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

Animal said:
Just because the license is "active" doesn't mean the license holder is not retired. I know plenty of architects who have maintained their licenses until they died, long after they retired.
Click to expand...

This is quite beside the point. Retired or not, a licensed engineer is a licensed engineer and can be regarded as competent in his field of expertise.

But we aren't looking at licenses and active status to assess individual competence - it is quite clear that one can be competent to assess the NIST report even if one isn't young, licensed, active or even an engineer, and a young active licensed engineer can be utterly incompetent on that topic. The only thing that matters is whether one is right or wrong.

The reason we are looking at licenses is to compare the number of petition signers with the total number of their peers: what proportion of the relevant population did and did not sign? We argue that the numbers published by ae911truth and repeated at nauseam by their faithful believers is badly inflated: They include non-licensed and non-active people with some archiecture or engineerig degree, and count 500+, and then include "professionals", that is non-engineers and non-architects that somehow work in these branches to arrive at "1400+"; it is hard or impossible to estimate the total number of such "professionals" and put it into relation with the signers. However, we can count rather exactly the licensed, active engineers in all states, and count the number of licensed, active engineers that signed. And find that not even 1 in 1,000 of them could be convinced to signing, and that proportion apparently gets smaller the more qualified people are "on paper".
 
I guess I'm not clear on this concept that retiring means your opinion no longer counts, and that your 30, 40, or 50 years of professional experience suddenly becomes null and void. In that case, we may have to cross a few of the NIST engineers off the list. But last time I checked, retirees often find themselves in a new profession or occupation. Sometimes they teach. Sometimes they write. Sometimes they consult. If they're political figures, they often go on lecture tours. Their knowledge and experience is considered valuable. Their opinions are considered to be informed. I don't see why this would be any different for retired architects or engineers. Indeed, it's the retired ones whose opinions may have more weight here, since they are the ones who were active in their fields at the time these buildings, and their counterparts, were designed and built.
 
Oystein said:
And find that not even 1 in 1,000 of them could be convinced to signing, and that proportion apparently gets smaller the more qualified people are "on paper".
Click to expand...

It's an invalid comparison because you have no idea how many have actually exposed themselves to this information, or why they haven't bothered, or what their real opinion is, or why they might not want to stick their neck out professionally. (Gee, I can't imagine.)

The entire premise of this thread is invalid. The real question is, as others have pointed out before: how many a & e's who really investigate the matter end up supporting the official story? That's what you need to ask yourselves. There are very few people who have the time to study these matters, and even fewer who have the time to become activist about it. That's a simple, unchanging reality.
 
Last edited:
so then with 1400 architectural and engineering professionals, when can we expect to see any one of them publish a refutation of ANY PART of nist?

I mean if they are over 65 and RETIRED, then they have the time for it.

Have you emailed your members and asked them to refute bazant or nist? It should be easy
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
I guess I'm not clear on this concept that retiring means your opinion no longer counts, and that your 30, 40, or 50 years of professional experience suddenly becomes null and void. In that case, we may have to cross a few of the NIST engineers off the list. But last time I checked, retirees often find themselves in a new profession or occupation. Sometimes they teach. Sometimes they write. Sometimes they consult. If they're political figures, they often go on lecture tours. Their knowledge and experience is considered valuable. Their opinions are considered to be informed. I don't see why this would be any different for retired architects or engineers. Indeed, it's the retired ones whose opinions may have more weight here, since they are the ones who were active in their fields at the time these buildings, and their counterparts, were designed and built.
Click to expand...

You lose ground quickly in the building professions if you are not actively engaged. Even when you are, you can quickly lose ground if in areas of knowledge that you do actively participate in. I have had my license for over twenty years and have continuously worked, but there are parts of the profession I am woefully behind the times
 
Animal said:
You lose ground quickly in the building professions if you are not actively engaged. Even when you are, you can quickly lose ground if in areas of knowledge that you do actively participate in. I have had my license for over twenty years and have continuously worked, but there are parts of the profession I am woefully behind the times
Click to expand...

That's why "retired" is not a good indicator of knowledge. I've known retired engineers who were far better after a couple of strokes than some of the actively-practicing licensed idiots I've worked with.
 
Oystein said:
...But we aren't looking at licenses and active status to assess individual competence - it is quite clear that one can be competent to assess the NIST report even if one isn't young, licensed, active or even an engineer, and a young active licensed engineer can be utterly incompetent on that topic. The only thing that matters is whether one is right or wrong...
Click to expand...

Don't we loose track of that fact so often. The trolling truthers objective is to prolong debate so that it doesn't get anywhere. The only purpose of them raising this "numbers and qualifications" topic is to have discussion going round in circles and not progressing.

The reason why the numbers of AE911 professionals is of some interest is because Gage has set up the block of them who signed his petition as a perpetual appeal to authority. The petition is a petition in name only - and few if any of the signatories have expressed any opinion on any 9/11 topic other than that which is implicit in the narrow subject of the petition.

But ergo et al continue to get mileage by keeping trolling these "threads which go nowhere" and will do so whilst ever we have members responding. The discussion is irrelevant other than as food for trolling. Ditto the "molten metal" thread. and several others.
 
AE911Truth petition signers is up to 1484

ozeco41 said:
The petition reads:...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".
Click to expand...

There is a sufficient case for a new investigation, such as the clearly defined list of the 10 Qualities of Controlled Demolition on the AE911Truth page that the collapse of WTC 7 matches.

The problem is that there is insufficient public awareness about the case. Most Americans still have never heard a 3rd tower came down, WTC 7. It should be front page news on the controlled main stream media.

At least on uncontrolled media, the web, 9/11 is increasingly near the top of Google. Today www.WTC7.Net is #1 on Google for "WTC 7". A Google for "9/11" shows sites like www.911Truth.org and www.JournalOf911Studies.com have risen towards the top. Polls in other countries such as Germany, show 89.5% doubt the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Otherwise intelligent people still look at WTC 7 and actually believe it came down by fire alone! It would be hilarious if not so sad. A child can see the similarities of WTC 7 and a Controlled Demolition.

Unfortunately the majority of Americans have been deceived and don't even know it. But fortunately people are waking up. About every week the number of AE911Truth petition signers goes up. Every day, the number of views on YouTube videos about WTC 7 and other aspects of 9/11 goes up. A sleeping giant is waking up about 9/11.

The number of people who have been duped by the OCT goes down and down every day. Sadly a lot of those who have been duped are on JREF, clinging to others for support who still believe the 9/11 Fairy Tale.

If an architect or engineer wants to be off the AE911Truth list, all he has to do is email them. But the number of petition signers keeps going up. Today it is up to 1484.
 
Last edited:
NIST and Bazant have long been easily debunked

TruthersLie said:
so then with 1400 architectural and engineering professionals, when can we expect to see any one of them publish a refutation of ANY PART of nist?
Click to expand...
NIST and Bazant have been refuted, extensively, and easily found on Google. Head in the sand much?

Sorry no one has delivered a refutation report on a silver platter to you. But here is a link right on the AE911Truth home page.
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/469-answers-from-nist.html

Have you emailed your members and asked them to refute bazant or nist? It should be easy
Click to expand...
Yes it was easy, and has been done. It's easily found via Google.

Bazant's stupid "pile driver theory" violates the Law of Conservation of Momentum. Anyone can do this experiment in his kitchen with 4 eggs and a glass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMcJnq6zh4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROuBvSZaFVE&feature=related
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
NIST and Bazant have been refuted, extensively, and easily found on Google. Head in the sand much?
Click to expand...
I eagerly await your link to a respected peer reviewed physics or engineering journal. It should be easy. Please provide the citation

Sorry no one has delivered a refutation report on a silver platter to you. But here is a link right on the AE911Truth home page.
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/469-answers-from-nist.html
Click to expand...

this was published in which respected peer reviewed journal? Oh wait. It wasn't. Is this by the same group you claim has 1400+ architects and engineers, but who in fact only have 514 architects and engineers, and has 700 architectural and engineering professionals pretending to be architects and engineers?

Which respected peer reviewed journal published their refutation?

Yes it was easy, and has been done. It's easily found via Google.
Click to expand...

Then you can link me to these journal articles which refute NIST and bazant. Where are they? In which journal?

Bazant's stupid "pile driver theory" violates the Law of Conservation of Momentum. Anyone can do this experiment in his kitchen with 4 eggs and a glass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMcJnq6zh4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROuBvSZaFVE&feature=related
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO. I love it when non engineering folks try to tell you about experiments. The first problem is one of SCALE. I know that you don't know what it is, but trust me it is really fraking up your claims.

So how many architects and engineers does that group have again?
Why do you continue to LIE about their membership numbers?
Have you stopped slandering the SEC yet?
Have you figured out basic accounting and the "missing" 2.3 trillion yet?
 
ozeco41 said:
Oystein said:
The only thing that matters is whether one is right or wrong...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

:) If this is what will help you understand, then I can go along with this, for a little while. This is how religious fundamentalists understand things, too, so we have to simplify our explanation somewhat here:

If all that matters is what's right and what's wrong, then the next time you're wondering, just remember: the NIST reports are wrong. They are wrong in both small detail and in larger conclusion. They mix correct facts with incorrect facts. They apply incorrect models. They do not complete their analysis. They rely on Bazant, who is also wrong. He is wrong in both assumptions and larger conclusions. The models he applies are incorrect. They neither conform to observables nor to known gravitational collapses. The official collapse explanation is wrong. It is incorrect. It is false.

It's like this: you're planning a road trip from NYC to Washington D.C. It's a straight north to south trip that's been done many times and is is done many times by many people. The route is obvious. You can see it on a map. You may have some choices as to which specific highways to take , but you know the general direction you're going and how long it will take you to get there. The NIST reports are like, instead of getting on the highway that will take you to Washington, they say you need to go to Iowa first. Iowa is really out of the way. It's almost not worth it. Not do-able in the time you have. It would be better to take a plane to Iowa. But they say, no, take the car. So, by the time you get to Iowa, you've forgotten your original road trip to Washington. And then you have to stay and rest in Iowa for a bit before heading back, and maybe you get caught up in some stuff happening in Iowa. By the time you make it to Washington from Iowa, your trip has gone from a simple 3.5 hour trip to a 30+ hour trip, for no apparent reason, since the route from NY to Washington was simple and obvious from the start.

Defending the NIST reports is like driving to Iowa on your way to Washington. Can you call that "wrong"? I don't know. You can call it stupid, especially if you had no reason to go to Iowa. You can say that NIST was wrong in telling you that you needed to go Iowa first, since it's clear by the map, and by your own experience, and the experiences of millions of others, that you didn't need to at all.
 
ergo said:
:) If this is what will help you understand, then I can go along with this, for a little while. This is how religious fundamentalists understand things, too, so we have to simplify our explanation somewhat here:

If all that matters is what's right and what's wrong, then the next time you're wondering, just remember: the NIST reports are wrong.
Click to expand...
This from someone who doesn't know or understand the differences between into and onto, doesn't get "center of mass," nor understand the ideas of exponential, limiting vocabulary and even articles.

But since you claim they are wrong, and you twoofs have 1400 architectural and engineering professionals (with like 500 of them retired), you should EASILY have peer reviewed engineering PROOF that NIST is wrong. Where is it?

They are wrong in both small detail and in larger conclusion.
Click to expand...
Provide a peer reviewed engineering or science journal which states they are wrong. It should be simple.

They mix correct facts with incorrect facts. They apply incorrect models. They do not complete their analysis.
Click to expand...
Provide a peer reviewed engineering or science journal which states they are wrong. It should be simple.

They rely on Bazant, who is also wrong. He is wrong in both assumptions and larger conclusions. The models he applies are incorrect. They neither conform to observables nor to known gravitational collapses. The official collapse explanation is wrong. It is incorrect. It is false.
Click to expand...
Provide a peer reviewed engineering or science journal which states they are wrong. It should be simple.

It's like this: you're planning a road trip from NYC to Washington D.C. It's a straight north to south trip that's been done many times and is is done many times by many people. The route is obvious. You can see it on a map. You may have some choices as to which specific highways to take , but you know the general direction you're going and how long it will take you to get there. The NIST reports are like, instead of getting on the highway that will take you to Washington, they say you need to go to Iowa first. Iowa is really out of the way. It's almost not worth it. Not do-able in the time you have. It would be better to take a plane to Iowa. But they say, no, take the car. So, by the time you get to Iowa, you've forgotten your original road trip to Washington. And then you have to stay and rest in Iowa for a bit before heading back, and maybe you get caught up in some stuff happening in Iowa. By the time you make it to Washington from Iowa, your trip has gone from a simple 3.5 hour trip to a 30+ hour trip, for no apparent reason, since the route from NY to Washington was simple and obvious from the start.
Click to expand...
blah blah blah.
have you figured out into vs onto?
center of mass vs debris field the size of the moon?
about?
exponential?

No? Then stop blathering and go find out about them.

Defending the NIST reports is like driving to Iowa on your way to Washington. Can you call that "wrong"? I don't know. You can call it stupid, especially if you had no reason to go to Iowa. You can say that NIST was wrong in telling you that you needed to go Iowa first, since it's clear by the map, and by your own experience, and the experiences of millions of others, that you didn't need to at all.
Click to expand...


Provide a peer reviewed engineering or science journal which states they are wrong. It should be simple.
 
cicorp said:
NIST and Bazant have been refuted, extensively, and easily found on Google. Head in the sand much?

Sorry no one has delivered a refutation report on a silver platter to you. But here is a link right on the AE911Truth home page.
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/469-answers-from-nist.html
Click to expand...

The only things found on that page are the same old same old claims that were proven false years ago......pyroclastic dust clouds, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint, through the path of greatest resistance, etc. etc. :rolleyes:

Yes it was easy, and has been done. It's easily found via Google.

Bazant's stupid "pile driver theory" violates the Law of Conservation of Momentum. Anyone can do this experiment in his kitchen with 4 eggs and a glass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMcJnq6zh4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROuBvSZaFVE&feature=related
Click to expand...

Yes, the structure of the WTC was so much like eggs in a glass, your "proof by youtube" just wipes away actual research :rolleyes:
 
cicorp said:
NIST and Bazant have been refuted, extensively, and easily found on Google. Head in the sand much?

Sorry no one has delivered a refutation report on a silver platter to you. But here is a link right on the AE911Truth home page.
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/469-answers-from-nist.html


Yes it was easy, and has been done. It's easily found via Google.

Bazant's stupid "pile driver theory" violates the Law of Conservation of Momentum. Anyone can do this experiment in his kitchen with 4 eggs and a glass.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMcJnq6zh4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROuBvSZaFVE&feature=related
Click to expand...

Yep, pure science all the way.
 
So the question of whether this gigantic list of engineers and architects means anything hinges on two issues:

1. Are these people qualified and competent, and
2. Do they actually agree with the A&E manifesto?

A simple test would be to have a number of them...say, 50%...publish papers outlining problems with the NIST report in a peer reveiwed journal. I think that's a very reasonable percentage that would convince everyone here that there are a substantial number of qualified architects and engineers who believe in an inside jobby-job.
 
tsig said:
Yep, pure science all the way.
Click to expand...

I don't see the problem....

After all we can use many different things....cardboard boxes, lemons, pizza boxes, apples, etc to model the WTC...you need to get up to date on modern modeling methods tsig..

:)
 
ergo said:
So, in other words, 83% of them are licensed and active, and 4 of them are retired. How damning.
Click to expand...

Yes ergo, but although 20 Texas PE's is bad, our real problem is in New York which is awful. You would have thought that New York structural PE's could have been bothered to look at the evidence. Out of the 5 NY structural PE residents that signed the petition, we have

Abbas Behnambakhsh NOT REGISTERED (NY P. E. no. 077094; B.S. C.E.)
Donal Butterfield REGISTERED (RA11145 NY, PE39888 NY; BCE, MUD)
Ephraim Resnick INACTIVE (NY PE 042761; Worked for 50 years in construction design in and around NYC; Retired in August, 2001)
Richard Paul Sheridan NOT REGISTERED (51289 1974 Dec.; Civil Engineering)
Robert J. Randall REGISTERED (52752 NY; Structural design of nuclear submarines, power plants, commercial & residential buildings.)

Butterfield Donal: Got his license in 1963 - 48 years ago, the guy must be well over 70, but fortunately still pays his dues. and Robert J. Randall apparently is not a resident of NY anymore, but of Centreville, Md

So out of 5 signatories there is only one NY resident, which is 20%.

Unfortunately the other 10,000 are too cowardly. 0.01% is about a quarter of normal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom