"Civil Engineers for 9/11 honesty" Why not?

[FactCheck]

Would creating a group called "Civil Engineers for 9/11 honesty" (Or something else) help counter the so called scholars for 9/11 truth? Would civil engineers get involved to stop the nonsense?

I think a group like this could put the nail in the truther coffin but I don't think they would bother with such an org. I think it does deserve debate though. Maybe we should try? Is it a waste of time and why?

 

[Brainache]

Isn't there already such an organisation? Called NITS or something?

 

[Unfit4Command]

Isn't there already such an organisation? Called NITS or something?

But they're government engineers, so everything they say is a lie. Remember, working for a government agency automatically makes you a robot, who has no problem helping cover up false flag terror operations by the US government.

 

[FactCheck]

Isn't there already such an organisation? Called NITS or something?

It's NIST and it doesn't include anyone who wants in. I'm talking about letting thousands join. Something where we can double check each member is a REAL CE. You know, a true scholars for truth.

 

[Unfit4Command]

It's NIST and it doesn't include anyone who wants in. I'm talking about letting thousands join. Something where we can double check each member is a REAL CE. You know, a true scholars for truth.

Sounds like a good idea, we just need to convince the best person out there for researching this topic into joining, I'm talking about Judy Wood of course.

 

[Brainache]

But they're government engineers, so everything they say is a lie. Remember, working for a government agency automatically makes you a robot, who has no problem helping cover up false flag terror operations by the US government.

Oh right. Sorry. I forgot. The engineers I knew at Uni were all busy building beer can pyramids and insulting us weak-brained arts students. Not really what I would have called robot material, until I met this guy:

 

[Vincent Vega]

With a name like that it would attract Truthers like moths to a flame.

Need somthing like "Civil Engineers for Non-9/11 beam weapon and/or thermite honesty"

 

[VespaGuy]

Why not something like Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18)?

 

[Brainache]

With a name like that it would attract Truthers like moths to a flame.

Need somthing like "Civil Engineers for Non-9/11 beam weapon and/or thermite honesty"

How about: Civil Engineers And Structural Engineers For Actual Truth? Or CEASE FAT for short.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why not something like Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18)?

Damn, I was about to say that but you beat me to it. The problem with emulating Project Steve, though, is that it's only funny the first time.

Dave

 

[FactCheck]

How about: Civil Engineers And Structural Engineers For Actual Truth? Or CEASE FAT for short.

I was leaning toward "Scholastic Honesty In Theories" but that didn't work for obvious reasons.

 

[VespaGuy]

Damn, I was about to say that but you beat me to it. The problem with emulating Project Steve, though, is that it's only funny the first time.
Dave

I admit that Project Steve is humorous, but I think that it is also a great way to show how scientists aren't really 'split' about evolution.

I think that the same type of project with engineers in regards to 9/11 would have a similar effect. Maybe not as original, but still very powerful to those folks who may just be learning of these 9/11 conspiracies.

 

[rwguinn]

I was leaning toward "Scholastic Honesty In Theories" but that didn't work for obvious reasons.

Civil Engineers, Archetects,and Structural Engineers For Intellectually Realistic Environments?

 

[Augustine]

Truthfully I don't think there would be much interest. Do the so-called "Scholars" really need countering? Engineers as a group tend to be very practical and pragmatic, and I think many would tend to feel the way I do many times in dealing with "truthers": what is the point? Why argue with a brick wall? If Leslie Robertson, Dr. Charles Thornton, Dr. Gene Corley, Dr. Zdenek Bazant, Dr. Shankar Nair, and other engineering heavyweights don't convince you, how will my word? This would be the equivalent of running the medical advice of a world-class surgeon past your local GP. Unless the "truth movement" gains some traction, I doubt many engineers would feel the need to state the obvious - and if they did, it would likely be through ASCE or SEI.

 

[VespaGuy]

Truthfully I don't think there would be much interest. Do the so-called "Scholars" really need countering? Engineers as a group tend to be very practical and pragmatic, and I think many would tend to feel the way I do many times in dealing with "truthers": what is the point? Why argue with a brick wall? If Leslie Robertson, Dr. Charles Thornton, Dr. Gene Corley, Dr. Zdenek Bazant, Dr. Shankar Nair, and other engineering heavyweights don't convince you, how will my word? This would be the equivalent of running the medical advice of a world-class surgeon past your local GP. Unless the "truth movement" gains some traction, I doubt many engineers would feel the need to state the obvious - and if they did, it would likely be through ASCE or SEI.

That's an excellent point. In the case of evolution (and Project Steve) I think that it's more a matter of science and education. Evolution is an integral part of many different disciplines. I can't think of any reason why a biologist would not wish to categorically express their support of evolution in schools as opposed to pseudoscientific religious dogma.

9/11 is an entirely different matter. Engineers really don't have a dog in this fight. If a fringe group of folks (and let's face it, it's a fringe) want to believe in space weapons and thermite, why should they care? It doesn't affect their profession. We've seen the stalker-type behaviour from the truthers in the past when anyone vocally dismisses their fairytale. I don't think too many engineers would want to open themselves up to that type of abuse.

As you said, the "truth movement" would have to be more than a few nuts with banners and videos before many engineers would even feel obliged to comment. Hopefully (yup, I said hopefully), Loose Change 3 does get theatrical release. I honestly can't wait. If Dylan hopes to wake up the world, he can expect to also wake up the engineers and other experts who, until now, can't be bothered with his juvenile drivel.

Bring on LC3!

 

[Newtons Bit]

Actually VespaGuy, as part of the Engineering Code of Ethics, we are encouraged or even required to educate the population on engineering matters, especially when there's a large amount of wrong information floating about.

 

[Donal]

Yes, but isn't that why there are the jounals and periodicals? You guys aren't really keeping this information secret.

The CTists are simply ignoring what you are putting out.

 

[VespaGuy]

Actually VespaGuy, as part of the Engineering Code of Ethics, we are encouraged or even required to educate the population on engineering matters, especially when there's a large amount of wrong information floating about.

I stand corrected.

However, I would guess that most engineers aren't even aware of the conspiracies surrounding 9/11. Considering the small (albeit vocal) number of CTs, I just can't see why they would want to join a group that dismisses such ludicrous theories as explosives, mini-nukes, thermi/ate and space beams.

Would a reputable scientist join a "Scientists Supporting a Round Earth" group, just to counter a few wingnuts who may still beleive the world is flat? I doubt it.

 

[T.A.M.]

I would like to see such an organization come to be...good luck.

I would also like to see an antithesis to Scholars occur, so that I could be a part, as could other, non-engineer academics here.

TAM

 

[Augustine]

Actually VespaGuy, as part of the Engineering Code of Ethics, we are encouraged or even required to educate the population on engineering matters, especially when there's a large amount of wrong information floating about.

I think the closest you will get is under the guidelines for Canon 3 of the ASCE Code of Ethics (most Engineer Code of Ethics are very similar):

Engineers should endeavor to extend the public knowledge of engineering and sustainable development, and shall not participate in the dissemination of untrue, unfair or exaggerated statements regarding engineering.

The guidelines for Canon 1 could be a bit of a stretch:

Engineers should seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their communities,

Does this mean that I have an ethical obligation to engage every ill-informed "truther" who claims that structural collapse was impossible and explosives must have been set despite the fact they have no feasible, rational, logistical plan or proof of said explosives?

Bit of a stretch, I think - especially since I can honestly state I have never met a truther in person, don't know any - and I think most engineers (and perhaps most people) are the same - zero personal exposure to this kind of insanity. Like I said, if the movement starts to gain traction, more engineers will speak out, but right now, I think the "movement" is little more than a speck on the radar screen.