AE911Truth and the actual # of engineers in America...

[RKOwens4]

Since it's kind of a slow day, I thought some of you might find this interesting. We all know that truthers like to say that there are over 500 members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (537 right now, to be exact). However, what truthers don't do is put this number in perspective against the number of architects and engineers overall. As someone who recently changed his major to mechanical engineering, I was just looking on the website for the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics and found that the number of engineers in America is even larger than I'd thought.

In 2006 (the last year that this survey was done), there were about 1.5 million employed engineers in the United States. I did a search for architects and found that in 2006, there were about 132,000 architects employed in the United States. Sources:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#emply (engineers)
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm#emply (architects)

That adds up to 537 out of about 1,632,000 employed architects and engineers who support 9/11 truth, or 1 in 3,039. But wait, the key word here is EMPLOYED. If you look at the members list of the 537 provided on the website for AE911Truth, you'll find that many of them are retirees, people who once worked in architecture or engineering but left the field decades ago (like Jeff King) and professors who teach architecture or engineering. So we have to include these as well in our overall number. There's probably no way to get an exact number on any of these, but to use a conservative estimate the number would probably easily bring the total up to over 2,000,000. But wait, there's more. AE911Truth has members from countries all around the world. The 2,000,000 figure includes only those in the United States. The U.S. is 5% of the world's population, but I doubt that the number of architects and engineers is proportionate to population worldwide. Still, when we include the number of architects and engineers worldwide, using even a conservative estimate would multiply this by about 5 times, bringing the number to 10 million. Finally, we end up with 537 architects and engineers out of 10 million who support 9/11 truth, or 1 in 18,622. Truthers, still want to brag about the number of architects and engineers who support your ideas? Is 537 still an impressive number to you?

[DGM]

Also with no membership requirements (dues, meeting participation and such) for 9/11 truth there's no way to know how many of their members are still active (or ever were). Basically if your names on the list it's there until you force them to remove it. If you don't realize it's there, (like your son or someone else put it there) you'll remain a member for life regardless of what you believe.

[JamesB]

Even that is underestimating it, since they have titles like "software engineer". I am technically a software engineer, even though I have no formal engineering or scientific training.

[lapman]

It should also be noted that less than 30 of the 537 are structural engineers and high-rise arichitects.

[RKOwens4]

Good points. One more thing to remember is that a lot of these members are probably hoaxes and non-existent persons. I've been a "member" of Scholars for 9/11 Truth for months, under the name Unfahig Gelehrte (which translates into "incompetent scholar"). I remember a lot of forum posters here and elsewhere saying that they managed to register names with AE911Truth as jokes just to demonstrate how these people don't check up on your credentials to make sure that you actually have the degree you say you do or even that you're a real person (AE911Truth just calls the person, Scholars does nothing).

I'd be willing to bet that a huge percentage of AE911Truth's members were registered by misguided truthers claiming to be structural engineers or whatever, just to boost the group's numbers.

[Jontg]

Attrition is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

[Bobert]

So is lithiam.

[GodisEnergy]

Good points. One more thing to remember is that a lot of these members are probably hoaxes and non-existent persons. I've been a "member" of Scholars for 9/11 Truth for months, under the name Unfahig Gelehrte (which translates into "incompetent scholar"). I remember a lot of forum posters here and elsewhere saying that they managed to register names with AE911Truth as jokes just to demonstrate how these people don't check up on your credentials to make sure that you actually have the degree you say you do or even that you're a real person (AE911Truth just calls the person, Scholars does nothing).

I'd be willing to bet that a huge percentage of AE911Truth's members were registered by misguided truthers claiming to be structural engineers or whatever, just to boost the group's numbers.

Can you enter the forum, with my experience is they let you become a member but then if your credentials arent there they dont let you enter the forum

[UNLoVedRebel]

Can you enter the forum, with my experience is they let you become a member but then if your credentials arent there they dont let you enter the forum

Truther websites' vetting has been known to get a little sloppy. Remember when Patriotsquestion911 and S4T had Mike Rotch? If they hadn't taken his name down, I would be joining them along their merry quest. If Mike Rotch (my crotch) is a truther, then damn it, so am I.

[dtugg]

Truther websites' vetting has been known to get a little sloppy. Remember when Patriotsquestion911 and S4T had Mike Rotch? If they hadn't taken his name down, I would be joining them along their merry quest. If Mike Rotch (my crotch) is a truther, then damn it, so am I.


Patriotsquestion911 has Frank DeMartini on their list, and he died on 9/11.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Patriotsquestion911 has Frank DeMartini on their list, and he died on 9/11.

It also has Edna Cintron.:jaw-dropp

[RKOwens4]

It also has Edna Cintron.:jaw-dropp

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had retired FDNY Batallion Chief Arthur Scheuerman as a member, even though Arthur Scheuerman appeared on a Hardfire show with Ron Wieck and Mark Roberts speaking out AGAINST the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I even emailed them about this when I noticed it (about 6 months ago) and sent them a link to his Hardfire discussion. To this date, they haven't corrected this lie of theirs and his name still appears as a member.

[cyclonic]

Richard Lowe is their comedy engineer.

http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999319

[Brainster]

They also have a swimming pool engineer (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/11/richard-gages-new-engineer.html) who had his license to be a PE revoked by New Jersey.

[eromitlab]

Patriotsquestion911 has Frank DeMartini on their list, and he died on 9/11.

The last time I came across a truthist referencing that site in a 9/11 "discussion", I cited the inclusion of Mr. DeMartini on their list as kind of a sarcastic "gotcha" in re the list's credibility. This is the response I got:
In the age of information you could contact these people if you so choose. You are just apathetic for whatever reason. It is the responsibility of the the people to question their government. Jefferson said it was the most patriotic thing to do.

proof of truthist stupidity (http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/7a3xw/willie_nelson_hell_yeah_theres_a_reason_to/c063jru)
Truthists are enamored with Gage and the 500+ credibility-free clowns (or should I say, amusement engineers) on his site that ought to be named appealtoauthority.com. However, with intellectual heavyweights like the one I quoted, they would likely be just as enamored with a few shiny objects and a loud voice growling that 9/11 was an inside jobby job.

[ElMondoHummus]

Before I start, I need to make this clear that this isn't a criticism of RKOwens4's post. He makes a good point about the validity of the engineering expertise that the AE911T group claims to have, and I agree with that point. Their credentials are indeed overstated.

But, that said, to me it doesn't matter how many engineers they have. The acid test has always been the claim itself, not the authorities behind one stance or another. That is the essence of objective analysis: "Does the claim stand or fall on its own merits?". By itself, the number of people making a claim does not impress me when the number is cited by itself without corresponding arguments for why the number matters. I'm impressed when I learn that a majority of scientists support one hypothesis over another when I also understand the rationale behind their support, and the logic they apply to come to a conclusion (the Cold Fusion issue is a good example of this). I am not impressed with a number alone, and I am most certainly not impressed when I discover that the individual motivations behind support for a thesis are revealed to be either based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations, or just plain flawed. And that's the case with the AE911T list. When you read through the reasons the members give for joining, you see nothing but the canards and mistakes that have been shown to be wrong over and over here and in other forums. You don't see any original thinking, and you most certainly do not see any attempt to modify stances based on developing knowledge. How many people continue to stand behind the thermite fantasy despite the utter lack of characteristic effects, let alone the absolute misrepresentation of information that Steven Jones commits?

Knowledge develops, and when it does, hypotheses must develop as well. You see very little of this in the so-called truth movement. Credit Steven Jones for at least trying to follow along that line, but criticize others for failing to do so. And include the AE911T group in that.

Anyway, the point is that the individual rationales for people joining that list are flawed; that much is obvious by reading the rationales provided. They continually cite disproven issues as being the driving force for them joining. So to me, it doesn't matter if the individual adding him/herself to the list is a software engineer, or is credentialed in fire safety for large structures, the point is that the belief itself is wrong regardless of the credentials held by the person stating it. Einstein himself would be wrong if he stated something that violates physical laws, nevermind his expertise in physics. His credentials don't matter. And neither do the ones held by the members of AE911T. I'm not impressed by the members individual reasons for joining that group, I'm not impressed by the "scholarship" the organization produces, and I'm most certainly not impressed by the conspiracy peddlers continual use of that group as a lazy appeal to authority. The problem has always been and will always be the details of the truther argument itself. And until the flaws are solved, it doesn't matter who says they believe in it. So in the end, it doesn't matter what their claimed expertise is, or what the number of "real" engineers is in that organization. What matters is their stance, and the utter separation from reality it has.

[Thunder]

I work with many Masters in Architecture and Engineering..and several PEs and RAs. None of them either care about these theories..nor give them a second thought.

Somehow, the more credentials and experience one has with architecture or engineering, the less likely one is to believe in controlled demolition at the WTC.

[Stupid]

When I hammered some truthers for the reason why the "vast amount" of the world's engineers and scientists agree with NIST's findings, here is one common example of what many of them said.

As expected :confused: , all ......
"Engineers and scientists are just as apt to make mistakes as anyone else. Engineers can be bribed or intimidated. Experts often make mistakes. The human condition dictates that all of us are prone to mental/emotional problems as well as stupidity. The scienctific community has failed to come up with a believable description of how the towers fell. Like the craven mainstream media, most structural engineers seem to be afraid to go against the status quo. And from an analytical stand the problem is most complex and not in the realm of what what would be considered as routine."







=S=

[Thunder]

Engineers and scientists are just as apt to make mistakes as anyone else. Engineers can be bribed or intimidated.

--yet no proof of any bribes

Experts often make mistakes.

--as do those who think it was a CD

The human condition dictates that all of us are prone to mental/emotional problems as well as stupidity.

--as are those who believe in CD.

The scienctific community has failed to come up with a believable description of how the towers fell.

---and the CD proponants have come up with a believable story of how/when the explosives were laid??


Like the craven mainstream media, most structural engineers seem to be afraid to go against the status quo.

---proof of this??

And from an analytical stand the problem is most complex and not in the realm of what what would be considered as routine."

in other words "bla bla bla......moo moo"

=)

[ElMondoHummus]

When I hammered some truthers for the reason why the "vast amount" of the world's engineers and scientists agree with NIST's findings, here is one common example of what many of them said.

As expected :confused: , all ......


"Engineers and scientists are just as apt to make mistakes as anyone else. Engineers can be bribed or intimidated. Experts often make mistakes. The human condition dictates that all of us are prone to mental/emotional problems as well as stupidity. The scienctific community has failed to come up with a believable description of how the towers fell. Like the craven mainstream media, most structural engineers seem to be afraid to go against the status quo. And from an analytical stand the problem is most complex and not in the realm of what what would be considered as routine."




=S=

That's a typical response, and notice how completely unsupported it is. Anyone can speculate about mistakes or malfeasance on the part of human beings, but that doesn't come close to invalidating the narrative. There's no evidence, for example, that the NIST team (http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/) was either bribed or intimidated. And besides, that isn't the crux of AE911T's argument about why the NIST report is wrong. Believe it or not, they make a positive one about the evidence itself. They get it completely wrong, but they do in fact discuss the evidence directly.

It is absolutely true that "experts" make mistakes. But the events behind the towers collapse is not built on one "experts" opinion, or even a limited narrative put forth by a small group, like Cold Fusion was. Rather, it's built upon multiple, confirmed observations and multiple, converging threads of evidence. On top of that, the dominant narrative is also backed by independent verification by other organizations (that's something R.Mackey points out occasionally). It's insane to make the argument that person did; ignoring the lack of support for it, it's a logical leap. It's one thing for a given expert or group of experts to be wrong in specifics, but it's a whole other thing to have the entire narrative wrong, and it's yet another level to make that pronouncement without examination of the entire narrative being presented.

Pretend that a composer - Mozart, Bizet, Puccini, whomever - juxtaposed some off-key notes in a passage. If that's wrong, then that's an error by an expert. Now, go from that claim and say that the composer's whole piece is off-key. Is that really a valid extrapolation? Assuming the notes are truly off key, then no, it's not. You can't say that without actually examining the whole piece in question. Yet that is the exact leap being pushed here by that truther, except for the fact that off-key notes in this context are clear, unambiguous problems, whereas the basis of truther criticisms are not. Experts make mistakes, therefore the NIST explanation of the collapse is false... that's just a silly statement to make. It belies the complete lack of comprehension on the part of the truther regarding the totality of the evidence, how multiple threads of it converge, how hypotheses can be identified and tested (like what Sisson and Biederman did to validate their hypothesis of the eutectic reaction's timeframe), how it's predictive, etc. This isn't a narrative that can be undone by identification of a single flaw anymore than the Great Pyramids can be collapsed by the removal of a single block. Yet, the conspiratorial minded would have you think the narrative is a house of cards! One has to ignore so much to draw that conclusion.

In addition, the fellow is flat out wrong about one thing: The "scientific community" (*giggle*... didn't know they hung out together so much...) did indeed come up with a believable description. The fallacy that this person is rebelling against is the strawman that conspiracy peddlers have built. This story has nothing to do with the "status quo" and everything to do with the fact that known phenomena - heat weakening, thermal expansion, eccentric loading, etc. - were identified as being the reason the towers collapsed. The problem is indeed most complex, and because of the size of the towers and the magnitude of the damage, it can indeed be considered out of the "realm of what would be considered routine". But that's not the same as saying the event is not properly understood. It is.

The person making that post is putting forth platitudes, not evidence or arguments. It's empty reasoning, a syllogism of nothings.

[lapman]

The scienctific community has failed to come up with a believable description of how the towers fell.

---and the CD proponants have come up with a believable story of how/when the explosives were laid??
Let's not forget how much and what type. Add to that how "they" were able to get 100% of all audio recording devices to not record the sound of said explosives, while "many people heard them."

[Norseman]

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had retired FDNY Batallion Chief Arthur Scheuerman as a member, even though Arthur Scheuerman appeared on a Hardfire show with Ron Wieck and Mark Roberts speaking out AGAINST the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I even emailed them about this when I noticed it (about 6 months ago) and sent them a link to his Hardfire discussion. To this date, they haven't corrected this lie of theirs and his name still appears as a member.

I think this post could provide some answers to your question RKOwens:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3301082#post3301082

ETA:

As I said in the post Scheuerman is not the type of member that Gage and Jones wants. Confirmed by Arthur Scheruerman himself in an note to Pomero earlier this year:

I just received this note from Arthur Scheuerman:

"Sorry for the delay. I just had a triple bypass operation with an aortic valve replacement.Yes you can place the sentence and maybe question why I am blocked from the A & E engineers for 9/11 truth web sites. They don't want any real questions. "

Arthur


I'm glad to hear that the issue of his involvement with Gage's bogus group has been cleared up, but conspiracy theories are not very important in the grand scheme of things. If you found the chief's appearance on 'Hardfire' informative, here's the opportunity to contribute a line or two wishing him a speedy recovery.
My emphasis.

Though they do not like his questions and views they are happy to still list him as member of both Scholars and Architects.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Since it's kind of a slow day, I thought some of you might find this interesting. We all know that truthers like to say that there are over 500 members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (537 right now, to be exact). However, what truthers don't do is put this number in perspective against the number of architects and engineers overall. As someone who recently changed his major to mechanical engineering, I was just looking on the website for the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics and found that the number of engineers in America is even larger than I'd thought.

In 2006 (the last year that this survey was done), there were about 1.5 million employed engineers in the United States. I did a search for architects and found that in 2006, there were about 132,000 architects employed in the United States. Sources:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#emply (engineers)
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm#emply (architects)

That adds up to 537 out of about 1,632,000 employed architects and engineers who support 9/11 truth, or 1 in 3,039. But wait, the key word here is EMPLOYED. If you look at the members list of the 537 provided on the website for AE911Truth, you'll find that many of them are retirees, people who once worked in architecture or engineering but left the field decades ago (like Jeff King) and professors who teach architecture or engineering. So we have to include these as well in our overall number. There's probably no way to get an exact number on any of these, but to use a conservative estimate the number would probably easily bring the total up to over 2,000,000. But wait, there's more. AE911Truth has members from countries all around the world. The 2,000,000 figure includes only those in the United States. The U.S. is 5% of the world's population, but I doubt that the number of architects and engineers is proportionate to population worldwide. Still, when we include the number of architects and engineers worldwide, using even a conservative estimate would multiply this by about 5 times, bringing the number to 10 million. Finally, we end up with 537 architects and engineers out of 10 million who support 9/11 truth, or 1 in 18,622. Truthers, still want to brag about the number of architects and engineers who support your ideas? Is 537 still an impressive number to you?

So how many architects and engineers independently support the official theory? How many of them are debunkers?

Employed or not.

And just how do they support it?

[Thunder]

i think its safe to assume that any architects and engineers that dont involve themselves, in any way, with the 9-11 truthers, pretty much agree with what really happened (a.k.a. the OCT)

what is it with truthers and acronyms? lolol

[Homeland Insurgency]

So how many architects and engineers independently support the official theory?

[Thunder]

are you expecting there to be a internet forum for folks who agree with the true story of what happened on 9-11?

its already been supported by the most important architectual and engineering firms, societies, and schools of thought.

their seal of appoval is good enough for me.

[Nyarlathotep]

The 500 or so Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth are to the Twoofer movement what the handful of biologists that the Creationists have co-opted are to the ID movement and prove the same points.

That there are always some people that, regardless of hos much training they have in a subject, will put their beliefs ahead of their training

And that the woos will always sieze on that fact as some sort of victory, depsite how insignificant the numbers may actually be.

Someone should start the anti-twoofer equivalent of Project Steve (http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve)

[Grizzly Bear]

So you don't have any? Out of what RKO claims is 10 million?
Whether it comes from you or anyone else... an argument from silence is not proof of absence ;)

More telling is that groups like AE911 need to include people who aren't even engineers or architects into their list of 500. Now, if you're going to have someone brag numbers wouldn't you at least want them to be reasonably honest?

Better yet, if they're going to set out to demonstrate their theories don't you think they should come closer to a more reasonable comparison than dropping cardboard boxes? Oh I forgot this is a valid comparison to you isn't it?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Whether it comes from you or anyone else... an argument from silence is not proof of absence ;)

More telling is that groups like AE911 need to include people who aren't even engineers or architects into their list of 500. Now, if you're going to have someone brag numbers wouldn't you at least want them to be reasonably honest?

Better yet, if they're going to set out to demonstrate their theories don't you think they should come closer to a more reasonable comparison than dropping cardboard boxes? Oh I forgot this is a valid comparison to you isn't it?

So none out of 10 million for the debunkers is what percentage?

Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence the truthers in regards to Architects & Engineers independently weighing in on the official version have more then just absent.

And I'm glad you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just don't be selective with that.

[A W Smith]

So none out of 10 million for the debunkers is what percentage?

Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence the truthers in regards to Architects & Engineers independently weighing in on the official version have more then just absent.

And I'm glad you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just don't be selective with that.




Model building codes have been modified and standard practices have changed as a direct results of the collapse of the WTC. One generally doesn't have to be outspoken about it. It's a consensus.

[Thunder]

Model building codes have been modified and standard practices have changed as a direct results of the collapse of the WTC. One generally doesn't have to be outspoken about it. It's a consensus.

i think he is suggesting that since most folks arent outspoken about 9-11 on a daily basis...doesnt mean they arent secretly crypto-truthers.

:D

[A W Smith]

i think he is suggesting that since most folks arent outspoken about 9-11 on a daily basis...doesnt mean they arent secretly crypto-truthers.

:D


I did a job is Staten Island today, I noticed many streets renamed after firefighters. I do not suppose many in Staten Island believe firefighters brought down any of the WTC buildings like truthers assert. Or they certainly wouldn't be naming streets after them.

[Thunder]

um..did you happen to see that little memorial to the FDNY on Hylan Blvd??

[A W Smith]

um..did you happen to see that little memorial to the FDNY on Hylan Blvd??


I was a bit north by arthur Kill Road

[tanabear]

The 500 or so Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth are to the Twoofer movement what the handful of biologists that the Creationists have co-opted are to the ID movement and prove the same points.

That there are always some people that, regardless of hos much training they have in a subject, will put their beliefs ahead of their training

And that the woos will always sieze on that fact as some sort of victory, depsite how insignificant the numbers may actually be.

Someone should start the anti-twoofer equivalent of Project Steve (http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve)

So how many architects and engineers have gone on record stating that they support Zdenek Bazant's crush-down/crush-up hypothesis? How many even know what that is? Can you provide me with a list?

[UNLoVedRebel]

So how many architects and engineers have gone on record stating that they support Zdenek Bazant's crush-down/crush-up hypothesis? How many even know what that is? Can you provide me with a list?

A list isn't necessary. It passed peer-review from an accredited academic journal and remains unchallenged.

[dtugg]

A list isn't necessary. It passed peer-review from an accredited academic journal and remains unchallenged.

You forgot, Hiewa has proved Bazant wrong by using pizza boxes, matchboxes, and a bathroom scale.

[1337m4n]

Hey tanabear, how many meteorologists have gone on record saying that the sky is blue?

[beachnut]

So how many architects and engineers independently support the official theory? How many of them are debunkers?

Employed or not.

And just how do they support it?
Did you miss it? Less than 0.01 percent are with you and the crazy ideas, lies, false information and fantasy of 9/11 truth.

You have 0.01 percent (less than), and you can't find more architects. Why not? At least you have 0.01 percent who believe nut case ideas, the engineers are less than 0.0001 percent. But who is counting the nut case idea believers. Oops...


Why are those architects in A&E unable to comprehend 9/11 events? What makes people give up logic and accept nut case fantasy ideas like Gage does?

[eromitlab]

So none out of 10 million for the debunkers is what percentage?

Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence the truthers in regards to Architects & Engineers independently weighing in on the official version have more then just absent.

And I'm glad you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just don't be selective with that.

Only truthists feel the need to assemble "look at all these smart people with degrees and training and titles who agree with us!!!!!!" lists like ae911twoof, "patriots"question911, 911summary, a handful of georgewashington blog posts, scholars for 9/11 "truth", lawyers for 9/11 "truth", firefighters for 9/11 "truth", et cetera. Only truthists feel they must appeal to authority to validate their evidence-free proof, fact-free accusations and ignorance-fueled speculation.

If truthists had any real confidence in what they were saying, they'd bug as many engineers as they could to try and get a statement from them one way or another... or maybe they're just afraid of what the results of such an undertaking might be.

HI, maybe you'd care to educate all of us on how these lists change anything. The arguments are still bunk and not corroborated by anything but cut-and-paste conspiracy websites that reference unnamed sources when they're not referencing each other and youtube videos that chose ominous music over fact-checking. How does having such a small percentage of the world's engineers and architects "on your side" matter, especially considering the only thing they're doing about this horrible crime they think they've uncovered is support Richard Gage travelling around to give speeches and drop an occasional box?

[Cuddles]

But, that said, to me it doesn't matter how many engineers they have. The acid test has always been the claim itself, not the authorities behind one stance or another. That is the essence of objective analysis: "Does the claim stand or fall on its own merits?". By itself, the number of people making a claim does not impress me when the number is cited by itself without corresponding arguments for why the number matters.

While this is certainly true, it's also worth bearing in mind the claim in question. AE911 aren't making a sensible argument, they're merely making an appeal to authority. Sure, you can just respond by pointing out that that's a logical fallacy, but there are many people who won't care or don't understand that. On the other hand, if you also point out that not only is it a logical fallcy but that it's also a rather pathetic one that involves nothing more than appealing to a tiny number of mostly unqualified people with a distinct lack of authority, the argument can be much more convincing. Pointing out logical fallacies is useful, but pointing out that they can't even use them properly can be just as useful.

[BigAl]

um..did you happen to see that little memorial to the FDNY on Hylan Blvd??
Can you be a little less vague? I might want to take a look at whatever it is you are referring to.

[Thunder]

Can you be a little less vague? I might want to take a look at whatever it is you are referring to.

Take the Verazano to SI. Get off at the Fingerboard exit. Make a left. The intersection between Fingerboard and Hylan I believe is where its at. It is in a triangle between the roads. Never saw it before..so kinda hard to recall exact location. Plus I was lost, looking for a pool.

[BigAl]

Take the Verazano to SI. Get off at the Fingerboard exit. Make a left. The intersection between Fingerboard and Hylan

I know what you speak of. I always assumed it was a memorial to all victims of 9/11.

[tanabear]

A list isn't necessary. It passed peer-review from an accredited academic journal and remains unchallenged.

Thomas Eagar's paper (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html) on the collapse of the towers, which advanced the "pancake" collapse hypothesis, appeared in JOM. NIST, in their investigation, came to the conclusion that the pancake collapse hypothesis is not tenable. In other words, just because makes it into a peer-reviewed journal does mean that it is scientifically valid. The experimental method is the ultimate arbiter of competing scientific hypotheses, not peer review.

Besides, your statement that it is unchallenged is not correct. The Journal of Engineering Mechanics published a paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf) by James Gourley in which he finds fault with the crush-down/crush-up explanation. Since his criticism has also passed peer-review, what makes Bazant's paper more credible?

Hey tanabear, how many meteorologists have gone on record saying that the sky is blue?

I hear weatherman use the term "blue skies" occasionally when they are giving the forecast. "Blue skies tomorrow with a high around 75F." If you want an explanation you can try these links. Here (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/shv/Meteorological_Inquiries.htm), here (http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/almanac/arc2008/alm08oct.htm) and here (http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html).

Nevertheless, I'm sure most non-meteorologists know that the sky is blue or sometimes blue. I'm not sure how many people, engineers included, are aware of a crush-down/crush-up.

While this is certainly true, it's also worth bearing in mind the claim in question. AE911 aren't making a sensible argument, they're merely making an appeal to authority.

In what ways is AE911 Truth making an appeal to authority? And in what ways are their arguments not sensible? They are making the claim that explosive charges can destroy buildings. Why is this not a credible argument? Maybe because government propaganda says differently. They are not making an appeal to authority, they are appealing to the evidence.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Only truthists feel the need to assemble "look at all these smart people with degrees and training and titles who agree with us!!!!!!" lists like ae911twoof, "patriots"question911, 911summary, a handful of georgewashington blog posts, scholars for 9/11 "truth", lawyers for 9/11 "truth", firefighters for 9/11 "truth", et cetera. Only truthists feel they must appeal to authority to validate their evidence-free proof, fact-free accusations and ignorance-fueled speculation.

If truthists had any real confidence in what they were saying, they'd bug as many engineers as they could to try and get a statement from them one way or another... or maybe they're just afraid of what the results of such an undertaking might be.

HI, maybe you'd care to educate all of us on how these lists change anything. The arguments are still bunk and not corroborated by anything but cut-and-paste conspiracy websites that reference unnamed sources when they're not referencing each other and youtube videos that chose ominous music over fact-checking. How does having such a small percentage of the world's engineers and architects "on your side" matter, especially considering the only thing they're doing about this horrible crime they think they've uncovered is support Richard Gage travelling around to give speeches and drop an occasional box?

eromitlab, maybe you'd care to tell me why you don't have a problem with the op.

[eromitlab]

eromitlab, maybe you'd care to tell me why you don't have a problem with the op.

Why would I have "a problem with the op"? (And by "op", I presume you mean original post. I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm wrong.) RKOwens4 did an excellent job of showing how unimpressive ae911twoof's "impressive" number of architectural and engineering professionals is. And HI, you've done an impressive job of refuting none of the points I made. Care to take a crack at any of 'em? Again, I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm wrong.

[boloboffin]

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics published a paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf) by James Gourley in which he finds fault with the crush-down/crush-up explanation. Since his criticism has also passed peer-review, what makes Bazant's paper more credible?

Gourley's paper did not pass peer review. His comments on Bazant's paper was followed immediately by Bazant's comments on his paper. Bazant demonstrated easily that Gourley needed to consult a textbook on structural engineering.

Do you get that? Gourley's paper was published by JEM to demonstrate precisely why his theories could not and would never pass peer review. It is a cautionary tale. "This is not how you do it," said JEM.

When you point to Gourley's paper as if its contents were endorsed in the slightest by JEM, you are making an appeal to authority in the face of its consummate rejection by that group.

In what ways is AE911 Truth making an appeal to authority?

The above is one of their most recent. Their listing of architects and engineers who question 9/11, their very reason for existence, is a massive appeal to authority. We are supposed to have questions because all of these "experts" have questions. It is why Gage organized the group in the first place.

And in what ways are their arguments not sensible? They are making the claim that explosive charges can destroy buildings. Why is this not a credible argument? Maybe because government propaganda says differently.

Baloney.

No. 1, no one would ever argue against such a claim. Everyone knows that explosive charges can destroy buildings. AE911Truth truly would be mad to stand and fight for the truth of this proposition to be advanced. Please point any government propaganda that claims buildings cannot be destroyed by explosive charges. What a foolish thing for you to say.

No. 2, the claim they are making is that explosive charges destroyed three particular buildings. They do this by making a list of what they call characteristics of controlled demolition, and then attempt to prove each one exists in the case of these three buildings. (This is something they have by necessity backed away from. Now they only suggest that it might be possible.)

However, it's all still baloney. The list is something they constructed themselves from a complete misunderstanding of what they see. They itemize things they think they can observe about the collapses of the buildings and then present the list as objective, on the basis of what? Their own authority. It is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy that they have employed, but since they cannot hardly prove a single item of their own improvised list, it's more like the Texas footshooter fallacy.

They are not making an appeal to authority, they are appealing to the evidence.

They are selectively picking and present the evidence they feel proves their case, and they rely upon their own unexamined reputations to make the difference up. No better example of an appeal to authority could be provided.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Why would I have "a problem with the op"? (And by "op", I presume you mean original post. I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm wrong.) RKOwens4 did an excellent job of showing how unimpressive ae911twoof's "impressive" number of architectural and engineering professionals is. And HI, you've done an impressive job of refuting none of the points I made. Care to take a crack at any of 'em? Again, I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm wrong.

Isn't the op and RKO stating "look at all these smart people with degrees and training and titles who agree with us!!!!!!"? I mean who is the 10 million?

[TexasJack]

Isn't the op and RKO stating "look at all these smart people with degrees and training and titles who agree with us!!!!!!"? I mean who is the 10 million?

Perhaps you missed this, no surprise, but David Scott, the chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat thinks the truth movement is a joke, and he doesn't know anyone in his profession who believes in a CD.

I am chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. I am a practicing tall building engineer. I have written papers on fire induced progressive collapse. I witnessed the collapse of the towers. I participated in the rescue and then the clean up and all the time I was questioning how and why. I was involved in a review of the new GSA standards for progressive collapse. And I worked with Libeskind on his design for Freedom Tower.

I cannot see why you could assume that this makes me have a conflict of interest. What interests? I just want the truth.

The ae911truth movement is not interested in truth. It presents one side of the argument and ignores all the facts that indicate that they may be wrong.

(2) Where is the data to back up your claim about the "vast majority of tall building professionals"?

"The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers."

As Chairman of the CTBUH I am well connected to most of the leading practitioners of tall building design. The Council represents organizations with well more than 100,000 employees. I do not know anyone or organization in the Council that supports the controlled demolition theory. The ASCE has an engineering membership of 120,000 and they participated in the production of the NIST report. NIST itself employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel and hosts about 2,600 associates.

Against this you have the ae911truth movement which has support from approximately 80 licensed structural or civil engineers, who have signed its petition. Now in proportion to the industry the level of support that the 911truth movement is tiny. However I can understand why 80 people did, because the response from government was slow and the one side videos the 911truth movement show are very compelling, if you do not review them critically.

Some people will never believe we landed on the moon and some people will never believe that the planes that crashed into the towers, eventually brought them down. From my perspective both of these statements are equally preposterous. However the 911truth movement only provides one side of the argument and any organization that does so is not interested in truth. There are numerous answers to the questions they raise and the overwhelming evidence is that CD played no part in the collapse.

(3) How are all of the numerous videos which document the "collapse" of WTC 7 as a perfect controlled demolition not credible scientific evidence?

"We have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings."

Well, if you only look at the 911truth videos then you have to remember that you are only looking at one side of the argument. Much of the evidence is circumstantial and is presented in a highly biased and emotive way. I have taken several of my family members through the ae911truth presentation and videos when they first came out and there was nothing that I saw, that could not be explained as a reasonable part of a collapse. Much of this information can be extracted from the NIST reports or from various contradictory web-sites..

My main concern is that the debate is that the CD theory is a distraction. 9/11 raises many issues about building performance, terror attacks and how structural steel behaves in extreme fire conditions. These issues need to be properly discussed and debated and every time the conversation starts, then CD takes us wildly of course.

Sincerely yours,
~xxxxxxxxx

.................................................. ................
Post by D Scott - CTBUH Chairman
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=697314&page=2

[R.Mackey]

Thomas Eagar's paper (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html) on the collapse of the towers, which advanced the "pancake" collapse hypothesis, appeared in JOM. NIST, in their investigation, came to the conclusion that the pancake collapse hypothesis is not tenable.

This is wrong. Eagar's hypothesis was completely "scientifically valid." It was reasonable. However, it turned out that it was incorrect. There is more than one way a structure can fail. Eagar explored one option, and after much closer review of the video and structural calculations, it turned out that a different option was what really happened.

Science allows for speculation. Before all the data is in, we are allowed and even encouraged to propose possibilities. However, those possibilities must make sense. Eagar's was theoretically possible and consistent with the very limited data he had, so there was no reason not to publish it.

If we didn't publish works in progress, it would be very difficult for other teams to learn all of the competing hypotheses in order to test them.

In other words, just because makes it into a peer-reviewed journal does mean that it is scientifically valid. The experimental method is the ultimate arbiter of competing scientific hypotheses, not peer review.

Now this is correct. Peer review does not necessarily imply validity. However, it is a useful check of quality. Papers that fail peer review, on the other hand, are rarely valid, depending on the specific reviewer comments.

Also, the experimental method is indeed the final word, and this is the very definition of science -- repeatability is king. This is why, at this stage, the Truth Movement hypotheses have all disappeared. The majority of them are not even testable, while on the other side of the fence, every single facet of the "official theory" supported by NIST, U Purdue, and others is supported by observation and experiment. They also have been published and peer reviewed, of course.

Just to further illustrate this point, both NIST and Dr. Quintiere's results were reviewed and passed (yes, NIST was reviewed, look it up), but they have a fundamental difference between them. Which one is correct? We will never know, and I strongly suspect the correct answer is in between. It can't be both. But both are scientifically valid, as you put it.

Science is all about managing uncertainty. It isn't about eliminating uncertainty.

[DGM]

This is wrong. Eagar's hypothesis was completely "scientifically valid." It was reasonable. However, it turned out that it was incorrect. There is more than one way a structure can fail. Eagar explored one option, and after much closer review of the video and structural calculations, it turned out that a different option was what really happened.

Science allows for speculation. Before all the data is in, we are allowed and even encouraged to propose possibilities. However, those possibilities must make sense. Eagar's was theoretically possible and consistent with the very limited data he had, so there was no reason not to publish it.

If we didn't publish works in progress, it would be very difficult for other teams to learn all of the competing hypotheses in order to test them.



Now this is correct. Peer review does not necessarily imply validity. However, it is a useful check of quality. Papers that fail peer review, on the other hand, are rarely valid, depending on the specific reviewer comments.

Also, the experimental method is indeed the final word, and this is the very definition of science -- repeatability is king. This is why, at this stage, the Truth Movement hypotheses have all disappeared. The majority of them are not even testable, while on the other side of the fence, every single facet of the "official theory" supported by NIST, U Purdue, and others is supported by observation and experiment. They also have been published and peer reviewed, of course.

Just to further illustrate this point, both NIST and Dr. Quintiere's results were reviewed and passed (yes, NIST was reviewed, look it up), but they have a fundamental difference between them. Which one is correct? We will never know, and I strongly suspect the correct answer is in between. It can't be both. But both are scientifically valid, as you put it.

Science is all about managing uncertainty. It isn't about eliminating uncertainty.
Not to derail this thread too badly but, Have you heard back from the "journal" that supposedly reviewed Steven Jones' work?

[back to the regularly scheduled nonsense]

[R.Mackey]

Not to derail this thread too badly but, Have you heard back from the "journal" that supposedly reviewed Steven Jones' work?

[back to the regularly scheduled nonsense]

Not beyond what I'd already heard, which is, "gee, that's great, submit your own paper (and your own publishing fee)."

Big surprise.

Since then, totally unrelated, my e-mail at work has been absolutely inundated with "invitations" to publish in some-or-other Online Journal. There's no correlation, of course, it's just further evidence of the proliferation of scams pretending to be journals. They are everywhere, they are a scourge, and they impress absolutely nobody in the sciences.

I've said before and I say again, Dr. Jones knows how to write a good paper. I encourage him to do so. He hasn't yet. There's a reason.

ETA: Some additional reading on Bentham (http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html). This is not just me noticing this problem, and not just Dr. Jones contributing to it.

[eromitlab]

Isn't the op and RKO stating "look at all these smart people with degrees and training and titles who agree with us!!!!!!"? I mean who is the 10 million?

Okay, I think I see what you're on about... because there isn't a comparable bevy of "look at all these smart people with degrees and training and titles who agree with us!!!!!!" lists of professionals who come out in favor of the "official story" all over the internet, and "debunkers" don't wave those lists in truthist's faces to convince them when facts cannot, those professionals don't subscribe to the "official story" and they're just waiting for Richard Gage to show up with a truthist-sponsored free lunch and a slideshow. Is that about right?

There is no need to stoop to the level of ae911twoof and publish an appeal-to-authority list of "official story" believing experts, just as there's no reason to publish a list of experts that believe in the moon landing, or that Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese, or that Tim McVeigh blew up a truck bomb in front of the Murrah Building. It's widely accepted fact that anyone who can rub a few neurons together can see is true. If Gage wants to solicit more engineers and find out that the vast majority of them think truthist theories are moronic at best, he can. Or, if he wants to continue having truthists give him money so he can give a free lunch to someone who's already sold themselves up the river of 9/11 denial and can't wait to sign away their professional credibility, he can do that too. Bottom line, what he thinks is a professional consensus, and what truthists want to be a professional consensus... isn't.

BTW, I notice you still haven't addressed any of the points I originally made.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Perhaps you missed this, no surprise, but David Scott, the chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat thinks the truth movement is a joke, and he doesn't know anyone in his profession who believes in a CD.]

I'll give you Scott and his quotes supporting the official version. But like you he doesn't seem know any others.

Scott seems to claim some lists of his own though...

The ASCE has an engineering membership of 120,000 and they participated in the production of the NIST report. NIST itself employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel and hosts about 2,600 associates.

Again not independent and no personal endorsements of the official version.

So out of 10 million according to the op you have one? Good for you.

[Homeland Insurgency]

BTW, I notice you still haven't addressed any of the points I originally made.

I noticed you couldn't come up with one out of 10 million. Congratulations

[funk de fino]

Utterly pathetic and ridiculously predictable

[TexasJack]

I'll give you Scott and his quotes supporting the official version. But like you he doesn't seem know any others.

Scott seems to claim some lists of his own though...



Again not independent and no personal endorsements of the official version.

So out of 10 million according to the op you have one? Good for you.

So you agree the CD theory is a joke, I'm glad we have established that. Now as far as "endorsements", engineers don't hold press conferences to announce they support the NIST report and it's findings. In fact I'm sure there are many that have discrepancies with it. The fact that they are not coming out of the woodwork claiming CD, after Gage has contacted them, is very telling. Scott is a prominent member in the industry, and as he has said, he hasn't come across anyone of the thousands he knows that agrees with the joke truth movement. How does that make you feel?

There is a very simple concept that you and other truthers fail to understand, it's called burden of proof. NIST has met that burden of proof and it's held up to the scrutiny of its peers. Now, if you want to impeach the evidence that NIST has presented, you must counter with evidence of your own. The handful of joker engineers and architects have failed to do so. What your asking for is a list equal to people who don't believe in Bigfoot. The list is unnecessary, but I don't expect truthers to understand simple logic.

[WildCat]

I noticed you couldn't come up with one out of 10 million. Congratulations
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/10/standards-affected-by-nists.html


This is a blog dedicated to all the engineers that have spoken out about what happend on 9/11 but were quotemined by the "truthmovement". I have also added Engineers that just commented on the events that day.

Sorry to make you cry HI.

More from that site:
Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Civil_Engineers) of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Architects) of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Mechanical_Engineers) of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE) of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Chemical_Engineers) of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Aeronautics_and_Astronautics ) of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?
Hear that sopund HI? It's the sound of your fantasy being destroyed. Ouch!

[Homeland Insurgency]

So you agree the CD theory is a joke, I'm glad we have established that.

See? There you go again asserting what others think when they've said no such thing.

Now as far as "endorsements", engineers don't hold press conferences to announce they support the NIST report and it's findings.

Really? So what is Scott spouting off about?

In fact I'm sure there are many that have discrepancies with it.

Good for you.

The fact that they are not coming out of the woodwork claiming CD, after Gage has contacted them, is very telling.

Actually it doesn't tell anything.

Scott is a prominent member in the industry, and as he has said, he hasn't come across anyone of the thousands he knows that agrees with the joke truth movement. How does that make you feel?

When did he bring it up to all of the thousands?

There is a very simple concept that you and other truthers fail to understand, it's called burden of proof. NIST has met that burden of proof and it's held up to the scrutiny of its peers. Now, if you want to impeach the evidence that NIST has presented, you must counter with evidence of your own. The handful of joker engineers and architects have failed to do so. What your asking for is a list equal to people who don't believe in Bigfoot. The list is unnecessary, but I don't expect truthers to understand simple logic.

There is a very simple concept that you and other DEBUNKERS fail to understand. You claim to know what happened on 9/11. You need to prove it not us. So far you don't even have a handful backing you up.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Sorry to make you cry HI.

That's okay. Sometimes I do that when I'm laughing hysterically. Hopefully I won't wet myself.

More from that site:

More what? More none out of 10 million?

Hear that sopund HI? It's the sound of your fantasy being destroyed. Ouch!

I don't even know what a sopund is. Did you hurt yourself?

[WildCat]

That's okay. Sometimes I do that when I'm laughing hysterically.
I know, 0 truther papers in a peer reviewed journal after 7 years is pretty funny!

Hopefully I won't wet myself.
Sounds like quite a problem you have there. That's why your mommy puts rubber sheets on your bed.

More what? More none out of 10 million?
Nice try. Those 10 million are satisfied with building reports. "None" is the number of truther papers in peer reviewed journals.

I don't even know what a sopund is. Did you hurt yourself?
I guess typos is all you have now. How sad.

[TexasJack]

Really? So what is Scott spouting off about?
What he's spouting off about is truthers coming on to his forum and spouting nonsense.


When did he bring it up to all of the thousands?
Read it again.


Actually it doesn't tell anything.
Sure it does, Gage can only recruit a few professionals out of the millions worldwide.

There is a very simple concept that you and other DEBUNKERS fail to understand. You claim to know what happened on 9/11. You need to prove it not us. So far you don't even have a handful backing you up.

Thanks for proving my point about burden of proof, I knew you wouldn't let me down.

[Thunder]

we don't have to prove anything....to anyone. especially...to truthers. if they REFUSE to accept the facts...that is their problem..and their cross to bare.

[The Atheist]

Since when did argument by popularity become popular?

I trust you're all going to church next Sunday?

[A W Smith]

you miss the entire point HI. The reports have a direct bearing on the livelihood of millions of architects and engineers. More stringent building codes and regulations as a result of those report findings can make or break a clients project budget. If you think those millions of architects and engineers would keep silent if they disagreed with those reports you are very very very stupid.

[eromitlab]

Again not independent and no personal endorsements of the official version.

So out of 10 million according to the op you have one? Good for you.

Here's a question for you, HI. I highly doubt you'll answer it, but I'll offer it anyway. Look at the NIST report on WTC 7. Specifically, look at pages 5-14. Here's a link for you. (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf)Look at all those names of the people who contributed to the NIST report. All those names on those pages aren't architects and engineers, certainly; if you get down to "cooperating organizations", a lot of those are people who work in television. However, you have 13 experts on the first page who were leaders in some fashion on the report. You have 59 people on NIST's technical staff. 11 more experts and consultants. 27 more from the Department of Commerce and NIST institutional support. 22 NIST contractors... including Mark Loizeaux, who has made it quite clear what he thinks of truthers and their theories.
So, my question to you, HI, is this. Do you think that all those people would allow their names on the report that determined definitively that WTC was not a controlled demolition if they thought it was? Or, if the report listed their names and they didn't agree with the report's findings, don't you think they'd, oh I don't know, say something to that effect?

[Tweeter]

are you expecting there to be a internet forum for folks who agree with the true story of what happened on 9-11?

its already been supported by the most important architectual and engineering firms, societies, and schools of thought.

their seal of appoval is good enough for me.

Huh??
I wouldnt expect one, but what do you call this forum?
You may as well call it "Folks who believe anything the government says".

[UNLoVedRebel]

The experimental method is the ultimate arbiter of competing scientific hypotheses, not peer review.

All depends on the validity of the test. What has taught us more about the mechanics of the collapses, Bazant's calculations, or Heiwa's pizza box experiment?

[Homeland Insurgency]

you miss the entire point HI. The reports have a direct bearing on the livelihood of millions of architects and engineers. More stringent building codes and regulations as a result of those report findings can make or break a clients project budget. If you think those millions of architects and engineers would keep silent if they disagreed with those reports you are very very very stupid.

Actually the livelihood of millions of architects and engineers depends many times on government contracts. Or maybe even something like the rebuilding of the WTC site.

If you think they would speak up about something where they have absolutely nothing to gain but ridicule from others seeking those same lucrative contracts or just loyalist toeing the government line then it is you who are very very very stupid or very very very dishonest.

[Thunder]

Huh??
I wouldnt expect one, but what do you call this forum?
You may as well call it "Folks who believe anything the government says".

right. keep telling yourselves that we believe "everything" the government tells us. that way you can disregard anyone who dares to disagree with you.

is that how it works? simply disregarding anyone and any argument that disagrees with you, by simply calling it "governmant loyalist"??

:D

see, this is the TRUE and MAIN difference between debunkers...and truthers.

Debunkers, when they hear statemants from truthers, research, investigate, and if it turns out to be wrong...we call it "incorrect".

Truthers, when they hear statemants from debunkers, just simply call it lies, planted evidence, disinfo, NWO propaganda, or just simply call the debunker a "governmant loyalist".

Yeah...you guys really deserve a new investigation.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Here's a question for you, HI. I highly doubt you'll answer it, but I'll offer it anyway. Look at the NIST report on WTC 7. Specifically, look at pages 5-14. Here's a link for you. (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf)Look at all those names of the people who contributed to the NIST report. All those names on those pages aren't architects and engineers, certainly; if you get down to "cooperating organizations", a lot of those are people who work in television. However, you have 13 experts on the first page who were leaders in some fashion on the report. You have 59 people on NIST's technical staff. 11 more experts and consultants. 27 more from the Department of Commerce and NIST institutional support. 22 NIST contractors... including Mark Loizeaux, who has made it quite clear what he thinks of truthers and their theories.
So, my question to you, HI, is this. Do you think that all those people would allow their names on the report that determined definitively that WTC was not a controlled demolition if they thought it was? Or, if the report listed their names and they didn't agree with the report's findings, don't you think they'd, oh I don't know, say something to that effect?

I asked for independent endorsement of the official version. Not the official version trying to confirm the official version.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Since when did argument by popularity become popular?

I trust you're all going to church next Sunday?

Since a debunker started this thread declaring his views to be popular.

[Homeland Insurgency]

right. keep telling yourselves that we believe "everything" the government tells us. that way you can disregard anyone who dares to disagree with you.

is that how it works? simply disregarding anyone and any argument that disagrees with you, by simply calling it "governmant loyalist"??

:D

see, this is the TRUE and MAIN difference between debunkers...and truthers.

Debunkers, when they hear statemants from truthers, research, investigate, and if it turns out to be wrong...we call it "incorrect".

Truthers, when they hear statemants from debunkers, just simply call it lies, planted evidence, disinfo, NWO propaganda, or just simply call the debunker a "governmant loyalist".

Yeah...you guys really deserve a new investigation.

The only think debunkers do is offer up the official version as proof of the official version.

Especially Gravy.

[Thunder]

Actually the livelihood of millions of architects and engineers depends many times on government contracts. Or maybe even something like the rebuilding of the WTC site.

If you think they would speak up about something where they have absolutely nothing to gain but ridicule from others seeking those same lucrative contracts or just loyalist toeing the government line then it is you who are very very very stupid or very very very dishonest.

ever heard of "whistleblower protections"?

people who spill the beans about corruption or criminal activity..are protected from retribution. and even without these protections, hundreds..even thousands of Americans have risked their jobs, pensions, even their safety, to spill the beans countless times when their government agency or private buisness has done something wrong.

it is so verrrrrrry convenient, and self-serving, to claim that the REAL reason there haven't more engineers and architects on the side of "da twoof", is because they are intimidated. but precedent shows the American people are BRAVE and COURAGEOUS in these typs of situations, and do their duty as Americans....even when their own livelyhoods are at risk.

:D

[A W Smith]

Actually the livelihood of millions of architects and engineers depends many times on government contracts. Or maybe even something like the rebuilding of the WTC site.

If you think they would speak up about something where they have absolutely nothing to gain but ridicule from others seeking those same lucrative contracts or just loyalist toeing the government line then it is you who are very very very stupid or very very very dishonest.

the design, engineering and construction of commercial buildings and skyscrapers are not contracts given by the government, the WTC complex is the exception rather than the rule. thanks for showing us the truther level of stupidity

[Homeland Insurgency]

the design, engineering and construction of commercial buildings and skyscrapers are not contracts given by the government, the WTC complex is the exception rather than the rule. thanks for showing us your level of stupidity

Thank you for yet again not showing any of the supposed 10 million who independently endorse the official version.

[Homeland Insurgency]

ever heard of "whistleblower protections"?

people who spill the beans about corruption or criminal activity..are protected from retribution. and even without these protections, hundreds..even thousands of Americans have risked their jobs, pensions, even their safety, to spill the beans countless times when their government agency or private buisness has done something wrong.

it is so verrrrrrry convenient, and self-serving, to claim that the REAL reason there haven't more engineers and architects on the side of "da twoof", is because they are intimidated. but precedent shows the American people are BRAVE and COURAGEOUS in these typs of situations, and do their duty as Americans....even when their own livelyhoods are at risk.

:D

Yes I have. In fact there are engineers and architects on the side of what you for lack of any facts call "da twoof". In fact the OP pointed some of them out.

Where is yours?

[A W Smith]

Thank you for yet again not showing any of the supposed 10 million who independently endorse the official version.
general consensus has no need to be published.

i have already proven my point
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4221808&postcount=66

[psikeyhackr]

As someone who recently changed his major to mechanical engineering,

In 2006 (the last year that this survey was done), there were about 1.5 million employed engineers in the United States. I did a search for architects and found that in 2006, there were about 132,000 architects employed in the United States.

As someone who debated mechanical vs electrical engineering in high school and went with electrical, what do all of those engineers say about "planned obsolescence"?

I knew that was going on in cars before I graduated from high school but I noticed no one mentioned it in college. I didn't even learn about The Current Wars.

http://www.snopes.com/science/edison.asp

My 1984 encyclopedia Britannica didn't contain electric chair information and the 2000 version only had two paragraphs and didn't say Edison was responsible for it.

Very strange things happen with information in this society. Of course physics doesn't give a damn about democracy or consensus. Any engineer should know that.

psik

[Thunder]

oy vey

[twinstead]

The same old crap. Unless every expert on Earth explicitly, in writing (probably in triplicate), states they support the 'official story', then they are assumed to NOT support it. Even if the organizations they are a member of explicitly state support, unless every member writes a personal letter to HI declaring they support the 'official story', it can be assumed they do not.

This is utter garbage and nothing more than a childish debate technique.

[R.Mackey]

Argumentum ad numeram isn't a guarantee, of course, but remember it was AE911Truth that started it.

And they can't finish. There are more degreed and practicing engineering or science professionals posting at the JREF Forum as "debunkers," than there are in AE911Truth, even if we don't clean their roster for fake names, those who signed on years ago and never did another single thing, or those who basically agree with us but want more accountability (like Arthur Scheuerman).

And JREF Forum posters have personally published more reviewed journal papers on the subject than the entire Truth Movement. (Benson of BLGB is an infrequent poster).

I believe kids these days refer to this as "Epic Fail."

[eromitlab]

I asked for independent endorsement of the official version. Not the official version trying to confirm the official version.

Why should I answer your questions when you won't answer mine? Time and time again, you've asked for one name out of ten million architects and engineers who has come out against the "official story". I dare say Shyam Sunder thinks truthers are full of it. So does David Simon. Ask the rest of the project leaders on the NIST report, they'll agree. Now you're just wrapping yourself up in denial and moving goalposts because it's the only thing holding your fantasy conspiracy together.

And of course, you didn't answer my question. I knew you wouldn't before I even asked it.
I'm applying for the million. Thanks, HI!
For my next prediction, I predict some standoffish non-sequitor that allows you to continue living in your state of denial, followed by me putting you on ignore.

[twinstead]

I wonder what 'independent endorsement of the official version' even means to HI.

[Thunder]

This is utter garbage and nothing more than a childish debate technique.

its not even debating. its just useless typing in order to pass the time. nothing is being accomplished. none of this will bring a 15th investigation, a revolution, or any of the "perps" to justice. its just shootin the xxxx.

[Homeland Insurgency]

The same old crap. Unless every expert on Earth explicitly, in writing (probably in triplicate), states they support the 'official story', then they are assumed to NOT support it. Even if the organizations they are a member of explicitly state support, unless every member writes a personal letter to HI declaring they support the 'official story', it can be assumed they do not.


Very good. I can say the same thing. I think I will.

The same old crap. Unless every expert on Earth explicitly, in writing (probably in triplicate), states they DON'T support the 'official story', then they are assumed to support it. If the organizations they are a member of explicitly state support then every one of them must also be in support, even if they don't write a personal endorsement to anyone in seven years declaring they support the 'official story', it can be assumed they do.

[Homeland Insurgency]

I wonder what 'independent endorsement of the official version' even means to HI.

The same kind of independent endorsement against the official version pointed out in the op.

[Grizzly Bear]

The same kind of independent endorsement against the official version pointed out in the op.

I'm not as concerned with numbers as I am with quality of facts, and so far AE911 has done a good job at getting just about everything wrong.

It's a pity you aren't reading up on your architecture and engineering references...

[johnny karate]

Very good. I can say the same thing. I think I will.

The same old crap. Unless every expert on Earth explicitly, in writing (probably in triplicate), states they DON'T support the 'official story', then they are assumed to support it. If the organizations they are a member of explicitly state support then every one of them must also be in support, even if they don't write a personal endorsement to anyone in seven years declaring they support the 'official story', it can be assumed they do.

The point is that Richard Gage has been actively trying to get the support of industry and scientific professionals for several years.

I defy you to present any organization anywhere trying to elicit support for the official version and failing as spectacularly as Gage.

[Thunder]

I see no evidence that any other Architects and Engineers, besides the ones who have attached their names to the A&E for 9-11 Truth group, disagrees with the NIST investigation's findings. There is no evidence whatsoever of any intimidation, overt threats, assumed threats, against architects or engineers who come out against the NIST findings.

Therefore, it is very fair and logical to assume, that most if not all architects and engineers, who have not actively signed up with the truthers, accept NIST's findings.

can anyone logically and rationally argue with this statemant?

you know what, I will take this one step further. I will ask AIA certified architects that I work with, in NYC, whether or not they have heard of ANY threats, intimidation, anything...that would suggest that openly disagreeing with the NIST findings are frowned upon by the association or any other groups.

I just sent the following email to the AIA:

"Good evening. My name is XXXX XXXX. I frequently have debates and arguments with individuals within the USA, who argue that NIST's findings regarding the WTC collapses are flawed, and that these buildings most likely came down as the result of a "controlled demolition". I am sure your organization has received one or two emails and phone calls from such fascinating individuals.

My question is, and hopefully you can simply direct me to a link of some sort, is whether or not the AIA released an official response or statemant regarding NIST's findings? Or has there been any emails or letters sent out to AIA members regarding how to respond to questions regarding the NIST and other investigations into the WTC collapses?

Thank you very much for your time,

-XXXX




"Great men are like meteors...giving light to the world as they are consumed"
~John Fitzgerald Kennedy

i will post their response as soon as it arrives.

[cyclonic]

How intelligent are AE911TRUTH architecs and engineers?
see for yourself.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wRRQhQsdEts

[dtugg]

When your the leader of your group is going around dropping cardboard boxes to "prove" that the towers couldn't have come down without explosives/thermite that is not a good sign for the legitimacy of said group.

[MikeW]

The same old crap. Unless every expert on Earth explicitly, in writing (probably in triplicate), states they support the 'official story', then they are assumed to NOT support it. Even if the organizations they are a member of explicitly state support, unless every member writes a personal letter to HI declaring they support the 'official story', it can be assumed they do not.
Actually even that wouldn't work. That is, if they did the truthers would just tell us it was a stunt, that anyone who took part only did so because they were frightened of losing Government contracts, and so all these engineers standing up for the NIST reports was actually very good evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. There's nothing, and I do mean nothing that the truthers can't find a way to ignore.

[TexasJack]

How intelligent are AE911TRUTH architecs and engineers?
see for yourself.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wRRQhQsdEts

Oh my, and here I was thinking that Charles "The Towers Were Brought Down by Nukes" Pegelow was the brains of the outfit. Funny part is she writes the number down about 7 times without ever catching on, plus the number is too long.

[lapman]

Very good. I can say the same thing. I think I will.

The same old crap. Unless every expert on Earth explicitly, in writing (probably in triplicate), states they DON'T support the 'official story', then they are assumed to support it. If the organizations they are a member of explicitly state support then every one of them must also be in support, even if they don't write a personal endorsement to anyone in seven years declaring they support the 'official story', it can be assumed they do.
What's idiotic about your statement is that most people don't proclaim endorsements for the generally accepted facts. Can you produce millions of endorsements from the scientific community that state that the Earth is round? Are the millions of websites dedicated to the roundness of the Earth? Yet there are web sites dedicated to the theory that the Earth is flat (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm). So, according to your standard, the Earth must be flat.

[apathoid]

Homeland Insurgent, have you ever thought to contact engineering professionals yourself? Maybe try your local universities engineering department and ask if they endorse NIST's findings?

If you want to prove that there is major doubt about the official version in engineering circles, this is how you can do it. You're wasting your time with AE911 engineers and debunker engineers. You'll find the truth elsewhere**. Best of luck.



** Not saying that our great JREF engineers are wrong...just looking at things from his perspective.

[JamesB]

The father of a friend of mine from high school is a college professor specializing in forensic architecture. He is even editor of one of the journals in the field. He said that Gage and the idiots are always sending them stuff but they just throw it away. I sent him the video of Gage and his cardboard box, he thought that was hilarious.

[Thunder]

There is also no large organization for people who believe the Moon landings were NOT fakes. I guess that means the Moon landings were therefore, faked.

[RKOwens4]

Oh my, and here I was thinking that Charles "The Towers Were Brought Down by Nukes" Pegelow was the brains of the outfit. Funny part is she writes the number down about 7 times without ever catching on, plus the number is too long.

I wonder if she knows how to read.

[Cuddles]

In what ways is AE911 Truth making an appeal to authority?

Appeal to authority is the sole purpose for their existence. It's a group that exists only to list people who support a particular view. That's pretty much the dictionary definition of appeal to authority. The really sad part is that they fail so badly at doing it. They have a tiny number of people who, even if they were authorities, would only be a tiny proportion of relevant authorities, and of that tiny proportion, a large proportion either don't agree, aren't actually authorities or don't even exist.

And in what ways are their arguments not sensible? They are making the claim that explosive charges can destroy buildings. Why is this not a credible argument?

Well, there are two problems here. Firstly, that's not the arguement they make. Only an idiot would argue against the claim that explosives can be used to demolish buildings, and only an idiot would start a support group for people who believe that. What they actually claim is that explosives were used to demolish three specific buildings. That's a very different claim, which leads on to the second problem - it's a load of crap. There isn't a shred of evidence to support their nonsense, which is why the apex of their argument is an abject failure of an appeal to authority.

[TruthMakesPeace]

AE911Truth...
There are more degreed and practicing engineering or science professionals posting at the JREF Forum as "debunkers," than there are in AE911Truth, even if we don't clean their roster for fake names, those who signed on years ago and never did another single thing.

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified. Volunteers call each potential signer personally and check them out. It takes about 1/2 hour of conscious effort. They have to find their license or diploma, and fax it, to get on the list. The Verification Team knows that if a false name gets on, that "bad apple" or fake name will be used to discredit the whole list.

You can press Ctrl+F to find over 100 PhDs and Civil Engineers on the page. Search for variations such as Ph.D., Civ.Eng., and C.E. (I have suggested to their Webmaster they make degrees consistently spelled.)

And JREF Forum posters have personally published more reviewed journal papers on the subject than the entire Truth Movement.
A survey of JREF degrees would be interesting.

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

[Dave Rogers]

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified. Volunteers call each potential signer personally and check them out. It takes about 1/2 hour of conscious effort. They have to find their license or diploma, and fax it, to get on the list. The Verification Team knows that if a false name gets on, that "bad apple" or fake name will be used to discredit the whole list.

You can press Ctrl+F to find over 100 PhDs and Civil Engineers on the page. Search for variations such as Ph.D., Civ.Eng., and C.E. (I have suggested to their Webmaster they make degrees consistently spelled.)


A survey of JREF degrees would be interesting.

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae (http://www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae)

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org (http://www.NielsHarrit.org)

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm)

Given that every line of reasoning from AE911T that leads to a conclusion of conspiracy has been demonstrated, repeatedly, to involve either one or more untrue premises, an invalid line of reasoning, or (most commonly) both, and in the overwhelming majority of cases to be directly contradicted by easily accessible evidence, the identities and qualifications of those making the claims are of little importance.

Or, put more simply: If you're wrong, a flashy CV doesn't make you right.

Dave

[Scott Sommers]

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified. Volunteers call each potential signer personally and check them out. It takes about 1/2 hour of conscious effort. They have to find their license or diploma, and fax it, to get on the list. The Verification Team knows that if a false name gets on, that "bad apple" or fake name will be used to discredit the whole list.

You can press Ctrl+F to find over 100 PhDs and Civil Engineers on the page. Search for variations such as Ph.D., Civ.Eng., and C.E. (I have suggested to their Webmaster they make degrees consistently spelled.)


A survey of JREF degrees would be interesting.

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

This is a strange comparison. AE911T is supposedly an elite lobby group designed to make a statement. JREF is an Internet forum designed as a hobby that anyone can join. I am quite sure there are many people here who are students, housewives, and soldiers. Shouldn't there be? But then, on second thought, maybe this is a fair comparison.

Having said that, my understanding is that the signatories of the NIST report reads like a Who's Who of structural design and engineering. I wonder how the AE911T engineers compare to that?

What are you going to do when your petition gets laughed out of Congress?

[Edx]

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified.

Is Ander "Heiwa" Bjorkman on that list of "verified" engineers?

If so, you have no credibility on that point alone.

[twinstead]

What are you going to do when your petition gets laughed out of Congress?

Claim Congress is "in on it" and continue ranting in relatively obscure internet forums until the sun supernovas. Of course they'll blame that on thermite, too.

[W.D.Clinger]

Responding to R.Mackey's post of 23 November 2008:

And JREF Forum posters have personally published more reviewed journal papers on the subject than the entire Truth Movement.
A survey of JREF degrees would be interesting.

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae
cicorp thinks a paper on "Moon rocks" is "on the subject" of 9/11?
:jaw-dropp


Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm
Niels Harrit has not written 55 journal papers on the subject of 9/11.
Steven Jones has not written 50 journal papers on the subject of 9/11.

Writing in November 2008, R.Mackey correctly pointed out that one of the JREF Forum's occasional posters, David Benson, had personally written more reviewed journal papers on 9/11 than had the entire Truth Movement up to that time. After all, 1 > 0.

[WildCat]

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae (http://www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae)

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org (http://www.NielsHarrit.org)

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm)
And the total number of AE911truth member papers on 9/11 stands at, let's see.... ZERO.

I wonder why that is cicorp? :rolleyes:

[1337m4n]

Cicorp is replying to a post made over 2 years ago as if it were made yesterday.

Why would you resurrect a 2+ year old thread but not pay attention to what date the post was made?

I get the feeling that we are not the ones being lied to. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=203495) Cicorp is trying to convince lurkers who might not pay attention to post dates that R. Mackey is unscrupulous.

[Animal]

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified. Volunteers call each potential signer personally and check them out. It takes about 1/2 hour of conscious effort. They have to find their license or diploma, and fax it, to get on the list. The Verification Team knows that if a false name gets on, that "bad apple" or fake name will be used to discredit the whole list.

You can press Ctrl+F to find over 100 PhDs and Civil Engineers on the page. Search for variations such as Ph.D., Civ.Eng., and C.E. (I have suggested to their Webmaster they make degrees consistently spelled.)


A survey of JREF degrees would be interesting.

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

Your first problem is that there are not 1462 architects and engineers on their list. The actual number is around 500, only licensed individuals are legally entitled to be called architect or professional engineer.

Your second problem is that being a professional engineer does not automatically mean you have any knowledge of building structures. Building structures is a small subset of the engineering field.

Third, even when you get to the Civil engineering portion of the profession, structural engineering is a small subset of civil (and in fact is broken out as a separate degree / specially degree)

Fourth, structural engineers that are qualified and competent to design high rise structures are a small subset of all structural engineers.

Last, having a PH.D. is meaningless unless it is in the EXACT field being discussed.

[TruthersLie]

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified. Volunteers call each potential signer personally and check them out. It takes about 1/2 hour of conscious effort. They have to find their license or diploma, and fax it, to get on the list. The Verification Team knows that if a false name gets on, that "bad apple" or fake name will be used to discredit the whole list.

You can press Ctrl+F to find over 100 PhDs and Civil Engineers on the page. Search for variations such as Ph.D., Civ.Eng., and C.E. (I have suggested to their Webmaster they make degrees consistently spelled.)


so they finally fixed their online petition? When they were at 1200, I went over and did a very indepth count of their actual numbers. They had 999 architectural or engineering "professionals."

Their own online "petition" couldn't count.

Yet you want me to believe anything they say when their own petition couldn't count properly?

Different question.

Why did they change the title of the people "signing" it? It originally was degreed and licensed architects and engineers. Then it changed to degreed OR licensed architects and engineers. Now it is degreed OR licensed ARCHITECTURAL and ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS. Why the change?

I can remember back when there were landscaping engineers and wastewater engineers on that list.... Yet you want me to take their word for something? REally?

Ok fine.
Can you point me to ANY peer reviewed journal articles (in real journals, not bentham craptaculars) that cast any doubt on the NIST reports? I'll take any peer reviewed engineering or architectural journal in any language anywhere in the world. You have 1400 of them so you should easily be able to get past peer review somewhere... right?

A survey of JREF degrees would be interesting.

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm[/QUOTE]

[Scott Sommers]

A survey of JREF degrees would be interesting.

David Griscom PhD has 193 published studies, including Moon rocks for NASA www.DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Niels Harrit PhD has 55 (not counting Bentham) www.NielsHarrit.org

Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm

Admittedly, there are a significant number of top-tier publications there, but many of the listed publications are proceedings of international and regional conferences, as well as second-tier journals and chapters in edited book volumes. If we're counting that sort of publication, I'm pretty sure there are people here with some impressive numbers.

[beachnut]

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified. ....
Steven Jones PhD has about 50
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm)
Yes I verified they can't figure out 911. 1462 can't think for themselves drones on 911 issues. Failures on 911 issue as you can't provide one thing they got rigth on 911. They have no evidence on 911 and you failed to help them.

What is funny, Jones' last three four papers are nonsense on 911. When will he write his United States Did the Haiti Earthquake insanity paper?

You proved 1462 nuts on 911 can't figure out 911, and a few of the leaders wrote idiotic papers on 911.

Hitler got a whole country to mess up, Gage only gets 70k a year. A country vs. 70k a year. Who is the bigger loser, Hitler, or Gage?

Is this 0.001 percent of all engineers an architects, or 0.01?
Got Math? My fellow engineer is three of the engineers at A&E, oops 0.00099. Three socks - fraud on a fraud. The list becomes a tool. If you want a crazy engineer in your firm, you have a list of hundreds who will be great yes men and women. They don't think for themselves on 911 issues, does that flaw translate into the workplace? How many joke names are on the list now, will all the accouterments of being real?

When will congress act on the request of morons on 911 issues who can't think for themselves?

Wow, 0.001 percent of A&E in the world. Impressive stuff; too bad 911 truth doesn't do math.

[DGM]

The http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers


This "petition" was started over 3 years ago. Any Idea as to when he plans to actually submit it?

I find it telling the "truthers" never seem to ask Gage this question.


:rolleyes:

[TruthMakesPeace]

Is Ander "Heiwa" Bjorkman on that list of "verified" engineers? If so, you have no credibility on that point alone.

I looked on this page with Ctrl+F for "Bjorkman" and he does not show up.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Just curious, is he not a real architect or engineer?

[TruthMakesPeace]

Responding to R.Mackey's post of 23 November 2008:
cicorp thinks a paper on "Moon rocks" is "on the subject" of 9/11?
:jaw-dropp
That is a misinterpretation of my statement, and invalid assumption. No, I do not think Moon rocks are on the subject of 9/11.

I mentioned Dr. David Griscom's position as one of the scientists chosen to examine the Moon rocks, because it was very competitive. NASA's choice of him as a Primary Investigator, at a relatively young age at the time, is an indication of their respect for the quality of his work. Also, he has published over 190 studies in respected, peer reviewed, scientific journals.

Dr. Griscom was one of the peer reviewers of the study published in the not-so-respected Bentham journal. Usually reviewers remain confidential, known only to the publisher. But he spoke out, after seeing the study criticized mostly for the journal, not the content.

[TruthMakesPeace]

Yes I verified they can't figure out 911.
9/11 was Job Security for the Military Industrial Complex.
Whether rogue elements in the MIC caused it is a case for a court of law.
Cheney is a suspect, but innocent until proven guilty by a jury.

Before 9/11 Government procurements for computers were slowing.
My company benefited from 9/11. I felt patriotic helping the cause.
We sold more hardware and software than ever, bound for Afghanistan
and Iraq, plus installation and set up consulting.

But more and more things didn't add up. I eventually figured it out.
I now feel guilty about benefiting from a false flag op and illegal wars.
So, I use my free time to volunteer, research, blog, and listen.
JREF gives me some hope that maybe my President wasn't lying.
I was much happier believing the OCT.

Gage only gets 70k a year.
He quit a job making more as an architect to help America wake up.

morons on 911 issues who can't think for themselves?
If Truthers don't think for themselves, and so easily influenced, then why don't they believe all the propaganda about 9/11 that is hammered in to the public by the media, such as Fox TV?

Wow, 0.001 percent of A&E in the world.
The number today is not as important as the fact it is increasing every month. Today the AE911Truth petition list is up to 1464. At one time, .001% believed the world was round, not flat. Science takes time.

[Scott Sommers]

That is a misinterpretation of my statement, and invalid assumption. No, I do not think Moon rocks are on the subject of 9/11.

I mentioned Dr. David Griscom's position as one of the scientists chosen to examine the Moon rocks, because it was very competitive. NASA's choice of him as a Primary Investigator, at a relatively young age at the time, is an indication of their respect for the quality of his work. Also, he has published over 190 studies in respected, peer reviewed, scientific journals.

Dr. Griscom was one of the peer reviewers of the study published in the not-so-respected Bentham journal. Usually reviewers remain confidential, known only to the publisher. But he spoke out, after seeing the study criticized mostly for the journal, not the content.

This misses the point completely. Why was he asked in the first place? Despite his really cool experience examining Moon rocks, he does not appear to have the relevant qualification that a first-tier journal would demand from a reviewer. There are many, many qualified reviewers for such a paper. They act as reviewers for relevant journals. You can find their names easily. David Griscom is not among them. So please, stop this incessant pretending that he should have a voice in this matter. That Bentham allowed him to be a reviewer of this paper is the problem.

Jones and his gang could mussel these attacks on their papers in a minute by submitting them to a more appropriate venue. Don't you resent having to fight his fight for him, when he could fix this problems so quickly? If it does nothing else, it shows disrespect for his supporters.

[Dave Rogers]

Dr. Griscom was one of the peer reviewers of the study published in the not-so-respected Bentham journal. Usually reviewers remain confidential, known only to the publisher. But he spoke out, after seeing the study criticized mostly for the journal, not the content.

If he said that, he was lying, and if you support it, so are you. The content of this paper has been comprehensively refuted in this forum on virtually every point. In fact, the insistence that it has been criticised for being presented in Bentham and not for the glaringly obvious flaws in its methodology is a classic example of Myriad's Masochistic Lie; it's transparently obvious that it isn't true, and that the content of this paper has been very heavily criticised.

Dave

[mercian]

He quit a job making more as an architect to help America wake up.




About £44,000 ... I doubt he was making more than this as an architect unless he was high up in a company. Do you know this for a fact?

The profession is generally not as well paid as people think (in the UK at least), and now I doubt if he has to do a normal 9-5?

Would you concede that he now depends solely on the controlled demolition theory for his livelihood? So even if he did change his mind (based on the evidence), he couldn't admit it because he'd lose face and salary?

This may be Ad Hominem but hey I'm JAQ's ;)

[W.D.Clinger]

Responding to R.Mackey's post of 23 November 2008:
cicorp thinks a paper on "Moon rocks" is "on the subject" of 9/11?
:jaw-dropp
That is a misinterpretation of my statement, and invalid assumption. No, I do not think Moon rocks are on the subject of 9/11.
Which means you dug up a quotation from two years ago for the purpose of posting an irrelevant response.

Here's the quotation to which you were pretending to respond:

And JREF Forum posters have personally published more reviewed journal papers on the subject than the entire Truth Movement.

[Grassy Knowlington]

9/11 was Job Security for the Military Industrial Complex.

...

The number today is not as important as the fact it is increasing every month. Today the AE911Truth petition list is up to 1464. At one time, .001% believed the world was round, not flat. Science takes time.

(My bolding). Quite so, but 'new' or 'alternative' theories are not necessarily representative of the world however much time passes and however many adherents there are.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by cicorp
Today the AE911Truth petition list is up to 1464. At one time, .001% believed the world was round, not flat. Science takes time.


Actually, this is a very good quote. No informed person has believed anything except this for thousands of years. In fact, Athenian Greeks even knew how round the Earth was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
Only the ignorant and the uneducated have doubted this for as long as there has been natural inquiry. This is why we don't ask Moon rock experts if they think thermite was used to dustify the World Trade Center.

Originally Posted by cicorp
The number today is not as important as the fact it is increasing every month.
And actually, it's not increasing every month. That's another one of those things that I can produce numbers for. It's called science and every time it's used, it's clear which kind of thinking powers the world of 911 Truth.

[beachnut]

...
He quit a job making more as an architect to help America wake up.
... Today the AE911Truth petition list is up to 1464. At one time, .001% believed the world was round, not flat. Science takes time.
LOL, but Gage's lies are equal to saying the world is flat. Gage is not using science, and no matter how long you take, Gage's claims will remain for infinite time moronic delusions. Science free.

Science? That is a good one, the 1464 can't grasp gravity, let alone science, physics or math.

Not a single engineer from my college, or grad school agrees with Gage's delusions - hundreds. I can't find an engineer out of hundreds who agrees with Gage. I am more likely to meet a bear than one of the fringe few paranoid conspiracy theorists from Gage's club of lies. Albeit the bears outnumbers Gages failed followers in the hundreds of thousands. What we have here is an Internet where all the crazy people on 911 can meet and act like a flat earth society. Bigfoot nuts outnumber Gage's failed crew. Or do they; I don't have to worry, 911 truth does no math, have no clue 9 years has elapsed.

Oops, still holding at less than 0.01 percent.

Here is a list of all the evidence 911 truth and Gages 1464 failures have.
1.

Short and complete. Not a bit in the bucket. 9 years, and the list of evidence for all the 911 truth claims remains empty. zero

[Scott Sommers]

LOL, but Gage's lies are equal to saying the world is flat. Gage is not using science, and no matter how long you take, Gage's claims will remain for infinite time moronic delusions. Science free.

Science? That is a good one, the 1464 can't grasp gravity, let alone science, physics or math.

Not a single engineer from my college, or grad school agrees with Gage's delusions - hundreds. I can't find an engineer out of hundreds who agrees with Gage. I am more likely to meet a bear than one of the fringe few paranoid conspiracy theorists from Gage's club of lies. Albeit the bears outnumbers Gages failed followers in the hundreds of thousands. What we have here is an Internet where all the crazy people on 911 can meet and act like a flat earth society. Bigfoot nuts outnumber Gage's failed crew. Or do they; I don't have to worry, 911 truth does no math, have no clue 9 years has elapsed.

Oops, still holding at less than 0.01 percent.

Here is a list of all the evidence 911 truth and Gages 1464 failures have.
1.

Short and complete. Not a bit in the bucket. 9 years, and the list of evidence for all the 911 truth claims remains empty. zero

There's a simple test of how influential these ideas really are. How many textbooks are used in departments of civil engineering that talk about the controlled dustification of the WTC Buildings - or whatever it is that you believe? Can you find me a single department that teaches this sort of thing? I've actually looked through textbooks on the construction of large steel-framed buildings. Lots of them are available for free from Google Books.

I can understand that for political reasons you might accept all sorts of things. The Flat Earth Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society) is actually a Christian group that advocates a form of literal interpretation of the Bible regardless of what science has to say on the matter. It's members are willing to accept this belief regardless of any physical evidence. But it's members don't go running around pretending there's some undetectable consensus among scientists.

[TruthMakesPeace]

If he said that, he was lying
Lying is defined as stating something as true that someone knows to be false, a serious accusation.
What is your supporting evidence that Dr. David Griscom "knows" that the paper he reviewed, critiqued, and finally approved was not good? Or if you are alleging that he claimed to be speaking out for a different reason than to defend the content, what is that reason?


LOL, but Gage's lies are...Gage's club of lies...
You accuse Richard Gage of stating what he does not believe?
For example he does not truly believe WTC 7 came down by CD?

There's a lot of sloppy use of "lie" and "lying" on this forum, which is supposed to be for accurate thinking. We can certainly accuse someone of making an inaccurate statement, of being wrong, or even stupid. But accusing someone of lying requires supporting evidence of intent to say something opposite of what they believe to be true.

[Scott Sommers]

Lying is defined as stating something as true that someone knows to be false.
What is your supporting evidence that Dr. David Griscom "knows" that the paper he reviewed, critiqued, and finally approved was not good? Or if you are alleging that claimed to be speaking out for a different reason than to defend the content, what is that reason? Please provide a reference.

Because he has published many papers in first-tier journals, and as such, he knows how it's supposed be done. He would also be aware that Bentham journals are crap. Look at his CV. Does he have anything published in a Bentham journal? Go take a look at the current issue of Current Physical Chemistry (http://www.benthamscience.com/cpc/CurrentIssue.htm#1). I have checked and not a single one of these authors is from a university based in the USA or Europe. Doesn't that seem strange? David Griscom doesn't publish in these journals, but he's willing to pretend that his friend's paper published there has been properly reviewed. Doesn't that seem strange? And just by coincidence, he happens to be one of the few scientists in the world who accept this 911 conspiracy trash - just by coincidence. Doesn't that seem strange? Couldn't Bentham have found a properly qualified reviewer for such an article?

There is no doubt that David Griscom would be aware he is not a properly qualified reviewer for such a paper. This would be obvious to anyone who has worked at a research university. Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant of how a research university works or is lying. So you tell me cicorp, which one of these two is Dr. David Griscom PhD?

[TruthMakesPeace]

I have checked (the current Bentham issue) and not a single one of these authors is from a university based in the USA or Europe. Doesn't that seem strange?
Yes. It seems strange that you would use race of the scientists as a criterion for judging a journal. There are many scientists with Asian names (Takashiro Akitsu, Wei Guan, Rajinder Singh, etc.) in Bentham as well as in highly respected journals. Apparently they are smart too. ;)

There is no doubt that David Griscom would be aware he is not a properly qualified reviewer for such a paper.
Apparently the publisher, Dr. Griscom, and an increasing number of citizens, do doubt that statement. After getting 190+ published papers past peer review, Dr. Griscom knows the scientific method very well.

Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant of how a research university works or is lying. So you tell me cicorp, which one of these two is Dr. David Griscom PhD?
You have artificially limited me to 2 choices. But there is a 3rd choice. Dr. Griscom is a physicist familiar with testing materials to find out what chemicals they contain. He was even chosen to analyze Moon rocks for NASA. He was well qualified to judge the thermite paper. Have you actually read it?

[ergo]

I have checked and not a single one of these authors is from a university based in the USA or Europe. Doesn't that seem strange?

Funny, neither are you.

Perhaps you should write the editors and complain that America is not represented in the spring issue of Current Physical Chemistry. It's obviously a conspiracy of some kind.

[Scott Sommers]

It's great to see you remember our earlier conversations.

Most of my professors publish regularly in first-tier journals based in the USA and publishing in these is a requirement for graduation from my program. There are many journals with low standards that cater to faculty in schools that demand publication in English-language journals but don't provide adequate facilities and support for this to happen. Journals like those published through Bentham are designed for these people. That is to say, American and European-based journals that only publish from faculty in downstream countriues.

But I bet you knew this already. Right? Being a typical Truther, you'd know all about how scholarship and academic research works.

Are you ready to keep pretending you've read my paper? It's been said that given enough time and enough typewriters, a room full of monkeys could reproduce the works of Shakespeare. I bet if you keep guessing at what I wrote, eventually you'll say something that looks like it might not have been made up. Come on dude, don't let us down.

[TruthMakesPeace]

Thanks for the interesting links.
And actually, it's not increasing every month. That's another one of those things that I can produce numbers for.
Interesting. You say the AE911Truth petition list has gone down some months? May we please see those numbers?
I agree the count could go down, if measured daily. For example, if an architect requests to be removed, or is no longer active, such as Henry Clark. But if measured monthly, the list has been getting longer. Due to the length of the architect's certificate verification process, the list count may go for days or weeks without increasing. Your numbers will clarify and verify this.

[Dave Rogers]

Lying is defined as stating something as true that someone knows to be false, a serious accusation.

Yes, it is. Which is why the 9/11 truth movement should stop throwing around implied accusations of lying when there is no evidence to support them. However, they continue to do so.

Another form of lying, of course, is the sort of misrepresentation implicit in asking a question such as:

What is your supporting evidence that Dr. David Griscom "knows" that the paper he reviewed, critiqued, and finally approved was not good?

...in response to an allegation that Griscom was lying if he claimed that the criticism of the paper was more due to the journal it was published in than the content of the paper. You'll see how the question carries the clear implication that my allegation was something very different: that Griscom lied when he stated that the paper was worthy of publication. This form of lie is called the complex question fallacy.

We can certainly accuse someone of making an inaccurate statement, of being wrong, or even stupid. But accusing someone of lying requires supporting evidence of intent to say something opposite of what they believe to be true.

There comes a point where the sheer weight of incorrect statements lead us to make the provisional conclusion that those making them are not simply misinformed, but have chosen outright misrepresentation. There is also a point where someone repeating a claim, who has been repeatedly told in clear and unambiguous terms exactly why that claim is incorrect, should no longer be assumed to be incapable of understanding that response, and must be assumed wilfully to be disregarding it. The overwhelming majority of the truth movement reached this point long ago.

A good example, in fact, would be a poster who claims that the Harrit paper has been rejected because it was posted in a Bentham Open Journal, rather than because of its appallingly poor quality. While this might be a misconception when first stated, if that poster was repeatedly directed to the many and extensive threads that had discussed at length the methodological flaws in the paper, and in the face of this irrefutable evidence continued to claim that the journal of publication was the primary cause for criticism, it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that this poster was deliberately lying.

Just hypothetically, of course...

Dave

[Scott Sommers]

You seem to have missed the meaning of what I wrote. I understand. Reading and writing in these little boxes is annoying.

Yes. It seems strange that you would use race of the scientists as a criterion for judging a journal.

What did I say that had anything to do with race?

There are many scientists with Asian names (Takashiro Akitsu, Wei Guan, Rajinder Singh, etc.) in Bentham as well as in highly respected journals. Apparently they are smart too. ;)

Actually, I looked up the university affiliation of all the authors. Just like me, you could do it with Google. In fact, as our JREF Truther friend ergo has pointed out, I am a PhD student at an Asian university.

Apparently the publisher, Dr. Griscom, and an increasing number of citizens, do doubt that statement. After getting 190+ published papers past peer review, Dr. Griscom knows the scientific method very well.


You have artificially limited me to 2 choices. But there is a 3rd choice. Dr. Griscom is a physicist familiar with testing materials to find out what chemicals they contain. He was even chosen to analyze Moon rocks for NASA. He was well qualified to judge the thermite paper. Have you actually read it?

And this is why Jones and his gang continue to let the controversy continue by not submitting this work to a respected top-tier journal?

Of course I have read the paper. Although my specialization is test design and social science research methods. I have no ability to understand anything about the topic. That's why I notice the fact that the journal is crap and that the research has not been submitted for proper peer review.

[Dave Rogers]

You have artificially limited me to 2 choices. But there is a 3rd choice. Dr. Griscom is a physicist familiar with testing materials to find out what chemicals they contain. He was even chosen to analyze Moon rocks for NASA. He was well qualified to judge the thermite paper. Have you actually read it?

We've all read the thermite paper, and we've all seen that it's a steaming pile of crap. That Griscom approved it doesn't indicate that the paper is good; it indicates that Griscom turned off his critical faculties when reviewing it, for whatever reason.

Dave

[Scott Sommers]

Interesting. You say the AE911Truth petition list has gone down some months? May we please see those numbers?
I agree the count could go down, if measured daily. For example, if an architect requests to be removed, or is no longer active, such as Henry Clark. But if measured monthly, the list has been getting longer. Due to the length of the architect's certificate verification process, the list count may go for days or weeks without increasing. Your numbers will clarify and verify this.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. I thought you implying the often stated Truther mantra that 'the movement is growing every day.' If your meaning was that AE911T posts a larger number of names on their petition every week, I agree with you. I apologize for the confusion.

As I've said above, reading text in little boxes is very frustrating.

[Animal]

Interesting. You say the AE911Truth petition list has gone down some months? May we please see those numbers?
I agree the count could go down, if measured daily. For example, if an architect requests to be removed, or is no longer active, such as Henry Clark. But if measured monthly, the list has been getting longer. Due to the length of the architect's certificate verification process, the list count may go for days or weeks without increasing. Your numbers will clarify and verify this.

So what if they have increase there numbers a bit.........there are a couple of hundred licensed architects on the list, there are is around 104,000 licensed architects in the U.S. (that is 0.2% of the licensed individuals) There are another 5000 more or less new graduates in architecture every year. In perspective, AE troofers are falling further and further behind.

Noone in their right mind believes that 0.2% of any group is meaningful?

[TruthMakesPeace]

So what if they have increase there numbers a bit....there are a couple of hundred licensed architects on the list, there are around 104,000 licensed architects in the U.S. (that is 0.2% of the licensed individuals) There are another 5000 more or less new graduates in architecture every year...Noone in their right mind believes that 0.2% of any group is meaningful

Agreed, the percentage of Architects & Engineers who signed the Petition for a New Investigation, is a small percentage of the total. However, only a small percentage have spent much time considering 9/11 one way or the other. Most probably assume the OCT is true.

In July 2009 AE911Truth was in DC at the American Institute of Architects' Convention. I went to check them out, and meet Richard Gage in person. He is friendly and sincere. He asked if I'd like to help get signatures at the booth. Sure why not. He suggested that volunteers open with the question: "Hello. Did you know that a 3rd WTC tower fell on 9/11?" I asked about 12 architects and 8 said No. The next question was "Would you like to see the video of WTC 7?" Then "Would you like to sign a petition for a new investigation?"

If we divide the number of A&E's who sign with AE911Truth, by the number who at least have seen Building 7 collapse, that is the important percentage. A study should also take in to account that Richard and experienced volunteers can get most architects to look at the WTC 7 video, and to sign the petition. I was new and only got 5 to look at the video and 3 to sign up. My percentage was 25%, 3 of the 12 surveyed.

The next step is that the Verification Team calls the signer and asks them to fax their architect's certificate before adding them to the Petition List on the web.

[Animal]

Agreed, the percentage of Architects & Engineers who signed the Petition for a New Investigation, is a small percentage of the total. However, only a small percentage have spent much time considering 9/11 one way or the other. Most probably assume the OCT is true.

In July 2009 AE911Truth was in DC at the American Institute of Architects' Convention. I want to check them out. At their booth, to get signatures, an opening questions was "Hello. Did you know that a 3rd WTC tower fell on 9/11?" and most of the architects said No.

If we divide the number of A&E's who sign with AE911Truth, by the number who at least know about Building 7, that is a significant percentage.

Nope....it is will equate to a pimple on a gnat's ass.

[grandmastershek]

The next question was "Would you like to see the video of WTC 7?"

Did you let them know the sound was removed and part of the collpase we removed?

[TruthersLie]

Yes. It seems strange that you would use race of the scientists as a criterion for judging a journal. There are many scientists with Asian names (Takashiro Akitsu, Wei Guan, Rajinder Singh, etc.) in Bentham as well as in highly respected journals. Apparently they are smart too. ;)


Apparently the publisher, Dr. Griscom, and an increasing number of citizens, do doubt that statement. After getting 190+ published papers past peer review, Dr. Griscom knows the scientific method very well.


You have artificially limited me to 2 choices. But there is a 3rd choice. Dr. Griscom is a physicist familiar with testing materials to find out what chemicals they contain. He was even chosen to analyze Moon rocks for NASA. He was well qualified to judge the thermite paper. Have you actually read it?

I love it when twoofs cite people who are rather bat **** crazy...
As for Dr. Griscom...
this pretty much sums it up.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/2010/ae911truth/atm-paper-reviewer-perhaps-victims-on-planes-alive-in-tahiti/

[beachnut]

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth... an impressive number to you?
750,000 would be impressive. 0.01 percent of all A&Es is not a small percentage, it is proof only a fringe few A&Es around the world are nuts on 911.


Gage is a liar.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/475-fiasco.html
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

0.01 percent of engineers and architects in the world are dumbed down enough to sign up for failure with Gage. Gage has delusions, and fools those who can't think for themselves. 0.01 percent is not a small percentage, it is a fraction of a percent. Math is not used by 911 truth.



... You accuse Richard Gage of stating what he does not believe?
For example he does not truly believe WTC 7 came down by CD?

There's a lot of sloppy use of "lie" and "lying" on this forum, ...
911 truth is not capable of research! Gage lies about 911, and people who can't think for themselves fall for his moronic lies.
WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives: http://www.ae911truth.org/index.php , ...
WTC7 has characteristics of a gravity collapse - Gage is a liar.

Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples Gage is a liar, and only attracts dumbed down engineers and architects who can't think for themselves. It is impressive how someone spewing moronic lies can get anyone to believe him. When you look at the numbers

Miley Cyrus can get 12,000 to sign up in a day, why is Gage taking years to get a few nuts to sign up? Gage is fraud, and will never have impressive numbers, and never will have people with rational conclusions on 911. Never.

[TruthMakesPeace]

people who are rather bat **** crazy...
As for Dr. Griscom...this pretty much sums it up.
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/2010/ae911truth/atm-paper-reviewer-perhaps-victims-on-planes-alive-in-tahiti/
He wrote PERHAPS, which merely means it is a possibility to check out, however remote. If he said "definitely" or even "probably", then you have a valid argument. It is presented as a hypothesis to be tested. Do you have proof the the contrary, that it is totally impossible some are not alive? Do we absolutely know who was on the planes, without .00001% chance of doubt? A scientist considers all possibilities.

[DGM]

He wrote PERHAPS, which merely means it is a possibility to check out, however remote. If he said "definitely" or even "probably", then you have a valid argument. It is presented as a hypothesis to be tested. Do you have proof the the contrary, that it is totally impossible some are not alive? Do we absolutely know who was on the planes, without .00001% chance of doubt? A scientist considers all possibilities.
Do you know what shows as your post is what we really see without .00001% chance of doubt? How do you know what you type is what we see? Are you sure your wife is the same girl you married?

[TruthMakesPeace]

it is proof only a fringe few A&Es around the world are nuts on 911.
So, you say if a small number believe what is contrary to the public opinion that is "proof" they are nuts? So truth is about "majority rule"? That goes for Copernicus too, believing the Earth was round?

Gage is a liar.
A liar is someone who states something as true, knowing it is not.
Please provide a source quoting him as saying he does not really believe the WTCs came down by Controlled Demolition.

fools those who can't think for themselves.
Then why don't the truthers believe Fox News or the OCT?
You accuse them of not thinking for themselves, yet
you accuse them of thinking independently of the majority.
Which one is your allegation?

Math is not used by 911 truth.
Plenty of math, such as Pilots For 9/11 Truth air speed analysis.

911 truth is not capable of research!
Your opinion.

WTC7 has characteristics of a gravity collapse
Yes, free fall was measured, near the acceleration of gravity, by NIST for 2.4 seconds.

Gage is fraud
A fraud is someone who states something to be true, knowing it is not.
You can say Gage is mistaken. But he believes what he is saying.

will never have impressive numbers, and never will have people with rational conclusions on 911. Never.
Thank you for your prediction. You claim to know the future?

[DGM]

without .00001% chance of doubt? A scientist considers all possibilities.

How do you know I'm not planting in your head what to say? Are you absolutely 100% sure I'm not making you do this?



Bwwwwahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

[TruthMakesPeace]

Bwwwwahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!
Is this a forum for adult, critical thinking, or baseless accusations and childish utterances?

Are you absolutely 100% sure I'm not making you do this?

This is a good question explored by Plato's Allegory of the Cave, and the movie The Matrix. By "do this" you apparently mean blog on JREF. If you mean "I" in the cosmic sense, as a Unified Field of consciousness, from which all thought arises in the universe, rather than an individualized brain-local field of awareness, then you are correct.

[carlitos]

Yes.

[DGM]

Is this a forum for adult, critical thinking, or baseless accusations and childish behavior?
I'll tell you if you explain .00001% chance of doubt.

[beachnut]

So, you say if a small number believe what is contrary to the public opinion that is "proof" they are nuts? So truth is about "majority rule"? That goes for Copernicus too, believing the Earth was round? Gage is flat earth on 911 issues. He spreads lies and collects money from idiots. What Gage claims is nuts, and if he believes what he preaches, then he is insane and a liar; or real stupid.

A liar is someone who states something as true, knowing it is not.
Please provide a source quoting him as saying he does not really believe the WTCs came down by Controlled Demolition.
It is a lie the WTC was CD. It is clearly a lie, Gage is a liar. Gage is saying 911 was an inside job with CD, that is a lie, Gage is a liar. Gage lied, people donate money to a fraud - a willfully ignorance failure to donate money to a NWO snake-oil-salesman.

Then why don't the truthers believe Fox News or the OCT?
You accuse them of not thinking for themselves, yet
you accuse them of thinking independently of the majority.
Which one is your allegation? FOX news? Truthers have delusions. Why has Gage failed to get more than 0.01 percent of all A&Es?

Plenty of math, such as Pilots For 9/11 Truth air speed analysis. Yep, you got me with that moron math of Balsamo, all 11.2gs of it. You be the math master on this one. Wow. 0.01 percent, is failure.


Your opinion. No, it is a fact 911 truth fails to do research, they make up lies, no research required. If you have some research done by 911 truth, it proves they have delusions. Please check the elite 0.01 percent and present their massive piles of research. 9 years of failure, and now you will present the massive piles of stuff. What about one piece of evidence to support one of the moronic claims?


Yes, free fall was measured, near the acceleration of gravity, by NIST for 2.4 seconds. No CD, proved by no explosives, no thermite used. Only 0.01 percent of all A&Es agree with the fraud of Gage. Gravity collapse, no CD; Gage spreads lies to fool the ignorant.

A fraud is someone who states something to be true, knowing it is not.
You can say Gage is mistaken. But he believes what he is saying. Gage is insane according to you. Okay, I did no see you knew Gage was insane. He spews lies because he is insane. Makes sense to me whey only 0.01 percent of A&Es agree with him, about 10 percent of the insane A&Es have found Gage.


Thank you for your prediction. You claim to know the future? When A&Es who sign up for Gage's delusions make rational conclusions they will not longer be in the failed 911 truth movement. They will be cured.

Where are the impressive numbers of A&Es? Not with Gage. Only a few who fail to understand 911, math, physics, science, fire, and more sign up for Gage and support his failed ideas; Why? Because Gage's evidence is the empty set. More math, 911 truth will not comprehend.

Gage is to 911 as Samuel Shenton is to Flat Earth. Nuts. Result: 0.01 percent of all A&Es fall for the delusions Gage plagiarized from 911 truth, the movement of lies.

As the Lunar Orbiter program led to a sharp decline in membership for Flat-Earth, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Shenton)an understanding of physics and logic would precipitate a sharp decline in the fringe 0.01 percent who can't figure out 911, given the answers.

[W.D.Clinger]

Math is not used by 911 truth.
Plenty of math, such as Pilots For 9/11 Truth air speed analysis.
That's like saying you get your news from The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/).

For some perspective on PfT's pseudo-mathematics, see:

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Software/

Will

[ergo]

But I bet you knew this already. Right? Being a typical Truther, you'd know all about how scholarship and academic research works.

Yes, it involves intense study for at least one year of select Facebook profiles.

[Scott Sommers]

Yes, it involves intense study for at least one year of select Facebook profiles.

While I agree you are clever and occasionally capable of some interesting ideas, I am quite interested in this group of Truthers you describe. As you know, my methods for locating the Truth seem leave me with only the stupid. I am quite interested in locating the non-stupid Truthers. In fact, I have tried to write members of Lawyers for 911 Truth, Medical Professionals for 911 Truth and Scientists for 911 Truth. They are remarkably uncooperative, not to mention old. Others here say they have tried to locate members of AE911T and not been able to find them. I don't know how true this is.

Anyway, I am quite interested in contacting this group of Truther intelligentsia that you tell me is more representative. My identity is not secret and I am very easy to find both on the Internet and in real life. Is there anyway I can contact people in this group of Truthers that you talk about?

Help me out on this, dude. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to publish something retracing the paper you claim to have read that everyone knows you haven't. But I need your help on this one. I've looked real hard and I can't find this high-powered group of real smart thinkers who think that 911 was an inside job. I look to your wisdom for help on this one.

[tsig]

He wrote PERHAPS, which merely means it is a possibility to check out, however remote. If he said "definitely" or even "probably", then you have a valid argument. It is presented as a hypothesis to be tested. Do you have proof the the contrary, that it is totally impossible some are not alive? Do we absolutely know who was on the planes, without .00001% chance of doubt? A scientist considers all possibilities.



Right, every time an experiment is done they have to control for spirits, goblins, alien intervention, telekinesis, and miracles.

[tsig]

Is this a forum for adult, critical thinking, or baseless accusations and childish utterances?



This is a good question explored by Plato's Allegory of the Cave, and the movie The Matrix. By "do this" you apparently mean blog on JREF. If you mean "I" in the cosmic sense, as a Unified Field of consciousness, from which all thought arises in the universe, rather than an individualized brain-local field of awareness, then you are correct.

Twoofers post here all the time.

[TruthersLie]

He wrote PERHAPS, which merely means it is a possibility to check out, however remote. If he said "definitely" or even "probably", then you have a valid argument. It is presented as a hypothesis to be tested. Do you have proof the the contrary, that it is totally impossible some are not alive? Do we absolutely know who was on the planes, without .00001% chance of doubt? A scientist considers all possibilities.

and perhaps a time traveller from the far future showed up on those jets and took the vicsims into the future where they are repopulating the earth after a huge catastrophe.

<facepalm>

Mothra did it. We all know it. I have just as much evidence as truthers do... and mine is much more hollywood.

[TruthersLie]

Yes, it involves intense study for at least one year of select Facebook profiles.

Did you finally manage to walk down to the library and find a copy of Scott's article? Nah....

oh hey.. with those amazing twoof research skills have you figured out the caracas tower fire yet?

Have you discovered the truth of that fire? It even had reported "explosions." Was it an inside jobby job?

Why oh why did that building remain standing?

[ergo]

As you know, my methods for locating the Truth seem leave me with only the stupid.

I guess that's a factor of the "research" choices you make.

Anyway, I am quite interested in contacting this group of Truther intelligentsia that you tell me is more representative.


I don't recall making any comments about a Truther intelligentsia. I have mainly been responding to your outrageous generalizations of "Truthers" based on phony research.

Your repeated claim that truthers are mostly Wal-Mart workers--implying, I suppose, that they are therefore "stupid"--and people "marginally employed" chooses to ignore high profile groups like AETruth, Jones's group, Scientists for 9/11 Truth, and a number of independent researchers. It also seems to only focus on a certain strata of American society, failing to recognize the slow but steady mainstreaming of 9/11 inquiry that is occurring not only in America but beyond.

I can't help it if you want to simply handwave AETruth away, making uninformed statements about them, when you can actually investigate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=200674) who they are and what they are saying even from where you are. But pretending that the "truth movement" has no professional representation, amidst all the contrary evidence, is bizarre and merely makes you look ignorant or like you're deliberately spreading lies. I would think that would be an academically dangerous position to take for someone seeking a PhD and using his real name on an internet forum.

[Scott Sommers]

I guess that's a factor of the "research" choices you make.




I don't recall making any comments about a Truther intelligentsia. I have mainly been responding to your outrageous generalizations of "Truthers" based on phony research.

Your repeated claim that truthers are mostly Wal-Mart workers
I have made no such claim.

--implying... they are therefore "stupid"--and people "marginally employed"
Yes, I am stating that Truthers are generally drawn from this margin class. There are significant numbers of Truthers who have graduated from a university and hold at least one degree - something I talk about in that paper you keep pretending to have read. My experience is that they too are marginally employed. This is especially true for those who do not limit their Truthiness to signing Internet petitions or posting anonymously on forums.

chooses to ignore high profile groups like AETruth, Jones's group, Scientists for 9/11 Truth, and a number of independent researchers. It also seems to only focus on a certain strata of American society, failing to recognize the slow but steady mainstreaming of 9/11 inquiry that is occurring not only in America but beyond.
No, I do not ignore them. And if you had, as you have so many times claimed, really read my article, you would know this to be false. I do feel that people like Jones and his gang are special cases and their position as leaders in this issue points to that.


I can't help it if you want to simply handwave AETruth away, making uninformed statements about them, when you can actually investigate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=200674) who they are and what they are saying even from where you are. But pretending that the "truth movement" has no professional representation, amidst all the contrary evidence, is bizarre and merely makes you look ignorant or like you're deliberately spreading lies. I would think that would be an academically dangerous position to take for someone seeking a PhD and using his real name on an internet forum.

Ya, I do hand wave away AE911. They are completely inconsequential to any of this. It is an Internet petition. Many of the people who signed it are over 60. They never attend public demonstrations for 911 Truth and are not active in their professional associations. Members of the JREF continue to claim that they can not get response from names they have listed. I have not tried AE911, but I know this is true for every other 911 Truth Internet petition.

But I am waiting for that day when I know what you say to be true. So far, public demonstrations for 911 Truth peaked in 2006, with the 911 memorial demonstration organised by Luke Rudkowski, whom you claim to have never heard of. Any public demonstration is so pathetic, JREF members gladly post videos of them. 911 Truth is not an election issue, anywhere and ever...oh, I forgot the Canadian Action Party has it as part of their platform, don't they...and the Truth Party in the USA.

Good luck, dude. I don't know what more to say. Go to the library? Read my paper? I am writing another one. I'll let you know when it's published.

0aVTkWbn384&feature=related

[Crazy J]

To truthers its never enough. No amount of expert reports, testimony, opinions, or views will ever change their mind. Because apparently everybody is "in on it." Yeah right.

[dc1971]

I don't recall making any comments about a Truther intelligentsia.

Stop right there! That's all you have to say! :p

[beachnut]

... But pretending that the "truth movement" has no professional representation, ... I was going to say this. Truth shines through for the self debunking truth movement. What is common knowledge to some is not to those stuck in a faith-based movement. Why faith-based, because 911 truth is based on no evidence.

Some people get upset when 911 truth is dismissed as nut case claims without enumeration of why. How do you dismiss Santa Claus? It take knowledge and maturity. How do you spoon out knowledge and maturity when the claims are nonsense, no base in reality, like the OP?

I was going to say.
True, Gage is a professional liar, his profession is fraud. 911 truth is fraud, professionally done to be nice, warm, and stupid. Equal to the feeling we may of had as a baby with a big warm poop in our diapers, content, warm, happy with our illusion of warmth, not knowing it is a pile of excrement we are tying to eliminated. 911 truth embraces ignorance, Gage is making lots of money from ignorance. ... this is common knowledge Gage is fraud except to his followers who don't care if he makes up claims based on delusions. All his claims are nonsense, no one can support them with evidence, no one can make them real.

I was going to say. When will Gage and his merry band of super-know-it-all-people take the evidence to Congress. It would be a comedy show; would Congress chastise Gage for spreading lies and anti-government claptrap? Has anyone come up with the list of evidence to support the Gage's claims? Has anyone who signed up figured out Gage's program, his goal is to bilk money from those who refuse to think for themselves? Those who believe his hollow claims? Is this the time to bring out math and physics to explain what Gage got wrong? Why, he offers nothing of substance. We look at Gage, like many have, and see his contradictions and delusions without having to bring out the hard stuff Gage and his members don't use in the first place.

I was going to say.
Why do 0.01 percent of engineers fall for Gage's idle-headed delusions? The good news, a rate less than mental illness. Are 0.01 percent of engineers and architects who fall for Gages nonsense a subset of the mentally ill? In my fine madness I have picked rational thinking backed with knowledge. Why worry, Gage and his members are harmless. They are examples of failure, and fraud, no need to figure out why those who signed up for Gage's fraud failed. It would be interesting to figure how we could all avoid fraud. You sign up for Gage's group and not waste a penny past the internet connection we already have. Whereas, I have lost thousands on other "frauds", or mistakes, falling for Gage for most will be a short term brain fart, and a good less if adapted to other forms of fraud, insurance scams, investment scams, or that special land in Florida. The long term goal is to live long and prosper, not wasting too much treasure on scams, and if falling for Gage's lies is the biggest mistake people make in their lives, they may be above average.

But gee, Gage is essentially a NWO snake-oil salesman. He has that little smirk on his face because he made over 70k talking to people without having to do anything but make up nonsensical paranoid conspiracy theories.

I was going to say.
Gage has no results, because he is a fraud, there will be no results except in his bank account. Take the time to list evidence to support Gage's claims; the list will be empty. Gage, is empty rhetoric, and his group is perpetual failure. Gage will be playing this for as long as he can. Gage's followers can't figure this out; so what?

Thousands have been fooled by Gage, they are unable to think for themselves. It is that simple. Thousands void of evidence. Thousands who signed up and forgot to do the math, forgot to do the physics, and sit back and let Gage do the thinking for them. How is that petition coming?

... when we include the number of architects and engineers worldwide, using even a conservative estimate would multiply this by about 5 times, bringing the number to 10 million. Finally, we end up with 537 architects and engineers out of 10 million who support 9/11 truth, or 1 in 18,622. Truthers, still want to brag about the number of architects and engineers who support your ideas? Is 537 still an impressive number to you?
A movie about Gage and his super club of no evidence, up against the millions. Instead of "300", it would be "1467"; tag-line "Fringe conspiracy theorists, running away from reality faster than free-fall."

Why do frauds quote fiction? "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
— Arthur Conan Doyle, Author (http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html) "Once you make up insane claims, whoever falls for them, no matter how moronic, they will give me money and sign up for woo." - Gage's version.

[HannibalGroup]

Is there a record or list of constructs that have specifically followed the recommendations of the NIST report following 9/11?

[TruthersLie]

Is there a record or list of constructs that have specifically followed the recommendations of the NIST report following 9/11?

There are several construction projects which incorporated the recommendations of the NIST report including
The Burj Khalifa
The CCTV tower (the one that caught fire in Beijing)
The Parques Central Tower (the one that caught fire in Venezuela) (IIRC) ETA: Nope... not that one. It had a massive reinforced concrete perimeter... Built in the late 70's completed in 1982. Not because of NIST recommendations. (still wondering if ERGO ever managed to figure out why it didn't collapse.) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3737/is_200503/ai_n13602042/?tag=content;col1

We also have the Shanghai World Financial Centre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_World_Financial_Centre
And we can't forget the new 7 World Trade building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_7

The building is being promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S.[70] According to Silverstein Properties, the owner of the building, it "will incorporate a host of life-safety enhancements that will become the prototype for new high-rise construction".[71] The building has 2 ft (60 cm) thick reinforced-concrete and fireproofed elevator and stairway access shafts. The original building used only drywall to line these shafts.[72] The stairways are wider than in the original building to permit faster egress.[72]


and I'm sure there are at least a dozen others.

[HannibalGroup]

There are several construction projects which incorporated the recommendations of the NIST report including
The Burj Khalifa
The CCTV tower (the one that caught fire in Beijing)
The Parques Central Tower (the one that caught fire in Venezuela) (IIRC) ETA: Nope... not that one. It had a massive reinforced concrete perimeter... Built in the late 70's completed in 1982. Not because of NIST recommendations. (still wondering if ERGO ever managed to figure out why it didn't collapse.) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3737/is_200503/ai_n13602042/?tag=content;col1

We also have the Shanghai World Financial Centre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_World_Financial_Centre
And we can't forget the new 7 World Trade building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_7



and I'm sure there are at least a dozen others.

Thank you TL. Is there a source I can cite, or a link to these and/or others?

[TruthersLie]

Thank you TL. Is there a source I can cite, or a link to these and/or others?

I don't have a definitive citation for each.

I know that the CCTV tower in beijing was listed as using the NIST recommendations, but I don't remember the citation.

the Shanghai financial trust was designed by Leslie Robertson and they changed the design after 9/11... but I don't know the citation for it... It was on some TV show.

the burj khalifa I heard about when I visited it (I live right down the road), but I do not have a citation for it.

I posted the citation for the new 7 world trade center.

[HannibalGroup]

I don't have a definitive citation for each.

I know that the CCTV tower in beijing was listed as using the NIST recommendations, but I don't remember the citation.

the Shanghai financial trust was designed by Leslie Robertson and they changed the design after 9/11... but I don't know the citation for it... It was on some TV show.

the burj khalifa I heard about when I visited it (I live right down the road), but I do not have a citation for it.

I posted the citation for the new 7 world trade center.

Ok cool. Thanks!

[Justin39640]

Ok cool. Thanks!

Here's the Les Robertson interview on the Financial Center from Nat Geo.

Ejc4o4dDN3s

[grandmastershek]

The more you go through the list at A&E you realize how either full of **** they are or incompetent the signers are.

Edward Munyak

... in fact all the fires were very weak in historical perspective. They were oxygen starved as evidenced by the black smoke.

[mercian]

Is there a record or list of constructs that have specifically followed the recommendations of the NIST report following 9/11?

There was this episode of 'Megastructures - Built from Disaster' which focused on a tower in Russia. The really annoying thing is I can only find one that's been overdubbed in Russian! Even so, in all three parts you can hear people in the background referring to robust structural details added due to 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsVHxuqL3j8

[TruthMakesPeace]

Did you let them know the sound was removed and part of the collpase we removed?

The video included sound, and started with WTC 7 motionless before the collapse, included the 2.4 seconds of near free fall speed, and finished only after the clouds of pulverized concrete were spreading out.

[Dave Rogers]

The video included sound, and started with WTC 7 motionless exhibiting movement signifying structural instability before the collapse, included the 2.4 seconds of near free fall speed acceleration, and finished only after the clouds of pulverized concrete debris, probably mainly composed of wallboard and similar brittle materials, were spreading out.

FTFY. Learn some physics.

Dave

[TruthMakesPeace]

I was going to say this. What is common knowledge to some is not to those stuck in a faith-based movement.
"Common knowledge" based on what statistical survey? What country?

89.5% of Germans question whether the US Government is telling the truth about 9/11, according to a poll by the Emnid Institute.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-21/poll-germany-895-doubt-official-version-911

Why faith-based, because 911 truth is based on no evidence.
The Official Conspiracy Theory is faith-based lacking independently verifiable evidence.

... this is common knowledge Gage...
Where is your proof that this is "common knowledge"?
Among what population? Sample size? What survey? URL?

Why worry, Gage and his members are harmless.
Asking for a new, scientific 9/11 Investigation is no only harmless, but helpful to all American citizens, including you, to answer so many unanswered questions.

Thousands...are unable to think for themselves.
Then why do the truthers not believe the Official Conspiracy Theory, which is hammered in to the public through the mass media? Which is it? They think for themselves, or not? You can't have it both ways.

How is that petition coming?
It is up to 1472 verified Architects and Engineers.
http://AE911Truth.org

How is that http://PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com petition coming?
It only has about 16 listed. The main quotation by Britney Spears is 8 years old and she is not an active 9/11 Denier.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
— Arthur Conan Doyle, Author (http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html)

The Sherlock Holmes novel may be fiction, but the statement is true.

It is impossible for buildings to fall through steel reinforced concrete at the same rate as through air, without something to remove the support columns simultaneously.

It is impossible for 2 ton steel beams to fly laterally over 500 feet, and get stuck in buildings like the AmEx and Winter Garden, without and explosive force.

What possibilities remain?

[Dave Rogers]

It is impossible for buildings to fall through steel reinforced concrete at the same rate as through air, without something to remove the support columns simultaneously.

Patently false. It's trivial to construct a thought experiment in which the support columns are removed sequentially and there is still a period of freefall descent.

It is impossible for 2 ton steel beams to fly laterally over 500 feet, and get stuck in buildings like the AmEx and Winter Garden, without and explosive force.

Also patently false. There are many forces that can cause objects to move laterally, including off-axis impact from falling debris and simple toppling.

What possibilities remain?

The ones you're trying to gloss over because they don't fit in with your fantasy.

Dave

[Oystein]

"Common knowledge" based on what statistical survey? What country?

89.5% of Germans question whether the US Government is telling the truth about 9/11, according to a poll by the Emnid Institute.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-21/poll-germany-895-doubt-official-version-911
...

We already had a couple of threads on that topic.
So do 89.5% of Germans think it wasn't 19 islamist terrorists that destroyed the WTC and a wing of the Pentagon with hijacked planes? No way!
The poll question is heavily loaded. Allow me to translate for you:
The attacks of 9/11/2001 changd the world - the USA marched into Afghanisrtan and Iraq, civil rights have been cut massively. Do you believe, that the US government is telling the world the entire truth?

What you left out in your rendering of the question is the word "entire" (german: "ganze"). You also left out the frame in whichg the question was posed. It is framed in the context of unpopular political decisions that followed 9/11. I think most people in Germany, and indeed the world, take it for a fact that the Bush-government lied to the world and to their own people in order to pass the Iraq war and the Patriot act. In fact, I am convinced that Bush, Powell and co. lied there, and that the US government is not telling the entire truth. Despite this, I am convinced that the "official line 9/11" is the true line. Polls are not the way to convince me otherwise. Science and facts would be. The kind of stuff you and your ilk are missing.

[TruthersLie]

Then why do the truthers not believe the Official Conspiracy Theory, which is hammered in to the public through the mass media? Which is it? They think for themselves, or not? You can't have it both ways.

Because in general they are underemployed, undereducated people who feel that the world is against them, that there are "elites" who rule the world and pull strings like a puppetmaster and it allows them to feel better about themselves, because it isn't their fault, but rather it is "the governments" "the corporations" or "the elites" who are in control of truthers lives. If you can blame someone else, then it makes you feel better that you never get a chance to show how intelligent, smart, sexy, ... you are.


It is up to 1472 verified Architects and Engineers.
http://AE911Truth.org

LIE by omission.

it is 1472 ARCHITECTURAL and ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS. It is NOT 1472 architects and engineers.

Why do you try to mislead people like that?
Why when they started was it "degreed and licensed architects and engineers" then it was shifted to degreed and/OR licensed architects and engineers and finally "degreed and/or licensed architectural and engineering professionals?"

Second part with that... Goodie for you. When will one of these "degreed and/or licensed architectural and engineering professionals" manage to get a single paper through any REAL peer reviewed journal (don't try to pass off bentham...) in any language in any part of the world? It has been 9 years and 2 years since the NIST final report came out. plenty of time to tear it apart and refute it.

When can we expect to see anything?


The Sherlock Holmes novel may be fiction, but the statement is true.


Unlike the truth movement... which is just fiction.


It is impossible for buildings to fall through steel reinforced concrete at the same rate as through air, without something to remove the support columns simultaneously.

That might be true... too bad none of the buildings which collapsed on 9/11 were steel REINFORECED CONCRETE buildings. That is another lie. provide a citation or retract that lie.


It is impossible for 2 ton steel beams to fly laterally over 500 feet, and get stuck in buildings like the AmEx and Winter Garden, without and explosive force.


Thost 2 ton steel beams didnt' fly laterally. They flew in an ARC, which included going DOWNWARDS.

But it is fully possible for a 2 ton steel beam which is 1000 feet in the air to fall in an arc from where it was and for it to land at 500 feet away (especially if it is attached to other outer columns which are tipping over.)

It is also impossible for 2 ton steel beams to fly laterally over 500 feet by any SILENT explosive. The amount of explosives necessary to eject a 2 ton steel beam and make it fly 500 feet laterally would be heard in New Jersey...


What possibilities remain?

That you need to go back to school and try to pay attention in physics, chemistry, logic and research methods classes.

[Dave Rogers]

Which is it? They think for themselves, or not? You can't have it both ways.

They don't. They simply repeat fallacies spoon-fed to them by David Ray Griffin, Thierry Mayssan or Alex Jones, whether at first, second or third hand, and pretend their repetition involves some level of original thought. This is what makes it so easy, and so dull, to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories; they're always the same old rubbish, recycled.

Dave

[TexasJack]

How is that http://PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com petition coming?
It only has about 16 listed. The main quotation by Britney Spears is 8 years old and she is not an active 9/11 Denier.

That's like asking someone to sign a petition stating the world isn't flat. You really need to learn the concept of burden of proof.

[Animal]

They are free to investigate all they want....but asking others to PAY for it certainly is harmful to the 99.7% of the population that is sane.


[QUOTE=cicorp;7030118]Then why do the truthers not believe the Official Conspiracy Theory, which is hammered in to the public through the mass media? Which is it? They think for themselves, or not? You can't have it both ways.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/newgw/gw_rmd1.htm

It is up to 1472 verified Architects and Engineers.
http://AE911Truth.org

Nice try with that claim, but less than500 are licensed architect and engineers, (and few in the engineering category have any structural engineering background) That represents less that .02 of 1% of the licensed professionals in the country.

It is impossible for buildings to fall through steel reinforced concrete at the same rate as through air, without something to remove the support columns simultaneously.

Since the WTC were not steel reinforced structures, your statement is moot.

It is impossible for 2 ton steel beams to fly laterally over 500 feet, and get stuck in buildings like the AmEx and Winter Garden, without and explosive force.

Simply a lie. The potential energy of the building mass 1000 ft in the air was more than enough for steel beams / columns to be laterally displaced as they were.

[frank3373]

CICorp, why do you keep repeating the nonsense about steel beams not traveling 500 feet from a collapsing building when Mackey has answered this, and I sent you his reply.

(1) Mackey answers this question mathematically (page 96 of the paper I sent you) and by explaining the physics behind the beam movement in easily understandable prose. You have not responded to Mackey, nor has anyone from the Truther Movement.

(2) No one from the Truther movement has written a paper explaining why the steel beams could not have travelled over 500 feet so you are making a claim without any substantiation.

(3) I asked you what proof you would need to accept that fact that the steel could travel 500 feet, what evidence would convince you. You refuse to respond. Would you accept a peer-rewiewed white paper written by a physicist? If not, then what? Are you arguing from a religious point of view or a scientific one? If this is a faith-based belief you have, why waste everyone's time here?

[R.Mackey]

Welcome to the Forums.

To be fair, a number of Truthers have "responded" to me, but those responses are rather lacking in terms of validity, scientific accuracy, merit, or (in most cases) civility. :p

[beachnut]

"Common knowledge" based on what statistical survey? What country? Based on physics and math, the things 911 truth fails to use. 911 truth uses lies, hearsay and fantasy.

89.5% of Germans question whether the US Government is telling the truth about 9/11, according to a poll by the Emnid Institute.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-21/poll-germany-895-doubt-official-version-911 Wow, they followed Hitler too; looks like Germans are wrong again. I remember now my mom saying, if all the kids in school ...
It is a common sense thing, not used by 911 truth; never mind.

The Official Conspiracy Theory is faith-based lacking independently verifiable evidence. That is false. There is no official conspiracy theory, it was 19 terrorists with the most complex plot 911 truth can't comprehend.
1. Take planes.
2. Crash planes into large office buildings.
Too complex for 911 truth to grasp. Why?



Where is your proof that this is "common knowledge"?
Among what population? Sample size? What survey? URL? Ask an engineer; go ahead sample thousands.


Asking for a new, scientific 9/11 Investigation is no only harmless, but helpful to all American citizens, including you, to answer so many unanswered questions. 911 truth can't handle science, better keep it to hearsay, some lies, and lots of fantasy.


Then why do the truthers not believe the Official Conspiracy Theory, which is hammered in to the public through the mass media? Which is it? They think for themselves, or not? You can't have it both ways. Because this is a lie. No story is hammered into the public.

It is up to 1472 verified Architects and Engineers.
http://AE911Truth.org 1472 people who have no clue what happen on 911 and they prove it with zero evidence to back up their non-theory, no story, no clue.

How is that http://PatriotsDoNotQuestion911.com petition coming?
It only has about 16 listed. The main quotation by Britney Spears is 8 years old and she is not an active 9/11 Denier. The best 911 truth can do is apologize for terrorists and make up silly immature web-pages to expose ignorance, disrespect and anti-American claptrap. Real mature.



The Sherlock Holmes novel may be fiction, but the statement is true. Fiction, and it is not true, it is a cute quote from fiction; like all of 911 truth's claims. Fiction.
When applied to the fantasy of 911 truth? Failure

It is impossible for buildings to fall through steel reinforced concrete at the same rate as through air, without something to remove the support columns simultaneously. There was no steel reinforced concrete. Oops. What do millions of engineers say? The WTC fell at rates slower than G, this statement is not based on physics or engineering.

It is impossible for 2 ton steel beams to fly laterally over 500 feet, and get stuck in buildings like the AmEx and Winter Garden, without and explosive force. Oops. According to physics you are wrong. But feel free to show the physics supporting your false statement. Please.

What possibilities remain? 911 truth will fail forever to produce evidence to support what are over 9 years of failed lies.

[twinstead]

Jesus, cicorp. Got physics?

[Dash80]

Hello everyone. Newbie (but chronic lurker previously) here, so be gentle ;)

I read on the first page of this thread about signing up to ae911truth as a joke (Mike Rotch is either someone having a laugh or VERY unfortunately named), I'd be tempted to add:


Ziad Jarrah,
Aeronautical Engineering,
University of Applied Science, Hamburg.


Mohamed el-Amir Awad el-Sayed Atta,
Architecture, Cairo University.
Urban Planning, Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg.


Osama Bin Laden,
Civil Engineering, Saudi Arabia.


Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,
Mechanical Engineering,
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University.


Hmm.. "Cave Arabs" probably smarter than many real members?



:) Anneliese

[Oystein]

Hi Dash,
welcome to the forum!

a) I don't think is such a good idea to mess with the list that way, and it wouldn't even be funny.
b) If you must, you'd be smarter to list the German universities by their German names. "University of Applied Science" is "Fachhochschule" (FH), for example (we make a distinction there: FH are not univesities, they are like half a rung lower).
c) Oh yes, absolutely, those SoBs sure were clever. Some days I debated a guy from Texas who referred to them as "goat herders", so I called him a "cow herder". Ooh how infuriated he got :D

[Dash80]

Hi Dash,
welcome to the forum!

a) I don't think is such a good idea to mess with the list that way, and it wouldn't even be funny.
b) If you must, you'd be smarter to list the German universities by their German names. "University of Applied Science" is "Fachhochschule" (FH), for example (we make a distinction there: FH are not univesities, they are like half a rung lower).
c) Oh yes, absolutely, those SoBs sure were clever. Some days I debated a guy from Texas who referred to them as "goat herders", so I called him a "cow herder". Ooh how infuriated he got :D


I agree it wouldn't be a good or funny idea to actually use those examples. I am reading a book about the hijackers "Perfect Soldiers" which really puts the point across that these people were far from stupid. They mostly came from normal middle-class to wealthy backgrounds, and had good education.
It struck me as ironic that their educational backgrounds are perfectly compatible with ae911truth.

[TruthMakesPeace]

Mackey answers this question mathematically (page 96 of the paper I sent you) and by explaining the physics behind the beam movement in easily understandable prose. You have not responded to Mackey, nor has anyone from the Truther Movement.

You refer to Ryan Mackey's paper, the most recent paper (2008, 3 years ago) of the supposedly "peer-reviewed" (by fellow peer Deniers) online "Journal of 9/11 Debunking."
http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

The paper was refuted by Jim Hoffman, who also outlined "Mackey's Methods"
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey
and researcher Kevin Ryan
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

Ryan Mackey provided mathematical formulas, but no empirical evidence, or references to any experiments, to show if they hold up in real life. Experiments trump theory.

Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole showed, even in his back yard, that thermite explosives could hurl steel at great speeds.
http://www.youtube.com/physicsandreason#p/u/1/5d5iIoCiI8g

So we have an experiment proving before your eyes that explosives can hurl heavy steel at great speeds.
vs. a theory that steel can fall then ricochet over 600 feet, but has never been replicated in real life.

The question is how 4 ton steel beams flew horizontally over 600 feet, (2 football fields) in an arching trajectory, to not only reach, but still have enough force to embed themselves in the walls of the American Express and Winter Garden buildings, like darts in a dart board.

Mackey's "Ricochet Theory" claims that steel beams fell down, then bounced or did a "ricochet" over 600 feet laterally. Ever drop a steel beam and see how far it "bounces"? Not far. It is steel, not rubber.

The theory assumes that there is something solid to bounce off of. But we can see the floors of the WTC are falling downwards, at nearly free fall speed. Next time you are in a descending elevator, drop a ball and see how high it bounces.

It is claimed that as steel and concrete fell down, it caused the floor below to fall in turn. That uses up energy. Mr. Mackey needs to subtract that energy from the energy required to hurl the steel sideways 600 feet. Maybe the NFL should use steel foot balls if they so easily bounce and travel 2 football fields. :)

The Richochet Theory is about as odd as dropping a fork at dinner, which hits the table leg near the floor, then bounces across the room and sticks itself in the wall. Even when throwing the fork downwards, this is unlikely to happen.

In order to embed themselves in the walls, the beams had to travel mostly laterally. By the time the beams arched and reached the AmEx and Winter Garden buildings, they were falling mostly downwards. Thus, they would hit the buildings with a glancing blow. Try hammering a nail in to a wall with a glancing blow. The nail bounces off the wall. You need to hammer the nail horizontally.

Try throwing a dart, either up in an arch, at a board. Or, try throwing a dart from 40 feet above the dart board, and see if it sticks in. It bounces off then down to the floor. But hurl it horizontally (as an explosive would) and you can get it to stick in the board.

According to Ryan's Richochet Theory, steel would have "bounced" up and out in an arch, or directly horizontally then into an arch. Near the WTC, the beam is travelling mostly horizontally, then progressively vertically. Even after 500 feet, it would have been travelling mostly downward.

Notice in the 3rd photo, the steel beam appears to have traveled upwards. Agreed, it could have hit, and sagged down. But we would expect to see more downward scraping marks on the building above the impact point, if the beam was falling mostly down at that point.

If not for hitting what appears to be the 15th Floor of the American Express Building, the steel beam looks like it would have traveled even farther from WTC 1, perhaps 700 over feet.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9b6418d92e8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22941) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9b646bdd73a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22942) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9b64ddacd9f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22943)

[DGM]

Notice in the 3rd photo, the steel beam appears to have traveled upwards. Agreed, it could have hit, and sagged down. But we don't see scraping marks on the building above the impact point, which we would, if the beam was falling mostly down at that point.



Really? This is what you're going with? What do you think, it slid down the building a decided to enter there?




http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170744ba3d33e5a6fc.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19469)

[carlitos]

It makes as much sense as "thermite explosives." LOL.

[DGM]

cicorp:
You got some unfinished business as to the hijackers defeating "a billion dollar defense system".

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=205451

[TruthMakesPeace]

having a laugh or VERY unfortunately named), I'd be tempted to add...Mohammed Atta...Osama Bin Laden
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has a Verification Team to prevent just that. About a year ago, I volunteered to help to get signatures at the annual Architects Convention. Once an architect and engineer signs the petition, it is not posted on the web until the Verification Team calls them personally, and requires them to fax a certificate or license to verify that they are in fact an architect or engineer.
http://ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/430-credibility.html

Years ago, in my Debunker years, I believed the War on Terror was as described and excited about lucrative military contracts as was every contractor in DC. I found it offensive that anyone suggested any Americans were behind 9/11. I was skeptical about AE911Truth's list myself (and a bit mischievous), went online, and submitted Frank Lloyd Wright. I didn't even get a response, and he was never posted on the AE911Truth Petition List. That was too obvious.

Then, I submitted the name of an architect who had recently passed away. This was rather morbid, and my sincere apologies to his family. Yes it was sick. But I submitted his name on the online petition, along with his web site, showing his projects, with my cell phone number, just as an experiment to see if the list was phony or legit. I like to check things out for myself.

About a week later, I got a phone call from the AE911Truth Verification Team asking to speak with the architect. I said "he is not available" and asked if I could help, as if his assistant. They said "We have to speak with him personally." I asked if there was any message or something I could send. The Verification guy said the architect needed to fax in his current architectural license and list of references. I couldn't do that, and was ever able to get him on the list.

With the initial signing, phone call verification, faxing etc. it is at least a 1/2 hour process from the signer's side, to get on the professionals' list. It is a very conscious effort. So it is not just a quick petition signing at all. It takes a commitment and investment of time an energy to get listed.

So good luck, but the Verification Team is skeptical and tough. They know one bad apple on the list will be what everyone focuses on, not the other 1473. The list of 1474 architects and engineers is verified. There are still things I'm checking out, and JREF is a good way to find alternative explanations for 9/11. But, the AE911Truth list is a major reason I turned from being a 100% Debunker towards being a 98% Truther. These guys know buildings much better than I do.

You can Audit the AE911Truth Petition List yourself by picking any at random, looking them up on the web (such as PeopleData.com), and calling or emailing them. AE911Truth is also posting video statements so people can see and hear the person behind the signature.
http://ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html#Videos_by_AE911Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nvWh2aTdCs&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth

[NoahFence]

The video included sound, and started with WTC 7 motionless before the collapse, included the 2.4 seconds of near free fall speed, and finished only after the clouds of pulverized concrete were spreading out.

What video are you referring to?

[carlitos]

You can Audit the AE911Truth Petition List yourself by picking any at random,...

Every time I do this, I crack up at their arguments from ignorance and incredulity. To wit:



Personal 9/11 Statement:
The morning of 11 September 2001, while watching the video footage, I thought to myself that it was just a movie as everything looked staged and pre-recorded. I felt the same way when I saw the free-fall demolition of the towers, however, it wasn't until later that day that I realized that it was not a movie (I was and am not the only one that has publicly stated that the images seen on the TV looked like a movie).

After reading everything I could find for four months on the subject to where my head was spinning, I realized that all the evidence you need to see the truth is in the 10 second video of the Bldg. 7 collapse. You don't need an engineering degree to see it.


There is no way that these 3 buildings symmetrically collapsed the way that they did. Another interesting fact is how empty the 4 planes were. I have never been on a plane that is 75% empty!! So many inconsistencies!!

In my opinion the twin towers and building 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition: According to all the reports the towers took about ten seconds to hit the ground. therefore the buildings collapsed at free fall (by using the law of gravity, H=1/2 at2). In controlled demolition the explosives are distributed on the building key points and detonated simultaneously.

[TruthMakesPeace]

It's trivial to construct a thought experiment in which the support columns are removed sequentially and there is still a period of freefall descent.
Agreed, it is trivial to do a thought experiment as "proof".
But how about an empirical experiment with real objects.

AE911Truth signer and Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole did some experiments we need more of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

NIST should have done such experiments.

[twinstead]

NIST should have done such experiments.

You don't get to decide what NIST should or should not have done, sorry. To be blunt you're just not that important.

[TruthMakesPeace]

What video are you referring to?

AE911Truth had a booth, along with other organizations, at the annual convention for the American Institute of Architects in DC. I volunteered to help get signatures as a way of checking them out, and see if they were for real, after seeing them only on the web.

Richard Gage suggested to the volunteers that we ask architects who were looking at the booths "Did you know that 3 towers collapsed on 9/11?" Most of those that I asked said No.

Then Richard suggested we invite them to see the video screens at the AE911Truth booth. The videos showed about a dozen various views of WTC 7 collapsing, from main stream news sources. This is a representative sequence of videos they used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0GW6QXKyp0

Many of the architects saw these videos for the first time, and signed the Petition to Congress for a new 9/11 investigation. Upon verification of credentials by the Verification Team, their name would be posted in the professionals' petition section on www.AE911Truth.org

The best part was being interviewed by (krasiva) Dina Gusovsky:blush: of Russia Today TV. She didn't broadcast my interview, but I'm in the background.
http://rt.com/usa/news/11-truth-still-in-a-cloud-of-smoke

[switchpoint]

Agreed, it is trivial to do a thought experiment as "proof".
But how about an empirical experiment with real objects.

AE911Truth signer and Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole did some experiments we need more of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

NIST should have done such experiments.

Well, you see, unlike Cole, everyone at the NIST already knows that thermite gets real hot. And they also know that if you tinker around in your back yard for days making up contraptions you can make the thermite (which we already know gets hot) melt things.

I can get a candle to melt a crayon - that doesn't mean that every melted crayon in the world was melted by a candle.

[switchpoint]

Many of the architects saw these videos for the first time, and signed the Petition to Congress for a new 9/11 investigation. Upon verification of credientials by the Verification Team, their name would be posted on AE911Truth

And "many" equals ? One, two, five?

[switchpoint]

AE911Truth had a booth, along with other organizations, at the annual convention for the American Institute of Architects in DC. I volunteered to help get signatures as a way of checking them out, and see if they were for real, after seeing them only on the web.

Richard Gage suggested to the volunteers that we ask architects who were looking at the booths "Did you know that 3 towers collapsed on 9/11?" Most of those that I asked said No.

Then Richard suggested we invite them to see the video screens at the AE911Truth booth. The videos showed about a dozen various views of WTC 7 collapsing, from main stream news sources. This is a representative sequence of videos they used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0GW6QXKyp0

Many of the architects saw these videos for the first time, and signed the Petition to Congress for a new 9/11 investigation. Upon verification of credentials by the Verification Team, their name would be posted in the professionals' petition section on www.AE911Truth.org

The best part was being interviewed by (kraseeva) Marina Portnaya of Russia Today TV. But she didn't broadcast my interview. :(

The real truth behind AE911Truth:

https://www.ae911truth.net/store/?redir=store

[Sunstealer]

AAE911Truth signer and Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole did some experiments we need more of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8gAnd proved nothing.

[A W Smith]

The question is how 4 ton steel beams flew horizontally over 600 feet, (2 football fields) in an arching trajectory, to not only reach, but still have enough force to embed themselves in the walls of the American Express and Winter Garden buildings, like darts in a dart board.

show me how this trajectory can be interpreted as horizontal
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/chandlersdots.jpg

SYUx5zJ3yss

[DGM]

Many of the architects saw these videos for the first time, and signed the Petition to Congress for a new 9/11 investigation.

When does Gage plan to submit this petition?

