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

[AZCat]

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.

I'm curious - what is the basis for these claims? Did you do your own work or are you basing this on the work of someone else? If the former, then you seem to have made quick progress since the last time I checked (you were struggling with free-body diagrams). If the latter, then how do you judge the validity of those claims versus the claims made by NIST and the other participating organizations?

 

[ergo]

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%.

So being over 70 disqualifies you? In what way? That would knock out Leslie Robertson and Zdenek Bazant, among other NIST/Bazant apologists (not to mention James Randi). Can we assume that Robertson and Bazant don't have a clue what they're talking about?

And they also need to live in NY? They can't just work there? While you're at it, do you happen to know if any of them are gay? Or diabetic? That might cast doubt on their ability to assess building collapses, too. Oh, and did you bother searching for "NY"? Or just "New York"? How about New Jersey? No? Gee.

Just wondering how far down Stupid Alley we can take this...

By the way, which structural engineers in NY and Texas support the Bazant/NIST or otherwise official collapse hypothesis? What names do you have?

 

[ozeco41]

...Just wondering how far down Stupid Alley we can take this...

Yes.

It is amusing to observe you playing the game.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Truth is not by "majority rule". AE911Truth list is growing. AE911OCT is not.

So how many architects and engineers independently support the official theory? How many of them are debunkers?
Employed or not.
And just how do they support it?

Yes, the present number is a very low percentage. The percentage of people who believed the world was flat, not round, was once that low.

The important thing is that the number is steadily increasing. I will send AE911Truth an email to ask if they can show a graph, to see if it is increasing at a faster rate.

It takes about 1/2 hour to get on the AE911Truth list. The Validation Team calls each potential signer personally, and requires them to fax their credentials. They are keenly aware of, and guarding against anyone submitting a false name, as 1 bad apple is what debunkers will focus on. If anyone wanted off the list and was not done promptly, they know it would be all over JREF the next day.

The signers support it with their signatures. Some make statements and videos. Some speak with Richard Gage. So support varies.

On the other hand, we don't see any Architects and Engineers standing up for the OCT. Why don't they rally to support the Bush-Cheney theory against all the criticism? Do they not care about their former president, or truth in general? Why are they not out there defending and promoting the OCT?

www.AE911Truth.org may have only 1485 signers (up again). But how many signatures do they have on www.AE911OCT.com? One? Those who are not aware there is an issue about 9/11, or have not looked in to it, cannot be counted on "their side".

www.PatriotsQuestion911.org may have only a couple thousand listed, but
www.PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com only has about 20 signers.

 

[ergo]

www.PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com

!!

That deserves a thread of its own!

 

[beachnut]

!!

That deserves a thread of its own!

http://www.patriotsdonotquestion911.com/

The best 911 truth can do, fantasy. You guys have failed for 9 years, on target for 10, and infinite fail. It is a lock.

Gage's list, his petition, his member, those few fringe who can't figure out 911. Less than 0.01 percent of all AE. Good news only a few are clueless on 911, and Gage has the list.

...
Bazant's stupid "pile driver theory" violates the Law of Conservation of Momentum. ...

If you knew what the Law of Conservation of Momentum was, you would not post such an idiotic statement. This post pretty much proves you have no clue what physics is, and it is not surprising you don't understand Gage is fraud. AE is Gage's meal ticket for begging for money - if you figure this out, you will be upset you were duped by Gage's nonsense and evidence free presentations.

None of Gage's dupes have been able to produce a paper to support the lie you posted.

 

[beachnut]

Yes, the present number is a very low percentage. The percentage of people who believed the world was round, not flat, was once that low.

It is not low, it is very low, less than 0.01 percent. And of all who have signed up, they have zero evidence. Why do your expert have zero evidence. Why do your experts fail to understand what happen on 911 give over 9 years? It is a comedy.

The important thing is that the number is steadily increasing. I will send AE911Truth an email to ask if they can show a graph, to see if it is increasing at a faster rate.

Explain why over 1400 nuts can't produce a real paper on 911? Why can't over 1400 nuts investigate 911 and figure it out after 9 years? Where is their Pulitzer? Forgot, there is no Pulitzer for nonsense and delusions.

It takes about 1/2 hour to get on the AE911Truth list. The Validation Team calls each potential signer personally, and requires them to fax their credentials. They are keenly aware of, and guarding against anyone submitting a false name, as 1 bad apple is what debunkers will focus on. If anyone wanted off the list and was not done promptly, they know it would be all over JREF the next day.

Passengers on Flight 93 figure out 911 in minutes, you and AE can't do it given the answers, given the evidence, and over 9 years to do research.

The signers support it with their signatures. Some make statements and videos. Some speak with Richard Gage. So support varies.

That is all they have, signatures, no evidence, only signatures. Empty of evidence, they have nothing.

On the other hand, we don't see any Architects and Engineers standing up for the OCT. Why don't they rally to support the Bush-Cheney theory? Where is their web site? Where is an AE911OCT.com? How many signatures do they have? Zero. www.PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com only has about 20.

Darn, I am an engineer. You posted another failed statement.

Good job, all 911 truth can do is make up fraud. Another fraud by 911 truth. www.PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com good job...

You posted a made up web site to support your made up nonsense.

Those who are not aware there is an issue, or have not looked in to it, cannot be counted on the AE911OCT side.

You looked into 911 and fell for the delusions of 911 truth.

It has been over 9 years, AE 911 truth is in the Bigfoot years, total nonsense based on delusions. Gage is doing this to earn money, that is the only goal.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, the present number is a very low percentage. The percentage of people who believed the world was flat, not round, was once that low.

And we can expect the truth movement to be just as successful. I realise it may be a typo, but I'm Stundieing that.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

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.

It would be Gage's first and foremost duty to CONTACT ALL active, licensed engineers. Maybe we should ask him if he has a tally of how many he has contacted during the 4 years or so that he has been soliciting their signatures. How many civil engineering conferences did he attend? How many pages of advertising did he buy in which cilvil enineering journals did he buy, and what was their circulation? How many direct mailing did he sent to civil engineers throuout the country? Have there been any drives to call them on the phone systematically? I think ae911truth should be able to detail their activities with regard to reaching the desired population.

I tell you what: I will soon reach out to all Dallas, Texas structural engineers. When I do, I'll let you know about responses and numbers

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.

We can do a count on that: Those who really investigated the matter wrote papers.
As far as I acan see, the vast majority of engineers who did so do support the planes-and-fires theory.

 

[ergo]

It would be Gage's first and foremost duty to CONTACT ALL active, licensed engineers.

Why? How often after they've already been verified?

Maybe we should ask him if he has a tally of how many he has contacted during the 4 years or so that he has been soliciting their signatures. How many civil engineering conferences did he attend? How many pages of advertising did he buy in which cilvil enineering journals did he buy, and what was their circulation? How many direct mailing did he sent to civil engineers throuout the country? Have there been any drives to call them on the phone systematically? I think ae911truth should be able to detail their activities with regard to reaching the desired population.

Why? What concern is it of yours?

I tell you what: I will soon reach out to all Dallas, Texas structural engineers. When I do, I'll let you know about responses and numbers

Send them the Bazant 2008 paper and make sure they look at the pictures in the back.

We can do a count on that: Those who really investigated the matter wrote papers.

As far as I acan see, the vast majority of engineers who did so do support the planes-and-fires theory.

How many would that be? I'm guessing 12. And merely supporting "planes and fires" is not supporting the official collapse hypothesis. Since the collapses of the towers came as a shock to most engineers, it's important to get at the real mechanism of collapse. The correct explanation has to explain the behaviour of the collapses as well.

 

[ergo]

To get a grasp of how many 1,484 architects and engineers is, here's an exercise. Go to the page listing the signatories, put your cursor after Gage's name, and then scroll down through the page using your down arrow. (Not the page down, but the line down arrow.) You'll be sitting there for a good two to three minutes while the names scroll by. When you're just doing a search of the list for particular terms, you don't get a proper sense of the numbers.

 

[Oystein]

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

I have to agree with ergo that being retired is no more an indication for incompetence as being a young, active and licensed engineer is an indication for competence in this particular case.


Again: It does not matter what degree you got and in what year. All that matters is whether you are right or wrong.

Every single engineer who signed Gage's petition is wrong, regardless of his or her license status or age.

The entire debate here is only about the number of engineers (and architects) that signed, and if that number is high, impressive, significant, or whatever.

Again: Even if 3 million engineers had signed the petition: If they believe that any highrise was demolished by explosives or incendiaries, they are wrong.

All we are discussing here is numbers, and assessing if the numbers are high..



Truthers claim:

1. The number of architects and engineers that signed is 1400+.
2. This is a high number
3. This high number is in itself significant enough to warrant the doubts expressed in the petition, and a new investigation

We should point out that the opposite is true:

1. Only a little more than 500 architects and engineers signed up
2. This is a miniscule number, a tiny fraction of the intended population, representing less than 0.1% of the licensed, active engineers in America
3. Regardless of how many signed the petition, the arguments put forward by ae911truth are wrong. Therefore, no doubts and no new investigation are warranted.
4. The so-called petition is not even a petition, the entire operation is a fraud that pay Richard Gage a living income.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I should add to that. Every exchange I've had individually with TM proponents they've based their criteria on not only numbers, but also directly by age and raw time spent as a professional. For example, I'm a 6th year master's program student in architecture turning 24 in August; the common response to these details almost always turns into Gage being "right" purely on the grounds of his seniority in the field rather than whether any of the claims themselves are right or wrong. In their responses, I am always "wrong" solely because of my age.

Gage, and anyone who supports his cause as a professional fail in areas that are easy for 1st year students to accomplish, and being a student myself still I can compare Gage's practices with both my own and how my underclassmen are performing. My underclassmen, perform the research tasks far better in any topic.

If the "truthers" can't get beyond raw numbers and explain the merits of the claims, then they've lost all sense of credibility

 

[Oystein]

Why? How often after they've already been verified?

Maybe I didn't make my itention clear: Gage should already have alerted pretty much all engineers of his concerns; most particular all structural engineers, as they all have to deal with the changes in building codes suggested by NIST as a consequence of their WTC findings.

If Gage's concerns were valid, you could bet that a LOT more than 0.02% of all structural engineers would pay very keen interest and investigate. (I found, at least for the state of Texas, that specifically structural engineers are the least likely to sign Gage's petition. I have an intuition this may have something to do with Gage being wrong on all issues related to structural engineering).

So to answer your question "how often": Each engineer at least once, of course before they sign.

Why? What concern is it of yours?

If Gage has failed, after 4 years, to even reach out systematically to the engineering community, then we can safely conclude that ae911truth is not about engineering and the opinion of the engineering community, but merely a business outfit desigbed to fool the general non-engineering population.

If Gage is sincere, he has tried that outreach a few times over, and could document it.
If he hasn't or can't, he is not sincere (or incompetent).

Send them the Bazant 2008 paper and make sure they look at the pictures in the back.

Good idea! It's never wrong to get profressional feedback
Then again, we don't want to overburden those poor poor engineers that can't even be bothered to take 5 minutes out of their busy schedules to sign a petition, eh?

How many would that be? I'm guessing 12. And merely supporting "planes and fires" is not supporting the official collapse hypothesis. Since the collapses of the towers came as a shock to most engineers, it's important to get at the real mechanism of collapse. The correct explanation has to explain the behaviour of the collapses as well.

I do believe that at least those engineers and architects that have to suffer NIST's results in the form of changed building codes already have those worries close to their hearts. So if the consensus among the structural engineering community was "thermal expansion could never cause progressive collapse", and yet they are made henceforth liable for preventing against thermal expansion of long-span beams as spelled out by NIST's recommendations, you could bet some wave of opposition in the professional venues (journals, conferences).

So - have you seen any structural engineering journal or heard any structural engineering conference whine about these code changes?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I should add to that. Every exchange I've had individually with TM proponents they've based their criteria on not only numbers, but also directly by age and raw time spent as a professional. For example, I'm a 6th year master's program student in architecture turning 24 in August; the common response to these details almost always turns into Gage being "right" purely on the grounds of his seniority in the field rather than whether any of the claims themselves are right or wrong. In their responses, I am always "wrong" solely because of my age.

Cicorp committed a different variant of this fallacy a day or two ago, claiming that David Griscom is more right than other scientists in the TM because he's published more papers, and that my publication count entitles me to criticise Steven Jones but not David Griscom (or some such nonsense). It seems that the truther view of science is that, when two scientists disagree, all that's necessary to determine who's right is a pile of papers and a ruler.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

To get a grasp of how many 1,484 architects and engineers is, ...

You repeat that lie of 1,484 architects and engineers.



There are no 1,484 architects and engineers on that list!




Gage now calls them "a&e professionals", meaning some of them are not licensed to work as an architect or engineer.

There are only 514 US architects and engineers on that list!



...

here's an exercise. Go to the page listing the signatories, put your cursor after Gage's name, and then scroll down through the page using your down arrow. (Not the page down, but the line down arrow.) You'll be sitting there for a good two to three minutes while the names scroll by. When you're just doing a search of the list for particular terms, you don't get a proper sense of the numbers.

Here is another excercise:

- Mark a length of 274 feet on the ground (about 83.5 meters, in SI units), 1 foot per licensed, active engineer who signed
- Walk that length. Should take you a minute, or slightly less.
- Now mark a length 350,000 feet on the ground (more than 106 kilometers), or 1 foot per licensed, active engineer in the USA
- Walk that length. At a swift, steady hiking pace, you'll walk 18 hours straigth. Young and fit hikers would do this in 3 days, most ordinary but healthy people will more likely spread it over 5 days.

I suspect that about the same proportions hold for licensed architetcs, or the unlicensensed engineers and architects who are included in your 1,484.

Now you know how irrelevantly small the number of signatories is.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of AE911Truth petition signers

To get a grasp of how many 1,484 architects and engineers is, here's an exercise....You'll be sitting there for a good two to three minutes while the names scroll by. When you're just doing a search of the list for particular terms, you don't get a proper sense of the numbers.

Here's a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of the AE911Truth.org Petition signers, which makes is so much easier than a web page, to see how many they have, arranged by category, and to search with Ctrl+F for words, such as "PhD" or "C.E." or US states. (Presently it is offered by another group. I emailed AE911Truth suggesting they offer the .XLS on their web site.)
http://ANETA.org/AE911Truth

 

[Oystein]

Here's a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of the AE911Truth.org Petition signers, which makes is so much easier than a web page, to see how many they have, arranged by category, and to search with Ctrl+F for words, such as "PhD" or "C.E." or US states. (Presently it is offered by another group. I emailed AE911Truth suggesting they offer the .XLS on their web site.)
http://ANETA.org/AE911Truth

Thanks for your effort!

One question - on that page you link to, there is this graph:
http://aneta.org/AE911Truth/index.13.gif

It has been pointed out in this forum that gage changed the definition of who gets counted towards that number at least twice, from "licensed a&e" to just "a&e" to "a&e professionals". Consequently, the number may have risen faster after 12/2008 than before 12/2008 because of that changed definition rather than a heightened interest among a&e.
Did you take that into account somehow? If not, maybe a disclaimer is in order.

 

[Animal]

Yes, the present number is a very low percentage. The percentage of people who believed the world was flat, not round, was once that low.

The number is not a low percentage.......it is not even close to being 1%

The important thing is that the number is steadily increasing. I will send AE911Truth an email to ask if they can show a graph, to see if it is increasing at a faster rate.

But it is not increasing at even the same rate of new licensees, thus the percentage is falling.

It takes about 1/2 hour to get on the AE911Truth list. The Validation Team calls each potential signer personally, and requires them to fax their credentials. They are keenly aware of, and guarding against anyone submitting a false name, as 1 bad apple is what debunkers will focus on. If anyone wanted off the list and was not done promptly, they know it would be all over JREF the next day.

The signers support it with their signatures. Some make statements and videos. Some speak with Richard Gage. So support varies.

On the other hand, we don't see any Architects and Engineers standing up for the OCT. Why don't they rally to support the Bush-Cheney theory against all the criticism? Do they not care about their former president, or truth in general? Why are they not out there defending and promoting the OCT?

For starters, most of us have jobs and a life. The only reason I come here is for entertainment and to laugh at troofers.

www.AE911Truth.org may have only 1485 signers (up again). But how many signatures do they have on www.AE911OCT.com? One? Those who are not aware there is an issue about 9/11, or have not looked in to it, cannot be counted on "their side".

www.PatriotsQuestion911.org may have only a couple thousand listed, but
www.PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com only has about 20 signers.

Most professionals are aware that a few kooks see an issue with 9/11. Most professionals realize that those few kooks are not worth the time and efoort to respond to.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Here's a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of the AE911Truth.org Petition signers, which makes is so much easier than a web page, to see how many they have, arranged by category, and to search with Ctrl+F for words, such as "PhD" or "C.E." or US states. (Presently it is offered by another group. I emailed AE911Truth suggesting they offer the .XLS on their web site.)
http://ANETA.org/AE911Truth

Here is a graph showing the rate of publication in peer-reviewed journals for members of AE911Truth:


0 _____________________________________________________

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011