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

[waypastvne]

The question is how 4 ton steel beams flew horizontally over 600 feet, (2 football fields) in an arching trajectory, to not only reach, but still have enough force to embed themselves in the walls of the American Express and Winter Garden buildings, like darts in a dart board.

Could it have been a Trebuchet? They don't make much noise.

Just Asking Questions.

 

[newton3376]

OK, no over-estimation of your intelligence intended. Seriously, you have great credentials. Someone said you have a PhD from CalTech.

How would you know if an Engineer does or does not have "great credentials"? What qualifies you to make such a judgement call?

You sound like one, so there was little reason to question it.

What does someone with a PhD "sound like"? I'm assuming you do not work side by side with Engineers/Scientists on a regular basis.....

That's why we see hundreds of web sites and forums asking questions about 9/11.

We see hundreds of websites because there are many delusional and unintelligent people out there.

The math looks good. If there is some way to support the formulas experimentally, as Jonathan Cole did with his back yard thermite tests, that would be good.

How would you know the math looks good?

Yeah....those backyard truther "experiments" really are quite convincing...

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Some people simply do not wish to learn anything.

Actually I have learned many things from JREF, more than from most 9/11 sites. For example, yesterday I made a new post on 911Blogger and referenced the work of Oody from JREF. Previously 911Blogger had no news about the April Gallop case. JREF is to thank for bringing more information to the debate.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-...walker-bushs-cousin-judges-april-gallops-suit

 

[Scott Sommers]

Previously 911Blogger had no news about the April Gallop case. JREF is to thank for bringing more information to the debate.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-...walker-bushs-cousin-judges-april-gallops-suit

Thank you circop, for pointing this out. However, I'm not surprised to hear this.

As I have said many times, Truthers seem extremely unknowledgeable even about 9/11 matters. How many times have you heard Truthers here talking openly about how they have never heard fundamental events, important people, or seminal concepts in 9/11 conspiracy. If you're arguing about things with them, you can just make things up.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Cicorp, if you are a member of a 9/11 Truth organization I will be more than happy to contribute and support a new investigation.

Given the nature of your previous posts, there is a high probability that you are feigning interest, in order to make some kind of joke.

But to answer your question, I like to keep my independence, but have volunteered to help various organizations that help bring out the truth, and have donated to the James Randi Educational Foundation.

I have been an amateur magician, and admire James' work, especially debunking the likes of Uri Geller and Peter Popoff. As Randi says: "I want to be as aware as I possibly can." It takes critical thinking to get to the truth.

 

[Disbelief]

Anyone who does research for JPL has to be pretty smart. I wish Congress was smart enough to upsize NASA, and stop wasting all the funds on hundreds of military bases we don't need (Italy and Singapore are friends, if not Iraq and Afthanistan) and get some bases on the Moon. We should have had one by 2001, instead wasting billions on the Viet Nam War.

I know this is OT for 9/11, but can you really not figure out why we would maintain bases in friendly countries? Strategic importance and staging for deployment come to mind.

Why would you want to maintain bases only in unfriendly countries? Would that not be harder and more expensive?

 

[dc1971]

Given the nature of your previous posts, there is a high probability that you are feigning interest, in order to make some kind of joke.

Well believe what you want. I am being serious.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The Journal of Debunking 911 says "Peer-Reviewed Papers:" on www.JOD911.com. Likewise, people question the "peer reviewed" www.Journalof911studies.com. One side's "peer" is the other's "sympathizer."

The Journal of Debunking 9/11 was set up as a deliberate parody of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, with the aim of pointing out that anyone can put a group of articles on the Internet and pretend it's a peer-reviewed journal. We know that the Journal of 9/11 Studies does not practice impartial peer-review, and anyone with any scientific training who reads its content can also judge that it doesn't practice competent peer review.

Each side of 9/11 is trying to establish a final conclusion of what happened. Conclusions are based on facts. But we only had a time and money pressured, partial discovery of the facts of 9/11.

Not true. Firstly, a final conclusion of what happened has long ago been reached, to a level of detail and certainty at the very least comparable with that to which conclusions can be reached on any other event of major historical significance. Secondly, the repeated implication that the 9/11 Commission carried out the sole enquiry into 9/11 is one of the most commonly repeated and most obviously false truther lies; the FBI investigation into 9/11 is the most extensive criminal investigation in US history, and NIST has undertaken well-funded and thorough investigations into the building collapses.

Partial facts can only lead to partially supported conclusions, filled in with assumptions. Such conclusions are only partially satisfying to critical thinkers.

And outright lies can only lead to unsound conclusions, but for some reason these appear to be completely satisfying to conspiracy theorists.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

How many times have you heard Truthers here talking openly about how they have never heard fundamental events, important people, or seminal concepts in 9/11 conspiracy.

Too true. Why, just the other day, one of them claimed that Osama Bin Laden wasn't even wanted by the FBI!

Dave

 

[Scott Sommers]

Too true. Why, just the other day, one of them claimed that Osama Bin Laden wasn't even wanted by the FBI!

Dave

I suspect some of frustration we see here among the conspiracy crowd is the realization they've been caught missing really obvious and easily understood things that they should have known about. Their way of handling it is to deny it, disappear from the forum, or just slink deeper into their weirded out world.

 

[Telltale Tom]

Careful.
Let's do the math:

• In my youth, I ran 100m in about 14 seconds (I admittedly wasn't the fastest of runners). I assume that you are now not much faster than that.
• 1 yard = 0.9144, so I ran 100 yards in 12.8 seconds, or at 7.8yards/s (average)
• Free-fall time from the roof of the Twin Towers is a little under 10 seconds.
• In 10 seconds, I could run 78 yards.

So assuming I jump of the tower at my best average dash speed, I'd make it as far as 78 yards before I hit the ground.

Not 100 yards.

If you are within 10% of the world class sprinters, you could barely make 100 yards.

Except you forgot to take account of two factors

1. Prevailing wind: You forgot to take into account prevailing wind. There was 56 million cubic feet of air in each tower that blew out in about 14 seconds. According to some of our calculations at ae911truth this resulted in wind speeds of 160mph coming out of the windows. This would certainly be wind assisted according to the Olympic definition and I am sure that pretty much anyone could make 100 yards

2. Banana Effect. As you know the walls unpeeled like a banana and the debris field typically extended about 400ft from each face. You can look at any video and see the impact of the wind pressure blowing the walls out. If the typical debris field was 400ft its not surprising that some bits blew 600ft. I suggest that a very small explosive could do this rather than a big one.

 

[Oystein]

Tom,
as I am currently in a debate with a hopeless truther from Dallas, Texas, I played the same game with Dallas:
http://discusstingthingsthatmatter.blogspot.com/2011/04/more-trivia-from-dallas-tx.html
(that is not my blog, but I can post there, so it's my post)

Summary:
In Dallas, there are 58 firms that answer to "civil" or "structural engineering"
There are 759 civil or structural engineers in Dallas, TX with a license from the state of Texas.
Of these, precisely 0 (zero) bothered to sign the ae911truth petition.

I guess my debate partner should take it upon himself to convince the engineering community of his home town. Or at least one of them!

 

[Telltale Tom]

Oystein,

Just because ae911truth have next to zero support from the the structural engineering community, does not mean that they are wrong.

At one time almost the whole structural community believed that the world was flat. Hey it could happen again... you never know

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Tom, not only do you have the same nick as mine IRL you also are the parody master I could only wish I was!

 

[dafydd]

Oystein,

Just because ae911truth have next to zero support from the the structural engineering community, does not mean that they are wrong.

At one time almost the whole structural community believed that the world was flat. Hey it could happen again... you never know

Nah, not up to your usual trolling standard. Didn't do anything for me.

 

[lockstock]

Let JREF help you more

Actually I have learned many things from JREF, more than from most 9/11 sites. For example, yesterday I made a new post on 911Blogger and referenced the work of Oody from JREF. Previously 911Blogger had no news about the April Gallop case. JREF is to thank for bringing more information to the debate.

Unfortunately, you seem to have left in Veale's nonsense that Judge Walker should recuse himself.

Neither Georgie senior or Georgie junior is a defendent in Miss Gallop's lawsuit. So where's the conflit of interest? Furthermore, I beleive it has already been pointed out by another JREF poster (much better versed in the legal system than I) that Judge Walker's relation to Bush is not considered a conflict of interest on legal grounds. So if you want to allow JREF to add to the 'debate' why not remove that snippet from your blog as it has already been shown to be a non-issue.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

240 Architects, 84 ArchPros, 274 Engineers, 549 EngPro, 323 Non-USA

It ranks up there with your LIE about there being 1400+ architects and engineers who have signed the AE petition. There are 1400+ 'architectural and engineering professionals' who have signed it (thought I doubt the numbers are that high but I'll give it to you).

Architectural and engineering professionals ARE NOT ALL architects and ENGINEERS. you have people like draftsmen included, you have degreed but not licensed engineers. There is a VAST difference.

OK, nothing wrong with being specific. I don't see anyone labeled "draftsman" so false accusation there. Let's get an exact count then.

Here is a break down of how the 1470 are distributed, as they are clearly labeled on the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Petition, as of April 15, 2011. It is an impressive list anyway. I copied the data in to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, to make it easier to count them.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

240 Architects (Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
84 Architectural Professionals (Degreed Only)
274 Engineers(Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
549 Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)
323 Non-U.S. Architects and Engineers & Arch. and Eng. Professionals
1470 Total

They also have a separate list of over 10000 Supporters and Students.
But who cares? They can be anyone, even me.

You can double check the count, search, and analyze the list in Excel:
http://ANETA.org/AE911Truth/AE911Truth20110415.xls

 

[Scott Sommers]

OK, nothing wrong with being specific. I don't see anyone labeled "draftsman" so false accusation there. Let's get an exact count then.

Here is a break down of how the 1470 are distributed, as they are clearly labeled on the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Petition, as of April 15, 2011. It is an impressive list anyway. I copied the data in to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, to make it easier to count them.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

240 Architects (Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
84 Architectural Professionals (Degreed Only)
274 Engineers(Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
549 Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)
323 Non-U.S. Architects and Engineers & Arch. and Eng. Professionals
1470 Total

They also have a separate list of over 10000 Supporters and Students.
But who cares? They can be anyone, even me.
You can double check the count:
http://ANETA.org/AE911Truth/AE911Truth20110415.xls

Thank you, I do not doubt your accuracy. The problem being addressed here is the meaning of these numbers.

Do these names indicate people who signed a petition? If so, some of these people signed a very long time ago. They may have changed their mind. They may have forgotten they signed. They may be dead. Is there any way that a name can expire? If not, in what way is this a petition?

Do these names indicate members of an organization? In what way is AE911 an organization? They do not have meetings. In fact, the only 'member' who seems to represent them is Gage. Almost every member has only ever placed their name on his list and then disappeared. The group runs a website and sends Gage around to talk here and there. So what does having a name as a member mean? The group has no impact at all on any professional organization from which its members are said to be drawn.

As I've said above, I interpret this as a list of people who have at one time or another said they agree with Gage. This is not a very meaningful professional message.

Also, how many of those 800+ engineers are mechanical engineers, etc. Tony Szamboti is a mechanical engineer. The civil engineers I have spoken with about this think that painters and bricklayers know about as much about high-rise construction as a mechanical engineer. Does that matter to you?

 

[ozeco41]

The petition reads:
"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7."

The key element being in the sentence: "..[specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.] We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation."

Nearly ten years on and they have yet to establish a prima facie case to answer on that trigger point of "sufficient doubt".

It remains clear that they are after publicity not an investigation.

And you can bet that a lot of those who signed and are still prepared to stand by their signing do so out of some muddled thinking about "another investigation would settle the doubts."

Whilst we, familiar with truther tactics, would bet odds on there would be a goalpost shift.

 

[Oystein]

...
Here is a break down of how the 1470 are distributed, as they are clearly labeled on the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Petition, as of April 15, 2011. ...

240 Architects (Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
84 Architectural Professionals (Degreed Only)
274 Engineers(Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
549 Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)
323 Non-U.S. Architects and Engineers & Arch. and Eng. Professionals
1470 Total
...

So there are 514 Architects and Engineers. Good.
The other day, I took a close look at those engineers that are listed with an address in Texas, the 2nd-most populous state in the Union, representing a good 8% of the US population. We may presume that Texas has a similar percentage of all engineers the USA.

Here is what I found:

274 engineers, total
- 24 engineers from TX, total (8.8%, close to prediction)
-- 4 of these 24 (17%) are not listed as active licensed engineers with the state of Texas. Possibly their license expired, they retired, moved out of state, or never were active and licensed to begin with. A sign of an ageing, out-of-date petition
--20 of these 24 are not listed as active licensed engineers with the state of Texas
--- 6 of these 20, or 25% of the 24 signing engineers from TX, hail from engineering professions related to building construction:
---- 3 of these 6 are civil engineers
---- 2 of these 6 are structural engineers
---- 1 of these 6 is an architectural engineer
--- the other 14 hail from engineering professions not related to building construction

At the same time, the state of Texas has approximately 12500 civil engineers, 2800 structural ones, and 70 architectural engs - total about 15400. 6 out of 15400, that's 0.04%.
Texas has a total of 29,000 licensed and active engineers, all professions; around 55% of these are relevant for building construction (arch., civil, structural, fire protection, metallurgy).

If Texas is about representative, then I'd estimate the total number of engineers in the USA to be approx. 350,000. Out of these, close to 200,000 would be competent to assess building performance. of these, approx. 69 (25% of 274) would be found on AE911s list.



Somehow, AE911truth tries to get the message across that "thousands" of the professionals best qualified to assess building performance support their mission. The truth is, that less than a hundred, out of hundreds of thousands, thusly qualified engineers signed up.