Just as CVA1993 did, I sent my own email to John Hall and got the same response from him.
I looked up the definition of "engineer" in my dictionary, and it did indeed include his above definition. I do not believe that he meant harm in his statements, but I do believe that he caused such. We can hope that he replies in print to his statements.
Here was my email to him:
While I understand the point which Mr. Hall is making, I take strong
exception to the use of "Engineer" to describe this madman.
Just as the term "doctor" should not be applied to the Nazi medical
experimenters in the holocaust camps, neither should the engineering
profession be smeared by calling such monsters as those involved in
theseattacks "engineers".
I quote from the National Society of Professional Engineers Code of
Ethicsfor Engineers:
"Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties,shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public."
That is merely the first canon; there are many others which were
similarly violated by these terrorists.
This person was most definitely smart, and very well may have been
trained as an engineer. He is not, however, an engineer.
Here was his response to me (the same as above, with a personal addition):
" The horror of it was that they were doctors.
As the brother of a chemical engineer, I surely meant no offense to
engineers, but I have received several e-mails protesting my reference to . . ."
I wouldn't view him as an enemy of our profession; rather as somebody who possibly did not consider the effect of his words on us (but apparently now is very aware of that effect).
Brad