AE911Truth Petition - An Analysis - Part One (Professionals A & B)

[OCaptain]

A few questions, sorry if I've misunderstood what you've done...

How many petitioners were excluded ONLY because of advocating one or more of the above? That is to say, they were a tall-building architect, structural engineer or chemical engineer, but who made a 9/11 statement that included one or more of the above phrases?

How many petitioners were excluded ONLY because they did not make a 9/11 statement? Again that is to say they had the required qualifications to be included but did not make a 9/11 statement? I can't understand why you removed this group from the results.

How many chemical engineers were removed ONLY because they did not mention nano-thermite?

Also on the 'regurgitation' of Richard Gage's presentations part, if the respondent happened to agree 100% with what Gage was saying, why are they excluded from the count for expressing themselves in similar language to Gage? People do that all the time - it's an efficient way of imparting information, you don't need to rephrase it, and it's not a valid criterion for exclusion from this count, surely?

I certainly don't have an actual count for which reasons I removed which petitioner. I didn't intend for it to be an indictment of them as individuals, so I did not dig that deeply as far as recording their 9/11 statements. That would be beyond the scope of my analysis. I simply used the criteria as a way to determine if, and how much, AE911Truth was padding their numbers.

And I certainly did struggle with some of the petitioners and their statements, before ultimately deciding to go the way I did.

As far as your question about why I chose to eliminate petitioners if they were found to be regurgitating Gage's talking points - I did so when it was clear from their statements that echoing Gage was the full extent that they chose to take it. For example, if a petitioner echoed wrong info about sub-10 second collapse times for towers 1 & 2 (which I found in some petition statements) uncritically, I felt comfortable excluding that petitioner, because they didn't bother to take their concerns beyond that which they'd heard Gage say.

When the sum total of their concerns are JUST those talking points, I decided to remove them from consideration, because they missed a perfect opportunity to use their training to show why they accepted Gage's points.

The same for the chemical engineers who did not address thermite in the dust, but instead chose to address some other anomaly outside of their expertise.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[chrismohr]

OCaptain this was a huge project but one whose methods and conclusions I can't agree with.

For starters: my understanding is that this is a petition calling for a new investigation of 9/11 which only architects and engineers can sign . I know that most of the signers qualify. Last year, at the AIA Convention in Denver, I hung out with Richard Gage and his volunteers for a couple hours near the end. They were very excited and showed me pages and pages of new signatures of mostly AIA architects. They asked me to keep the numbers secret because they had not yet validated and confirmed the list. I also know of at least two JREF pranksters who tried to sign on the petition, and they were rejected by A&E. So I believe the list is pretty much what it says it is: people with at least some professional training and education who are suspicious enough of the common narrative to sign the petition.

To eliminate people based on the fact that they didn't speak out, or just parroted Gage, is unfair. A couple years ago, I signed a petition to legalize marijuana in Colorado. The requirement was that I be a registered voter in Colorado. By your logic, if I had written a letter to the editor repeating the talking points of the Legalization Movement, I would have been eliminated. As it is, the petition went to the Secretary of State's office, certified that they had enough signatures, put it on the ballot for a vote, and then... uh, what was I talking about? I'm hungry!

Oh yeah. So anyway, the A&E petition has credibility for me; it shows me that some people with training don't trust the common narrative. I don't see the point of eliminating people for the reasons you have. And while Gage hasn't formally presented the petition, it has been given repeatedly to congresspeople by AE911 people over the years, and the petition helps to give them credibility.

 

[DGM]

Oh yeah. So anyway, the A&E petition has credibility for me;

The biggest problem with the petition is there is no way to know if these people still hold the belief. One thing is certain, these signers do not actively promote this with their own peers.

 

[LSSBB]

The biggest problem with the petition is there is no way to know if these people still hold the belief. One thing is certain, these signers do not actively promote this with their own peers.

Nor have they conducted significant work to proving their own theory, beyond the questionable outcome of burning what appears to have been paint chips. No comprehensive theory of the mechanism and science of this demolition or full scale forensic analysis.

 

[OCaptain]

OCaptain this was a huge project but one whose methods and conclusions I can't agree with.

For starters: my understanding is that this is a petition calling for a new investigation of 9/11 which only architects and engineers can sign . I know that most of the signers qualify. Last year, at the AIA Convention in Denver, I hung out with Richard Gage and his volunteers for a couple hours near the end. They were very excited and showed me pages and pages of new signatures of mostly AIA architects. They asked me to keep the numbers secret because they had not yet validated and confirmed the list. I also know of at least two JREF pranksters who tried to sign on the petition, and they were rejected by A&E. So I believe the list is pretty much what it says it is: people with at least some professional training and education who are suspicious enough of the common narrative to sign the petition.

To eliminate people based on the fact that they didn't speak out, or just parroted Gage, is unfair. A couple years ago, I signed a petition to legalize marijuana in Colorado. The requirement was that I be a registered voter in Colorado. By your logic, if I had written a letter to the editor repeating the talking points of the Legalization Movement, I would have been eliminated. As it is, the petition went to the Secretary of State's office, certified that they had enough signatures, put it on the ballot for a vote, and then... uh, what was I talking about? I'm hungry!

Oh yeah. So anyway, the A&E petition has credibility for me; it shows me that some people with training don't trust the common narrative. I don't see the point of eliminating people for the reasons you have. And while Gage hasn't formally presented the petition, it has been given repeatedly to congresspeople by AE911 people over the years, and the petition helps to give them credibility.

So, Chris, I'm pleased to see that you've read my little project.

I pondered at considerable length as how to best respond to your post. I would posit that perhaps you're approaching the petition as an aggregate number, in some small measure focusing on the 2161 experts and failing to see the individuals behind the number. I think that's a natural knee-jerk reaction to seeing it. In digging deeper into the petitioners' list, I sought to counteract that inclination, and hopefully put it in some context.

I think that, if pressed, you would concede that certain petitioners should be removed from the list, for various reasons:

1. What can we say about an individual who provides no bio, and yet was vetted by Gage, et al? Is that person an expert?

2. What does a respondent have to contribute if they provide no 9/11 statement at all?

3. What expert opinion about the collapses of the towers can be gleaned from someone who is a mining engineer? A city planner? An historic preservation specialist? A CAD artist? A LEED developer? A sustainable/green architect? A geodetic surveyor? An agricultural engineer? An aquacultural engineer? An Electrical Engineer? A Software engineer? A systems engineer? An electronics engineer?

You might draw different lines than did I, but I think you would agree that lines must be drawn. Every professional's knowledge is not the same, just because they have "architect" or "engineer" in their titles.

I would think that, given your experience engaging Gage in debates, and the rebuttal videos you've put out over the years, you are in a unique position to offer some education and insight for those whose names are on the petition. If you were so inclined.

Oh, you can call me Brian.

Thoughts?

 

[DGM]

Oh yeah. So anyway, the A&E petition has credibility for me; it shows me that some people with training don't trust the common narrative. I don't see the point of eliminating people for the reasons you have. And while Gage hasn't formally presented the petition, it has been given repeatedly to congresspeople by AE911 people over the years, and the petition helps to give them credibility.

This is not really true. It only give an appearance of credibility. The only thing that would give them credibility would be if they actually produced evidence to support their claims.

The list is an appeal to authority.

 

[Mark F]

I think it is only fair to remind everyone the petition is fairly benign and easy to agree with. All these folks have actually done is lend their agreement to the idea a new investigation into the possible use of explosives at the WTC be conducted.

The petition does not actually say the WTC was a CD.

Therefore all these folks have agreed to is a renewed investigation into one aspect of the collapses. For all we know none of them may actually believe there was CD. Nor can we say what any of these folks think happened at the Pentagon or with Flight 93. And this is the point where I take serious objection with Truthers - when they claim there are "2,000 A&E's who think 9/11 was an inside job" or "...who think the WTC was blown up in a CD."

That isn't what they have signed on to.

 

[JayUtah]

It's interesting that Steven Jones is listed as a degreed engineer. To the best of my knowledge he never gained a degree in engineering, but in physics. He worked as engineer for a few years after graduating. But does this make him a "degreed engineer"?

Jones has no degree in any engineering field. Further I can attest from listening to his local presentations, before he was nationally famous, that he has little significant engineering knowledge or expertise. (The engineers in the room routinely walked out after only a few minutes of each presentation.)

It is entirely inappropriate to consider him a "degreed engineer" in this or any context.

 

[chrismohr]

Hi Brian,
I thought about my response too, and it is based on a typical journlistic prejudice in favor of the Bill of Rights. A&E's petition is an exercise in the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The bar is not set super-high. You just have to be an architect or engineer to sign a petition asking for a new investigation of 9/11. While I resent the way the importance of this petition is exaggerated, on the face of it I basically accept this from a "right to petition" point of view.
As for the question of who is then qualified to sign on this basis, I'd say "most of them." Obviously, a structural engineer is better qualified to weigh in on this question than a civil engineer. But if both went to engineering school, both got some engineering 101 classes that are foundational for all engineers, am I right? So any engineer knows more about basic engineering principles that a typical non-engineer, I believe. Same with architects: a guy who designs highrises is more qualified than someone who designs little greenhouses, but both understand architectural principles better than non-architects.
I think our disagreement comes from my resistance to your attempt to strip away the validity of these people's claims to be architects and engineers who have a collective right to exercise their First Amendment freedoms. On reflection, I doubt that is what you are trying to do. Since this is on a petition that has already gone to Congress in various ways (individuals have talked to their congresspeople about this petition), I'd rather err on the side of accepting the petition at face value.

 

[Mark F]

More important is why in regards to the petition do landscape architects, electrical engineers and the like get equal billing with structural engineers?

The way in which AE911T represent the petition is dishonest as the majority of those who sign do not have expertise in fields relevant to collapse forensics re: the WTC. Yet they all get treated as "experts".

 

[SpitfireIX]

I think our disagreement comes from my resistance to your attempt to strip away the validity of these people's claims to be architects and engineers who have a collective right to exercise their First Amendment freedoms. On reflection, I doubt that is what you are trying to do. Since this is on a petition that has already gone to Congress in various ways (individuals have talked to their congresspeople about this petition), I'd rather err on the side of accepting the petition at face value.

They have a right to petition the government for redress of their purported grievances. They have no right to expect to be taken seriously due to a fallacious appeal to authority. Landscape architects? Software engineers? Really? I have an AS in mechanical engineering technology (BS next December, if nothing goes wrong), and I'm more qualified that some of these people.

 

[JayUtah]

They have a right to petition the government for a redress of their grievances. They also have a right to free speech in attempting to persuade others to join them in the petition. However I agree with SpitfireIX that it is dishonest to do so based on false appeals to authority.

Any person may subscribe to a public petition as a matter of free speech. However, all speech carries a responsibility for what is spoken. A person persuaded to make a public subscription on the basis of falsely represented expertise has placed his reputation in jeopardy (however inconsequential, perhaps, in this case) because of exaggerated expertise. Granted that individual can decide for himself whom to believe, but I also argue that the people knowingly making misleading representations bear responsibility for the influence they have upon others.

 

[JSanderO]

Hi Brian,
I thought about my response too, and it is based on a typical journlistic prejudice in favor of the Bill of Rights. A&E's petition is an exercise in the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The bar is not set super-high. You just have to be an architect or engineer to sign a petition asking for a new investigation of 9/11. While I resent the way the importance of this petition is exaggerated, on the face of it I basically accept this from a "right to petition" point of view.
As for the question of who is then qualified to sign on this basis, I'd say "most of them." Obviously, a structural engineer is better qualified to weigh in on this question than a civil engineer. But if both went to engineering school, both got some engineering 101 classes that are foundational for all engineers, am I right? So any engineer knows more about basic engineering principles that a typical non-engineer, I believe. Same with architects: a guy who designs highrises is more qualified than someone who designs little greenhouses, but both understand architectural principles better than non-architects.
I think our disagreement comes from my resistance to your attempt to strip away the validity of these people's claims to be architects and engineers who have a collective right to exercise their First Amendment freedoms. On reflection, I doubt that is what you are trying to do. Since this is on a petition that has already gone to Congress in various ways (individuals have talked to their congresspeople about this petition), I'd rather err on the side of accepting the petition at face value.

