Ed Beyond misinformation

[Oystein]

Just to add on a bit......I looked at the numbers a few years ago as well. At that time, there were about 90-95k licensed architects in the US. As for engineers......most states only have one P.E. license......i.e. an electrical, mechanical, civil and structural engineer all have the exact same license and it is up to the individual to practice (and seal documents) up to their own acknowledged expertise. In recent years, some states have moved to create a separate "structural engineer" (S.E.) http://www.engineering.com/Library/...ructural-Engineer-SE-Licensure-Explained.aspx

Thanks - didn't know that. It's a good development - and long overdue.

I want to add though: Most states already differentiate the various engineering branches - you are licensed as a "civil" engineer OR as an "electrical" OR "chemical" etc. Just separating the "structural" from the "civil" engineer is new.
It happens that an engineer has two or more P.E. licenses for different branches from the same state. It more often happens that an engineer has P.E. licenses for the same branch from two or more states (which is why you can't simply count and add PE licenses from the 50 states to determine the number of licensed engineers).

 

[ozeco41]

@Georgio - sorry for the delay - time to respond to this request:

e.g. Tony's most prominent work was the paper "Missing Jolt"
--are you aware of it?
--Do you know what was wrong with it?
--do you want an explanation of what was wrong?
--What level of explanation - broad overview OR details?

I am aware of it but haven't read it. I think I know what was wrong with it (from your explanations it is to do with analyzing the wrong stage of collapse, similar to the Steven Dusterwald claims you invalidated for me). If you would be so kind I would welcome another explanation (broad overview).

Will do - give me a few hours to think about it.

OK - the "few hours" has passed so here is the broad overview.

Stated simply the theme of the "Missing Jolt" paper by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti is that the North Tower collapse sequence saw the "Top Block" starting to fall. That in falling the Top Block would impact on the structurally sound lower tower and the impact would cause a "big jolt". There was no observable jolt THEREFORE the collapse must have been caused by CD.

There are many things wrong with their argument but initially I will focus on two errors and explain where they originated.

Error #1 - Wrong Sequence - The scenario for impacting by landing on columns never existed - the opportunity already missed by the time the Top Block is falling.

Error #2 - Wrong Mechanism - the scenario for a jolt presumes that the falling "Top Block" will land on the intact columns of the lower tower. It didn't.

Take a look at this brief video clip - it is south Tower - WTC2 - but the principles are the same for both towers.

....watch this clip to refresh what bit of collapse we are discussing. It is WTC2 but the WTC1 mechanism involved the same factors- different balance but same factors:


what do we see?
Step P - At 1 second -Settling - early motion - mostly vertical as columns failing in some sort of sequence;
Step Q - By 4 seconds - significant tilt of the Top Block - Base of Top Block moves horizontally to the right - ensures column ends are out of line;
Step R - At ~5 seconds rapid downwards dropping with no obvious extra tilt;
Step S - At 6 seconds - disappears into dust.

Error #2 - Wrong Mechanism arises because Szamboti assumes that the falling Top Block will land on the lower tower with each top part of a broken/cut column impacting on its own lower part. False assumption - the key feature of the Twin Towers collapses is that columns did not land with top and bottom parts aligned. They missed - see next paragraph.

Error #1 - Wrong Sequence is because the columns missing occurred in step "P" of my explanation in the quote. Columns missing was part of the process which allowed the Top Block to start to fall at step "Q"

The columns had already missed impact BEFORE the stage "Q" of falling Top Block was reached. Sequence error - it was already too late.

So that is the first stage "broad overview" which is a pre-emptive strike against "Missing Jolt" - wrong starting premises therefore wrong hypothesis.

I can explain in more detail if you need more. Be aware of two issues:
1) The underlying causal problem is complicated - it is a failure to understand the three dimensional process of "cascade failure" of the initiation stage; AND
2) There is a long history of confusion on both "sides" - often vehemently denied.

How Did These Errors Arise?
The main cause of errors by Szamboti and MacQueen is that they improperly applied some work published by Prof Z Bazant. This paper.

The paper was a conceptually valid "limit case" analysis. "Limit Case" because the the worst case for collapse OR best case for survival of the Towers was if the columns remained properly in line resisting the fall of the Top Block. Bazant and Zhou in the paper claimed that even in that "best case for survival" limit case there was more than sufficient energy to ensure global collapse. So obviously in any less safe scenario there was also more than enough energy. The Towers were doomed according to Bazant and Zhou no matter what the details of mechanism.

BUT that "best case for survival" did not happen. The columns did not align and the Top Block did not drop into impact causing a "big jolt".

The real situation is subsumed in stage "P" of my quote above. "...Settling - early motion - mostly vertical as columns failing in some sort of sequence".

I posted a fuller explanation in this thread.[ It may be too comprehensive for your need at this stage.

Summary
Szamboti and MacQueen's "Missing Jolt" is wrong for a host of reasons. The two fundamental ones IMO being:
(A) they assumed a wrong mechanism; and
(B) they assumed a false sequence.

The causal errors which led them astray being:
(C) they applied literally the assumptions made by Prof Bazant for a different scenario; and
(D) They don't comprehend the 3D mechanism of the cascade failure which was the collapse initiation stage.

Are there any points which need further explanation?

 

[dudalb]

Has anyone else noted the fact Georgio has refused to address the qualifications of those on the "list" and how they are an insignificant number? How about how ineffective they are convincing their peers? My guess is this truth is just too inconvenient for our "fence-sitter".

That we might be dealing with an elaborate variation on 'Just Asking Questions" has gone through my mind.

 

[Georgio]

Thank you very much for that ozeco41 - I will read it carefully along with the response to Jango thread and the missing jolt paper and get back to you soon in that thread.

 

[Georgio]

That we might be dealing with an elaborate variation on 'Just Asking Questions" has gone through my mind.

Well, I'm sorry but that's how I learn things so I'm afraid I'll be JAQing off in your face for quite a while yet. Open wide!

 

[ozeco41]

That we might be dealing with an elaborate variation on 'Just Asking Questions" has gone through my mind.

I doubt it - my experience with Georgio has been positive - try this example.

--- hence the liberties I took pressing him hard in recent posts when he gently suggested that I "Stop prodding me with your pitchfork"

I was pushing hard. Subtlety is sometimes not my strong point.


EDIT PS OOPS - crossed in posting - Georgio beat me to it..

 

[ozeco41]

Thank you very much for that ozeco41 - I will read it carefully along with the response to Jango thread and the missing jolt paper and get back to you soon in that thread.

We crossed in the post. Twice. I was digging up the reference to Dusterwald.

No rush - and I agree that the other thread is more appropriate.

Well, I'm sorry but that's how I learn things so I'm afraid I'll be JAQing off in your face for quite a while yet. Open wide!

Go for it Georgio.

 

[ozeco41]

Thank you very much for that ozeco41 - I will read it carefully along with the response to Jango thread and the missing jolt paper and get back to you soon in that thread.

Red face department.

I just reviewed my post #82 and I made an error - twice. Delete references to "Q" - substitute "R".

These bits:

Error #1 - Wrong Sequence is because the columns missing occurred in step "P" of my explanation in the quote. Columns missing was part of the process which allowed the Top Block to start to fall at step "Q" << Should be R

The columns had already missed impact BEFORE the stage "Q" << Should be R of falling Top Block was reached. Sequence error - it was already too late...

...mumble..mumble....grrr...

 

[Oystein]

By the way:

Last night (that's yesterday late in the afternoon in California) I received email, announcing they had raised 2/3 of $50,000, enough to fund the mailing of about 12,000 of the 20,000 booklets. Well 12k * $2.50 = $30,000 is only 60%, not 67%...
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=be55ea89d2

Two nights earlier, they were at 1/3 / ~7,000 copies ($17,500)
http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=52a764e024

Does that mean they found 1,000 dummies who parted with $30, as requested? 1,000 copies not going to architects and engineers but instead to already convinced truthies.

 

[cantonear1968]

By the way:

Last night (that's yesterday late in the afternoon in California) I received email, announcing they had raised 2/3 of $50,000, enough to fund the mailing of about 12,000 of the 20,000 booklets. Well 12k * $2.50 = $30,000 is only 60%, not 67%...
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=be55ea89d2

Two nights earlier, they were at 1/3 / ~7,000 copies ($17,500)
http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=52a764e024

Does that mean they found 1,000 dummies who parted with $30, as requested? 1,000 copies not going to architects and engineers but instead to already convinced truthies.

Do you have an opinion on the truthiness of this claim? I seem to remember campaigns in the past where it was "we'll match what comes in" and the thought was it was AE911T'S own funds to stimulate donations.

 

[DGM]

Do you have an opinion on the truthiness of this claim? I seem to remember campaigns in the past where it was "we'll match what comes in" and the thought was it was AE911T'S own funds to stimulate donations.

There is none. 9/11 ae plays fast and loose with the numbers. Look at the tax returns and compare them to the proposed/claimed campaigns.

Bottom line. The people/groups that are giving the money don't care (and it's not the concerned "truther").

Quick little trivia question. Besides being an architect, what was Richard Gage involved in prior to AE9/11?

 

[Oystein]

Do you have an opinion on the truthiness of this claim? I seem to remember campaigns in the past where it was "we'll match what comes in" and the thought was it was AE911T'S own funds to stimulate donations.

Impossible to assess. I have seen a few commenters at Facebook and at 911Blogger boasting proudly that they are waiting for their copy, which implies they "bought" it for the recommended $30, but to extrapolate from a handful to 1000 would be ... urrr ... "adventurous".

The last financial info I have from AE911Truth is their 2013 IRS Form 990 statement. 2013 was a very good year for Gage, with much increased money inflow. People are donating in scores - whether in response to calls for specific causes, or sustaining members with monthly payments, or one-off big-time donors. Plenty of wiggle room for Gage to pretend that fund drives are going well, but in the end it really doesn't matter where, when and how the money is coming in, as long as enough fools part with enough of their money to keep the show running.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary however, my null-hypothesis is to assume the "truthiness of this claim".

 

[ozeco41]

Smoke and mirrors.

 

[Animal]

Impossible to assess. I have seen a few commenters at Facebook and at 911Blogger boasting proudly that they are waiting for their copy, which implies they "bought" it for the recommended $30, but to extrapolate from a handful to 1000 would be ... urrr ... "adventurous".

The last financial info I have from AE911Truth is their 2013 IRS Form 990 statement. 2013 was a very good year for Gage, with much increased money inflow. People are donating in scores - whether in response to calls for specific causes, or sustaining members with monthly payments, or one-off big-time donors. Plenty of wiggle room for Gage to pretend that fund drives are going well, but in the end it really doesn't matter where, when and how the money is coming in, as long as enough fools part with enough of their money to keep the show running vacation travel bookings.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary however, my null-hypothesis is to assume the "truthiness of this claim".

FTFY

 

[WilliamSeger]

enough of their money to keep the show running vacation travel bookings.

FTFY

I'm sure Gage had already made non-refundable reservations before someone thought of sending out these brochures; otherwise I'm sure he would have given up his vacation this year for this important cause.

 

[cantonear1968]

Impossible to assess. I have seen a few commenters at Facebook and at 911Blogger boasting proudly that they are waiting for their copy, which implies they "bought" it for the recommended $30, but to extrapolate from a handful to 1000 would be ... urrr ... "adventurous".

The last financial info I have from AE911Truth is their 2013 IRS Form 990 statement. 2013 was a very good year for Gage, with much increased money inflow. People are donating in scores - whether in response to calls for specific causes, or sustaining members with monthly payments, or one-off big-time donors. Plenty of wiggle room for Gage to pretend that fund drives are going well, but in the end it really doesn't matter where, when and how the money is coming in, as long as enough fools part with enough of their money to keep the show running.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary however, my null-hypothesis is to assume the "truthiness of this claim".

Thanks Oystein. I see, and I didn't mean to suggest any conclusions could be drawn. I was just interested in your opinion because I know you're extremely knowledgeable on the organization itself and its supporters.

One last question if you don't mind: do you know if Gage is in good standing as a member of the AIA? I don't mean the recent vote and I know they have publicly stated they do not support his theories. I'm just wondering if he is indeed still a member of the AIA as he promotes himself. Thanks.

 

[Oystein]

One last question if you don't mind: do you know if Gage is in good standing as a member of the AIA? I don't mean the recent vote and I know they have publicly stated they do not support his theories. I'm just wondering if he is indeed still a member of the AIA as he promotes himself. Thanks.

Short answer: I don't know, but am not aware of any circumstance that might put this in doubt.

Last time I checked (several months ago), his license as an architect in California was active, with no disciplinary notice. That's the first requirement for regular AIA membership. The second would be that he payed his membership dues.

I'd be much surprised if the AIA moved as much as a finger to remove Gage. As a lobby group, they are interested in keeping numbers and incoming payments up.

 

[cantonear1968]

Short answer: I don't know, but am not aware of any circumstance that might put this in doubt.

Last time I checked (several months ago), his license as an architect in California was active, with no disciplinary notice. That's the first requirement for regular AIA membership. The second would be that he payed his membership dues.

I'd be much surprised if the AIA moved as much as a finger to remove Gage. As a lobby group, they are interested in keeping numbers and incoming payments up.

No, I didn't think the AIA would remove Gage for his beliefs or his activism. I was wondering if there was some sort of rule about being an active working architect; Gage obviously has not participated in any jobs in years, and I thought that might make him ineligible for the AIA.

Thank you very much for your response.

 

[Oystein]

By the way:

Last night (that's yesterday late in the afternoon in California) I received email, announcing they had raised 2/3 of $50,000, enough to fund the mailing of about 12,000 of the 20,000 booklets. Well 12k * $2.50 = $30,000 is only 60%, not 67%...
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=be55ea89d2

Two nights earlier, they were at 1/3 / ~7,000 copies ($17,500)
http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=52a764e024

Does that mean they found 1,000 dummies who parted with $30, as requested? 1,000 copies not going to architects and engineers but instead to already convinced truthies.

Four nights later - last night - another email asking me for a $30 donation:
What’s Inside “Beyond Misinformation”

Now they claim they have funds for 13,000 booklets mailed - that's about +$2500 since four days ago.

So what IS inside the pamphlet:

• ...AE911Truth’s first-ever comprehensive guide to the WTC evidence.
• ...
• It will present the evidence in an even-handed, unbiased tone likely to make even the most unwilling readers pay serious attention.

The first: What?! They have not had a comprehensive presentation of the evidence in eight years of getting rich???
The latter: Yeah, right.

 

[cantonear1968]

Four nights later - last night - another email asking me for a $30 donation:
What’s Inside “Beyond Misinformation”

Now they claim they have funds for 13,000 booklets mailed - that's about +$2500 since four days ago.

So what IS inside the pamphlet:

The first: What?! They have not had a comprehensive presentation of the evidence in eight years of getting rich???
The latter: Yeah, right.

Here's the dilemma that I don't think any CTers who reference AE911T ever think about: they have attempted to establish themselves as a technical and scientific organization to present an alternative hypothesis, yet they are little more than a advocacy group. A self serving one at that, existing to raise more funds to raise more funds. What never seems to bother CTers is that Gage or AE911T, to my knowledge, has never released a technical paper to explain and/or support their hypothesis. And, really, if any of their 2000+ A & E's who have signed the petition have offered any sort of an opinion on the WTC collapses, it normally is nothing more than "It didn't look right.".