1,600 verified architectural and engineering professionals

Marokkaan said:
Structural engineer,n....(jref).....def.[Structural engineers analyze, design, plan, and research structural components and structural systems to achieve design goals and ensure the safety and comfort of users or occupants. Their work takes account mainly of safety, technical, economic and environmental concerns, but they may also consider aesthetic and social factors and they believe in the official conspiracy theory]
Click to expand...

Bwahahahaha WHAT!
 
ergo said:
We're not discussing heliocentrism. We're discussing who supports the NIST reports. You guys were asked to provide names a long time ago. You haven't done it yet.
Click to expand...

1) Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer who designed the Towers.

2) The International Code Council, that produces the International Building Code, followed by the US and many nations, that adopted NIST's (WTC) NCSTAR recommendations.

3) Mark Twain, with whom I communicate regularly.

That covers it.
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
Structural engineer,n....(jref).....def.[Structural engineers analyze, design, plan, and research structural components and structural systems to achieve design goals and ensure the safety and comfort of users or occupants. Their work takes account mainly of safety, technical, economic and environmental concerns, but they may also consider aesthetic and social factors and they believe in the official conspiracy theory]
Click to expand...
Yet the fact that Ergo refuses to answer my repeated query about the number of signatories that are structural engineers doesn't bother you at all?

Hypocrite.
 
ergo said:
We're not discussing heliocentrism. We're discussing who supports the NIST reports. You guys were asked to provide names a long time ago. You haven't done it yet.
Click to expand...

Are you or are you not satisified that the question above has been answered?

If not, why not?

If so, can we move on?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Keep digging, Grizzly. I wasn't talking about your integrity. I was talking about the context of the discussion the post you dug up was part of. Your misunderstanding proves that you indeed didn't bother about any context when you dug it up. That's called quotemining.
Click to expand...
You mentioned before that you were creeped out by people searching your posting history to make a point. If you meant otherwise I'm sorry but that'd be a mistake, not quote mining. Quote mining is when a statement is taken deliberately out of context to make the words of the speaker sound different than their intended meaning. Yet again, your accusation both before and after is based on false premise, and my earlier comments on your standards of evidence stand.

Childlike Empress said:
More likely that you'll end up embarrassed and defending yourself. Take that as a lesson. ;)
Click to expand...
I'll always hold faith that you'll eventually learn how evidence is used, and for example that you'll next time look up the definition of quote mining. Unlikely as that may be, I believe anything is possible. I hope you take that lesson to heart ;)
 
000063 said:
Yet the fact that Ergo refuses to answer my repeated query about the number of signatories that are structural engineers doesn't bother you at all?

Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Ergo's not here for debate and neither is Marro...obviously. They believe they're right and they only post because they want to flash their so-called "win" by rubbing it in their opponents' faces. Usually it has the opposite effect but somewhere they get the idea it's actually their win... I say let them have their fun... when people actually take the interest and time to write responses detailed enough to provide thoughtful answers, and they blaze through things with immature blanket dismissals they make themselves look like the fools.
 
I'd just like to reiterate: The grand total of published works in peer-reviewed journals by the 1,600 "experts" at ae911truth stands at.... (drum roll)... 0

The sure sign of expertise! :p
 
NoahFence said:
Hey, their white house petition is up to a ginormous 89!
Click to expand...

I'm not going to read the entire thread to see if the point was made but shouldn't that number be at least 1,600? You would think that, given that the truthers like to make the claim as shown in the OP , there are 1,600 people who signed the A&E petition that at least that many would've signed the more official one right?
 
ergo said:
Actually, close to 15,000 people now have signed it.
Click to expand...
Oh so the 911 troll movement now had almost 10 fold the amount of petitioners who have never produced a legitimate peer reviewed paper on the mechanics of the collapse? 15,000 tic marks on an online internet petition over the course of ten years does not a significant investigation make.
 
ergo said:
We're not discussing heliocentrism.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point.

We don't need the names of astronomers and astrophysicists who support the Copernican model because they all do by default.

It's the same with engineers and fire and impacts causing the WTC collapses.

We're discussing who supports the NIST reports.
Click to expand...

No, we aren't discussing that either. We're discussing whether impact damage and fire brought the WTC towers down. You mistakenly assume that NIST is the only game in town. The NIST report is a subset of fire and impact damage. That... is the only game in town.

You guys were asked to provide names a long time ago.
Click to expand...

We don't need to.

(Fire and impacts + engineering community) = (copernican model + astronomers)

Are you getting this yet?
 
1600 verified nuts on 911. Gage's petition is a list of Followers who don't think for themselves.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=979943

Puput Aryanto Risanto thinks the aircraft impacts were accidents. Now that is proof of insanity.

From the evidence shown in this website, it is clear that the building collapses are caused by explosives commonly used for controlled demolition. The aircraft accident, which hit both towers, only acts as a camouflage to the building collapses, to create a public perception that the building was attacked by terrorists.
Click to expand...
Evidence at Gage's web site? There is no evidence, there are false claims and Puput calls lies and hearsay, evidence.

The aircraft accident? What Gage has is 1600 verified nuts who don't know what evidence is.
 
beachnut said:
1600 verified nuts on 911. Gage's petition is a list of Followers who don't think for themselves.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=979943

Puput Aryanto Risanto thinks the aircraft impacts were accidents. Now that is proof of insanity.

Evidence at Gage's web site? There is no evidence, there are false claims and Puput calls lies and hearsay, evidence.

The aircraft accident? What Gage has is 1600 verified nuts who don't know what evidence is.
Click to expand...
God that quote is stupid. An aircraft ACCIDENT hitting both buildings? The way this idiot words this makes it seem like just one plane somehow managed to slam into both towers.
 
beachnut said:
1600 verified nuts on 911. Gage's petition is a list of Followers who don't think for themselves.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=979943

Puput Aryanto Risanto thinks the aircraft impacts were accidents. Now that is proof of insanity.

Evidence at Gage's web site? There is no evidence, there are false claims and Puput calls lies and hearsay, evidence.

The aircraft accident? What Gage has is 1600 verified nuts who don't know what evidence is.
Click to expand...

So we have a problem then, richard gage has no evidence, but NIST also does not have it.
 
twinstead said:
Hell there's more than 5 engineers who contributed to that very report, ergo. Are you saying that contribution doesn't imply support?
Click to expand...
He's trying to set the stage for an idiotic argument. One that, incidentally, we already addressed that back in 2009 (seems to me that all I'm doing lately is telling truthers "we discussed that back in (fill-in-the-blank) :boggled:...):
ElMondoHummus said:
It's not like there's any organized group on this topic. In the engineering world, the collapse happened because of the impact and fires, and the narrative set forth by NIST is so far the best supported one to date. Structural as well as fire safety engineers, tall structure architects, and other construction and safety experts don't appear to feel the need to organize against some fringe group using distortions and pseudoscience to peddle their delusions. It's sort of like geologists vs. Flat Earthers: Where's the group of geoscientists who are organized against that?
Click to expand...
Despite the fact that it's fallacious to presume that engineers must come out and say "I support the NIST study" when the upgrades to code and changes in design practices already demonstrate acceptance (it's walking the walk instead of just faking the talk), it's still possible to determine who has demonstrated open support:
ElMondoHummus said:
But you can get a sense of who's actually, openly siding with the fires plus impact narrative (and therefore opposing the conspiracy peddler's fantasies) by finding engineers who've actually discussed or done work on the topic. Truthers dismiss the NIST 9/11 research team as "government employees" (or worse), but a rational individual should note their stance on the issue above and beyond their employment. Their mandate was to study the collapse, not support someone else's idea of what was involved, and truthers have yet to come up with a better argument than "employment" to support their implication of collusion in the supposed conspiracy.

It should be noted that no one from NIST has "whistleblown" regarding any supposed slanting or coverup. No, I'm sorry, that "Bob the Builder" idiot in that one thread here doesn't count.

The participants in the initial FEMA "Building Performance Study" (link is to PDF; page 3 lists the team members) should also be considered. Their work has been superceded by the NIST report, but the FEMA BPS provided the foundation for people to approach the collapse. Plus, as far as I know, it's still the only work detailing the damage to some of the peripheral buildings (WTC 4, 5, and 6, Bankers Trust, World Financial Center, etc.; I'm amenable to correction on that if I'm wrong).

Outside of NIST and FEMA are the engineers and fire safety experts who've talked to Popular Mechanics for their article and book. They've directly spoken on specific conspiracy fantasies, and have yet to meet substantial rebuttal from the conspiracy fantasists (no, stupid dismissals about the publishers doesn't cut it. Nor does Hoffman's attempt at critique (I've never seen a "critique" contain so many points of agreement, and have so little support for their contradictory claims)).

Others have ignored (as far as I can tell) the conspiracy fantasies, and have instead done direct work on elements of the collapse. The Purdue team that simulated the impacts is one example of this. The above listed University of Edinburgh researchers are others. MIT Civil and Environmental Engineering professors Oral Buyukozturk and Oguz Gunes have lectured on the Twin Towers collapse before (here's a link to a pdf of their PowerPoint presentation used at their lecture). Other MIT academics have written essays on the collapse, but while they're far from being actual studies, they're far better supported and far more rigorous than anything from the truther's side.

Debunking 9/11 has some links to journal articles near the bottom of this link. And I know I haven't even scratched the surface of scholars and others who've researched and spoken about the collapses from a rational standpoint. There are more writings from just MIT on the subject, our posting member named Architect has mentioned Arup's company, I think Ryan Mackey has mentioned some other groups who've done studies on isolated elements... the list goes on.
Click to expand...
Yeah. 2009. Two years and 6 months ago. I don't see the need to work too hard at responding to these guys. After all, if all they're going to do is regurgitate...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom