ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ae911truth

Reply
Old 19th November 2008, 11:44 AM   #1
RKOwens4
Thinker
 
RKOwens4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 212
AE911Truth and the actual # of engineers in America...

Since it's kind of a slow day, I thought some of you might find this interesting. We all know that truthers like to say that there are over 500 members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (537 right now, to be exact). However, what truthers don't do is put this number in perspective against the number of architects and engineers overall. As someone who recently changed his major to mechanical engineering, I was just looking on the website for the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics and found that the number of engineers in America is even larger than I'd thought.

In 2006 (the last year that this survey was done), there were about 1.5 million employed engineers in the United States. I did a search for architects and found that in 2006, there were about 132,000 architects employed in the United States. Sources:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#emply (engineers)
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm#emply (architects)

That adds up to 537 out of about 1,632,000 employed architects and engineers who support 9/11 truth, or 1 in 3,039. But wait, the key word here is EMPLOYED. If you look at the members list of the 537 provided on the website for AE911Truth, you'll find that many of them are retirees, people who once worked in architecture or engineering but left the field decades ago (like Jeff King) and professors who teach architecture or engineering. So we have to include these as well in our overall number. There's probably no way to get an exact number on any of these, but to use a conservative estimate the number would probably easily bring the total up to over 2,000,000. But wait, there's more. AE911Truth has members from countries all around the world. The 2,000,000 figure includes only those in the United States. The U.S. is 5% of the world's population, but I doubt that the number of architects and engineers is proportionate to population worldwide. Still, when we include the number of architects and engineers worldwide, using even a conservative estimate would multiply this by about 5 times, bringing the number to 10 million. Finally, we end up with 537 architects and engineers out of 10 million who support 9/11 truth, or 1 in 18,622. Truthers, still want to brag about the number of architects and engineers who support your ideas? Is 537 still an impressive number to you?
__________________
"It's amazing, amazing, that with all the access to accurate information, that people could be so pathetically uninformed." -CNN's Jack Cafferty
RKOwens4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 11:58 AM   #2
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,689
Also with no membership requirements (dues, meeting participation and such) for 9/11 truth there's no way to know how many of their members are still active (or ever were). Basically if your names on the list it's there until you force them to remove it. If you don't realize it's there, (like your son or someone else put it there) you'll remain a member for life regardless of what you believe.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 12:06 PM   #3
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Even that is underestimating it, since they have titles like "software engineer". I am technically a software engineer, even though I have no formal engineering or scientific training.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 12:11 PM   #4
lapman
Graduate Poster
 
lapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,717
It should also be noted that less than 30 of the 537 are structural engineers and high-rise arichitects.
__________________
They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz
lapman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 12:21 PM   #5
RKOwens4
Thinker
 
RKOwens4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 212
Good points. One more thing to remember is that a lot of these members are probably hoaxes and non-existent persons. I've been a "member" of Scholars for 9/11 Truth for months, under the name Unfahig Gelehrte (which translates into "incompetent scholar"). I remember a lot of forum posters here and elsewhere saying that they managed to register names with AE911Truth as jokes just to demonstrate how these people don't check up on your credentials to make sure that you actually have the degree you say you do or even that you're a real person (AE911Truth just calls the person, Scholars does nothing).

I'd be willing to bet that a huge percentage of AE911Truth's members were registered by misguided truthers claiming to be structural engineers or whatever, just to boost the group's numbers.
__________________
"It's amazing, amazing, that with all the access to accurate information, that people could be so pathetically uninformed." -CNN's Jack Cafferty

Last edited by RKOwens4; 19th November 2008 at 12:22 PM. Reason: typo
RKOwens4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 02:11 PM   #6
Jontg
The Bear Skeptic
 
Jontg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,002
Attrition is a beautiful thing, isn't it?
Jontg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 02:26 PM   #7
Bobert
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,126
So is lithiam.

Last edited by Bobert; 19th November 2008 at 02:27 PM.
Bobert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 04:48 PM   #8
GodisEnergy
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 383
Originally Posted by RKOwens4 View Post
Good points. One more thing to remember is that a lot of these members are probably hoaxes and non-existent persons. I've been a "member" of Scholars for 9/11 Truth for months, under the name Unfahig Gelehrte (which translates into "incompetent scholar"). I remember a lot of forum posters here and elsewhere saying that they managed to register names with AE911Truth as jokes just to demonstrate how these people don't check up on your credentials to make sure that you actually have the degree you say you do or even that you're a real person (AE911Truth just calls the person, Scholars does nothing).

I'd be willing to bet that a huge percentage of AE911Truth's members were registered by misguided truthers claiming to be structural engineers or whatever, just to boost the group's numbers.
Can you enter the forum, with my experience is they let you become a member but then if your credentials arent there they dont let you enter the forum
GodisEnergy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 05:09 PM   #9
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,574
Originally Posted by GodisEnergy View Post
Can you enter the forum, with my experience is they let you become a member but then if your credentials arent there they dont let you enter the forum
Truther websites' vetting has been known to get a little sloppy. Remember when Patriotsquestion911 and S4T had Mike Rotch? If they hadn't taken his name down, I would be joining them along their merry quest. If Mike Rotch (my crotch) is a truther, then damn it, so am I.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 05:42 PM   #10
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
Truther websites' vetting has been known to get a little sloppy. Remember when Patriotsquestion911 and S4T had Mike Rotch? If they hadn't taken his name down, I would be joining them along their merry quest. If Mike Rotch (my crotch) is a truther, then damn it, so am I.

Patriotsquestion911 has Frank DeMartini on their list, and he died on 9/11.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 06:49 PM   #11
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,574
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Patriotsquestion911 has Frank DeMartini on their list, and he died on 9/11.
It also has Edna Cintron.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 08:39 PM   #12
RKOwens4
Thinker
 
RKOwens4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
It also has Edna Cintron.
The Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had retired FDNY Batallion Chief Arthur Scheuerman as a member, even though Arthur Scheuerman appeared on a Hardfire show with Ron Wieck and Mark Roberts speaking out AGAINST the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I even emailed them about this when I noticed it (about 6 months ago) and sent them a link to his Hardfire discussion. To this date, they haven't corrected this lie of theirs and his name still appears as a member.
__________________
"It's amazing, amazing, that with all the access to accurate information, that people could be so pathetically uninformed." -CNN's Jack Cafferty
RKOwens4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 09:47 PM   #13
cyclonic
Muse
 
cyclonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 975
Richard Lowe is their comedy engineer.

http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999319
cyclonic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 09:54 PM   #14
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,487
They also have a swimming pool engineer who had his license to be a PE revoked by New Jersey.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 04:21 AM   #15
eromitlab
Muse
 
eromitlab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 919
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Patriotsquestion911 has Frank DeMartini on their list, and he died on 9/11.
The last time I came across a truthist referencing that site in a 9/11 "discussion", I cited the inclusion of Mr. DeMartini on their list as kind of a sarcastic "gotcha" in re the list's credibility. This is the response I got:
Quote:
In the age of information you could contact these people if you so choose. You are just apathetic for whatever reason. It is the responsibility of the the people to question their government. Jefferson said it was the most patriotic thing to do.
proof of truthist stupidity
Truthists are enamored with Gage and the 500+ credibility-free clowns (or should I say, amusement engineers) on his site that ought to be named appealtoauthority.com. However, with intellectual heavyweights like the one I quoted, they would likely be just as enamored with a few shiny objects and a loud voice growling that 9/11 was an inside jobby job.
__________________
With my reputation, I do expect everyone to take what I say at face value.
-Galileo

Last edited by eromitlab; 20th November 2008 at 04:22 AM. Reason: added link to truthist stupidity
eromitlab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 09:44 AM   #16
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Before I start, I need to make this clear that this isn't a criticism of RKOwens4's post. He makes a good point about the validity of the engineering expertise that the AE911T group claims to have, and I agree with that point. Their credentials are indeed overstated.

But, that said, to me it doesn't matter how many engineers they have. The acid test has always been the claim itself, not the authorities behind one stance or another. That is the essence of objective analysis: "Does the claim stand or fall on its own merits?". By itself, the number of people making a claim does not impress me when the number is cited by itself without corresponding arguments for why the number matters. I'm impressed when I learn that a majority of scientists support one hypothesis over another when I also understand the rationale behind their support, and the logic they apply to come to a conclusion (the Cold Fusion issue is a good example of this). I am not impressed with a number alone, and I am most certainly not impressed when I discover that the individual motivations behind support for a thesis are revealed to be either based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations, or just plain flawed. And that's the case with the AE911T list. When you read through the reasons the members give for joining, you see nothing but the canards and mistakes that have been shown to be wrong over and over here and in other forums. You don't see any original thinking, and you most certainly do not see any attempt to modify stances based on developing knowledge. How many people continue to stand behind the thermite fantasy despite the utter lack of characteristic effects, let alone the absolute misrepresentation of information that Steven Jones commits?