Chris,
There are a number of problems with this strategy. For one it attempts to leverage credibility based on professional qualifications. ON the face of this it makes sense... who best to opine of something than those who have training and qualifications in the field under consideration? So we all tend to accept the validity of an "appeal to authority" argument. However, my experience is that the issue of tall building design, structural failures, fire disasters, progressive system failure are the main areas of expertise which matter. In fact it's a mix of disciplines and it seems to me that few to no persons on their petition, and perhaps anywhere have the expertise in the combination of engineering/ and science which is required to question and understand the destruction of the three buildings. I would argue that 99.99% of professionals are only marginally more qualified than the general public simply because of the complexity and esoteric nature of the event.

As an architect who does not have expertise in any of the required disciplines I at first impression was curious to say the least how massive structures could disintegrate as they did. It seemed counter intuitive to me. At the time I did not see any explanations which satisfied my own need to know and I was for a new investigation as the original ones failed ME. This led me to see what AE911T was doing with this and I volunteered and so forth... my story is on the net. I left the group because I saw that they offered nothing and a lot of what they claimed was false and misleading. They did no research and were marketing CD under the guise of a new investigation. I find that AE911T is not a professional association and had very done no technical work of value... which is what they want people to believe and do not disabuse them of this idea and that they are just a marketing operation. They are not interested in the "truth" or promoting facts which undermine the myth they are selling. They issue no corrections, nor have they changed any of their marketing materials in more than 6 years.

Since leaving AE991T I've encountered some intelligent people who have drilled into some technical matters related to the destruction of the towers. These persons don't seem to have a political agenda and if they do it doesn't seem to play apart in their analysis. This is very key to the AE911T claim which is centered around a government led conspiracy to cover up a very different plot than the one of hijackers flying planes into buildings.

Recently we see a group focus on trying to show that NIST made a crucial error and this is held up as a proof of this government conspiracy. People more intelligent that I have pointed out that this is simply a detail and based on a model with assumptions... not a complete real world data set. What the actual straw which broke the camel's back was is not as important as the basic claim that the steel frame could not resist the weakening and stresses from the amount of heat it was subjected too. So even their technical people attack straw men. If steel frames were not vulnerable to the effect of heat, we wouldn't have fire proofing and sprinkler systems.

Their experts are hardly experts at all. Most have not even a passing knowledge of the details of those towers. Most are not civil engineers, Most have no experience in fire disasters. None of them is a demolition expert. And the one they cite so often, Danny Jowenko hadn't even looked at the plans of the towers before being asked (tricked) to opine on a 15 second video. What competent professional would do such a thing? This is basically what their petition is... hype and marketing of supposed experts who are uninformed about 9/11 collapses. It's very disingenuous.

 

[Richard the G]

I think it is only fair to remind everyone the petition is fairly benign and easy to agree with. All these folks have actually done is lend their agreement to the idea a new investigation into the possible use of explosives at the WTC be conducted.

The petition does not actually say the WTC was a CD.

Therefore all these folks have agreed to is a renewed investigation into one aspect of the collapses. For all we know none of them may actually believe there was CD. Nor can we say what any of these folks think happened at the Pentagon or with Flight 93. And this is the point where I take serious objection with Truthers - when they claim there are "2,000 A&E's who think 9/11 was an inside job" or "...who think the WTC was blown up in a CD."

That isn't what they have signed on to.

I completely agree.

Interestingly if you consider the importance of the event and think that the list of people who did not demand a new investigation would be 500 times longer.

 

[Brainster]

1 of those 6 names is Gage himself.

Thoughts?

Is Gage really a tall-building architect? When he first started AE911T he claimed that his expertise was in designing steel-framed gymnasiums (by which I assume he was talking about the steel joists holding up the roof).

Great work.

 

[JSanderO]

Is Gage really a tall-building architect? When he first started AE911T he claimed that his expertise was in designing steel-framed gymnasiums (by which I assume he was talking about the steel joists holding up the roof).

Great work.

So where IS Gage's resume?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

EDIT: How the heck do I keep getting the wrong thread!!!??? D:
Disregard....