Any AE911Truth supporters want to explain this?

1337m4n

Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
1337m4n
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
3,510
People who have signed the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" petition have the following professions/degrees.

Would a supporter care to explain to me how a person with the following professions/degrees would know ANY more about the mechanics and physics of the WTC collapses than the average person?

--Naval Architect
--Intern Architect
--Urban Planner
--Landscape Architecture
--Urban Activist
--Associate AIA, Design Principal
--Engineering Staff
--Systems Engineering
--Mechanical Engineer
--Technical Consultant
--Electrical Engineering
--Mechanical Design Engineer
--Managing Consultant
--Geological Engineer
--Chemical Engineer
--Engineering Management Consultant
--Nuclear Engineer
--Chemist
--Software Developer (wtf?)
--Laboratory Manager
--Project Manager
--Computer Engineer (wtf?)
--Reliability Engineering Consultant (W T F?)
--Author, Publisher, Filmmaker (OMG!)
--Electronics Engineer
--Software Engineering Consultant (sigh)
--Environmental and Water Resources
--Graduate Engineer for Landscape and Environmental
--Philosophy of Religion & Theology (guess who?)
--Political Activist
--Programmer
--Digital Sculptor (????)
--Electrical Motor Repair Technician
--Musical Composer (there's no way that's anything but fluff)
--Teacher
--Concerned Citizen (I kid you not, those are the exact words on the site)
--Community Activist
--Electrical Contractor
--Business Owner
--Biological Sciences
--Brother of Firefighter Kevin Smith, deceased 9/11 (that's appalling on so many levels)
--Cad Manager
--Retired Government Worker
--Master Photographer
--None (it seriously says that for one of the signatories)
--...can't...go...on...anymore...too...much...BS...signatures...(and I don't mean "bachelor of science"!)


Truthers: Do you agree that it is intellectual dishonesty for them to include the signatures of anyone but structural engineers, civil engineers, demolition experts, firefighters, and highrise architects?
 
Last edited:
A Mechanical Engineer should have a fairly decent grasp of the physics involved. Architects DO actually know a few more things about structural engineering than the average joe does (there's a section on structural engineering on their liscensing exam).

The others shouldn't be on the list.
 
1337m4n said:
People who have signed the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" petition have the following professions/degrees.

Would a supporter care to explain to me how a person with the following professions/degrees would know ANY more about the mechanics and physics of the WTC collapses than the average person?

--snip

Truthers: Do you agree that it is intellectual dishonesty for them to include the signatures of anyone but structural engineers, civil engineers, demolition experts, firefighters, and highrise architects?
Click to expand...
Job titles are meaningless. A Naval Architect could have a ME or CE background. A structural Engineer is a specialized Civil/Mechanical)
I want to see degree titles--I will accept as being appropriate:
Engineers: Mechanical, Civil, Architectural
Physicists--Classical--Newtonian/non-quantum)(:D), no nuclear anything
 
Should be renamed....

"People who like Engineering and Architecture for 9/11 truth"

TAM:)
 
An Intern Architect is one name for someone who has a professional degree in architecture, meaning they are qualified to take the licensing exam, but have not yet finished the 3-5 year IDP (Intern Development Program). This apprenticeship is required to be completed under the supervision of a fully-licensed professional. During this period, one must document and be able to demonstrate that they have spent a certain number of hours working in several distinct aspects of the profession. Then, the young architect may take the exam(s) and receive his or her seal.

Basically, that is where I am at, two and a half years in. There are differing opinions as to what to call the position, and I think it really depends on who you're talking to and what the conversation is about. It's criminal for someone without a license to misrepresent themselves as an architect in any sort of professional matter, but in everyday sort of chit-chat with laypeople I find it's just simpler to say "architect" when people ask what you do, rather than giving the more in-depth explanation. At my firm, my job title is "Architectural Associate" which is mainly to distinguish my position and qualifications from those of draftsmen or actual (college kid) interns, without indiscriminately applying the term "Architect".

An Intern Architect should, in theory, be able to understand and relate much more about structures than the average layperson, as they've completed a 5 or 6 year degree in the field, but their comprehensive knowledge would almost certainly be less than that of a newly degreed structural or civil engineer.

Also, the Associate AIA, Design Principal should probably be very familiar with these subjects, but that doesn't necessarily go for everyone as so many architects nowadays rely so heavily upon their engineering consultants as to not really have much competence in structures anymore. In fact, we've had fully licensed and registered architects who are members of the AIA outsource the structural design of some of their smaller projects to my firm, recently.
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
Say what? You're tellin' me that you can't explain 9/11 with string theory or quantum mechanics?

So disappointed... I don't think you're trying hard enough... ;)
Click to expand...

Well, sure--I can, but it is obvious that nobody on this forum could possibly understand it*


I really mean it. NOBODY*!















*
Well,---except possibly max P...
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Say what? You're tellin' me that you can't explain 9/11 with string theory or quantum mechanics?

So disappointed... I don't think you're trying hard enough... ;)
Click to expand...

You have to use really advanced concepts to explain how the particle beam weapons vaporized all that steel they hauled away so fast.
 
rcronk said:
You have to use really advanced concepts to explain how the particle beam weapons vaporized all that steel they hauled away so fast.
Click to expand...


See--It involves those extra 8 (or is it 9) dimensions that curl around and are so tiny they don't matter in the ordinary course of events. It is these circumstances that they were ... designed ... for.
It's definitely quantum, too..
 
So how many relevant experts does AE911 have?

I know Richard Gage is putting great stock in his group one day reaching 1,000 names...at which point we'll all be sorry. :rolleyes:
 
CHF said:
So how many relevant experts does AE911 have?

I know Richard Gage is putting great stock in his group one day reaching 1,000 names...at which point we'll all be sorry. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Sorry that the world has 1,000 idiots on 9/11 topics!
 
1337m4n said:
Would a supporter care to explain to me how a person with the following professions/degrees would know ANY more about the mechanics and physics of the WTC collapses than the average person?
Click to expand...

I'm clearly not a supporter... but you've listed engineers and other highly technical professions. So... Yes? Obviously? I'm kind of amazed no one else has pointed this out, to be honest.

Engineers take college level classes on calculus, physics, statics, dynamics, etc. Is it enough to be an expert, or claim expertise? No. But it's -plenty- more than the average person.

Why wouldn't someone whose taken differential, integral, and multivariate calculus and an ordinary differential equations course be more equipped to understand the mechanics and physics of the collapse?

While I agree that it would ridiculous for me and other engineers who aren't structural/etc to claim sufficient expertise to make claims in these areas, it's certainly false to claim we are no more qualified as "the average person".

For god's sake, I can derive the kinematic equations from Newton's Law. Doesn't that already put me ahead of an average person? I can simulate an elementary model of the collapse on my computer in a matter of minutes. Doesn't that count for something?

Truthers: Do you agree that it is intellectual dishonesty for them to include the signatures of anyone but structural engineers, civil engineers, demolition experts, firefighters, and highrise architects?
Click to expand...
Well that's not exactly how you phrased the original question, is it?
 
Last edited:
CHF said:
So how many relevant experts does AE911 have?

I know Richard Gage is putting great stock in his group one day reaching 1,000 names...at which point we'll all be sorry. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If I'm ever bored I'll probably calculate a credibility "score" for AE911Truth. It'll go something like this:

+2 points for signatories who would be highly qualified on the issue (structural/civil engineers, highrise architects, firefighters)(Bonus +1 if they have a PhD. Bonus +1 if their profession matches their degree)

+1 points for signatories who would be somewhat qualified (mechanical engineers, common architects, interns)

+/-0 points for "students"

-1 points for signatories with no credentials listed

-2 points for signatories with absurd credentials listed ("concerned citizen")

-5 points for "Brother of Firefighter Kevin Smith, deceased 9/11"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom