Message from a Truther

Stellafane said:
Hell, I myself have had the word "engineer" in my job title on occasion. I've even designed post-and-beam barns and built them with my own two hands. Those two things together would probably qualify me as president of the weird little A&E club. Yet I wouldn't set foot in any skyscraper I designed.
Click to expand...

Most states allow any joe-blow to do that. However once you get beyond a certain complexity, which is simple framed wood construction, you need a license.
 
Hokulele said:
Or herself. ;)

But yeah, most of the EIT's I have known generally use the title Junior Engineer, or some such.
Click to expand...

Is this something common for structural engineers and architects?

In my field the title of "junior engineer" is usually related to years of experience....not to the EIT or FE exam.

In fact I think I only know 2 fellow EE's that even took the EIT...I don't know any EE's that have taken the PE exam....

Of course this is likely due to the type of work I am involved in.....
 
Hey Deep, the fact that A&E for Twoof exaggerates the number of engineers etc is one thing, but how do you respond to the weird claims the group makes?

For example, there was a commercial with Richard Gage (on Visibility 9/11) from 2009, which contained at least two completely false and misleading claims.

1) Female V/O says 'that WTC7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds'. That is a false statement. The collapse in fact took at least 14 seconds.
2) Gage claims in the ad that 90,000 tons of concrete were missing, 'pulverized' into a find dust.
3) WTC7 fell 'in the exact manner of a controlled demolition'. This again is an outright lie. Unless you want to redefine the meaning of the word 'exact' it's bullcrap.

I am not impressed that this organization is using these clearly false statements as their calling card.

I suppose you'll excuse them for the untrue or inaccurate statements, but I'd be interested to know if you can find a building that was destroyed by controlled demolition in 'the exact manner' of WTC 7.

Can you find one? I don't think it exists, so how could it be 'exact'?

Something to think about, isn't it? Just asking questions....
 
newton3376 said:
Is this something common for structural engineers and architects?

In my field the title of "junior engineer" is usually related to years of experience....not to the EIT or FE exam.

In fact I think I only know 2 fellow EE's that even took the EIT...I don't know any EE's that have taken the PE exam....

Of course this is likely due to the type of work I am involved in.....
Click to expand...


I don't know, my direct experience has been with civil engineers and structural engineers working on superstructure design (bridges and the like). Usually they will be billed out as a "Junior Engineer" while they have their EIT, an "Engineer" once they get their PE, and a "Senior Engineer" once they have had so many years of experience.

That could just be a regional thing, though.
 
Hokulele said:
At any rate, it is quite clear that stating they have 640 architects and engineers is either an outright lie, or equivocation at its finest.
Click to expand...


The name of their organization is not "Licensed Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". Their member list clearly differentiates between licensed/degreed & degreed professionals - nothing is being misrepresented.
 
deep44 said:
The name of their organization is not "Licensed Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". Their member list clearly differentiates between licensed/degreed & degreed professionals - nothing is being misrepresented.
Click to expand...

Listen to yourself. You don't need to excuse their behavior. In fact you probably shouldn't.

Have you any explanation for the untrue and misleading statements they make in their advertisments?

No comment?
 
Deep, at least try to answer some of these questions:

In the sequence of collapse of WTC7, what happened first? (Hint: what gave way first, and what is the evidence for it?)

How long did the entire collapse take, from start to finish?


A&E Truth says '6.5 seconds' in their advertisment. True or false?

Don't defend falsehoods, defend truth. That's all I ask.
 
Hokulele said:
More equivocation.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that the term "engineer" is universally understood to mean "licensed engineer" (or "Professional Engineer")?

According to Professional EngineerWP:

"In the United States, however, there is still some debate as to whether a P.E. License is required for an engineer to progress in their career due to many industrial exemptions. As of 2009, less than 18% of Engineers will pursue the license in their career."​
I wonder how many of the forum regulars who are known to be "engineers" (and are referred to as such) are actually licensed?
 
bill smith said:
hanks.I've watched the first half or so so far. I will watch the rest thouugh. Fascinating stuff.
Click to expand...


What did you learn, Bill? No, we aren't interested in watching Bambi vs. Godzilla, i.e., you attempting to debate Mackey. He gave a lecture on physics; you know nothing about physics. Did you come away with any knowledge about physics?
 
alienentity said:
1) Female V/O says 'that WTC7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds'. That is a false statement. The collapse in fact took at least 14 seconds.
2) Gage claims in the ad that 90,000 tons of concrete were missing, 'pulverized' into a find dust.
3) WTC7 fell 'in the exact manner of a controlled demolition'. This again is an outright lie. Unless you want to redefine the meaning of the word 'exact' it's bullcrap.

I am not impressed that this organization is using these clearly false statements as their calling card.
Click to expand...


Well, regarding #1 - it's only a false statement if you assume that everybody agrees with your timing methodology. There's obviously some subjectiveness to it, which is why there are so many different measurements.

#3 - probably not the best wording, but it's certainly not a "lie" (as in: malicious intent). Plus, if you put the quote back into context, he does describe the characteristics he's referring to.

Look, if you disagree with the opinions of AE911T, that's fine with me. You'll notice that I only really defend them against people who make unsupported claims about misrepresenting their numbers or expertise (or just deny that they exist at all).
 
deep44 said:
Well, regarding #1 - it's only a false statement if you assume that everybody agrees with your timing methodology. There's obviously some subjectiveness to it, which is why there are so many different measurements.
Click to expand...
There is no subjectivity to it. The Penthouse collapse was the initiation and it was clear that this part of the collapse precipitated internally until it spread to the outer walls. It is therefore included in the total collapse time. AE911 wrongly considers the penthouse failure a separate event and start the timer when the collapse spread to the exterior, when the collapse had been underway for several seconds. This is where they get their "simultaneous failure" claim from. This suggests one of two things; they either intentionally deceived readers by starting the timer late into the collapse progression or they don't know squat about how the building failed and took no precautions to account for that. I'm not as forgiving with this sort of error as you may be.

deep44 said:
Look, if you disagree with the opinions of AE911T, that's fine with me. You'll notice that I only really defend them against people who make unsupported claims about misrepresenting their numbers or expertise (or just deny that they exist at all).
Click to expand...

Defend them against unwarranted claims as much as you want. I don't really care, you're free to do it. But I suggest if you're going to criticize members of this forum for making unwarranted statements then apply the same scrutiny to the group you're defending. And if you feel you're being misrepresented based on your siding with them on specific issues then make an effort to clear that confusion by highlighting any criticisms you have of their own methods. My criticisms against AE911 aren't opinion, they are established based on procedures I learned to undertake in studio classes, and well documented information that tells me beyond a doubt that they do not understand anything about what they're making claims on. This stands independently of their professional status.
 
Last edited:
deep44 said:
Well, regarding #1 - it's only a false statement if you assume that everybody agrees with your timing methodology. There's obviously some subjectiveness to it, which is why there are so many different measurements.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. The whole truther argument is predicated on a misrepresentation of the facts. This is just another illustration of how the agenda pollutes even the statements of so-called 'professionals'.

The start of the progressive collapse is not an arbitrary concept, in engineering terms. If you get that part wrong, you get the whole thing wrong.

#3 - probably not the best wording, but it's certainly not a "lie" (as in: malicious intent). Plus, if you put the quote back into context, he does describe the characteristics he's referring to.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're very charitable to good ole Richard. You shouldn't be. He's making some very strong claims, he should back them up with facts. Otherwise he's basically just a huckster selling a tall tale - anybody can do that, you don't have to be an engineer or architect to make stuff up.

He's very conscious of using the 'argument from authority' in his presentations, but apart from that, the arguments themselves are not based on sound engineering - at best they're misleading, maybe they're even outright false.

Hey, if that's the crowd you want to stake your beliefs with, be my guest. But I guarantee you (that's my personal guarantee, no money involved) that you're heading in the wrong direction.

Your call.
 
deep44 said:
Are you suggesting that the term "engineer" is universally understood to mean "licensed engineer" (or "Professional Engineer")?

According to Professional EngineerWP:
"In the United States, however, there is still some debate as to whether a P.E. License is required for an engineer to progress in their career due to many industrial exemptions. As of 2009, less than 18% of Engineers will pursue the license in their career."
​
I wonder how many of the forum regulars who are known to be "engineers" (and are referred to as such) are actually licensed?
Click to expand...


There is a very good reason to call them out regarding their numbers and licensing status. Watch, this is from your very next post.

deep44 said:
Look, if you disagree with the opinions of AE911T, that's fine with me. You'll notice that I only really defend them against people who make unsupported claims about misrepresenting their numbers or expertise (or just deny that they exist at all).
Click to expand...


They are claiming a certain level of expertise as a correct appeal to authority on the topic of building design and construction (well, deconstruction). Richard Gage has repeatedly made this clear in his presentations. By using a misleading definition of "engineer" to compile the list (sanitation engineer, anyone?), he is turning a correct appeal to authority into the fallacious version.

And he really doesn't need to add fallacies to his presentation, there is plenty wrong with it as it is.
 
Y'know, this whole business with A&E truth is a critical case-in-point. Deep cannot afford to concede that these people are untruthful, or incorrect.
The whole truther house of cards collapses as soon as it is recognized that the foundation is built on fallacy, ignorance and the like.

So people like Gage must be defended, no matter how absurd their statements are. It is ultimately a losing proposition, since time and knowledge will inevitably weaken these myths and fallacies to the point where nobody in their right mind takes them seriously.

Only the weak-minded will be left to believe. I think that time is fast approaching, if it has not already arrived.
 
It's been said before, but this guy's story of expertise and conversion just doesn't hold water. The whole "I was convinced until I, an expert, saw a bunch of half-assed, self-contradictory YouTube videos that reminded me of the laws of physics that I supposedly already knew" thing is just bogus.

Also, the habit of supporting assertion after assertion with links is a sure sign of bs; it's just a way of making sure that as many people as possible read as much nutty conspiracy literature as possible.

I call Shenanigans.
 
deep44 said:
Are you suggesting that the term "engineer" is universally understood to mean "licensed engineer" (or "Professional Engineer")?

According to Professional EngineerWP:

"In the United States, however, there is still some debate as to whether a P.E. License is required for an engineer to progress in their career due to many industrial exemptions. As of 2009, less than 18% of Engineers will pursue the license in their career."​
I wonder how many of the forum regulars who are known to be "engineers" (and are referred to as such) are actually licensed?
Click to expand...

Ah yes... a nice tap dance.

There are literally dozens of different "engineers" out there. Some of them are much more difficult to get, much like there are litearlly TONS of "doctors" out there...

To claim an engineer or an architect who is degreed but not licensed it kind of disingenuous dont'cha think?

out of the 700 they claim, they only have 1/2 that number.

It is like having someone who finished law school but didn't pass the bar as your "lawyer."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom