1,600 verified architectural and engineering professionals

I rarely feel the need to add to my ignore list, but Marokkaan behaves with all the maturity of a 5 year old. Wait no... that's not fair to 5 year olds, my daughter is 8 and she already understands 9/11.
 
Dash80 said:
I rarely feel the need to add to my ignore list, but Marokkaan behaves with all the maturity of a 5 year old. Wait no... that's not fair to 5 year olds, my daughter is 8 and she already understands 9/11.
Click to expand...

It makes many of our other resident truthers look a lot more intellectual by comparison at least
 
Scott Sommers said:
I know you're just fooling around with this. And who can blame Gage for padding the list? I'm just surprised that smart cookies like ergo and his crowd could run around claiming that the AE911 list means anything. I found all those people just starting at the top and going down. I have no idea how many there are like that. I guess that the number who obviously and by their own admission uninformed on the matter runs into the hundreds. For God's sake, the list contains log cabin designers!
Click to expand...

No surprise there, no self-respecting professional would want to be on such a list.
 
It's like somebody managed to get 1600 crazy scientists from around the world who actually believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, and then going, "nya, nya, nya" when we can't give them a list of scientists who support a 4 billion year old earth.
 
twinstead said:
It's like somebody managed to get 1600 crazy scientists from around the world who actually believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, and then going, "nya, nya, nya" when we can't give them a list of scientists who support a 4 billion year old earth.
Click to expand...

Boy, do you guys have a False Analogy store where you buy these things ready made or do you really think these up by yourselves?

Ja, ja, ja, suppose the USS Maine was blown up by American interests to provoke a war with Spain - why would scientists have a strong opinion on the cause of the explosion?

There is no branch of science that specialises in differentiating controlled demolitions from spontaneous collapses - mainly because the number n of the 2nd set is very very small - and scientists can't form reliable hypotheses without good data sets.

Its just not a mature science, its not really a science at all.
 
I DEMAND you show me a petition of all the scientists who believe in the theory of gravity!!!!!!!!!!! If YOU DONT obviously CNSAG's (Crazy NutBar Scientists Against Gravity) petition PWNS you!

</truther mode>
 
twinstead said:
It's like somebody managed to get 1600 crazy scientists from around the world who actually believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, and then going, "nya, nya, nya" when we can't give them a list of scientists who support a 4 billion year old earth.
Click to expand...

2011 Board of Directors & Staff, Creation Research Society
http://www.creationresearch.org/board.html

Creation Science in Korea
http://www.icr.org/article/creation-science-korea/

Do real scientists believe in Creation?
List of members of the CRS
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

Here's a related list
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html
 
Last edited:
little grey rabbit said:
Boy, do you guys have a False Analogy store where you buy these things ready made or do you really think these up by yourselves?
Click to expand...

Ummm. No that is exactly what you folks are doing.

Ja, ja, ja, suppose the USS Maine was blown up by American interests to provoke a war with Spain - why would scientists have a strong opinion on the cause of the explosion?

There is no branch of science that specialises in differentiating controlled demolitions from spontaneous collapses - mainly because the number n of the 2nd set is very very small - and scientists can't form reliable hypotheses without good data sets.

Its just not a mature science, its not really a science at all.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a branch - its called Failure Analysis. Pretty much all engineers have to study it at some point or another.
 
kookbreaker said:
Ummm. No that is exactly what you folks are doing.



Actually there is a branch - its called Failure Analysis. Pretty much all engineers have to study it at some point or another.
Click to expand...

Right and I suppose a key assessment criteria is watching a video and saying whether a progressive collapse was caused by a fire or purpose placed explosives.

And you are the guys always whining about false appeals to authority....
 
ergo said:

Architecture Education in the US

In addition, students take courses in behavioural science, structural and mechanical engineering and economics. There is additional course work in graphic art in various media that is combined with computer graphics and computer-aided design. Students also take mathematics and physics as preparation for the study of engineering statics and vector forces. ...
Click to expand...
Somewhat different requirements from, say, women's studies.
Click to expand...

Student MAY take engineering courses ... however, the reality is that you can get a degree in Architecture at Arizona State University with ONE course in physics (PHY 101 Introduction to Physics) ... and ONE course in Math (MAT 170 Pre-Calculus). Neither one can be applied towards the course requirements of a physics or engineering degree.

The University of AZ has similar sciences requirements - they split the courses, but the content is very similar:
MATH 112 College Algebra
MATH 111 Trigonometry
PHYS 102 College Physics
PHYS 181 Physics Lab

I was required to take more math and physics to get my BS degree in microbiology than the architecture students took for theirs.

*****************
My roomie and I are in the process of designing a house that is somewhat outside the normal range. Every architect we have considered requires that the designs be checked - not by them, the registered architect - but by a professional engineer.
 
TsuDhoNimh said:
Student MAY take engineering courses ... however, the reality is that you can get a degree in Architecture at Arizona State University with ONE course in physics (PHY 101 Introduction to Physics) ... and ONE course in Math (MAT 170 Pre-Calculus). Neither one can be applied towards the course requirements of a physics or engineering degree.

The University of AZ has similar sciences requirements - they split the courses, but the content is very similar:
MATH 112 College Algebra
MATH 111 Trigonometry
PHYS 102 College Physics
PHYS 181 Physics Lab

I was required to take more math and physics to get my BS degree in microbiology than the architecture students took for theirs.

*****************
My roomie and I are in the process of designing a house that is somewhat outside the normal range. Every architect we have considered requires that the designs be checked - not by them, the registered architect - but by a professional engineer.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. Architects take a class or something in "behavioral science"? So what? Does that mean you'd want them teaching your psychology or sociology class?

It's almost like someone making that kind of remark has never been to university. That would explain a lot of things.
 
twinstead said:
It's like somebody managed to get 1600 crazy scientists from around the world who actually believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, and then going, "nya, nya, nya" when we can't give them a list of scientists who support a 4 billion year old earth.
Click to expand...

I think they have ... but when you look at the list, most of them have PhDs from diploma mills, or the ones calling themselves "Dr X" have a PhD in something like French Literature of the De Gaulle era or equally irrelevant areas of study.
 
TsuDhoNimh said:
Student MAY take engineering courses ... however, the reality is that you can get a degree in Architecture at Arizona State University with ONE course in physics (PHY 101 Introduction to Physics) ... and ONE course in Math (MAT 170 Pre-Calculus). Neither one can be applied towards the course requirements of a physics or engineering degree.

The University of AZ has similar sciences requirements - they split the courses, but the content is very similar:
MATH 112 College Algebra
MATH 111 Trigonometry
PHYS 102 College Physics
PHYS 181 Physics Lab

I was required to take more math and physics to get my BS degree in microbiology than the architecture students took for theirs.

*****************
My roomie and I are in the process of designing a house that is somewhat outside the normal range. Every architect we have considered requires that the designs be checked - not by them, the registered architect - but by a professional engineer.
Click to expand...

Crap..I should have gone there....I was required to take (3) 5 hour calculus classes (diffy Q's killed me) (3) 4 hour physics classes (quantum physics killed me too) (3) 5 hour building structures classes (wood, steel, concrete)
and that was after classes in statics and dynamics. The "art" classes were limited to (3) 3 hour classes. The design studio was (12) 5 hours classes.
[We were on the quarter system]

Regarding using a structural engineer......I do it for everything except the simplest of structures too.......first, it is quicker and cheaper to have someone that does it all the time do it rather than for me to spend countless hours doing the calcs when the engineers have the computer programs to do it. Second is the liability issues :D
 
little grey rabbit said:
Right and I suppose a key assessment criteria is watching a video and saying whether a progressive collapse was caused by a fire or purpose placed explosives.
Click to expand...

Well, isn't that what Chandler is doing? Looking at a single video and seeing what he thinks are rockets. Someone else looks at a video and sees a few windows pop out from changes in air pressure and decides it must have been an explosion. Etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Failure analysis is like an autopsy. They will look at videos, and still photos, but they also take materials to labs to analyse them to see what happened. They look at the surviving fasteners, joints and all the things that a video doesn't show.

It's the difference between seeing someone keel over in the street and claiming they were poisoned because of the way they clutched their throat versus doing the autopsy and finding a cerebral aneurysm had ruptured.
 
Scott Sommers said:
I was thinking the same thing. Architects take a class or something in "behavioral science"? So what? Does that mean you'd want them teaching your psychology or sociology class?

It's almost like someone making that kind of remark has never been to university. That would explain a lot of things.
Click to expand...

There is an old saying.....

Architects start off knowing a very little about a lot of subjects, and as time goes on, they know less and less about more and more, until they end up knowing practically nothing about everything.

Engineers start off knowing a very lot about very little, and as time goes on, they know more and more about less and less, until they know practically everything about nothing.

Contractors start off knowing everything about everything, and as time goes on, know nothing about anything, mostly due to dealing with architects and engineers.

There is a bit of truth to that. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom