AE911Truth is not a valid reference for the controlled demolition hypothesis

[1337m4n]

I address this particularly to deep44, because he seems to tout the AE911Truth petition every chance he gets.

There are several reasons why "Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth" cannot be considered a valid representation of the true number of relevant professionals who support "911 Truth".


Padded numbers. The AE911Truth petition seems to have been specifically created to satisfy the demands of skeptics for engineers who believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis. I say this because there are quite a few names on that petition who would know nothing more than the layman about building collapses, demolitions, the effects of fire, etc. Some examples:

"Thomas Spellman, Urban Activist"

"Andrew Kittross, Computer Software/Electrical Engineer"

"Douglas M. Keenan, None" (his degree is a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering)

"Douglas E. Mackenzie, BSEE" (Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering)

"Greg Salyards" (no credentials listed; his bio says he "Worked in Systems Analysis, Computer Systems, and Data Communications")

"Marc Kuttner, Marine Engineer"

"James D. Johnson, Chemist"

"Jim G. Smith, Software Developer" (Master's in Computer Science)

I could go on for quite a while, but I think you get the point. Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth is clearly practicing intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to pad their numbers, seemingly for no other reason than to be able to rub the petition in the face of skeptics the way many Truthers here commonly do. A "Software Developer" doesn't necessarily have any more understanding of the WTC collapses than Average Joe, but AE911Truth lists them on their petition as if they did.

Truthers have often accused us of moving the goalposts, but this is not the case: from the start we have always asked for structural engineers, of which there are at most 13 (when being as generous as possible with the credentials). Hardly the "300+" that is so often claimed by Truthers.


Unverifiable names. There are quite a few names on the petition that cannot be said with certainty to be supportive of 9/11 Truth. If you go to the Petition Signers page, you will see a number of entries that look like this:

• Bio:

(please enter a short bio)

• Personal 9/11 Statement:

(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)

These entries are indicative of someone who signed the petition half-heartedly, without reading it or viewing the associated materials, or the like. Furthermore, without the Bio information, there is no way to verify the names, and without the Personal 9/11 Statement, it is impossible to say for sure that the individual supports the controlled demolition hypothesis. There is even at least one person whose Personal 9/11 Statement would indicate that he doubts the controlled demolition hypothesis:

Presentation by Richard Gage was convincing. In the future, needs to address questions relating to number of people that would have to have been involved, the fact that no one has come forward to expose their role, and how the complicated and lengthy installation of multiple precisely located explosives was carried out without detection.

It almost appears that there are more "empty" entries on this petition that filled-out ones.

There are also some entries which indicate a "neutral" position, neither for nor against the "official story". Still, it is intellectually dishonest to present such people as if they outright supported Controlled Demolition:

I am interested in further examination of the tower collapse(s).

That's the only thing he says under "Personal 9/11 Statement". To extrapolate from that that he necessarily believes in controlled demolition is intellectually dishonest.

As an engineer I was taught to design structures to avoid a catastrophic failure. The engineers that design the buildings should explain their design and why it failed.

Again, this does not indicate that he supports the controlled demolition hypothesis.

There are several more such entries, but you get the idea.


Signers indicate that they are misinformed. Several of the signers promote demonstrable falsehoods in their Personal 9/11 Statements. Not only does this undermine their credibility, but it leaves open the possibility that they would abandon the controlled demolition hypothesis if they were better informed. Examples:

I would really like to know why complete collapse of the twin towers "became inevitable" as expressed by NIST without any scientific analysis to substantiate it. Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing most of the contents into dust and ash - twice? Why would WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified - and necessary - for all three collapses.

Several of these statements are demonstrably false. The collapse times have been shown to be significantly longer than Brookman states. Furthermore, Brookman seems unaware of the fact that WTC 7 was struck by tons of falling debris from the collapsing Towers, or of the firefighter's accounts that the building was engulfed in flames.

It was apparent to me from the day of 9/11 that the buildings did not fall due to catastrophic failure initiating from the impact by jet planes. If the towers had fallen due to anything but a controlled demolition, they would have taken out several city blocks and most adjacent buildings would have also been taken down by the towers.

Stephens is ignorant of the incredible amounts of collateral damage that occurred from the collapse of the Twin Towers, including the destruction of Building 7 itself.

The buildings fell at or very near free fall speed and into their own foot prints!

Everything about this statement has been debunked numerous times. The collapses were far slower than free fall, and a significant quantity of debris fell far outside of the footprints.

Again, I could go on for quite a while, but I'd be sitting here for quite some time if I did.



Unreliable Verification System. The verification system for AE911Truth's petition is too easy to fool, as our fellow JREFers demonstrated in this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83483) Anybody with enough time on his hands could create dozens of "engineers" in order to further pad the petition's numbers. Indeed, the petition still contains several of the fake names JREFers used in their initial expose--even after Richard Gage was informed that the names were fakes! This undermines the last of the organization's credibility.


Sorry, but I simply cannot accept the AE911Truth petition as evidence of the engineering community's alleged support of the controlled demolition hypothesis.

[uk_dave]

Nice post 1337m4n


ETA: You might want to consider asking for it to be merged with Ref's AETruth watch thread and it would certainly help to get that one back on track :)

[DGM]

One thing you forgot to mention, There's no requirements for membership. Once your on the list that's it, your on for life. If you don't support their view anymore it's up to you to have your name removed. This simply means that there's no way to know if these people still support this cause. The only way a list (especially an internet) can be taken at face value would be if there was some sort of membership commitment (dues or regular participation in events).

Otherwise nice post

[DC]

"James D. Johnson, Chemist"

bah how laughable, a chemist......

[Alt+F4]

Let us assume for a second that AE911Truth is totally legitimate and that every name on the petition is a real life architect or engineer with considerable experience.

Why no new investigation? Why no front page story in The New York Times? If the "truthers" have all these brilliant people why have their combined genius accomplished absolutely nothing in over six years? If these folks have the scientific proof then why don't they do more than just sign their names to a petition and hang out on the Internet?

[peteweaver]

"James D. Johnson, Chemist"

bah how laughable, a chemist......

Chemistry does not teach people anything relevant to the events of 9/11.

Its an entirely different science. And not what is needed to understand the collapses of buildings.

Try harder A&E twoof.

[DGM]

Chemistry does not teach people anything relevant to the events of 9/11.

Its an entirely different science. And not what is needed to understand the collapses of buildings.

Try harder A&E twoof.
I think that was a dig at Dr Frank Greening (Chemist)

[Good Lt]

Great post. Wonder if the resident AEFrauds for 9-11 Troof boosters will notice.

[DC]

I think that was a dig at Dr Frank Greening (Chemist)

what Dr. Greening is Chemist?
how can he know about collapses then?

wouldnt you call the OP an Argumentum Ad Hominem?

[johnny karate]

Dr Greening's work stands on its own merits, regardless of his professional background. The same could be said of any of the supposed members of AE911Truth, if any of them actually submitted any work.

Since they haven't, what we have here is the logical fallacy know as an Appeal to Authority, thus making the credentials of these so-called "authorities" open to examination and criticism.

[DC]

but it was clained that Chemist do not learn anything usefull in regards to collapses.

but somehow Dr. Greenings is excluded.

and its not about Dr. Greenings, he has indeed provided better work than any truther. and his work is used by many truthers.

but to just point out, oh he is just a chemist, is just childish.
what did he say or write that was so wrong?
and in regards to theyr Theory, that includes Thermite, isnt it exactly the field very usefull? Chemist?

[Architect]

DC

You ignore the fact that not one member of AE911 Truth has credible tall buildings design experience, IIRC - although I'm happy to be corrected if you can show otherwise.

[DC]

no worry, i am not a AE folower.

but btw, what experiance in tall buildings has Dr. Greenings?

thats my only point here, i like Dr. Greenings, and i respect him for his work, sure i dont share his oppinion about the towers was not a CD.

but i will never say his formulas are not correct because he is just a Chemist and has no experiance in tall buildings.

if the OP would have pointed out what that AE chemist said or wrote, then we could have a debate, but just saying they are not credible cause they have EE's and chemists is laughable.

[DC]

btw, they often point out, ha that truther is just an Architect....
what do you think about such arguments? you as an Architect?

[Spud1k]

The mere existence of AE911Truth is, as you say, just to provide ammunition against critics of the truth movement, specifically to counter the "no qualified engineers agree with you" statement. Even if they can rebut that specific statement - which is still highly debatable - it still goes nowhere in proving a controlled demolition. Since its inception, AE911Truth has yet to build up a robust case. Gage has always been the only really vocal member and ever done is recycle the long-debunked material of DRG and Steven Jones.

[DC]

just because JREF provided a "debunking" or a counter theory, does not mean the case is solved or that the JREF Debunking is correct :)

[peteweaver]

DC we are not JREF, we are simply members of the JREF forums, some of us happen to debunk the bunk of conspiracy lunacy on this board. Others like you who are a JREF forum member have a different view.

Btw, the conspiracy theories board is not all there is to JREF.

[Spud1k]

In a lot of aspects, there is no case to 'solve' and there is no need to provide any counter theories. For instance, Jones has yet to provide a case for his thermite theories that stands up to any intellectual or academic scrutiny outside of his own 'journal'. One is therefore left to conclude that there is no reason to even suspect the thermite even existed.

As far as the majority are concerned, the towers fell because of impact and fire damage and studies by NIST and others showed no reason to think otherwise. This means that the onus is most definitely on anyone who disagrees to prove their case. Gage has stated that 1) evidence exists that CD was used and 2) the towers could not have fallen without CD. However, his arguments have been shown time and time again to be very questionable (disappearing mass anyone?), so as such, citing the mere existence of AE911Truth as a proof of CD, or even as a disproof of impact/fire-initiated collapse, is not valid.

[Good Lt]

just because JREF provided a "debunking" or a counter theory, does not mean the case is solved or that the JREF Debunking is correct :)

Actually, citing the evidence and comprehensively refuting the nonsense spewed from the Troof movement does mean that the case is solved in this way:

There is no "case" for 9-11 conspiracists.

Terrorists hijacked airliners, flew them into the Twin Towers, and killed just shy of 3000 people on 9-11-01. More hit the Pentagon and hijacked a fourth plane that crashed in PA. There were no explosives, Mossad agents, space beams, holograms, thermite or thermate explosives, primacord, explosions from controlled demolitions, or anything else submitted by the Troof club.

You have no "case." This isn't a Hardy Boys novel - it's real life.

[DC]

no one want to see my point, are you all in denial?

[Good Lt]

no one want to see my point, are you all in denial?

Reading through your posts here, it is evident that you had no point, other than to further "the case" of the WTC conspiracy.

Are we done?

[DC]

ok conclusion = Dr. Greenings is only a Chemist and has no experiance in Tall buildings.

thx

[MarkyX]

Anyone who cites Richard Gage is basically someone who can't think for themselves and loves to appeal to authority.

1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something positive about A,
3. therefore claim B is true.

Hence, if put Richard Gage in perspective.

- Richard Gage says 9/11 was an inside job
- Richard Gage is an architect
- Therefore 9/11 was an inside job

One thing 9/11 deniers tend to forget is not only do we have the proper experts on our side, but they get into great detail in peer reviewed papers. Richard Gage doesn't, as he merely says the same things as Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin.

[Good Lt]

Anyone who cites Richard Gage is basically someone who can't think for themselves and loves to appeal to authority.

1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something positive about A,
3. therefore claim B is true.

Hence, if put Richard Gage in perspective.

- Richard Gage says 9/11 was an inside job
- Richard Gage is an architect
- Therefore 9/11 was an inside job

One thing 9/11 deniers tend to forget is not only do we have the proper experts on our side, but they get into great detail in peer reviewed papers. Richard Gage doesn't, as he merely says the same things as Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin.

It's also good that DRG, a theologian, has many peer-reviewed scientific papers and technical articles published on the WTC and its surrounding phenomena.

Where can we find all of these vaunted yet inexplicably inaccessible peer-reviewed papers from the Troof movement? Linky?

[Evilgiraffe]

ok conclusion = Dr. Greenings is only a Chemist and has no experiance in Tall buildings.

DC, you know how to play the game. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

It matters not one jot whether Dr Greening is a chemist, an engineer, an architect or a milkman. If you have a problem with what he's published, point out the flaws and argue your case.

Admittedly people have a tendency to pay more attention to claims from those with experience in a particular field but that doesn't mean experts have a monopoly on making claims.

Our understanding of space and time was overturned last century by a patent examiner from Ulm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein). The vast majority of physicists agree with Einstein and I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of architects and engineers agree with the conclusions of Greening et al.

Once again, if you have misgiving about Dr Greening's work, try actually refuting it. Bring some calculations to the table. I'm certain that there are people posting here who can judge their merit.

[DC]

Actually, citing the evidence and comprehensively refuting the nonsense spewed from the Troof movement does mean that the case is solved in this way:

There is no "case" for 9-11 conspiracists.

Terrorists hijacked airliners, flew them into the Twin Towers, and killed just shy of 3000 people on 9-11-01. More hit the Pentagon and hijacked a fourth plane that crashed in PA. There were no explosives, Mossad agents, space beams, holograms, thermite or thermate explosives, primacord, explosions from controlled demolitions, or anything else submitted by the Troof club.

You have no "case." This isn't a Hardy Boys novel - it's real life.

i thaught Thermite is not an Explosive :boggled:

[DC]

DC, you know how to play the game. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

It matters not one jot whether Dr Greening is a chemist, an engineer, an architect or a milkman. If you have a problem with what he's published, point out the flaws and argue your case.

Admittedly people have a tendency to pay more attention to claims from those with experience in a particular field but that doesn't mean experts have a monopoly on making claims.

Our understanding of space and time was overturned last century by a patent examiner from Ulm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein). The vast majority of physicists agree with Einstein and I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of architects and engineers agree with the conclusions of Greening et al.

Once again, if you have misgiving about Dr Greening's work, try actually refuting it. Bring some calculations to the table. I'm certain that there are people posting here who can judge their merit.

It matters not one jot whether Dr Greening is a chemist, an engineer, an architect or a milkman. If you have a problem with what he's published, point out the flaws and argue your case.

that was my point, finally you got it, congratulations.

It matters not one jot whether James D. Johnson is a chemist, an engineer, an architect or a milkman. If you have a problem with what hesaid or wrote, point out the flaws and argue your case.

[Evilgiraffe]

And James D Johnson has published what in relation to the WTC collapses?

[Nick Terry]

And James D Johnson has published what in relation to the WTC collapses?

which is the point that our friend Dictator Cheney doesn't get. A list of names is not a scientific argument.

[DC]

And James D Johnson has published what in relation to the WTC collapses?

ah i see. you dont even know what he said or wrote.
he is just under atack because his name is listed on AE and cause he is a Chemist.

a bunch of hypocrits :)

[DC]

which is the point that our friend Dictator Cheney doesn't get. A list of names is not a scientific argument.

hey, i never linked to them, nor did i ever say, but the AE experts are on our side etc.

but this topic is just laughable.

if you had a list of AE claims and would try to debunk them, i would find it ok.
but nothing. only showing that they have Chemists and EE's etc.

so what do JREFers know?
they have greenings a chemist and beachnut an EE.
mmhh, the only one that is an expert here would be Newtons Bit. or are there more?

see what i mean, this is a very very weak OP.

but about experiance, JREF compared to AE911, JREF wins do to Newtons Bit ;)

[Nick Terry]

ah i see. you dont even know what he said or wrote.
he is just under atack because his name is listed on AE and cause he is a Chemist.

a bunch of hypocrits :)

No, you're the one making a fuss about him. What has 'James D Johnson, Chemist', written about the WTC?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22james+d+johnson%22+wtc&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

63 hits for the name, nothing leaping out like a white-paper or peer-reviewed article, some look like a totally different guy, or maybe the name is one of the fakes planted by mischievous JREFers.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22frank+greening%22+wtc&btnG=Search&meta=

"frank greening" wtc = 2,490 hits, because he's actually written something about the WTC and his argument is discussed.

[uk_dave]

hey, i never linked to them, nor did i ever say, but the AE experts are on our side etc.

but this topic is just laughable.

if you had a list of AE claims and would try to debunk them, i would find it ok.
but nothing. only showing that they have Chemists and EE's etc.



No, you miss the point.

Architects & Engineers for truth is supposed to be representative of professionals in the relevant disciplines. They can't do much about the 'architect' part, which is why so few architects are actually listed, but the 'engineer' part gives them a nice degree of leeway with the 'truther' faithful to be able to pad the numbers with people who do not have an engineering discipline in any way connected to structural design (the very matter the site purports to speak on with a degree of authority) but simply have an engineering qualification in another discipline.

THAT is dishonest.

Why not have a "Chemists for 911 truth" or "Plumbers for 911 truth"? If indeed such sites were created don't you think it would be a valid to criticise if it turned out that some of those plumbers were actually macdonalds duty managers?

And my comments in no way should be taken to imply that a macdonalds duty manager could not provide a detailed structural analysis on a building which could pass review by professional structural engineers. But it does mean that said duty manager should keep his trap shut if all he can do is make sweeping comments along the lines of "Steel don't melt so you don't need to provide fireproofing, not no never".

Get it?

[Nick Terry]

hey, i never linked to them, nor did i ever say, but the AE experts are on our side etc.

but this topic is just laughable.

if you had a list of AE claims and would try to debunk them, i would find it ok.
but nothing. only showing that they have Chemists and EE's etc.

so what do JREFers know?
they have greenings a chemist and beachnut an EE.
mmhh, the only one that is an expert here would be Newtons Bit. or are there more?

see what i mean, this is a very very weak OP.

but about experiance, JREF compared to AE911, JREF wins do to Newtons Bit ;)


No, the topic is actually a good one. Anyone can set up a website or start a petition and claim by virtue of the alleged expertise of the signatories that they have access to a Higher Truth. It happens all the time. A good example is Project Steve.

However, a petition or list of names is not a scientific argument. It's just a list of names. Richard Gage makes some arguments, and these have to be dealt with on their own merits.

The fact that 299 other bozos are listed as 'agreeing' with him doesn't mean that much, especially when
1) many of the names are Mickey Mouse fakes
2) a very large number of the names are of unqualified persons
3) some of those who are qualified in more appropriate fields, don't appear to "agree" with Richard Gage.

Endorsements, blurbs and reviews don't necessarily count for much either. They might help sell a product but they don't count in science.

Citations in academic journals do count, though. That's the accepted metric in science. Unless, of course, the citations are all saying 'this guy is an idiot'. Then it would be bad.

I'm looking forward to the first pseudo-scientific twoofer who claims negative citations in some social science journal analysing CT discourse as a "scientific citation".

[X]

I'm going to quote this for you, Dictator Cheney, because plainly you did not read it:

Dr Greening's work stands on its own merits, regardless of his professional background. The same could be said of any of the supposed members of AE911Truth, if any of them actually submitted any work.

Since they haven't, what we have here is the logical fallacy know as an Appeal to Authority, thus making the credentials of these so-called "authorities" open to examination and criticism.



Please read and understand this post.
It explains what you've been harping on about for most of this thread.

[DGM]

Dr Greening's work stands on its own merits, regardless of his professional background. The same could be said of any of the supposed members of AE911Truth, if any of them actually submitted any work.

Since they haven't, what we have here is the logical fallacy know as an Appeal to Authority, thus making the credentials of these so-called "authorities" open to examination and criticism.
I'm quoting this one too.

I personally wouldn't care if the argument came from toiletscubbersfortruth.org as long as the article could stand on it's own. I'm a building professional (builder not engineer) and even I can easily blow large holes in Gage's arguments.

AE truth has never put up yet they fail to shut up.

[d13bgs]

Hi - I'm the Andrew Kittross you mention in your post. When I tried to sign the peition as an engineer, the ae911truth people were very strict about how they judged my qualifications. I had to speak to them on the phone personally. They didn't care how many mechanical engineering courses I took. Since I wasn't a structural engineer or architect, they rejected me from the main signers pool. My name, and I assume the others you mention, are clearly relegated to an "associate" category of supporters, not the main architects and engineers.

You must be really desperate to discredit ae911truth to blatently misrepresent their claims like that.

[jhunter1163]

AE911truth discredits themselves. You ought to look at poster Boloboffin's wiki on it. It would be a real eye-opener for you.

[beachnut]

Hi - I'm the Andrew Kittross you mention in your post. When I tried to sign the peition as an engineer, the ae911truth people were very strict about how they judged my qualifications. I had to speak to them on the phone personally. They didn't care how many mechanical engineering courses I took. Since I wasn't a structural engineer or architect, they rejected me from the main signers pool. My name, and I assume the others you mention, are clearly relegated to an "associate" category of supporters, not the main architects and engineers.

You must be really desperate to discredit ae911truth to blatently misrepresent their claims like that.
It is easy to see AE911Truth has no evidence to support their lies, false information and fantasy ideas. Gage regurgitates standard failed ideas of 9/11 truth, any engineer can see as bogus.

They discredit themselves! After the flaw in their petition and membership list was exposed; then they took the time to check on these who lack knowledge and fall for their lies.

It is pathetic that anyone falls for their failed ideas. Welcome to JREF.

Gage pushes stupid ideas, you are more qualified than him on 9/11. AE ideas are pure fantasy.

[chillzero]

Hi - I'm the Andrew Kittross you mention in your post. When I tried to sign the peition as an engineer, the ae911truth people were very strict about how they judged my qualifications. I had to speak to them on the phone personally. They didn't care how many mechanical engineering courses I took. Since I wasn't a structural engineer or architect, they rejected me from the main signers pool. My name, and I assume the others you mention, are clearly relegated to an "associate" category of supporters, not the main architects and engineers.

You must be really desperate to discredit ae911truth to blatently misrepresent their claims like that.

Hi, Welcome to the forum.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

Can you tell me -what do you think of the claims that other people have been able to sign up, and had their names published without a query?

[1337m4n]

Hi - I'm the Andrew Kittross you mention in your post. When I tried to sign the peition as an engineer, the ae911truth people were very strict about how they judged my qualifications. I had to speak to them on the phone personally. They didn't care how many mechanical engineering courses I took. Since I wasn't a structural engineer or architect, they rejected me from the main signers pool. My name, and I assume the others you mention, are clearly relegated to an "associate" category of supporters, not the main architects and engineers.


Then why even appear on a petition titled "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" at all?

My point was that AE911Truth was deliberately padding its numbers in a (failed) attempt to impress skeptics like myself. Surely you must be able to see that.

We have proven that AE911Truth has lax verification methods. We have fake names on that petition that are STILL THERE, even AFTER Richard Gage was informed that they were faked!

Furthermore, your claim that all the people I listed are placed into the "associate category" is both false and irrelevant. You and the others I mentioned are listed as Engineering Professionals AND are counted in the proud, boastful display of "445 architectural and engineering professionals!" that they have plastered over the front page. Other Electical and Mechanical Engineers are listed as Licensed Engineers.

Gage has fooled you, as he has fooled many.

Let me ask you this: How did you hear about the petition, and why did you decide to sign it?

You must be really desperate to discredit ae911truth to blatently misrepresent their claims like that.

Why would I be "desperate"? The 9/11 Truth Movement has not accomplished one single thing in 7 years. There's no reason to believe they'll accomplish anything in the next 7 years, either. Especially not with the likes of Gage at the helm.

Maybe you should take over the leadership of AE911; you are a lot more honest and dedicated than Gage. Maybe you'd get something done. Who knows.

[eromitlab]

Actually, I had it out with a truthist recently about ae911twoof, before it devolved into threatening me with spurious prosecution for non-belief when truthists take over the world. Anywho, I think they may have tightened their standards recently and pruned the fakes like M. Kay Mackey off the list, as I went looking for fakes. However, I might not be entirely up on who's real or not on the list... and of course, they still have the concerned citizens, software engineers, telecom managers, electrical engineers, "9/11 Truth Seeker" and such on there.

[deep]

Stephens is ignorant of the incredible amounts of collateral damage that occurred from the collapse of the Twin Towers, including the destruction of Building 7 itself.


No, he's not ignorant - his professional opinion differs from your unprofessional opinion (shocker).

Look, I'm not wasting my time in arguments like this anymore - you've (collectively) demonstrated that you will never accept any expert opinion, or even any evidence, that is contrary to what you perceive as "mainstream scientific belief". You will take a thread well beyond 1,000 comments for the sole purpose of manufacturing a reason to ignore something, driving away anyone who might object in the process (e.g., jay howard).

Here's what it all comes down to: you believe NIST, but the NIST hypothesis cannot be falsified. You've all put your faith into an unscientific belief, just like all of the people you love to hate in other subsections of this forum. That being said, when it comes to 9/11, the tables have turned - you are the "woo"; you are the believers.

The only logical course of action is a new investigation, but there's little hope that any of you will ever acknowledge that, because there's no reasoning with the "woo"..

..right? (rhetorical)

[kookbreaker]

No, he's not ignorant - his professional opinion differs from your unprofessional opinion (shocker).

Look, I'm not wasting my time in arguments like this anymore - you've (collectively) demonstrated that you will never accept any expert opinion, or even any evidence, that is contrary to what you perceive as "mainstream scientific belief". You will take a thread well beyond 1,000 comments for the sole purpose of manufacturing a reason to ignore something, driving away anyone who might object in the process (e.g., jay howard).

Here's what it all comes down to: you believe NIST, but the NIST hypothesis cannot be falsified. You've all put your faith into an unscientific belief, just like all of the people you love to hate in other subsections of this forum. That being said, when it comes to 9/11, the tables have turned - you are the "woo"; you are the believers.

The only logical course of action is a new investigation, but there's little hope that any of you will ever acknowledge that, because there's no reasoning with the "woo"..

..right? (rhetorical)

This is utter, utter nonsense, and one of the worst cases of projection I have seen.

Imagine, for a moment, that there was no NIST report, nor any FEMA report. Just assume that after the towers collapsed that engineers were to draw their own conclusions.

My opinion? Same as 99.999%+ of all the engineers in the world: The fire weakened the steel structure and it collapsed. Plain and simple. The engineers in as close to unanimous consent as could be expected in any profession assumed as much even before the NIST report was even conceived.

Take the example of the Comcast tower in Philadelphia. Built after 9/11 but before NIST was released. The tower was built to survive an attack similar to the WTC towers. As a result it has a concrete core that added hideous expense to the design and made concrete damn near a rarity in Philadelphia during its construction. They did this without the benefit of the report you claim we need to 'believe'.

This is not an article of faith, any more than expecting gravity cause a ball to fall to the ground is an 'article of faith'. It is simply a known fact of science and engineering: Fire and structural steel are not friends.

Claiming some kind of 'NIST faith' and babbling insanely about it being 'non-falsifiable' is ludicrous. Because NIST merely gives the more impressive details to an overall mechanism that is already known. If it were shown to be drastically incorrect tomorrow it would not change a thing regarding the laughable claims about explosives, thermite, and other fantasies.

Give it a rest.

[deep]

Claiming some kind of 'NIST faith' and babbling insanely about it being 'non-falsifiable' is ludicrous. Because NIST merely gives the more impressive details to an overall mechanism that is already known. If it were shown to be drastically incorrect tomorrow it would not change a thing regarding the laughable claims about explosives, thermite, and other fantasies.


It's clear that you don't understand the concept of 'falsifiability'. You say, "if it were shown to be drastically incorrect tomorrow", but that's just it - that's impossible, because there's nothing to test! There's no way to show that it's incorrect - it's not science.

Feel free to explain how the NIST hypothesis could be proven false through observation or experiment. For example, "if X, then Y cannot be true".

Until then, I stand by my original comments. There's nothing about thermite, or anything else - I've clearly stated that a new, scientific investigation is the only logical way to proceed. Period.

PS - it wasn't my intention to derail this thread; the OP specifically mentioned my name, so I just wanted to explain why I'm through playing these games.

[deep]

My opinion? Same as 99.999%+ of all the engineers in the world: (...)


Almost forgot- do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Hopefully you're not making the fallacious assumption that silence = agreement.

[kookbreaker]

It's clear that you don't understand the concept of 'falsifiability'. You say, "if it were shown to be drastically incorrect tomorrow", but that's just it - that's impossible, because there's nothing to test! There's no way to show that it's incorrect - it's not science.


This is utter nonsense from someone who doesn't really understand the scientific method, just read enough to try and bluster his way through an arguement.

There are dozens of tests, plenty of computer simulations, and much more. All of which could be duplicated to check the hypothesis.


Feel free to explain how the NIST hypothesis could be proven false through observation or experiment. For example, "if X, then Y cannot be true".


Not my point. But its already been done. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88816)

[kookbreaker]

Almost forgot- do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Hopefully you're not making the fallacious assumption that silence = agreement.

Its not a fallacious assumptions when there is no alternative hypothesis.

Engineers study failure, if there were problems with the hypothesis you would hear about it. Hoo-boy would you hear about it. The idea that even 1-2% of engineers would keep quiet if there were massive flaws in the hypothesis is laughable just from a cursory knowledge of the profession.

The ill-informed might try to desperately claim that silence does not equal agreement, but that is just another indication that they are ill-informed about the engineering profession.

[deep]

Its not a fallacious assumptions when there is no alternative hypothesis.


No, because you have no idea what they believe -- all you know is that they haven't made their belief known to you through direct contact, the media, etc.

You also don't know if 100% of the engineers around the world have even read the NIST report - how can they form an opinion if they haven't read it?

Also, in order to calculate the percentage, you must know how many total engineers there are around the world. Please, share the number with us so we at least know you're not just making up a percentage that is convenient to your argument.

[Grizzly Bear]

No, because you have no idea what they believe -- all you know is that they haven't made their belief known to you through direct contact, the media, etc.

It's true that arguing based on the silence of other engineers is a logical fallacy in of itself, however the same goes for trying to use appeals to popularity through poll figures to prove your assertions are true. The engineers and architects of AE911truth however make very incompetent claims and any rational person should be able to see them. Whether you still believe the inside job crap or not after wards isn't really my concern, but I would certainly be watching out for idiot claims coming from professionals because it's incompetent ones like them who demonstrate that appeals to authority don't mean jack

[deep]

This is utter nonsense from someone who doesn't really understand the scientific method, just read enough to try and bluster his way through an arguement.

There are dozens of tests, plenty of computer simulations, and much more. All of which could be duplicated to check the hypothesis.


Tests and computer simulations? The input parameters (i.e., initial conditions) for the computer simulations you're referring to were not static; instead, they varied based on whether or not the results matched their hypothesis.

If they were truly using the simulations to test their hypothesis, the input parameters would all be constants (based on evidence), and the test result would be used to evaluate the hypothesis. Instead, they used the test result to evaluate their input parameters.

That is not falsifiability.

Your assertion that I "don't really understand the scientific method" is humorous, considering most students learn about it in second or third grade. It's not an advanced topic.

[TheRedWorm]

Ok, Deep. Lets see AE's simulations based on their assumptions. Lets see their math.

[deep]

It's true that arguing based on the silence of other engineers is a logical fallacy in of itself, however the same goes for trying to use appeals to popularity through poll figures to prove your assertions are true. The engineers and architects of AE911truth however make very incompetent claims and any rational person should be able to see them. Whether you still believe the inside job crap or not after wards isn't really my concern, but I would certainly be watching out for idiot claims coming from professionals because it's incompetent ones like them who demonstrate that appeals to authority don't mean jack


Whoa there, hold on. I've never (fallaciously) presented poll results as proof that my assertions are true; although, I have presented poll results as evidence that someone else's assertions are false (assuming the assertion is related to widespread public opinion).

Regarding your opinion of ae911truth - you currently put your faith into a theory that is not falsifiable. Much like the existence of God, or the supernatural, there's no possibility that your theory can be proven false. So I'm not sure if you're in the best position to be talking about what rational people should be able to see, or not see.

[TheRedWorm]

I'm sure you've seen my question, deep. So, if you don't mind.

[Grizzly Bear]

Whoa there, hold on. I've never (fallaciously) presented poll results as proof that my assertions are true; although, I have presented poll results as evidence that someone else's assertions are false (assuming the assertion is related to widespread public opinion).

Poll results have been used in the past to justify the the validity of the truth movement position, and generally appeals to popularity such as that do not in itself make the case for something to be truthful. Whether it's been used by you or anyone else for that matter.

Regarding your opinion of ae911truth - you currently put your faith into a theory that is not falsifiable. Much like the existence of God, or the supernatural, there's no possibility that your theory can be proven false. So I'm not sure if you're in the best position to be talking about what rational people should be able to see, or not see.
Unfortunately the NIST report wasn't initially my reason for holding my position as it is now. When I see architects trying to demonstrate a scenario using card boxes to compare to the real thing (Richard Gage). If he feels his hypothesis bears weight then he could have sought commission for one of the many institutions to model the event based on his figures, these days software is more than powerful enough to generally assist in getting a reasonable representation. I can go through the claims one by one but this isn't really the thread to do that.

And the same for people pointing out other building fires, people making those comparisons should at least read case studies on their examples to make sure what they're comparing isn't concrete vs steel... in general when people and professional alike can't make those considerations, it places their credibility with me in question

While I haven't read through all of the WTC NIST report, many of the images showing the column failures confirm many of the things I've been studying so far, so what I've seen of the report already makes relative sense to me. I'll decide how much my opinion should be swayed by it once I've seren the entire report

[deep]

Ok, Deep. Lets see AE's simulations based on their assumptions. Lets see their math.


What simulations? I never claimed they ran any simulations - they've presented a hypothesis, which may or may not be correct. That's why they are pushing for a new investigation.

Don't forget- right now, there's nothing. No scientifically-valid hypothesis has been tested, and a new investigation is the only logical solution to that problem. If they follow the scientific method, they will explore multiple hypotheses - not just the CD hypothesis, or just a valid thermal expansion hypothesis, etc.

[TheRedWorm]

Ok, so what valid scientific hypothesis have AE put forth? Mind you, it must be supported by observation.

[Arus808]

Ok, so what valid scientific hypothesis have AE put forth? Mind you, it must be supported by observation.

and evidence

[deep]

Poll results have been used in the past to justify the the validity of the truth movement position, and generally appeals to popularity such as that do not in itself make the case for something to be truthful. Whether it's been used by you or anyone else for that matter.


While I do agree that what you're describing is a fallacy, I'm not the truth movement. I was under the impression that you were referring specifically to me, since I have referenced poll results quite a number of times recently, in response to certain claims.

If you have an example where I'm fallaciously citing poll results, by all means, share it - I'm certainly not immune to making mistakes.


Unfortunately the NIST report wasn't initially my reason for holding my position as it is now. When I see architects trying to demonstrate a scenario using card boxes to compare to the real thing (Richard Gage). If he feels his hypothesis bears weight then he could have sought commission for one of the many institutions to model the event based on his figures, these days software is more than powerful enough to generally assist in getting a reasonable representation. I can go through the claims one by one but this isn't really the thread to do that.


You're right - software is more than powerful enough to model such things, if you know the all of the (relevant) initial conditions. In this case, I don't see how that is possible, or at the very least, practical. I would imagine that there are far more economical ways to test the CD hypothesis - testing certain steel samples for incendiaries/explosives (assuming that's still possible), etc.

Maybe using a computer model is the right thing to do - I'm not sure. That would be decided during the course of a new investigation.


While I haven't read through all of the WTC NIST report, many of the images showing the column failures confirm many of the things I've been studying so far, so what I've seen of the report already makes relative sense to me. I'll decide how much my opinion should be swayed by it once I've seren the entire report


Just because the hypothesis is not falsifiable, or unscientific, does not mean that their general conclusion is incorrect. It's certainly possible that a proper, scientific investigation would yield the same result. Until such time, we're all just speculating.

[deep]

Ok, so what valid scientific hypothesis have AE put forth? Mind you, it must be supported by observation.


No thanks - these are the games I refuse to play. You know what the hypothesis is, and you know what evidence supports it (notice I didn't say 'proves' it). As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread - their hypothesis is falsifiable, because a therm*te reaction possesses certain characteristics that are either present, or not.

Either way - if it makes you feel better, completely disregard their hypothesis, because that doesn't change the fact that NIST's hypothesis is not falsifiable. The only logical solution to that problem is a new investigation that follows the scientific method.

[CHF]

You also don't know if 100% of the engineers around the world have even read the NIST report - how can they form an opinion if they haven't read it?

I'm pretty sure every structural engineer in the world knows the basic NIST/"official story" conclusion, even if they're not aware of its specifics. The WTC collapses were, after all, the most famous building collapses in history.

So you'll be hard-pressed to find a structural engineer unaware of the airliner + fire = collapse explanation. Yet very few structural engineers have come out publicly against it.

Now there are only so many reasons for why this would be the case:

1) structural engineers know the NIST explanation is impossible and violates the laws of physics but they're afraid to say so publicly because it would cost them their jobs and/or lives (even though all of AE911s members are mysteriously alive and well)

2) they know the NIST explanation is impossible and violates the laws of physics but they simply don't care about it enough to say anything (yes, not even the SEs in Russia, France or Iran give a crap!), or

3) the world's SEs are OK with the NIST explanation and see no reason to challenge it.

Which do you think is more likely, Deep?

Also, in order to calculate the percentage, you must know how many total engineers there are around the world. Please, share the number with us so we at least know you're not just making up a percentage that is convenient to your argument.

The ASCE alone is 120,000+ strong.

Kinda puts Gage's inflated list of 400+ in perspective, dunnit?

[deep]

Which do you think is more likely, Deep?


What I think is irrelevant - it's a question of what is known. If you want to assume that 99.999% of the world's engineers have no problem with the NIST report, that's fine by me. Just don't cite it as fact, because it's not.

I also think you're missing a few choices, but I don't see much value coming out of an argument like that. The biggest addition I would make are those who know what the explanation is, but never examined the evidence with an "analytical eye". In other words, they know about 9/11, they've read about the NIST report in the newspaper, but they haven't examined anything professionally.

If you disagree, that's fine. That sort of list is pure speculation, so I'll concede it. :D

[CHF]

Very well, Deep. Let's start with what we KNOW.

We know there are tens of thousands of structural engineers in the world.

We know that most, if not all of them, would be aware of the basics of the NIST explanation.

We know that the number of SEs who have gone public against NIST is pretty much limited to Gage's clowns.

So if you're a twoofer this begs the question of WHY.

Why are the SEs of the world so silent on such a huge issue? Why, as you propose, are so few of them bothering to examine the details, especially since the TM claims the "truth" is so obvious and irrefutable?

Keep in mind, Deep, that structural engineers come in all races, nationalities and political beliefs. They work for a wide variety of private, government or academic employers in a wide range of countries (some hostile to the US). Also remember that we're talking about the most famous collapses in history.

The notion that the world's engineers have not passed judgment on 9/11 is such a silly one that it can only be defended by accusing engineers of gross negelgence, laziness, collaboration with the real perps, being "paid off," or being too scared to talk even if they're on the other side of the world.

The only other option staring you in the face is the possibility that the world's SEs simply do not object to NISTs conclusions.

But it'll be a cold day in hell when the devout followers of the twoof subject their beliefs to such a crushing blow. Instead they're going to throw their lot in with Richard "pyroclastic flow" Gage in the hope that he'll one day have the world's engineers behind him.

[deep]

Very well, Deep. Let's start with what we KNOW.

We know there are tens of thousands of structural engineers in the world.

We know that most, if not all of them, would be aware of the basics of the NIST explanation.

We know that the number of SEs who have gone public against NIST is pretty much limited to Gage's clowns.

So if you're a twoofer this begs the question of WHY.


If you want to hash this out - fine.

Let me start by restating that you cannot "reason" your way into facts. I don't care how you dress it up, facts are supported by concrete evidence. Silence is not concrete evidence of anything, except for silence.

That being said, I still disagree with your reasoning here. Consider the members of AE911Truth - just the SEs, if you like - have they all had their doubts since day #1? Or, at the very least, did they start doubting as soon as the NIST report was released? No, and no.

The vast majority of them didn't see anything wrong until someone suggested that they reexamine the evidence - and that is what I'm referring to: engineers who have just digested everything, and not really stopped to think about it. It's a very real state of mind - just ask any member of AE911Truth.

I can't imagine that you can relate, because you haven't experienced the "ah ha" moment that I'm referring to. That's why I didn't really feel like having this discussion - I know you're still going to disagree, and there's really no better way for me to describe it.

We can just agree to disagree. Like I said - this is irrelevant. You have no evidence that 99.99% of the world's SEs agree with NIST, and that's what we're really talking about here. It's silly to waste time debating obvious fallacies.

[johnny karate]

We can just agree to disagree. Like I said - this is irrelevant. You have no evidence that 99.99% of the world's SEs agree with NIST, and that's what we're really talking about here. It's silly to waste time debating obvious fallacies.

Of course it's relevant, and the existence of a site like AE911Truth demonstrates just exactly how relevant the Truth Movement thinks it is, too. It also happens to be inconvenient to your ideology which why Truthers always want to sweep this particular issue under the carpet.

Truthers like you are constantly making claims regarding the obvious and damning nature of the evidence that supports an inside job theory. Many of these claims fall squarely in the wheelhouse of structural engineering. And yet the Truth Movement has failed miserably to marshal significant support within the structural engineering community, even with Richard Gage actively trying to do so.

No amount of sophistry on your part changes this irrefutable fact.

[TheRedWorm]

Ok, so what valid scientific hypothesis have AE put forth? Mind you, it must be supported by observation.

No thanks - these are the games I refuse to play. You know what the hypothesis is, and you know what evidence supports it (notice I didn't say 'proves' it). As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread - their hypothesis is falsifiable, because a therm*te reaction possesses certain characteristics that are either present, or not.

Either way - if it makes you feel better, completely disregard their hypothesis, because that doesn't change the fact that NIST's hypothesis is not falsifiable. The only logical solution to that problem is a new investigation that follows the scientific method.


No, I don't know what their hypothesis is. The very fact that you wrote therm*te suggests that those at AE don't know what their hypothesis is either. Also, I would think that if they had physical evidence (positive evidence i.e. evidence that points twords their "hypothesis") to suggest an inside job, they would have presented it already.

[CHF]

Consider the members of AE911Truth - just the SEs, if you like - have they all had their doubts since day #1? Or, at the very least, did they start doubting as soon as the NIST report was released? No, and no.

Deep, AE911 has 13 SEs! Out of tens of thousands worldwide. After several years of the TM trying to recruit them.

The notion that there are thousands more twoofer engineers just waiting for DR Griffin to give them their "ah ha!" moment is beyond absurd.

[GregoryUrich]

Deep, AE911 has 13 SEs! Out of tens of thousands worldwide. After several years of the TM trying to recruit them.

The notion that there are thousands more twoofer engineers just waiting for DR Griffin to give them their "ah ha!" moment is beyond absurd.

If anything, NIST has demonstrated that it was a close call by the necessity of tweaking their input parameters to get the model to become unstable. To evaluate this requires detailed knowledge of the NIST reports. It would take remarkable effort to even try to validate NIST's explanation logically, let alone analytically. Thus, it is unlikely that most of the 10,000's of structural engineers know the details well enough to form a rational opinion and it would make more sense that most engineers simply trust NIST (not an unreasonable thing to do) and leave it at that.

Nonetheless most structural engineers will be able to quickly disprove most truth movement claims regarding controlled demolition, once they get past the superficially appealing claims and actually work the numbers. It's a shame that Richard Gage and crew is relying on how things look and conclusions by Ross and Legge which have been reliably disproven. The only thing the truth movement really has is evidence of a thermate type reaction and high temperatures, which are inconclusive relating to assisted collapse.

[Dave Rogers]

The only thing the truth movement really has is evidence of a thermate type reaction and high temperatures, which are inconclusive relating to assisted collapse.

The evidence of high temperatures - assuming you're referring to the microspheres - is particularly inconclusive in that it contains no evidence about when, where and over how large a volume those temperatures were sustained, and hence doesn't contradict anything in the conventionally accepted narrative. As for evidence of a thermite type reaction, could you refresh my memory as to what evidence actually exists?

Dave

[deep]

Of course it's relevant, and the existence of a site like AE911Truth demonstrates just exactly how relevant the Truth Movement thinks it is, too. It also happens to be inconvenient to your ideology which why Truthers always want to sweep this particular issue under the carpet.

Truthers like you are constantly making claims regarding the obvious and damning nature of the evidence that supports an inside job theory. Many of these claims fall squarely in the wheelhouse of structural engineering. And yet the Truth Movement has failed miserably to marshal significant support within the structural engineering community, even with Richard Gage actively trying to do so.

No amount of sophistry on your part changes this irrefutable fact.


Nice diversion.

You have presented no proof that 99.999% of the world's engineers agree with NIST.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

[deep]

No, I don't know what their hypothesis is. The very fact that you wrote therm*te suggests that those at AE don't know what their hypothesis is either. Also, I would think that if they had physical evidence (positive evidence i.e. evidence that points twords their "hypothesis") to suggest an inside job, they would have presented it already.


Like I said- right now, there's nothing. There is no "official" falsifiable hypothesis from NIST. That's true whether or not the members of AE911Truth have presented a hypothesis that you "approve of".

A new investigation is the only logical way to proceed.

[deep]

Deep, AE911 has 13 SEs! Out of tens of thousands worldwide. After several years of the TM trying to recruit them.

The notion that there are thousands more twoofer engineers just waiting for DR Griffin to give them their "ah ha!" moment is beyond absurd.


That's fine - like I said, this means nothing. If you have evidence that those tens of thousands of other SEs support the unscientific NIST hypothesis, please, present your evidence.

If you have no evidence, please don't make the fallacious claim that their silence is indicative of anything at all.

[R.Mackey]

Like I said- right now, there's nothing. There is no "official" falsifiable hypothesis from NIST. That's true whether or not the members of AE911Truth have presented a hypothesis that you "approve of".

Yes, there is.

I dare you to name one thing in the NIST hypothesis that isn't falsifiable.

[1337m4n]

No, he's not ignorant - his professional opinion differs from your unprofessional opinion (shocker).

Sorry, but you need to understand the difference between "opinion" and "fact". The collapse of the Towers destroyed all adjacent buildings. This is FACT, not "opinion". He denies this FACT, showing that he is ignorant. You are ignorant as well, of the difference between fact and opinion.

Here, let me help you understand the difference:

Opinion: Pizza is delicious.

Fact: Pizza is a type of food.


Look, I'm not wasting my time in arguments like this anymore - you've (collectively) demonstrated that you will never accept any expert opinion, or even any evidence, that is contrary to what you perceive as "mainstream scientific belief".

And I'm not wasting my time with your pathetic attempt at derailing this thread. To refresh your memory: the title of this thread is "AE911Truth is not a valid reference for the controlled demolition hypothesis", NOT "NIST is unfalsifiable". Either stay on topic, or take this to its own thread.


Mods, please split the off-topic posts.

[deep]

I dare you to name one thing in the NIST hypothesis that isn't falsifiable.


Why? So you can argue with me over the exact wording I use to define their hypothesis, or attempt to pass off some arbitrary definition of 'falsifiability'? Like I said earlier in this thread, I'm through playing those games.

If it's as straight forward as you claim, name one testable proposition for why WTC1/2 fell. Have you ever stopped and thought about why you can't name one?

[X]

If it's as straight forward as you claim, name one testable proposition for why WTC1/2 fell. Have you ever stopped and thought about why you can't name one?


Testable Proposition: Steel loses strength when heated.

Results: The yeild strength of steel is indeed reduced with increasing temperature. Further, the steel is more vulnerable to plastic deformation and creep.
I'll leave it to you to find the scientific data, so that you can use sources that are in tune with your personal preferences.

edit: I agree with 1337m4n on the off-topic nature of the recent posts, and apologize for continuing a derail.

[johnny karate]

You have presented no proof that 99.999% of the world's engineers agree with NIST.

Nor do I need to. It is your movement that struggles to rally support from the scientific community, and thus it is your movement that needs to establish a consensus. And so far the number you have rallied is pitifully small and not even remotely close to being considered a consensus.

If you want to pretend that perhaps the "silent masses" are on your side, you go right ahead. It has absolutely no bearing on reality.

[deep]

Sorry, but you need to understand the difference between "opinion" and "fact". The collapse of the Towers destroyed all adjacent buildings. This is FACT, not "opinion". He denies this FACT, showing that he is ignorant. You are ignorant as well, of the difference between fact and opinion.


That is not a fact. WTC3 & WTC6 were heavily damaged, but they were not "taken down" (i.e., collapsed), which the wording used in the quote. Also, please, share your evidence that WTC7 was brought down by collateral damage - I'm sure NIST will be anxious to update their thermal expansion hypothesis.

As originally stated, I'm not surprised that his professional opinion differs from your unprofessional opinion. There's a reason why he's an engineer and you're... not.

[deep]

Nor do I need to. It is your movement that struggles to rally support from the scientific community, and thus it is your movement that needs to establish a consensus. And so far the number you have rallied is pitifully small and not even remotely close to being considered a consensus.

If you want to pretend that perhaps the "silent masses" are on your side, you go right ahead. It has absolutely no bearing on reality.


I've made no such claim. I was responding to someone who claimed that 99.999% of the world's engineers support the NIST hypothesis.

Go back and read the actual thread if you're still confused.

[Grizzly Bear]

That is not a fact. WTC3 & WTC6 were heavily damaged, but they were not "taken down" (i.e., collapsed), which the wording used in the quote.

WTC 3 nor 6, nor 5, nor 4 can be used to compare with WTC 7 anyway, as I've asked many people, consider the differences in construction, and size before wrestling with comparing them to much taller structures. To be nit picky WTC 3 & 4 were virtually destroyed, as only a portion of the structures remained standing. Unlike WTC 7 the major collapse damage done to 3 & 4 was crushing from direct debris impact from above, not fire or secondary effects of structural damage.

It issues like these that I'm concerned with Gage on... If he intends to make claims regarding the other buildings he should have as well considered the differences rather than the cosmetics...

[beachnut]

I've made no such claim. I was responding to someone who claimed that 99.999% of the world's engineers support the NIST hypothesis.

Go back and read the actual thread if you're still confused.
The fact is your fantasy ideas are only supported by 0.00087 percent of all world engineers.
Your ideas are supported by a tiny fringe group of failed engineers, they let their biases control their thoughts. Why have these few fringe engineers failed to use evidence? This confirms their ideas are false.

[deep]

And I'm not wasting my time with your pathetic attempt at derailing this thread. To refresh your memory: the title of this thread is "AE911Truth is not a valid reference for the controlled demolition hypothesis", NOT "NIST is unfalsifiable". Either stay on topic, or take this to its own thread.


I don't see how it's entirely off-topic - it's rather ironic that you would spend so much time manufacturing reasons to ignore AE911Truth's support for the CD hypothesis, when the hypothesis you do support isn't even scientific.

Tell me - if you were running an organization like AE911Truth (not necessarily related to 9/11), how would you confirm that applicants are telling the truth about their background, credentials, etc? What's the "right" way to do it?

[deep]

WTC 3 nor 6, nor 5, nor 4 can be used to compare with WTC 7 anyway, as I've asked many people, consider the differences in construction, and size before wrestling with comparing them to much taller structures. To be nit picky WTC 3 & 4 were virtually destroyed, as only a portion of the structures remained standing. Unlike WTC 7 the major collapse damage done to 3 & 4 was crushing from direct debris impact from above, not fire or secondary effects of structural damage.


I would agree - I'm not making that comparison. I'm just pointing out how important it is to read & comprehend entire quotes before calling various people "ignorant" (referring to the OP; not you).

[deep]

The fact is your fantasy ideas are only supported by 0.00087 percent of all world engineers.
Your ideas are supported by a tiny fringe group of failed engineers, they let their biases control their thoughts. Why have these few fringe engineers failed to use evidence? This confirms their ideas are false.


How many engineers are there in the world?

(I'm guessing that you lack the skill and knowledge to debate that fact, but we'll wait and see.)

[beachnut]

How many engineers are there in the world?

(I'm guessing that you lack the skill and knowledge to debate that fact, but we'll wait and see.)
I can relax. 9/11 truth lacks skills in science, math, physics, and engineering. I expect your movement can't deny my numbers, your group lacks the ability to do math. If your group had skills in engineering, math, physics and science, there would be no members in 9/11 truth.
Got math? Got real research skills?

Kind of knew you could argue with numbers. You got no evidence for your ideas, you got no math or research to argue with real numbers. Look it up! If you do as well as you do on 9/11 issues, you may not be able to answer your own questions.


Don't worry, you fantasy has 0.00087 percent of all world engineers behind you! Wowzer! My number could be off, but I don't have to worry about you checking it!
You never do use evidence for your own ideas and conclusions, why should you change that?

If you had evidence you would have posted it by now. Go ahead list all your evidence; line by line. I reviewed all your posts, there was zero evidence.

[deep]

You never do use evidence for your own ideas and conclusions, why should you change that? [/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]


Really? Could you please provide an example of a claim I've made without providing any supporting evidence?

..or do you refuse to provide evidence for your claim that someone else never provides evidence for their claims?

[Arus808]

Really? Could you please provide an example of a claim I've made without providing any supporting evidence?

eveyr post you made in this thread.

not hard to do. your history here has been evidence free

[TheRedWorm]

What simulations? I never claimed they ran any simulations - they've presented a hypothesis, which may or may not be correct. That's why they are pushing for a new investigation.

Don't forget- right now, there's nothing. No scientifically-valid hypothesis has been tested, and a new investigation is the only logical solution to that problem. If they follow the scientific method, they will explore multiple hypotheses - not just the CD hypothesis, or just a valid thermal expansion hypothesis, etc.

No thanks - these are the games I refuse to play. You know what the hypothesis is, and you know what evidence supports it (notice I didn't say 'proves' it). As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread - their hypothesis is falsifiable, because a therm*te reaction possesses certain characteristics that are either present, or not.

Either way - if it makes you feel better, completely disregard their hypothesis, because that doesn't change the fact that NIST's hypothesis is not falsifiable. The only logical solution to that problem is a new investigation that follows the scientific method.

Like I said- right now, there's nothing. There is no "official" falsifiable hypothesis from NIST. That's true whether or not the members of AE911Truth have presented a hypothesis that you "approve of".

A new investigation is the only logical way to proceed.

Really? Could you please provide an example of a claim I've made without providing any supporting evidence?

..or do you refuse to provide evidence for your claim that someone else never provides evidence for their claims?


You provided no evidence of a hypothesis. You also claimed the NIST hypothesis was unfalsifiable, yet you neither posted the NIST hypothesis, nor provided any way that it was unfalsifiable.

[R.Mackey]

Like I said- right now, there's nothing. There is no "official" falsifiable hypothesis from NIST. That's true whether or not the members of AE911Truth have presented a hypothesis that you "approve of".

A new investigation is the only logical way to proceed.

Yes, there is.

I dare you to name one thing in the NIST hypothesis that isn't falsifiable.

Why? So you can argue with me over the exact wording I use to define their hypothesis, or attempt to pass off some arbitrary definition of 'falsifiability'? Like I said earlier in this thread, I'm through playing those games.

Ah yes, you're through playing the "game" of being able to back up what you say.

You've moved on to lying, outright, with nearly every post.

If it's as straight forward as you claim, name one testable proposition for why WTC1/2 fell. Have you ever stopped and thought about why you can't name one?

It's actually very simple, as I've explained here in hundreds of posts. But if you want my help, you need to come clean. A liar like yourself doesn't get to make such demands of others. Admit your lie above, or begone.

[johnny karate]

I've made no such claim.

Sure you did. If you're arguing that the world's population of engineers does not support NIST, then by implication you must be arguing that they support your point of view. (Unless of course you are arguing that there are a notable number of engineers in the world that don't have an opinion about the most significant engineering-related event in modern history. Which would be utterly retarded.) Just because you get lost in a maze of your own sophistry doesn't mean others who are smarter aren't paying attention to where you're going.

I was responding to someone who claimed that 99.999% of the world's engineers support the NIST hypothesis.

Go back and read the actual thread if you're still confused.

And I wasn't the one who made that claim even though you defied me to prove it. If anyone is confused, it's you.

[kookbreaker]

And I wasn't the one who made that claim even though you defied me to prove it. If anyone is confused, it's you.

He is indeed. Presumably he is referring to my comments, but if he were to follow his own advice and go back and read the thread he would see that I did not say that '99.99% of engineers support NIST', it was that 99.99%+ were of the professional opinion that the fire weakened the steel of the tower, and that they were of this opinion well prior to NIST.

[deep]

Sure you did. If you're arguing that the world's population of engineers does not support NIST, then by implication you must be arguing that they support your point of view. (Unless of course you are arguing that there are a notable number of engineers in the world that don't have an opinion about the most significant engineering-related event in modern history. Which would be utterly retarded.) Just because you get lost in a maze of your own sophistry doesn't mean others who are smarter aren't paying attention to where you're going.


Now this is funny. The point of view you're apparently unable to comprehend is that of a skeptic. I'm not making any claim - I'm skeptical of the fallacious claim that 99.999% of the world's SEs support the unscientific NIST hypothesis.

I understand that you didn't make the claim, but you challenged my response to that claim.

See how that works? Real skeptics don't make negative counter-claims without offering any proof.

[deep]

He is indeed. Presumably he is referring to my comments, but if he were to follow his own advice and go back and read the thread he would see that I did not say that '99.99% of engineers support NIST', it was that 99.99%+ were of the professional opinion that the fire weakened the steel of the tower, and that they were of this opinion well prior to NIST.


Oh, I see. Where's your evidence? You don't have any?

It's still a fallacy.

[CHF]

Deep, I don't know how many engineers there are in the world but the ASCE is 120,000+ strong.

And the number that support your fantasy is....?

[kookbreaker]

Oh, I see. Where's your evidence?


Comcast building.


You don't have any?


Assume much?


It's still a fallacy.

Nope.

[CHF]

Perhaps the situation can be summed up this way.

So far we know that 13 structural engineers support the TM (most, if not ALL, of whom have never worked on skyscrapers and including at least one who thinks the WTC was nuked).

In other words, a tiny fraction of 1% of the worlds SEs support the twoof.

So where does that leave the other 99%+?

Well I suppose they either believe that jet + fire = collapse (which would explain why they feel no need to complain about it), or they just can't be bothered examining the most famous building collapses in history long enough to realize the obvious truth about what really happened.

You must feel pretty special being able to spot things that engineers are too lazy and stupid to see, Deep. :rolleyes:

[deep]

It's actually very simple, as I've explained here in hundreds of posts. But if you want my help, you need to come clean. A liar like yourself doesn't get to make such demands of others. Admit your lie above, or begone.


No, sorry, I don't need any "help" from you. All I need is for you to justify your accusation that I'm lying. Please, pretty please- demonstrate that I'm lying, and I will gladly leave this forum and never come back.

If you cannot justify your accusation, I will report your posts to the moderators for 'attacking the arguer' instead of 'attacking the argument'. I will not tolerate your baseless accusations any longer.

If you believe I'm lying when I say the NIST hypothesis is not falsifiable - there's only one way to justify that accusation: name one testable proposition from the NIST hypothesis for why WTC1/2 fell (something you were unable to do in an entire 1,000+ comment thread on the same subject).

Note: the proposition provided earlier in the thread is certainly testable, but it's not specific to the WTC1/2 collapse.

[A W Smith]

just about every construction engineer in the united states typically has free access to the trade publication Engineering News Record, My ex father in law who was a staff engineer for the port authority used to bring me copies to read from his office in the towers 25 years ago. It is a weekly that I used to read at the public library before i met his daughter in the seventies.


http://enr.ecnext.com/coms2/article_nebuar020415


so even if an engineer was living under a rock and was completely unaware of WTC building seven. There is no doubt that this trade publication would have drawn their attention to it and they would have formed an opinion.

[deep]

In other words, a tiny fraction of 1% of the worlds SEs support the twoof.


Umm.. that statement is just as illogical as the other one. Now you're assuming that silence equates to not supporting a specific argument.

Silence is nothing more than silence. If you want to make some claim about a % of the world's engineers, your only practical option is to look for professional poll results (e.g., Gallop, Scripps, etc).

[A W Smith]

Umm.. that statement is just as illogical as the other one. Now you're assuming that silence equates to not supporting a specific argument.

Silence is nothing more than silence. If you want to make some claim about a % of the world's engineers, your only practical option is to look for professional poll results (e.g., Gallop, Scripps, etc).

as you already know. polls are BS

http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/139015

[X]

Note: the proposition provided earlier in the thread is certainly testable, but it's not specific to the WTC1/2 collapse.

Bolding mine.


"Hello? Police? I'd like to file a missing goal post report. Yes, that's right. Goal posts. They were there only a few posts ago, now they're gone. I suspect foul play. You'll look into it? Thank you, officer."

[johnny karate]

Now this is funny. The point of view you're apparently unable to comprehend is that of a skeptic. I'm not making any claim - I'm skeptical of the fallacious claim that 99.999% of the world's SEs support the unscientific NIST hypothesis.

Of course you're not making a claim. That would require intellectual honesty on your part. But when you express doubt about one claim, it's tacit support of it's counter.

Perhaps you'll say it's the specific "99.999%" figure you take issue with, I don't know. I don't care to argue semantics with someone who lacks the integrity and backbone to actually state a position and defend it. The point is, you want to argue that the majority of the world's structural engineers don't support the NIST collapse theory. And in doing so, you imply that they must therefore support an alternative theory.

What every single structural engineer on the planet actually thinks, none of us know. What we do know is that out of the thousands there are, your movement has only rallied maybe a dozen, even while Richard Gage actively lobbies the engineering community for support.

You can argue semantics and parse language all you want, but the opinions you and your movement have regarding a highly technical structural engineering document are not at all supported by the structural engineering community.

[R.Mackey]

No, sorry, I don't need any "help" from you. All I need is for you to justify your accusation that I'm lying. Please, pretty please- demonstrate that I'm lying, and I will gladly leave this forum and never come back.

I already did in my previous post -- you claimed NIST was unfalsifiable; I demonstrated this was false and challenged you to respond, and you refused to back it up. You are a liar.

If you've been here for any length of time, you should realize that I don't make such proclamations groundlessly. Feel free to involve the moderators if you feel you've been slighted -- I am confident in the outcome.

And if you don't need my "help," why are you asking me questions? Like the following:

If it's as straight forward as you claim, name one testable proposition for why WTC1/2 fell. Have you ever stopped and thought about why you can't name one?

Sounds to me like you do, since I've named dozens in the past, and you can't seem to find them.

If you cannot justify your accusation, I will report your posts to the moderators for 'attacking the arguer' instead of 'attacking the argument'. I will not tolerate your baseless accusations any longer.

Argumentum ad baculum. I justified my accusations already. Bluster away.


If you believe I'm lying when I say the NIST hypothesis is not falsifiable - there's only one way to justify that accusation: name one testable proposition from the NIST hypothesis for why WTC1/2 fell (something you were unable to do in an entire 1,000+ comment thread on the same subject).

So if you've read that thread, then you read this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2881852#post2881852) from it. In that post, I demonstrate beyond any doubt that the NIST hypothesis is not only falsifiable, but that it was tested. This is one of many that does so, it is merely the best.

I also, in that same thread, define falsifiability in the context of the NIST Report.

And yet you still feign ignorance, lie about NIST, lie about my words, and whine for the moderators to save you from yourself. Please knock it off.

[CHF]

What we do know is that out of the thousands there are, your movement has only rallied maybe a dozen, even while Richard Gage actively lobbies the engineering community for support.

I get the impression that Deep is holding out hope that the rest of the worlds engineers will join the twoofers in fantasy land if only they could be persuaded to hear a DR Griffin lecture or watch a Richard Gage presentation.

Because surely that's why the TM has 13 SEs instead of hundreds or thousands...

[TheLoneBedouin]

The only thing the truth movement really has is evidence of a thermate type reaction and high temperatures, which are inconclusive relating to assisted collapse.
Hi Gregory,
Could you elaborate on why the evidence for high-tempertures is inconclusive?

[beachnut]

... If you want to make some claim about a % of the world's engineers, ...
No poll is needed, the few engineers from AE are less than 0.00087 percent of all world engineers.

Fact; your ideas on 9/11 are backed a pathetically small number of engineers.

You need math and some real research to figure this out. What number did you come up with? Got math? Got research?

AE continue to attack those who lack logic and knowledge on 9/11, , physics, math, science and engineering. Gee, not a good showing for those who claim to be engineers.

[eromitlab]

I get the impression that Deep is holding out hope that the rest of the worlds engineers will join the twoofers in fantasy land if only they could be persuaded to hear a DR Griffin lecture or watch a Richard Gage presentation.

Because surely that's why the TM has 13 SEs instead of hundreds or thousands...

That's the prevailing attitude I've seen from truthists... that their "impressive" number of professionals would be really "impressive" if those who haven't bothered with it (i.e. everyone who hasn't explicitly come out with a position, which would cover the vast majority of the engineering community) objectively looked at the issue, and of course they would determine that Gage, Griffin, Ryan & Jones et al are totally right. Also, it would help if everyone from local news to website owners to scientific journals stopped censoring teh twoof.
Hilarious optimism on their part... or delusion, I'm not sure which. I'm sure they think that if enough people give Gage enough lunch money, he'll convince every engineer in the world to sign on.

[GregoryUrich]

The evidence of high temperatures - assuming you're referring to the microspheres - is particularly inconclusive in that it contains no evidence about when, where and over how large a volume those temperatures were sustained, and hence doesn't contradict anything in the conventionally accepted narrative. As for evidence of a thermite type reaction, could you refresh my memory as to what evidence actually exists?

Dave

The evidence of a thermite type reaction is being discussed here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/microspheres-and-red-chips-in-the-wtc-dust-t19.html) with a number of suggested alternatives to actual thermite.

[Dave Rogers]

The evidence of a thermite type reaction is being discussed here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/microspheres-and-red-chips-in-the-wtc-dust-t19.html) with a number of suggested alternatives to actual thermite.

Ah, the chips. Since Steven Jones, as I said in that thread, hasn't justified his assertions about the nature of the chips, I don't see that evidence as worthy of particularly serious consideration. All his arguments based on chemical composition are simply affirming the consequent. Also, even if his arguments were logically correct, none of this is evidence for a thermite reaction having taken place.

Dave

[GregoryUrich]

Hi Gregory,
Could you elaborate on why the evidence for high-tempertures is inconclusive?

I believe I said "inconclusive relating to assisted collapse". It's not clear that the high temperatures (as deduced from iron-rich microspherules) were a factor contributing to the collapse. I have not studied this issue in depth and it may vey well be worthy of further investigation.

[deep]

;3997784']Bolding mine.


"Hello? Police? I'd like to file a missing goal post report. Yes, that's right. Goal posts. They were there only a few posts ago, now they're gone. I suspect foul play. You'll look into it? Thank you, officer."


It sounds like you're unfamiliar with the NIST hypothesis, the scientific method, or both.

Please quote NIST directly (re: steel weakening) if you still insist that I'm moving the goalposts.

[deep]

I already did in my previous post -- you claimed NIST was unfalsifiable; I demonstrated this was false and challenged you to respond, and you refused to back it up. You are a liar..


You demonstrated no such thing. Like I said, I don't accept your alternate definition of 'falsifiable', or any of your other irrational attempts to justify your belief.

The NIST hypothesis is not falsifiable; it is not 'science'.

[deep]

I get the impression that Deep is holding out hope that the rest of the worlds engineers will join the twoofers in fantasy land if only they could be persuaded to hear a DR Griffin lecture or watch a Richard Gage presentation.

Because surely that's why the TM has 13 SEs instead of hundreds or thousands...


How ironic that you refer to the TM position as "fantasy land", when you're the one who believes the result of an unscientific investigation.

The only logical next step is a new investigation - a scientific investigation.

[Slayhamlet]

You demonstrated no such thing. Like I said, I don't accept your alternate definition of 'falsifiable', or any of your other irrational attempts to justify your belief.

The NIST hypothesis is not falsifiable; it is not 'science'.

Your uninformed pronouncements about what is and is not science mean absolutely nothing outside of the sad little world in your head. All you have is bluster. Name one part of the NIST hypothesis that is unfalsifiable, liar.

[beachnut]

How ironic that you refer to the TM position as "fantasy land", when you're the one who believes the result of an unscientific investigation.

The only logical next step is a new investigation - a scientific investigation.

Already done. You have missed all the investigations? Too bad, 7 years in a few days and you can't get anything right about 9/11. That is a long time. You could have had a PhD by now.

[Slayhamlet]

How ironic that you refer to the TM position as "fantasy land", when you're the one who believes the result of an unscientific investigation.

The only logical next step is a new investigation - a scientific investigation.

More pointless bluster? You know nothing about science.

[CHF]

How ironic that you refer to the TM position as "fantasy land", when you're the one who believes the result of an unscientific investigation.

The only logical next step is a new investigation - a scientific investigation.

Youtube videos, crackpot architects parroting theology professors, peer-reviewing eachother's work, starting up fraudulent "expert" sites with tons of non-experts....

Yes, you folks are all about science aren't you?

[Grizzly Bear]

How ironic that you refer to the TM position as "fantasy land", when you're the one who believes the result of an unscientific investigation.

The only logical next step is a new investigation - a scientific investigation.

*Face Palm* (http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/facepalm.jpg)
Going by your consistent ludicrous claims that is the only way I can express my dismay...

I guess they did all those calculations and structural analysis for nothing, yet they did so well in other area that it's actually credible for trutherTM use

[Sunstealer]

How ironic that you refer to the TM position as "fantasy land", when you're the one who believes the result of an unscientific investigation.

The only logical next step is a new investigation - a scientific investigation.

Already done. You have missed all the investigations? Too bad, 7 years in a few days and you can't get anything right about 9/11. That is a long time. You could have had a PhD by now. Are you serious or do you wish to add a smilie to that bolded sentence? ;)

I only ask because this could be seen as Stundie seeing as I recall TheLoneBedouin was looking for them from debunkers.

[X]

It sounds like you're unfamiliar with the NIST hypothesis, the scientific method, or both.

Please quote NIST directly (re: steel weakening) if you still insist that I'm moving the goalposts.


You asked for one testable proposition from the NIST hypothesis.

The fact the heat weakens steel is a testable proposition from the NIST hypothesis.

You then stated that heat weakening did not qualify because it was not specific to the WTC 1/2 collapse.

That is moving the goalposts.

[1337m4n]

I address this particularly to deep44, because he seems to tout the AE911Truth petition every chance he gets.

There are several reasons why "Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth" cannot be considered a valid representation of the true number of relevant professionals who support "911 Truth".


Padded numbers. The AE911Truth petition seems to have been specifically created to satisfy the demands of skeptics for engineers who believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis. I say this because there are quite a few names on that petition who would know nothing more than the layman about building collapses, demolitions, the effects of fire, etc. Some examples:

"Thomas Spellman, Urban Activist"

"Andrew Kittross, Computer Software/Electrical Engineer"

"Douglas M. Keenan, None" (his degree is a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering)

"Douglas E. Mackenzie, BSEE" (Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering)

"Greg Salyards" (no credentials listed; his bio says he "Worked in Systems Analysis, Computer Systems, and Data Communications")

"Marc Kuttner, Marine Engineer"

"James D. Johnson, Chemist"

"Jim G. Smith, Software Developer" (Master's in Computer Science)

I could go on for quite a while, but I think you get the point. Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth is clearly practicing intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to pad their numbers, seemingly for no other reason than to be able to rub the petition in the face of skeptics the way many Truthers here commonly do. A "Software Developer" doesn't necessarily have any more understanding of the WTC collapses than Average Joe, but AE911Truth lists them on their petition as if they did.

Truthers have often accused us of moving the goalposts, but this is not the case: from the start we have always asked for structural engineers, of which there are at most 13 (when being as generous as possible with the credentials). Hardly the "300+" that is so often claimed by Truthers.


Unverifiable names. There are quite a few names on the petition that cannot be said with certainty to be supportive of 9/11 Truth. If you go to the Petition Signers page, you will see a number of entries that look like this:



These entries are indicative of someone who signed the petition half-heartedly, without reading it or viewing the associated materials, or the like. Furthermore, without the Bio information, there is no way to verify the names, and without the Personal 9/11 Statement, it is impossible to say for sure that the individual supports the controlled demolition hypothesis. There is even at least one person whose Personal 9/11 Statement would indicate that he doubts the controlled demolition hypothesis:



It almost appears that there are more "empty" entries on this petition that filled-out ones.

There are also some entries which indicate a "neutral" position, neither for nor against the "official story". Still, it is intellectually dishonest to present such people as if they outright supported Controlled Demolition:



That's the only thing he says under "Personal 9/11 Statement". To extrapolate from that that he necessarily believes in controlled demolition is intellectually dishonest.



Again, this does not indicate that he supports the controlled demolition hypothesis.

There are several more such entries, but you get the idea.


Signers indicate that they are misinformed. Several of the signers promote demonstrable falsehoods in their Personal 9/11 Statements. Not only does this undermine their credibility, but it leaves open the possibility that they would abandon the controlled demolition hypothesis if they were better informed. Examples:



Several of these statements are demonstrably false. The collapse times have been shown to be significantly longer than Brookman states. Furthermore, Brookman seems unaware of the fact that WTC 7 was struck by tons of falling debris from the collapsing Towers, or of the firefighter's accounts that the building was engulfed in flames.



Stephens is ignorant of the incredible amounts of collateral damage that occurred from the collapse of the Twin Towers, including the destruction of Building 7 itself.



Everything about this statement has been debunked numerous times. The collapses were far slower than free fall, and a significant quantity of debris fell far outside of the footprints.

Again, I could go on for quite a while, but I'd be sitting here for quite some time if I did.



Unreliable Verification System. The verification system for AE911Truth's petition is too easy to fool, as our fellow JREFers demonstrated in this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83483) Anybody with enough time on his hands could create dozens of "engineers" in order to further pad the petition's numbers. Indeed, the petition still contains several of the fake names JREFers used in their initial expose--even after Richard Gage was informed that the names were fakes! This undermines the last of the organization's credibility.


Sorry, but I simply cannot accept the AE911Truth petition as evidence of the engineering community's alleged support of the controlled demolition hypothesis.

Bumping because deep44 has returned once again to essentially spam the forum with AE911Truth brown-nosing and I would like everyone to be reminded that he is full of crap.

It should be noted that he never actually refuted this post.

[deep]

These entries are indicative of someone who signed the petition half-heartedly, without reading it or viewing the associated materials, or the like.


You're right - after reading what's quoted above, I decided not to waste my time. You're not arguing with facts - you make assumptions based on nothing more than your own feelings.

[Dog Town]

you make assumptions based on nothing more than your own feelings.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1092346be7f1c63099.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7632)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1092346be7f1c63099.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7632)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)

[Justin39640]

You're right - after reading what's quoted above, I decided not to waste my time. You're not arguing with facts - you make assumptions based on nothing more than your own feelings.

lol thats rich lol

[The Platypus]

You're right - after reading what's quoted above, I decided not to waste my time. You're not arguing with facts - you make assumptions based on nothing more than your own feelings.

Classic self projection tactic.

[deep]

Classic self projection tactic.


Sure. Feel free to provide an example.

[FineWine]

Sure. Feel free to provide an example.


Well, let's see. You're a "truther." You believe in all sorts of incredible nonsense because you really, really want it to be true.

[The Platypus]

Sure. Feel free to provide an example.

WOW, You actually need a walk through on this :eye-poppi



What you just said, was an example, duh.

You're not arguing with facts - you make assumptions based on nothing more than your own feelings.

Hence the statement from me, "Classic self projection tactic."