1,600 verified architectural and engineering professionals

Hey, ergio: 1600 people signed an internet petition; So ****ingwell bastarding what!?!
 
he also seems to have trouble with the clear evidence that building standards have been reviewed post 911.
 
You know, we're really deep down in the details here about which elements are approved by the ICC and which are still in process of approval. But we're glossing over the fact that the mere discussion and consideration of the proposals means that they're being taken seriously, which lends credence to the research those proposals were based on. After all, we haven't seen any summary rejections saying "The NIST report was pseudoscience and the findings questionable". And in return, we haven't seen any of them say "These findings by Steven Jones deserve scrutiny since they impact what we know about the World Trade Center disaster".

Real world behavior shows what professionals in the field really think.
 
It must be frustrating for truthers to see the world's major engineering and scientific organizations go about their business totally ignoring their delightful little cult.
 
twinstead said:
It must be frustrating for truthers to see the world's major engineering and scientific organizations go about their business totally ignoring their delightful little cult.
Click to expand...
It must be really killing them seeing all the people attending and MSM coverage of the "occupy Wallstreet" protests.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
http://cms.ae911truth.org/en/home.html
Click to expand...

1600 architects and engineers unable to break what would be the biggest story in history, because they have no evidence, no clue, and don't do anything. Their only action, signing a petition which means nothing. Gage started a non-profit organization to make money from people who are too lazy to learn the facts.

Reality based architects and engineers are making improvements to help when terrorists strike, trying to make rational changes to improve things.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/JournalWTCPentagon.pdf

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31542.pdf

There are 1600 uniformed nuts who can't contribute to society on issues related to 911, failures on 911. Gage is a beggar hiding behind a presentation which fools a few fringe nuts. Gage is a leach supported by people without knowledge, people with no critical thinking skills.


What do the 1600 bring to the table? Nothing. Look at their failed comments which provide proof they have not studied the events of 911, and parrot the Gage claims, like cult members.

What do cult members have to support Gage?
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=986420

Philip W. Day, got a degree from Virgina Tech, his engineering skills on 911 issues are as bad as his college football team this past weekend. Will Day be able to break away from woo and drop Gage.
Philip has so much evidence! Here is his breakout statement to support Gage.
"There are too many unanswered questions and holes in the official story."
Philip has done nothing, he knows nothing. A perfect follower for 911 truth, signs up and does nothing.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
And Architect sure beat a hasty retreat.

Why do bedunkers always feel so compelled to make stuff up?
Click to expand...
You brazen, lying, sophist hypocrite. You still haven't answered whether it is possible to determine the time of day from the sun's position.

ergo said:
Why do bedunkers need things repeated to them so many times?
Click to expand...
Like the way you need explained, over and over again that the debunker position is not 'explosions are never explosives', but is actually 'explosions are not always explosives', yet you keep repeating the first one?
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
New regulations are only part of the picture.
Click to expand...
There was a meme a while ago involving taking pictures of scantily clad women, putting a color over them, and punching holes in that color so you couldn't see their clothes but could see everything else. The brain assumes they're naked. It was called 'bubbling(NSFW, obv)'.

Truthers try something similar; they show you part of the picture, and pretend that's the whole thing, even to the extent of ignoring the obscured portions entrely so they can get their pseudo-intellectual fap on.
 
ergo said:
The IBC is a model building code which has no legal status.
Click to expand...

It has been given full legal status in many places, as New Mexico does:

14.7.2.8 ADOPTION OF THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE:
A. This rule adopts by reference the 2006 international building code, as amended by this rule.

"Adopt by reference" means that the document they refer to has the full force of law. It's far faster and means all you have to do is point to the appropriate section of that document in your own code.

Here's a typical amendment:
(1) 101.1 Title. Delete this section of the IBC and substitute: This code shall be known as the 2006 New Mexico commercial building code (NMCBC).

They go on to delete a few things that are not applicable or covered elsewhere in NM law, but the core of the building code is straight from the IBC.
 
TsuDhoNimh said:
It has been given full legal status in many places, as New Mexico does:

14.7.2.8 ADOPTION OF THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE:
A. This rule adopts by reference the 2006 international building code, as amended by this rule.

"Adopt by reference" means that the document they refer to has the full force of law. It's far faster and means all you have to do is point to the appropriate section of that document in your own code.

Here's a typical amendment:
(1) 101.1 Title. Delete this section of the IBC and substitute: This code shall be known as the 2006 New Mexico commercial building code (NMCBC).

They go on to delete a few things that are not applicable or covered elsewhere in NM law, but the core of the building code is straight from the IBC.
Click to expand...

Another typical amendment (in Michigan) is the allow residential construction up to 3500 s.f. not to be sealed by an architect.

Other amendments are planned changes to the model code that occur after the model code is issued but before the individual state code is adopted.
 
TsuDhoNimh said:
It has been given full legal status in many places, as New Mexico does:

14.7.2.8 ADOPTION OF THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE:
A. This rule adopts by reference the 2006 international building code, as amended by this rule.

"Adopt by reference" means that the document they refer to has the full force of law. It's far faster and means all you have to do is point to the appropriate section of that document in your own code.

Here's a typical amendment:
(1) 101.1 Title. Delete this section of the IBC and substitute: This code shall be known as the 2006 New Mexico commercial building code (NMCBC).

They go on to delete a few things that are not applicable or covered elsewhere in NM law, but the core of the building code is straight from the IBC.
Click to expand...

True. Truthers seem to be misunderstanding the function of the body. Architect, Grizzly Bear, and whoever else understands this professionally, please let me know if I've got this right or not, but: The way I understand it is that organizations like the ICC develops the IBC specifically for legislators to adopt. It's never expected that it has legal standing straight out of the box, but rather it's the professionally determined guidelines that help those legislators write law.

Have I got that right?

------

On top of that, the real point behind showing that the ICC pays attention to the NIST findings is to demonstrate that they're taken seriously in the architectural and engineering fields. The IBC is modified by professionals only after consideration of proposed changes, which means that the findings that changes are based on are accepted by said professionals. If they didn't accept the findings, why would they change the code?

The objection that it does not hold legal standing isn't even an intelligent argument; it's already known that it does not. Accepting that lack does not negate the fact that professionals studied and accepted the findings. It only means that there's a step between development of such model code and it's introduction into law. It's an attempt at deliberate deception to try and argue that the lack of legal standing indicates lack of professional acceptance.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
The objection that it does not hold legal standing isn't even an intelligent argument; it's already known that it does not. Accepting that lack does not negate the fact that professionals studied and accepted the findings. It only means that there's a step between development of such model code and it's introduction into law. It's an attempt at deliberate deception to try and argue that the lack of legal standing indicates lack of professional acceptance.
Click to expand...

Henceforth to be referred to as "Grasping for Straws".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom