes, it is. Which is why the 9/11 truth movement should stop throwing around implied accusations of lying when there is no evidence to support them. However, they continue to do so.

Another form of lying, of course, is the sort of misrepresentation implicit in asking a question such as:

What is your supporting evidence that Dr. David Griscom "knows" that the paper he reviewed, critiqued, and finally approved was not good?

...in response to an allegation that Griscom was lying if he claimed that the criticism of the paper was more due to the journal it was published in than the content of the paper. You'll see how the question carries the clear implication that my allegation was something very different: that Griscom lied when he stated that the paper was worthy of publication. This form of lie is called the complex question fallacy.

We can certainly accuse someone of making an inaccurate statement, of being wrong, or even stupid. But accusing someone of lying requires supporting evidence of intent to say something opposite of what they believe to be true.

There comes a point where the sheer weight of incorrect statements lead us to make the provisional conclusion that those making them are not simply misinformed, but have chosen outright misrepresentation. There is also a point where someone repeating a claim, who has been repeatedly told in clear and unambiguous terms exactly why that claim is incorrect, should no longer be assumed to be incapable of understanding that response, and must be assumed wilfully to be disregarding it. The overwhelming majority of the truth movement reached this point long ago.

A good example, in fact, would be a poster who claims that the Harrit paper has been rejected because it was posted in a Bentham Open Journal, rather than because of its appallingly poor quality. While this might be a misconception when first stated, if that poster was repeatedly directed to the many and extensive threads that had discussed at length the methodological flaws in the paper, and in the face of this irrefutable evidence continued to claim that the journal of publication was the primary cause for criticism, it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that this poster was deliberately lying.

Just hypothetically, of course...

Dave

 

[Scott Sommers]

You seem to have missed the meaning of what I wrote. I understand. Reading and writing in these little boxes is annoying.

Yes. It seems strange that you would use race of the scientists as a criterion for judging a journal.

What did I say that had anything to do with race?

There are many scientists with Asian names (Takashiro Akitsu, Wei Guan, Rajinder Singh, etc.) in Bentham as well as in highly respected journals. Apparently they are smart too.

Actually, I looked up the university affiliation of all the authors. Just like me, you could do it with Google. In fact, as our JREF Truther friend ergo has pointed out, I am a PhD student at an Asian university.

Apparently the publisher, Dr. Griscom, and an increasing number of citizens, do doubt that statement. After getting 190+ published papers past peer review, Dr. Griscom knows the scientific method very well.


You have artificially limited me to 2 choices. But there is a 3rd choice. Dr. Griscom is a physicist familiar with testing materials to find out what chemicals they contain. He was even chosen to analyze Moon rocks for NASA. He was well qualified to judge the thermite paper. Have you actually read it?

And this is why Jones and his gang continue to let the controversy continue by not submitting this work to a respected top-tier journal?

Of course I have read the paper. Although my specialization is test design and social science research methods. I have no ability to understand anything about the topic. That's why I notice the fact that the journal is crap and that the research has not been submitted for proper peer review.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You have artificially limited me to 2 choices. But there is a 3rd choice. Dr. Griscom is a physicist familiar with testing materials to find out what chemicals they contain. He was even chosen to analyze Moon rocks for NASA. He was well qualified to judge the thermite paper. Have you actually read it?

We've all read the thermite paper, and we've all seen that it's a steaming pile of crap. That Griscom approved it doesn't indicate that the paper is good; it indicates that Griscom turned off his critical faculties when reviewing it, for whatever reason.

Dave

 

[Scott Sommers]

Interesting. You say the AE911Truth petition list has gone down some months? May we please see those numbers?
I agree the count could go down, if measured daily. For example, if an architect requests to be removed, or is no longer active, such as Henry Clark. But if measured monthly, the list has been getting longer. Due to the length of the architect's certificate verification process, the list count may go for days or weeks without increasing. Your numbers will clarify and verify this.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. I thought you implying the often stated Truther mantra that 'the movement is growing every day.' If your meaning was that AE911T posts a larger number of names on their petition every week, I agree with you. I apologize for the confusion.

As I've said above, reading text in little boxes is very frustrating.

 

[Animal]

Interesting. You say the AE911Truth petition list has gone down some months? May we please see those numbers?
I agree the count could go down, if measured daily. For example, if an architect requests to be removed, or is no longer active, such as Henry Clark. But if measured monthly, the list has been getting longer. Due to the length of the architect's certificate verification process, the list count may go for days or weeks without increasing. Your numbers will clarify and verify this.

So what if they have increase there numbers a bit.........there are a couple of hundred licensed architects on the list, there are is around 104,000 licensed architects in the U.S. (that is 0.2% of the licensed individuals) There are another 5000 more or less new graduates in architecture every year. In perspective, AE troofers are falling further and further behind.

Noone in their right mind believes that 0.2% of any group is meaningful?

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Measuring % of Architects & Engineers who have heard about WTC 7

So what if they have increase there numbers a bit....there are a couple of hundred licensed architects on the list, there are around 104,000 licensed architects in the U.S. (that is 0.2% of the licensed individuals) There are another 5000 more or less new graduates in architecture every year...Noone in their right mind believes that 0.2% of any group is meaningful

Agreed, the percentage of Architects & Engineers who signed the Petition for a New Investigation, is a small percentage of the total. However, only a small percentage have spent much time considering 9/11 one way or the other. Most probably assume the OCT is true.

In July 2009 AE911Truth was in DC at the American Institute of Architects' Convention. I went to check them out, and meet Richard Gage in person. He is friendly and sincere. He asked if I'd like to help get signatures at the booth. Sure why not. He suggested that volunteers open with the question: "Hello. Did you know that a 3rd WTC tower fell on 9/11?" I asked about 12 architects and 8 said No. The next question was "Would you like to see the video of WTC 7?" Then "Would you like to sign a petition for a new investigation?"

If we divide the number of A&E's who sign with AE911Truth, by the number who at least have seen Building 7 collapse, that is the important percentage. A study should also take in to account that Richard and experienced volunteers can get most architects to look at the WTC 7 video, and to sign the petition. I was new and only got 5 to look at the video and 3 to sign up. My percentage was 25%, 3 of the 12 surveyed.

The next step is that the Verification Team calls the signer and asks them to fax their architect's certificate before adding them to the Petition List on the web.

 

[Animal]

Agreed, the percentage of Architects & Engineers who signed the Petition for a New Investigation, is a small percentage of the total. However, only a small percentage have spent much time considering 9/11 one way or the other. Most probably assume the OCT is true.

In July 2009 AE911Truth was in DC at the American Institute of Architects' Convention. I want to check them out. At their booth, to get signatures, an opening questions was "Hello. Did you know that a 3rd WTC tower fell on 9/11?" and most of the architects said No.

If we divide the number of A&E's who sign with AE911Truth, by the number who at least know about Building 7, that is a significant percentage.

Nope....it is will equate to a pimple on a gnat's ass.

 

[grandmastershek]

The next question was "Would you like to see the video of WTC 7?"

Did you let them know the sound was removed and part of the collpase we removed?

 

[TruthersLie]

Yes. It seems strange that you would use race of the scientists as a criterion for judging a journal. There are many scientists with Asian names (Takashiro Akitsu, Wei Guan, Rajinder Singh, etc.) in Bentham as well as in highly respected journals. Apparently they are smart too.


Apparently the publisher, Dr. Griscom, and an increasing number of citizens, do doubt that statement. After getting 190+ published papers past peer review, Dr. Griscom knows the scientific method very well.


You have artificially limited me to 2 choices. But there is a 3rd choice. Dr. Griscom is a physicist familiar with testing materials to find out what chemicals they contain. He was even chosen to analyze Moon rocks for NASA. He was well qualified to judge the thermite paper. Have you actually read it?

I love it when twoofs cite people who are rather bat **** crazy...
As for Dr. Griscom...
this pretty much sums it up.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/20...er-perhaps-victims-on-planes-alive-in-tahiti/