Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[color=Navy]Let's see what 1500 independent architects and engineers have to say about the WTC collapses in this two hour documentary.
and one of those '1500'...'dr' judy wood...a DENTAL engineer who thinks that a alien ray beam was used from space
and the 1500 "ae911"...wow not even ONE quarter PERCENT of all A + E agree with them...out of the 3 million architects and engineers, they only could find 1500
Last edited by workingclasshero; 01-30-2012 at 09:05 AM..
I suggest you look up the word "engineer" (verb) in the dictionary.
By the way, you can't just choose to call yourself an engineer. There are specific requirements that have to be met in order to legally use that label. Are you going to claim that the state governments just let them use it to make them feel better about themselves?
Do you have any idea how complicated a large software project is?
Here's another one - there are software architects, too. And yes, the use of the term is perfectly valid.
I suggest you look up "verb" in the dictionary.
Let me help you .... it's an "action" ... so the VERB "Engineer" describes an act of engineering something.
Software (noun) is a thing (you know ... persons, places, things) while Engineer (verb) is an act of doing something. The "engineer" portion of "Software Engineer" describes what is being done, not who's doing it.
You could be a plumber who bought the book "Software Engineering For Dummies" and learned how to "engineer" software. Programming and engineering are interchangeable verbs that describe the process of creating code to perform a function on a computer or programmable device.
The term "Software Engineer" simply confers a perception of a greater level of proficiency in programming that may or may not be true. It's the same damned thing as a "Salesman" being called a "Sales Consultant" or a "Marketing Executive". All refer to salesmen, just as software engineer, software architect, software designer, all refer to programmers.
But yes, the term "Software Engineer" is certainly a valid term to describe a highly skilled programmer .... but in the context of the discussions here relative to buildings and fire and collapses and plane crashes and what happens to aluminum crashing into steel .... a "Software" engineer is about as relevant to aerospace engineering as is the clerk at a convenience store.
As usual, you can't refute a single word they have said so you resort to playground insults.
sorry, but there is nothing to refute. Its a video that is only an argument from false authority.
why should I take the time to refute someone who has no business commenting on the events of 9/11 when he doesn't even posses the research background needed to understand the events of 9/11
That's like asking a plumber to provide his insights on brain surgery.
Again you are about 5 years too late. all of the claims put forth by truthers have been debunked. I've listed several sites that show that truthers are nothing but ignorant and con-artists.
Let me help you .... it's an "action" ... so the VERB "Engineer" describes an act of engineering something.
Um, exactly.
Large scale software projects are "engineered." I specifically suggested looking up the definition of the verb so that the person I was responding to (not you, btw) would see that engineering is also a process, not just a job title.
This thread just gets more stupid by the day.
You worked for NASA? And you're saying that software isn't engineered?
sorry, but there is nothing to refute. Its a video that is only an argument from false authority.
why should I take the time to refute someone who has no business commenting on the events of 9/11 when he doesn't even posses the research background needed to understand the events of 9/11
That's like asking a plumber to provide his insights on brain surgery.
[/color]Again you are about 5 years too late. all of the claims put forth by truthers have been debunked. I've listed several sites that show that truthers are nothing but ignorant and con-artists.
Get back to me in a few years when you graduate preschool and outgrow your playground antics. Then maybe I just might take you a little more seriously.
Meanwhile, I will take the authority of qualified architects and structural engineers over a shill like you any day of the week.
Large scale software projects are "engineered." I specifically suggested looking up the definition of the verb so that the person I was responding to (not you, btw) would see that engineering is also a process, not just a job title.
This thread just gets more stupid by the day.
You worked for NASA? And you're saying that software isn't engineered?
Give it up.
You were responding to me. What used to be a cook is now a chef or a culinary engineer. We have many propoganda engineers on this forum and in politics, but I doubt it they'd wear it proudly. Propoganda engineers tell many tales, such as WMD's in Iraq, 911 was a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda, led by OBL, chemtrails are just water vapor, Obama killed Osama etc etc
The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest.
Get back to me in a few years when you graduate preschool and outgrow your playground antics. Then maybe I just might take you a little more seriously.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
sorry, but truthers are the immature claimers in this whole thing. They whine, and they pound their feet when they don't get their way (as with most conspiracy theorists)
Not a single person from A&911truth has done a shred of investigation into 9/11, yet you want to take their word, based on what they saw in videos and in photographs. And many of those "engineers" are not even engineers in the correct field of study (sanitiation engineer; yes I'm sure a person who cleans toilets knows alot about physics and building structures)
Do you know what that is called: Argument from False Authority and an Argument from Authority.
you're using people who are not schooled/studied in the field of studies required (false authority) and using the POSITIONS (without any research on their part) to argue a point.
These are known as logical fallacies.
Just because I'm knowledgeable about the aerodynamics of a plane, doesn't mean I know exactly what happened in a plane crash, just by simply looking at pictures.
Quote:
Meanwhile, I will take the authority of qualified architects and structural engineers over a shill like you any day of the week.
No, you are taking the arguments from 1 or two people from a select few (who are not relevant to the fields needed to study 9/11), who have done 1) no research 2) never studied the event 3) haven't done any testing 4) never looked at the physical evidence and 5) whose calculatioons doesn't match peer reviewed studies of the event; all of whom didn't not publish a single report in an internationally recognized Scientifice or Engineering Journal (the ASCE provides a journal that these so called "engineers" could have published to..please provide a link to their study).
Wherras, we have over 200 authored and 400 peer reviewed scientists, along with several hundred independantly done studies by real scientists and engineers in the RELEVANT fields.
Please tell me how a pilot knows anything about Architectural Engineering?
What does a cold fusion expert know about physics?
Propoganda engineers tell many tales, such as WMD's in Iraq, 911 was a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda, led by OBL, chemtrails are just water vapor, Obama killed Osama etc etc
There's an active chemtrail thread going - I highly recommend you join in!
Propoganda engineers tell many tales, such as WMD's in Iraq, 911 was a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda, led by OBL, chemtrails are just water vapor, Obama killed Osama etc etc
See... that's what makes you an all purpose conspiracy theorist, tin foil's not good enough. The foil on your hats is made of barium and strontium.
that does not make his word valid that the jet fuel all burned off in moments and didn't affect anything inside the building. He's wrong. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who can tell him he's wrong. You know why? Because they were inside, and he wasn't.
and real students and professors, says he is wrong and they did the research and work to simulate what happened in the buildings as the planes collided.
This is what REAL researchers and REAL scientists do. they set on a course to prove their theory right or wrong:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
