I don't see the problem with having three groups, clearly listed out. It makes it easier for folks to parse through to see their credentials. They do check credentials.
No. You misunderstand.
They are in different groups. They started making the first claim, then couldn't raise the numbers so they CHANGED their criteria to increase the numbers... They still couldn't raise them so they CHANGED their criteria yet again.
it is outright lying by implying that everyone who is classified as a architectural/engineering professional is qualified, licensed or degreed. When in fact 1/3 of that number are NOT qualified, not licensed or degreed.
~10% membership structural/civil is not bad. How many structural/civil engineers do we have here that will submit their credentials for review?
Yet the whole premise of the petition is that they have 1,000 architects and engineers (which I have just shown you they don't have. They have 1,000 architectural and engineering professionals... which is a big difference)
Why do they have to inflate their numbers? Why not just say we have 100 structural engineers who disagree?
AS for your other BS. As far as I know every engineer here is willing to submit their credentials to review to an independent arbiter. in fact it has been done for several.
I don't see a problem with adding office workers, filing clerks, secretaries as long as they provide proof on who they are, to prevent the Fred and Barney syndrome again.
You don't see the problem with the office workers being included in the 1000 members? Really? Is the office secretary qualified to make any claims about architectural or engineering issues? Why change the petition to include these individuals? it is just an appeal to authority.
They are signing a petition for a new investigation. What's wrong with letting draftsmen sign? I've worked with several draftsmen that have as much knowledge and experience as an engineer, they just chose not to pursue the degree.
again my previous line. Ain't that special. I know several draftsmen who should be engineers too. But that isn't what this is about. Including draftsmen, copy boys, filing clerks, summer interns, and secretaries in the list is dishonest, isn't it?
And on the flip side, I've know engineers who I wouldn't trust to design my dog house.
I believe, in the beginning, there were a lot of folks spamming the site so they had to shut it down and start over. They use to also have a message board, but they shut it down too, I think because there were too many arguments that one had to sign the petition in order to blog.
It is a joke. That is what it is.
Very simple. Ready?
How many peer reviewed engineering/architectural analysis of the events of 9/11 have these 1000 professionals compiled in the previous 8 years?
(i'll give you a hint... it sounds like Zero)
And to make matters more intersting...
from that list we have
it was CD explosives
no it was thermite
no it was fake planes
no it was mininukes
no it was ...
...
...
Can they just provide any narrative of the day? It is usually a good starting point. I'll wait for it.