I have a question for the engineers here

[SDuderstadt]

One of the hallmarks of the "truth movement" is their propensity to call any number of engineers "liars", simply because said engineer contradicts one of their pet CT's. I would assume that all engineers, regardless of discipline, require licensure and I further assume that they are subject to discipline and even forfeiture of their license for mis/malfeasance.

If I am correct and since the "truth movement" is always yammering that Bazant (or Sunder, Robertson, Greening, etc) are all lying, why don't they initiate some sort of complaint, detailing the lie and demanding said engineer lose their licensure to practice engineering?

[karlschneider]

1. Well, it's not absolutely required to have a P.E. license to work as an engineer

depending on the discipline, the employer, contractural issues and so on. I suppose it's a bit like driving, you can do it on your own private property without a license, not on the public roads. Most companies require senior engineers and management types to be licensed but not all do. Obviously there's no requirement for self-employed engineers to have it but it's a good asset anyway. I know great unlicensed engineers and piss-poor PEs so it's not an automatic guarantee of competency.

I do know that many in the tinfoil crowd -call- themselves engineers...I just call them nutcakes. :-)

[Ghost in the Machine]

2. I predict 17 responses beginning with "I'm not an engineer, BUT..."

:popcorn:

[petgoat]

3. There is no need to stretch mere disgreement to lying. Dr. Sunder and Dr. Gross tell lies.

Gross says no one had ever seen any molten steel in the basements of the
WTC, and Sunder says there are no witnesses to explosions at WTC7.

[SDuderstadt]

4. More gumnastics from you, Petgoat?

Once you can establish that it was molten "steel", as opposed to some sort of amalgam of various materials present, then you can call as many names as you want. You have no basis in fact for insisting it was steel and the presence of so many other materials that could have easily been in the "pool" makes your argument silly.


As far as your claim about Sunder and "explosions", why don't you provide his entire quote first and then we can evaluate it. Based upon past experience with you, I'm willing to bet you've either cropped the quote or otherwise took it out of context to make Sunder look like he said something he didn't.

[Redstone]

5. I'm an engineer, but not a structural or civil engineer. I'm not sure, but I think

that civil engineers may need some kind of licensing. Not sure at all about structural engineers.

Notwithstanding all that, an engineering degree has absolutley no power to prevent anyone from become a liar or a Conspiracy Nut.

So, as always, remember to take your Grains of Salt (Large, Economy Size recommended) when reading or hearing anything to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Redstone

[SDuderstadt]

6. According to the "truthers"....

I'm an OCTabot because I keep pointing out the lack of proof for their goofier theories.

[Redstone]

7. OK, what's the "OCT" part of "OCTabot" stand for? I've never heard of it.

As you may know, my "cultural radar" isn't very powerful, and I've never heard that term before.

Redstone

[SDuderstadt]

8. OCT stands for "Official Conspiracy Theory" which, most "truthers" feel...

obviates the need for a debate on the facts and issues because someone would have to be a government shill, paid agent or "disinformation agent" to believe the "official story". Of course, missing in their world is any coherent, intelligent alternative hypothesis other than "everyone is lying". Frankly, I believe they are an embarrassment to our progressive movement.

[Redstone]

9. Gotcha. Thanks, and (as you may know) I happen to agree with you. What happened, happened. We all

saw it happen.

Redstone

[SDuderstadt]

10. According to some (not all) of the "truthers"....

what we saw was either (in the case of the WTC) a hologram or (in the case of the Pentagon) a missile, while the 757 which over a hindred people saw actually flew OVER the Pentagon. I swear I'm not making this up. For me, I think they're out of their fucking minds.

[LARED]

11. No engineer requires a license to work as an engineer

Depending on your discipline you may be severely limited in what type of work you can do. A civil or structural engineer basically requires a PE to be able to work, as most design work of that nature requires a PE license to get building approvals, etc. Other disciplines are not so restrictive.

In fact some engineers that work in say a manufacturing environment, view a PE license as a risk because sometimes a company may ask you to act in ways that a PE would find very risky from a liability perspective. Don't take this to means they will do illegal or substandard work, it only mean that with the license come a higher liability. Falsifying a report or failure to do due diligence could without doubt lead to forfeiture of your license or personal liability.

Nearly all engineering societies and organization have a code of ethics they ask members to follow.

The ASME is here http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/WorldCodes/ASME.html and here http://files.asme.org/asmeorg/Governance/3675.pdf

There are of course unethical individual in all professions, and engineering is not different. It is HIGHLY unlikely that the professionals used to create the WTC reports are unethical. It is most likely they are considered tops in the fields.

CT'er who think these reports were written to cover up a crime are just living in a dream world. To imagine that not a single professional working on the reports would come out and say something is wrong is the stuff of paranoid delusions.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Is it fair to say that most engineers that work for NIST are...

PE's? Or, is that a stretch?

[LARED]

21. I wouldn't know,

Remember getting a license does not mean you are a smarter or more skilled engineer. Although passing the PE exam is no easy task, so PE's are generally in the upper percentiles of smarts. There are lots of very talented engineers that never bother to take the exam or never needed to, in order to do what they liked. On the flip side I know a number of PE's that are very technically skilled but couldn't lead a Boyscout Troop to the zoo for the day without screwing it up. Forget managing a massive project like the WTC program at the NIST.

[AZCat]

22. Without checking first...

I'd say it's a stretch. Engineers who stay in academics or who do research don't usually have a P.E. It's not uncommon, but the requirements for a P.E. are not always compatible with academics and research (although some states have begun recognizing obtaining a PhD. as an alternative to the "apprentice-ship" usually required).

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

12. Non-starter.

Why am I not surprised that one who is always yammering that engineers who question aspects of the official reports are wrong, liars, or morons... doesn't even understand the basic premise of professional licensing? And you give me shit about being an engineer, when you clearly know nothing of the profession?

Tell you what... how about you try your "initiation of some sort of complaint" against any or all of the AE911 members? Please let us know when their "licensure to practice engineering" is revoked. :eyes:

[LARED]

13. Actually I'd love to see somebody report those knuckleheads to

whatever board or organization they are part of.

From the ASME Code of Ethics

7. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

There's grounds right there for a few hard questions about their ethics.

[whatchamacallit]

18. Report them for what, being better engineers than the hacks at NIST?

[LARED]

20. Let me guess, you'll be twelve years old soon? -nt

[whatchamacallit]

23. I can actually say I've met 12 year olds with more on the ball

than you.

[AZCat]

24. I'm not really sure what "more on the ball" means...

but it's pretty clear it has nothing to do with engineering.

[whatchamacallit]

25. What's with this bullshit pretense that engineers are some kind of infallible super beings?

Most the engineers I know are douche bags.

[AZCat]

26. You'd have to ask someone who's proposing such a ridiculous idea.

Nobody here (AFAIK) believes such nonsense.

[SDuderstadt]

29. It's just RB's strawman argument....

of course, no one has claimed that that I know of. Typical "truther" bullshit.

[Flatulo]

27. Most of the douchebags I've met are not engineers. nt

[SDuderstadt]

28. "Most the engineers I know are douchebags"....

have you ever noticed that "truthers" seem to malign everyone?

[SDuderstadt]

14. Show me one time where I have EVER done what you accuse me of doing, BCB

Please be specific. I also don't "give you shit because you're an engineer". I question that you're an engineer and I "give you shit" because you are so wrong about most things and because of your silly "badger" retorts.

I'll wait for evidence of your claim.

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

16. Wow.

Just wow.

>> "Show me one time where I have EVER done what you accuse me of doing, BCB" <<

>> "I question that you're an engineer and I "give you shit" because..." <<

Look at that... I didn't even have to look beyond your post to find one. Thanks!

:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

17. Look at your OWN claim, BCB....

First of all, I don't know for sure that you're an engineer and you simply saying you are doesn't prove anything. In your case, I deny that you are an engineer. Secondly, can you demonstrate one time when I have called you or an actual engineer a liar? hint: No.

Can you find one example where I have ever called an engineer a moron? Hint: no.


As far as claiming that an engineer might be wrong, isn't that the point of debate? Having said that, please provide an example where I have done so.

I think calling people morons and liars is more up your alley.

[AZCat]

19. Anybody who signs off on building plans needs to be licensed.

With one notable exception (fire protection drawings) all the various sheets that make up a set of building plans need to be signed off by somebody, whether it be a licensed architect or a licensed engineer (civil, electrical, mechanical, or structural). Each state does its own licensing and oversight (Arizona recognizes something like 18 separate engineering disciplines), but as LARED pointed out above the professional societies also have codes of conduct (although an engineer does not necessarily need to be a member of any of them).