Knowledge develops, and when it does, hypotheses must develop as well. You see very little of this in the so-called truth movement. Credit Steven Jones for at least trying to follow along that line, but criticize others for failing to do so. And include the AE911T group in that.

Anyway, the point is that the individual rationales for people joining that list are flawed; that much is obvious by reading the rationales provided. They continually cite disproven issues as being the driving force for them joining. So to me, it doesn't matter if the individual adding him/herself to the list is a software engineer, or is credentialed in fire safety for large structures, the point is that the belief itself is wrong regardless of the credentials held by the person stating it. Einstein himself would be wrong if he stated something that violates physical laws, nevermind his expertise in physics. His credentials don't matter. And neither do the ones held by the members of AE911T. I'm not impressed by the members individual reasons for joining that group, I'm not impressed by the "scholarship" the organization produces, and I'm most certainly not impressed by the conspiracy peddlers continual use of that group as a lazy appeal to authority. The problem has always been and will always be the details of the truther argument itself. And until the flaws are solved, it doesn't matter who says they believe in it. So in the end, it doesn't matter what their claimed expertise is, or what the number of "real" engineers is in that organization. What matters is their stance, and the utter separation from reality it has.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 10:02 AM   #17
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
I work with many Masters in Architecture and Engineering..and several PEs and RAs. None of them either care about these theories..nor give them a second thought.

Somehow, the more credentials and experience one has with architecture or engineering, the less likely one is to believe in controlled demolition at the WTC.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 12:26 PM   #18
Stupid
Thinker
 
Stupid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 145
When I hammered some truthers for the reason why the "vast amount" of the world's engineers and scientists agree with NIST's findings, here is one common example of what many of them said.

As expected , all ......
Quote:
"Engineers and scientists are just as apt to make mistakes as anyone else. Engineers can be bribed or intimidated. Experts often make mistakes. The human condition dictates that all of us are prone to mental/emotional problems as well as stupidity. The scienctific community has failed to come up with a believable description of how the towers fell. Like the craven mainstream media, most structural engineers seem to be afraid to go against the status quo. And from an analytical stand the problem is most complex and not in the realm of what what would be considered as routine."






=S=
__________________
"Whatever."
=Buddha=
Stupid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 12:37 PM   #19
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Engineers and scientists are just as apt to make mistakes as anyone else. Engineers can be bribed or intimidated.

--yet no proof of any bribes

Experts often make mistakes.

--as do those who think it was a CD

The human condition dictates that all of us are prone to mental/emotional problems as well as stupidity.

--as are those who believe in CD.

The scienctific community has failed to come up with a believable description of how the towers fell.

---and the CD proponants have come up with a believable story of how/when the explosives were laid??


Like the craven mainstream media, most structural engineers seem to be afraid to go against the status quo.

---proof of this??

And from an analytical stand the problem is most complex and not in the realm of what what would be considered as routine."

in other words "bla bla bla......moo moo"

=)
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 01:25 PM   #20
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Originally Posted by Stupid View Post
When I hammered some truthers for the reason why the "vast amount" of the world's engineers and scientists agree with NIST's findings, here is one common example of what many of them said.

As expected , all ......

Quote:
"Engineers and scientists are just as apt to make mistakes as anyone else. Engineers can be bribed or intimidated. Experts often make mistakes. The human condition dictates that all of us are prone to mental/emotional problems as well as stupidity. The scienctific community has failed to come up with a believable description of how the towers fell. Like the craven mainstream media, most structural engineers seem to be afraid to go against the status quo. And from an analytical stand the problem is most complex and not in the realm of what what would be considered as routine."


=S=
That's a typical response, and notice how completely unsupported it is. Anyone can speculate about mistakes or malfeasance on the part of human beings, but that doesn't come close to invalidating the narrative. There's no evidence, for example, that the NIST team was either bribed or intimidated. And besides, that isn't the crux of AE911T's argument about why the NIST report is wrong. Believe it or not, they make a positive one about the evidence itself. They get it completely wrong, but they do in fact discuss the evidence directly.

It is absolutely true that "experts" make mistakes. But the events behind the towers collapse is not built on one "experts" opinion, or even a limited narrative put forth by a small group, like Cold Fusion was. Rather, it's built upon multiple, confirmed observations and multiple, converging threads of evidence. On top of that, the dominant narrative is also backed by independent verification by other organizations (that's something R.Mackey points out occasionally). It's insane to make the argument that person did; ignoring the lack of support for it, it's a logical leap. It's one thing for a given expert or group of experts to be wrong in specifics, but it's a whole other thing to have the entire narrative wrong, and it's yet another level to make that pronouncement without examination of the entire narrative being presented.

Pretend that a composer - Mozart, Bizet, Puccini, whomever - juxtaposed some off-key notes in a passage. If that's wrong, then that's an error by an expert. Now, go from that claim and say that the composer's whole piece is off-key. Is that really a valid extrapolation? Assuming the notes are truly off key, then no, it's not. You can't say that without actually examining the whole piece in question. Yet that is the exact leap being pushed here by that truther, except for the fact that off-key notes in this context are clear, unambiguous problems, whereas the basis of truther criticisms are not. Experts make mistakes, therefore the NIST explanation of the collapse is false... that's just a silly statement to make. It belies the complete lack of comprehension on the part of the truther regarding the totality of the evidence, how multiple threads of it converge, how hypotheses can be identified and tested (like what Sisson and Biederman did to validate their hypothesis of the eutectic reaction's timeframe), how it's predictive, etc. This isn't a narrative that can be undone by identification of a single flaw anymore than the Great Pyramids can be collapsed by the removal of a single block. Yet, the conspiratorial minded would have you think the narrative is a house of cards! One has to ignore so much to draw that conclusion.

In addition, the fellow is flat out wrong about one thing: The "scientific community" (*giggle*... didn't know they hung out together so much...) did indeed come up with a believable description. The fallacy that this person is rebelling against is the strawman that conspiracy peddlers have built. This story has nothing to do with the "status quo" and everything to do with the fact that known phenomena - heat weakening, thermal expansion, eccentric loading, etc. - were identified as being the reason the towers collapsed. The problem is indeed most complex, and because of the size of the towers and the magnitude of the damage, it can indeed be considered out of the "realm of what would be considered routine". But that's not the same as saying the event is not properly understood. It is.

The person making that post is putting forth platitudes, not evidence or arguments. It's empty reasoning, a syllogism of nothings.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 01:43 PM   #21
lapman
Graduate Poster
 
lapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
The scienctific community has failed to come up with a believable description of how the towers fell.

---and the CD proponants have come up with a believable story of how/when the explosives were laid??
Let's not forget how much and what type. Add to that how "they" were able to get 100% of all audio recording devices to not record the sound of said explosives, while "many people heard them."
__________________
They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz
lapman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 03:59 PM   #22
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by RKOwens4 View Post
The Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had retired FDNY Batallion Chief Arthur Scheuerman as a member, even though Arthur Scheuerman appeared on a Hardfire show with Ron Wieck and Mark Roberts speaking out AGAINST the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I even emailed them about this when I noticed it (about 6 months ago) and sent them a link to his Hardfire discussion. To this date, they haven't corrected this lie of theirs and his name still appears as a member.
I think this post could provide some answers to your question RKOwens:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...82#post3301082

ETA:

As I said in the post Scheuerman is not the type of member that Gage and Jones wants. Confirmed by Arthur Scheruerman himself in an note to Pomero earlier this year:

Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
I just received this note from Arthur Scheuerman:

"Sorry for the delay. I just had a triple bypass operation with an aortic valve replacement.Yes you can place the sentence and maybe question why I am blocked from the A & E engineers for 9/11 truth web sites. They don't want any real questions. "

Arthur


I'm glad to hear that the issue of his involvement with Gage's bogus group has been cleared up, but conspiracy theories are not very important in the grand scheme of things. If you found the chief's appearance on 'Hardfire' informative, here's the opportunity to contribute a line or two wishing him a speedy recovery.
My emphasis.

Though they do not like his questions and views they are happy to still list him as member of both Scholars and Architects.

Last edited by Norseman; 20th November 2008 at 04:13 PM. Reason: Added ETA
Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 06:44 PM   #23
Homeland Insurgency
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,705
Originally Posted by RKOwens4 View Post
Since it's kind of a slow day, I thought some of you might find this interesting. We all know that truthers like to say that there are over 500 members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (537 right now, to be exact). However, what truthers don't do is put this number in perspective against the number of architects and engineers overall. As someone who recently changed his major to mechanical engineering, I was just looking on the website for the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics and found that the number of engineers in America is even larger than I'd thought.

In 2006 (the last year that this survey was done), there were about 1.5 million employed engineers in the United States. I did a search for architects and found that in 2006, there were about 132,000 architects employed in the United States. Sources:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#emply (engineers)
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm#emply (architects)

That adds up to 537 out of about 1,632,000 employed architects and engineers who support 9/11 truth, or 1 in 3,039. But wait, the key word here is EMPLOYED. If you look at the members list of the 537 provided on the website for AE911Truth, you'll find that many of them are retirees, people who once worked in architecture or engineering but left the field decades ago (like Jeff King) and professors who teach architecture or engineering. So we have to include these as well in our overall number. There's probably no way to get an exact number on any of these, but to use a conservative estimate the number would probably easily bring the total up to over 2,000,000. But wait, there's more. AE911Truth has members from countries all around the world. The 2,000,000 figure includes only those in the United States. The U.S. is 5% of the world's population, but I doubt that the number of architects and engineers is proportionate to population worldwide. Still, when we include the number of architects and engineers worldwide, using even a conservative estimate would multiply this by about 5 times, bringing the number to 10 million. Finally, we end up with 537 architects and engineers out of 10 million who support 9/11 truth, or 1 in 18,622. Truthers, still want to brag about the number of architects and engineers who support your ideas? Is 537 still an impressive number to you?
So how many architects and engineers independently support the official theory? How many of them are debunkers?

Employed or not.

And just how do they support it?
Homeland Insurgency is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 06:54 PM   #24
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
i think its safe to assume that any architects and engineers that dont involve themselves, in any way, with the 9-11 truthers, pretty much agree with what really happened (a.k.a. the OCT)

what is it with truthers and acronyms? lolol

Last edited by Thunder; 20th November 2008 at 06:56 PM.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 07:41 PM   #25
Homeland Insurgency
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,705
So how many architects and engineers independently support the official theory?
Homeland Insurgency is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 07:44 PM   #26
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
are you expecting there to be a internet forum for folks who agree with the true story of what happened on 9-11?

its already been supported by the most important architectual and engineering firms, societies, and schools of thought.

their seal of appoval is good enough for me.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 07:44 PM   #27
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
 
Nyarlathotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,500
The 500 or so Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth are to the Twoofer movement what the handful of biologists that the Creationists have co-opted are to the ID movement and prove the same points.

That there are always some people that, regardless of hos much training they have in a subject, will put their beliefs ahead of their training

And that the woos will always sieze on that fact as some sort of victory, depsite how insignificant the numbers may actually be.

Someone should start the anti-twoofer equivalent of Project Steve
__________________
Why stay sane in a sick world?
Nyarlathotep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 07:46 PM   #28
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,793
Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency View Post
So you don't have any? Out of what RKO claims is 10 million?
Whether it comes from you or anyone else... an argument from silence is not proof of absence

More telling is that groups like AE911 need to include people who aren't even engineers or architects into their list of 500. Now, if you're going to have someone brag numbers wouldn't you at least want them to be reasonably honest?

Better yet, if they're going to set out to demonstrate their theories don't you think they should come closer to a more reasonable comparison than dropping cardboard boxes? Oh I forgot this is a valid comparison to you isn't it?
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 08:01 PM   #29
Homeland Insurgency
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,705
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Whether it comes from you or anyone else... an argument from silence is not proof of absence

More telling is that groups like AE911 need to include people who aren't even engineers or architects into their list of 500. Now, if you're going to have someone brag numbers wouldn't you at least want them to be reasonably honest?

Better yet, if they're going to set out to demonstrate their theories don't you think they should come closer to a more reasonable comparison than dropping cardboard boxes? Oh I forgot this is a valid comparison to you isn't it?
So none out of 10 million for the debunkers is what percentage?

Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence the truthers in regards to Architects & Engineers independently weighing in on the official version have more then just absent.

And I'm glad you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just don't be selective with that.
Homeland Insurgency is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 08:34 PM   #30
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency View Post
So none out of 10 million for the debunkers is what percentage?

Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence the truthers in regards to Architects & Engineers independently weighing in on the official version have more then just absent.

And I'm glad you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just don't be selective with that.



Model building codes have been modified and standard practices have changed as a direct results of the collapse of the WTC. One generally doesn't have to be outspoken about it. It's a consensus.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 20th November 2008 at 08:36 PM.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 08:38 PM   #31
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
Model building codes have been modified and standard practices have changed as a direct results of the collapse of the WTC. One generally doesn't have to be outspoken about it. It's a consensus.
i think he is suggesting that since most folks arent outspoken about 9-11 on a daily basis...doesnt mean they arent secretly crypto-truthers.

Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 08:43 PM   #32
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
i think he is suggesting that since most folks arent outspoken about 9-11 on a daily basis...doesnt mean they arent secretly crypto-truthers.


I did a job is Staten Island today, I noticed many streets renamed after firefighters. I do not suppose many in Staten Island believe firefighters brought down any of the WTC buildings like truthers assert. Or they certainly wouldn't be naming streets after them.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 08:46 PM   #33
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
um..did you happen to see that little memorial to the FDNY on Hylan Blvd??
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 09:02 PM   #34
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
um..did you happen to see that little memorial to the FDNY on Hylan Blvd??

I was a bit north by arthur Kill Road
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 09:19 PM   #35
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep View Post
The 500 or so Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth are to the Twoofer movement what the handful of biologists that the Creationists have co-opted are to the ID movement and prove the same points.

That there are always some people that, regardless of hos much training they have in a subject, will put their beliefs ahead of their training

And that the woos will always sieze on that fact as some sort of victory, depsite how insignificant the numbers may actually be.

Someone should start the anti-twoofer equivalent of Project Steve
So how many architects and engineers have gone on record stating that they support Zdenek Bazant's crush-down/crush-up hypothesis? How many even know what that is? Can you provide me with a list?
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 09:23 PM   #36
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,574
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
So how many architects and engineers have gone on record stating that they support Zdenek Bazant's crush-down/crush-up hypothesis? How many even know what that is? Can you provide me with a list?
A list isn't necessary. It passed peer-review from an accredited academic journal and remains unchallenged.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 09:38 PM   #37
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
A list isn't necessary. It passed peer-review from an accredited academic journal and remains unchallenged.
You forgot, Hiewa has proved Bazant wrong by using pizza boxes, matchboxes, and a bathroom scale.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 11:33 PM   #38
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
 
1337m4n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,510
Hey tanabear, how many meteorologists have gone on record saying that the sky is blue?
__________________
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif

"The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo
1337m4n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2008, 12:56 AM   #39
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency View Post
So how many architects and engineers independently support the official theory? How many of them are debunkers?

Employed or not.

And just how do they support it?
Did you miss it? Less than 0.01 percent are with you and the crazy ideas, lies, false information and fantasy of 9/11 truth.

You have 0.01 percent (less than), and you can't find more architects. Why not? At least you have 0.01 percent who believe nut case ideas, the engineers are less than 0.0001 percent. But who is counting the nut case idea believers. Oops...


Why are those architects in A&E unable to comprehend 9/11 events? What makes people give up logic and accept nut case fantasy ideas like Gage does?

Last edited by beachnut; 21st November 2008 at 01:38 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2008, 01:23 AM   #40
eromitlab
Muse
 
eromitlab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 919
Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency View Post
So none out of 10 million for the debunkers is what percentage?

Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence the truthers in regards to Architects & Engineers independently weighing in on the official version have more then just absent.

And I'm glad you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just don't be selective with that.
Only truthists feel the need to assemble "look at all these smart people with degrees and training and titles who agree with us!!!!!!" lists like ae911twoof, "patriots"question911, 911summary, a handful of georgewashington blog posts, scholars for 9/11 "truth", lawyers for 9/11 "truth", firefighters for 9/11 "truth", et cetera. Only truthists feel they must appeal to authority to validate their evidence-free proof, fact-free accusations and ignorance-fueled speculation.

If truthists had any real confidence in what they were saying, they'd bug as many engineers as they could to try and get a statement from them one way or another... or maybe they're just afraid of what the results of such an undertaking might be.

HI, maybe you'd care to educate all of us on how these lists change anything. The arguments are still bunk and not corroborated by anything but cut-and-paste conspiracy websites that reference unnamed sources when they're not referencing each other and youtube videos that chose ominous music over fact-checking. How does having such a small percentage of the world's engineers and architects "on your side" matter, especially considering the only thing they're doing about this horrible crime they think they've uncovered is support Richard Gage travelling around to give speeches and drop an occasional box?
__________________
With my reputation, I do expect everyone to take what I say at face value.
-Galileo
eromitlab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.