Refuting the Hollow Arguments of the So-called 9/11 Debunkers & Truthers
Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog asserted yesterday that Geraldo Rivera wouldn't be so impressed by the 1,300+ Architects and Engineers of ae911truth.org if he knew "about the swimming pool engineer or the HVAC engineer or the dental engineer who thinks it was done with beam weapons from space." The so-called "swimming pool engineer" is Don Meserlian, who held a professional engineer's license "for more than 30 years." To achieve a P.E. licence Imagineering E-zine notes that one must pass several exams:
The first exam, Fundamentals of Engineering, covers mathematics, chemistry, physics, and engineering sciences. The second exam, Principles and Practice of Engineering, requires the applicant to solve engineering problems in his discipline plus problems in four other disciplines. The difficulty of these tests have been equated to passing ten final exams on the same day. The data covered on the tests requires the applicant to draw upon knowledge that has been accumulated over an entire college and professional career.So when Pat calls him a "swimming pool engineer" he is grossly misrepresenting his credentials, just as he does when he calls Kevin Ryan, who has a B.S. in chemistry from Indiana University, a waterboy because he worked as a chemistry lab manager at a premier water-testing laboratory. And most of the members of AE911Tuth don't hold implausible ideas about the Tower's destruction. Pat of course ignores the fact that as of May 6th of this year over 40 structural engineers and 60 aerospace engineers had joined the ranks of ae911truth.
It must also be pointed out that any architects and engineers that 9/11"debunkers" deem unfit are more than compensated for by the over 10,000 other signatories of the AE911Truth petition, which include many highly credentialed people in other fields equally as relevant to the issue. Petition signers include metallurgists, physicists, scientists, explosives experts and demolition contractors.
Of course not even having a licence just one step down from being the "most highly qualified person at the blasting site" and working for a company named Controlled Demolition Incorporated, for whom one placed hundreds of explosive charges at the world's largest structure implosion by volume, makes somebody an explosives expert as far as "debunkers" are concerned!
One of Pat's regular commenters "GuitarBill" makes the argument that AE911Truth only represents 0.23% of the the US scientific and engineering community based on a number of 600,000.
First off, he only bases this figure off the number of architects and engineers who have signed the petition, ignoring the other credentialed signatories. This figure also ignores other 9/11 truth groups with large numbers of credentialed people signed on to their ideas such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.
Of course there is some overlap and I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make, but it would make one. Regardless, and most importantly, a failure to condemn the official story should not be viewed as an endorsement of it. One should also not assume that all individuals have been exposed to the relevant information, as the "BuildingWhat?" campaign has proved with Geraldo, this is certainly not the case. And there is no way to calculate how many have the guts to take a public stance on such a controversial matter. As AE911Truth civil engineer Jonathan Cole has stated, "there is a good reason that there is no group called 'Architects and Engineers that support the official story.'"
Related Info:
Email from an Engineer in Phoenix
NFL's Mark Stepnoski & Tony Szamboti: Buildingwhat? Round 2 Building What? is up...
Breaking News: Hell Freezes Over!