[beachnut]

... Richard Gage suggested to the volunteers that we ask architects who were looking at the booths "Did you know that 3 towers collapsed on 9/11?" Most of those that I asked said No.
...
Ambush people and sell them delusions. Good job, spreading lies. You guys are snake-oil salesman, no evidence pure moronic nonsense (on 911 issues). The thermite claims, pure insanity. After making up thermite, due to political bias and hate, Jones says the United State caused the earthquake in Haiti. Gage is making money because there are gullible people who can't think for themselves. Gage and Jones, fraud and insanity on 911 issues. Fringe of the fringe - 10 years of failure are assured.



When does Gage plan to submit this petition?
The petition is a tool/list to weed out those who can't do critical thinking, have limited research skills, and are gullible.

[TruthMakesPeace]

show me how this trajectory can be interpreted as horizontal
Precisely my point. See how the material ejected from WTC 1 is going mostly vertically downwards by the time it hits the American Express building over 500 feet away? You draw a straight red line. See how the trajectory is more of a curve, in the video you referenced?

How can a dart stick in a dart board with this trajectory? The way the steel beams are stuck in the AmEx building suggests they entered in a mostly horizontal rather than vertical trajectory. A significant portion of the weight would need to be inside the building, to support the part that is sticking out. If steel beams are so bouncy, like Flubber, why did they ricochet off the WTC floors, but not the AmEx wall? The steel beam looks like it could have continued travelling horizontally, if not stopped by the building around the 15th floor.

So we need Dr. Mackey PhD2 to explain this in his Ricochet Theory. If anyone can, he can.

Here is the JPG you sent, edited to make the red line more of an arc.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9ba717bb9d9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22944) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bac0a32b8a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22945)

Note: I did search for previous posts first, and found a discussion of squibs, but not this AmEx/Winter Garden topic.

[ElMondoHummus]

Precisely my point. See how the material ejected from WTC 1 is going mostly vertically downwards by the time it hits the American Express building over 500 feet away? You draw a straight red line. See how the trajectory is more of a curve, in the video you referenced? How can a dart stick in a dart board with this trajectory? So we need Dr. Mackey PhD2 to explain this in his Ricochet Theory. If anyone can, he can.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9ba717bb9d9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22944)

Gee... if only we'd talked (http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&safe=off&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%3BL%3Ahttp%3 A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fsearchlo go.gif%3BLH%3A50%3BLW%3A566%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&q=lateral+ejection+calculate&btnG=Search&sitesearch=forums.randi.org) about this before (http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&safe=off&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%3BL%3Ahttp%3 A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fsearchlo go.gif%3BLH%3A50%3BLW%3A566%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&q=horizontal+ejection+calculate&sitesearch=forums.randi.org)... :rolleyes:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72487
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271&page=46
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103102&page=4
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119792
Some notable, easy to understand posts that apparently some people have trouble finding...

This one was from 2007Exactly, and that is what my previously posted concrete pressure tests shows. A strictly controlled vertical force can, and will, result in horizontal dispersal of debris from a concrete column. Add to that forces that were striking from any angle other than 90 degrees from horizontal and you have ample explanation for why there were ballistic arcs visible in the debris.
And these were from 2008
Traveling sidways is not an option without some means of transfer-of-direction (An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by an outside force). That means is generally a result to bouncing off of an inclined surface, or, in many cases, release of energy from a bent (but not yielded) steel beam (column) breaking loose from its moorings, or by buckling of members, or some of the other chaos involved in the collapse.
Again, there is "no waiting during collapse!"

So say that there was resistance. This would, in the meantime, allow some force to travel sideways. This force shoves perimeter columns outward. This stresses the clips that hold the floor slabs to the walls, making them even mopre vulnerable to falling mass, perhaps separating them ahead of the arrival of the mass. But this, it seems to me, would leave segments of the perimeter structure leaning outward, accelerating , more slowly, perhaps, than the floor slabs. Because they are connected in a stepped arrangement, spanning three floors on one end and three on the other, they have to wait for all the floors to which both they and adjoining segments are attached to fall away before they go. Thus, their weight is adding kinetic energy laterally to the outside, even before they fall.

Have I accounted for something here that others have called "missing energy?"
That sounds fairly close to what happened as a layman's account. Now add to that the fact that the perimeter columns on the top part pulled inwards initially, so you've got the top part falling inside the bottom part like a wedge. You'll get collisions between the top part and the columns of the bottom part, which are already leaning outwards, that will throw those falling columns out a lot further. It's a lot like making a fine cut on a pool table; the cue ball travels along the centre of the table, but sends the object ball diagonally into the corner pocket.

And that's why, when David Ray Griffin says that gravity is vertical and so it can't throw things sideways, he's being an idiot.

[A W Smith]

Precisely my point. See how the material ejected from WTC 1 is going mostly vertically downwards by the time it hits the American Express building over 500 feet away? You draw a straight red line. See how the trajectory is more of a curve, in the video you referenced? How can a dart stick in a dart board with this trajectory? The way the steel beams are stuck in the AmEx building suggests they entered in a mostly horizontal rather than vertical trajectory. The steel beam looks like it could have continued travelling horizontally, if not stopped by the building around the 15th floor. So we need Dr. Mackey PhD2 to explain this in his Ricochet Theory. If anyone can, he can. (No disrespect intended with the earlier type-o of "Mr." rather than "Dr.")
Here is the JPG you sent, edited to make the red line more of an arc.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9ba717bb9d9.jpg

The ends of the exterior column trees were like forks. Why is it so difficult to grasp how they can collide with the curtain wall of another building and get snagged in it? You realize of course all you have here is incredulity . correct? What do you think damaged the two floors above where the column tree is embedded? looks to me nothing like the "dart" analogy you are desperately trying to represent.
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/chunk.jpg

It also occurred to the south when the south tower collapsed
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/55_scooped_4019.jpg

[beachnut]

Precisely my point. See how the material ejected from WTC 1 is going mostly vertically downwards by the time it hits the American Express building over 500 feet away? You draw a straight red line. See how the trajectory is more of a curve, in the video you referenced?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bac0a32b8a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22945)
Please, the address for this building. Do you have any facts, or just delusions? Address for this damage. Got it?

The question is how 4 ton steel beams flew horizontally over 600 feet, (2 football fields) You said 600 feet, now 500 feet; what is up, why the change? Did they move the buildings, or shorten football fields. How long is a football field?

[TruthMakesPeace]

Please, the address for this building.
You can see it in the 3rd photo, east of the circular Winter Garden.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7052404&postcount=186

You said 600 feet, now 500 feet...How long is a football field?
100 yards, or 300 feet. The "over 500" is because it is better to understate than overstate in debates.

[beachnut]

You can see it in the 3rd photo, east of the circular Winter Garden.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7052404&postcount=186


100 yards, or 300 feet. The "over 500" is because it is better to understate than overstate in debates. Over 600, now over 500? Which is it?
Football field is 360 feet.

In a debate you should be correct, or explain why you can't be. Gage is always wrong.

Have you ever bounced a ball? Played pool, taken a physics course?

Nope, I don't think you have the right building.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bac0a32b8a.jpg
Where is this building now? On 911? How far did you say, two football fields or what? You might want to make your football fields 217, or 210 feet long, or so. Did you make this up? Did you measure this on location? How?

Over 500? Over 600? Or was it something else? Did you do the physics to see what is possible?

[switchpoint]

You can see it in the 3rd photo, east of the circular Winter Garden.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7052404&postcount=186


100 yards, or 300 feet. The "over 500" is because it is better to understate than overstate in debates.

Really? Have you never tossed a rock or watched something fall? You really have to get out a little bit.

[ElMondoHummus]

Really? Have you never tossed a rock or watched something fall? You really have to get out a little bit.

Wait, wait... if he's holding true to truther form, that's exactly the point he's trying to make: That the debris was "tossed" - or "thrown" - outward by explosives.

It betrays an abyssmal ignorance of the collapse dynamics - the exterior columns and facade falling outwards either from hitting something below, or being "levered" outwards due to some connections failing later than others is entirely expected - but talking about something having been "tossed" is exactly the point the standard truther would make. The next question would be "so what 'threw' it?", and that lets him open the door to an explosives argument. Much better to point out that exterior structural elements falling away for the reasons I gave here and above is not surprising.

[switchpoint]

Wait, wait... if he's holding true to truther form, that's exactly the point he's trying to make: That the debris was "tossed" - or "thrown" - outward by explosives.

It betrays an abyssmal ignorance of the collapse dynamics - the exterior columns and facade falling outwards either from hitting something below, or being "levered" outwards due to some connections failing later than others is entirely expected - but talking about something having been "tossed" is exactly the point the standard truther would make. The next question would be "so what 'threw' it?", and that lets him open the door to an explosives argument. Much better to point out that exterior structural elements falling away for the reasons I gave here and above is not surprising.

Sorry, you are correct. I was trying to avoid talking about the arc of descent.

[ElMondoHummus]

Sorry, you are correct. I was trying to avoid talking about the arc of descent.

Oh, don't apologize. I'm just pointing out the tactic, that's all. Truthers always intend to head into explosives arguments when they talk about horizontal (or lateral) "ejections". It's been in their dumb playbook for years now; I'm just stating what they're doing and what should be done about it.

[A W Smith]

You can see it in the 3rd photo, east of the circular Winter Garden.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7052404&postcount=186



North. Not east, You are not from around these parts are you? I have been in the winter garden several times before 9/11 and after.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=nyc&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=28.529345,56.513672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=40.713049,-74.014673&spn=0.001663,0.005493&t=h&z=18

[TruthMakesPeace]

Football field is 360 feet.
OK. Most people know that I mean the playing area, from goal post to goal post, not counting the End Zone. That's 100 yards, or 300 feet.

Have you ever bounced a ball?
Maybe the NBA should use steel basketballs since steel is so "bouncy". :rolleyes:

taken a physics course?
I'm no John Hagelin (PhD Physics, Harvard; BA Summa Cum Laude from Dartmouth - after only 3 years instead of the usual 4.)
or David Griscom (PhD Physics, Brown, 193 publications), Steven Jones (PhD Physics Vanderbilt and Stanford LAC) or Ryan Mackey PhD (CalTech), or Einstein, but at least got an A- in Physics at Colgate University.

Where is this building now? On 911?
The AmEx building is still standing, and going strong, on 220 Vesey Street in NYC. It is also called the World Financial Center Building 1. "Strange" it did not collapse like WTC 7.
www.worldfinancialcenter.com

I found another photo of the steel beams stuck in the AmEx building, and agree that it shows downward motion of the steel beam, and concede on that.

But still, two football fields (between goal posts) is a long way for 4 ton beam segments to bounce and ricochet, without some explosive lateral force involved.

Can you seriously imagine steel the weight of this 4 ton military truck bouncing and ricocheting 2 football fields?
http://www.motortopia.com/cars/1956-daf-daf-ya126-12398

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bcc5f102b3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22947) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bcc6f2e2af.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22948) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bd37ab7900.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949)

[newton3376]

I'm no John Hagelin (PhD Physics, Harvard; BA Summa Cum Laude from Dartmouth - after only 3 years instead of the usual 4.)
or David Griscom (PhD Physics, Brown, 193 publications), Steven Jones (PhD Physics Vanderbilt and Stanford LAC) or Ryan Mackey PhD (CalTech), or Einstein, but at least got an A- in Physics at Colgate University.

That A- isn't doing you much good though.....


The AmEx building is still standing, and going strong, on 220 Vesey Street in NYC. It is also called the World Financial Center Building 1. "Strange" it did not collapse like WTC 7.
www.worldfinancialcenter.com

The only building I would expect to collapse like WTC7 is............WTC7.


I found another photo of the steel beams stuck in the AmEx building, and agree that it shows downward motion of the steel beam, and concede on that.

When something falls....it tends to do so in a downward direction.....


But still, two football fields (between goal posts) is a long way for 4 ton beam segments to bounce and ricochet, without some explosive lateral force involved.

Incorrect and simply not true.


Can you seriously imagine steel the weight of this 4 ton military truck bouncing and ricocheting 2 football fields?

Yes.

[ozeco41]

...But still, two football fields (between goal posts) is a long way for 4 ton beam segments to bounce and ricochet, without some explosive lateral force involved.... Do you have any idea how you could get explosives to blow a 4 tonne steel beam that far??? I've seen the claim made so many times as if you could throw steel by use of explosives. How?
...Can you seriously imagine steel the weight of this 4 ton military truck bouncing and ricocheting 2 football fields?.. Structural steel beams or columns of that weight - not a problem. BUT the truck would be a different thing - high crumple and wouldn't bounce anywhere like the beam. A poor example even if you only used it for weight comparison.

[R.Mackey]

FWIW, to the Truther nut I have on Ignore: First, I don't have a Ph.D. (my C.V. is on-line; my degrees are B.A. Math, B.A. Physics, M.S. Aeronautics, and Eng. Aeronautics). Second, my whitepaper On Debunking 9/11 Debunking was never peer-reviewed -- there is no venue to peer-review a survey of a fraudulent pseudoscientific book in the popular (and unreviewed) press.

I understand that factual inaccuracy lies at the very heart of the Truth Movement, but please don't make up BS claims.

Do you have any idea how you could get explosives to blow a 4 tonne steel beam that far??? I've seen the claim made so many times as if you could throw steel by use of explosives. How?

I do. In my whitepaper. It works out to a minimum of about 800 kg TNT. In other words, explosives so enormous (about 1.5 x a Mk.84 JDAM in this case) that their use would be utterly unmistakable, and quite lethal.

This particular myth was retired over four years ago. Call it quits, Truthers.

[NoahFence]

Richard Gage suggested to the volunteers that we ask architects who were looking at the booths "Did you know that 3 towers collapsed on 9/11?" Most of those that I asked said No.

Then they work 3rd shift and were sleeping at the time. Everybody saw that building go down.

This is a representative sequence of videos they used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0GW6QXKyp0

Hardly any of them show the entire collapse. As a matter of fact I only saw one. I imagine that was put there in error.

[NoahFence]

But still, two football fields (between goal posts) is a long way for 4 ton beam segments to bounce and ricochet, without some explosive lateral force involved.



From 1,000 feet in the air? It's not far at all!

I'm fairly certain that if I ran and jumped off the top of one of those buildings, I could easily get 100 yards away from it. If I did it from the ground, not so much.

The beam was forced out and simply continued it's trajectory until it was impeded by the other building. This isn't tough to imagine.

[ozeco41]

Do you have any idea how you could get explosives to blow a 4 tonne steel beam that far??? I've seen the claim made so many times as if you could throw steel by use of explosives. How?...
I do. In my whitepaper. It works out to a minimum of about 800 kg TNT. In other words, explosives so enormous (about 1.5 x a Mk.84 JDAM in this case) that their use would be utterly unmistakable, and quite lethal... Thanks Ryan - Military Engineer here so I knew it was a very inefficient process therefore requires overkill quantities and would cause a ruddy big bang. Glad you could work out the quantities because none of my Mil Eng Pamphlets had instructions for using explosives to throw steel. ;)

It is not the way you would choose to throw steel. And my real point being that it is a ridiculous claim that the ancillary effect of cutting steel would be to blow big heavy steel sections a large distance.

It is some time since I read your paper and I had not remembered the reference.

[Foolmewunz]

<snip>
.... because none of my Mil Eng Pamphlets had instructions for using explosives to throw steel. ;)
<snip>



Oh, sure! And you don't find that suspicious?

You know what else teh military sort of forgets to teach? Anything at all on their plans for hegemony, mass murder, and the takeover of International House of Pancakes, that's what?

I'll ask again,... You don't find this suspicious? Wake up sheeple!

[Oystein]

From 1,000 feet in the air? It's not far at all!

I'm fairly certain that if I ran and jumped off the top of one of those buildings, I could easily get 100 yards away from it. If I did it from the ground, not so much.
...

Careful.
Let's do the math:


In my youth, I ran 100m in about 14 seconds (I admittedly wasn't the fastest of runners). I assume that you are now not much faster than that.
1 yard = 0.9144, so I ran 100 yards in 12.8 seconds, or at 7.8yards/s (average)
Free-fall time from the roof of the Twin Towers is a little under 10 seconds.
In 10 seconds, I could run 78 yards.


So assuming I jump of the tower at my best average dash speed, I'd make it as far as 78 yards before I hit the ground.

Not 100 yards.

If you are within 10% of the world class sprinters, you could barely make 100 yards.

:D

[Oystein]

Then they work 3rd shift and were sleeping at the time. Everybody saw that building go down.
...

Nuh, not everybody. I wasn't aware of WTC7 until I ran into my first personal truther in 2008, I think. I definitely didn't see it on or shortly after 9/11. (I didn't have an own TV at the time, though, and Germany's being 6 hours ahead of NYC probably made sure I was already home from my mom where I had gone right after work to watch the news and give her an ear to talk to if she needed to make sense of the disturbing sights. She never quite lost the traumata suffered in WW2).

[tsig]

OK. Most people know that I mean the playing area, from goal post to goal post, not counting the End Zone. That's 100 yards, or 300 feet.


Maybe the NBA should use steel basketballs since steel is so "bouncy". :rolleyes:


I'm no John Hagelin (PhD Physics, Harvard; BA Summa Cum Laude from Dartmouth - after only 3 years instead of the usual 4.)
or David Griscom (PhD Physics, Brown, 193 publications), Steven Jones (PhD Physics Vanderbilt and Stanford LAC) or Ryan Mackey PhD (CalTech), or Einstein, but at least got an A- in Physics at Colgate University.


The AmEx building is still standing, and going strong, on 220 Vesey Street in NYC. It is also called the World Financial Center Building 1. "Strange" it did not collapse like WTC 7.
www.worldfinancialcenter.com

I found another photo of the steel beams stuck in the AmEx building, and agree that it shows downward motion of the steel beam, and concede on that.

But still, two football fields (between goal posts) is a long way for 4 ton beam segments to bounce and ricochet, without some explosive lateral force involved.

Can you seriously imagine steel the weight of this 4 ton military truck bouncing and ricocheting 2 football fields?
http://www.motortopia.com/cars/1956-daf-daf-ya126-12398

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bcc5f102b3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22947) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bcc6f2e2af.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22948) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bd37ab7900.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949)

I have never seen a CD throw 4 tons of steel anywhere so if it was a CD it was the worst one ever.

[Foolmewunz]

I have never seen a CD throw 4 tons of steel anywhere so if it was a CD it was the worst one ever.

:D

I think a lot of the conspiradroid crowd tends to forget that the C is for "controlled".

[Oystein]

I have never seen a CD throw 4 tons of steel anywhere so if it was a CD it was the worst one ever.

No-one has seen any building in free-fall as a result of a CD - David Chandler measured several and found them to be slower. So if WTC7 was CD, it was the worst ever.

[Disbelief]

No-one has seen any building in free-fall as a result of a CD - David Chandler measured several and found them to be slower. So if WTC7 was CD, it was the worst ever.

Dr. Greening actually produced a reference a few years back showing a CD reached about 70% (if I remember correctly) of what freefall would.

[Oystein]

Dr. Greening actually produced a reference a few years back showing a CD reached about 70% (if I remember correctly) of what freefall would.

Exactly what I would have expected, as the WTC towers all fell in the vicinity of that value. They are all gravity-dominated collapses. In CDs, explosives provide the initial failure, in natural collapses, fires or other causes do the same.
All gravitational collapses of highrises collapse can be expected to happen at those roughly 70% that the easiest models would predict, regardless of the initial cause.

[dafydd]

OK. Most people know that I mean the playing area, from goal post to goal post, not counting the End Zone. That's 100 yards, or 300 feet.


Maybe the NBA should use steel basketballs since steel is so "bouncy". :rolleyes:


I'm no John Hagelin (PhD Physics, Harvard; BA Summa Cum Laude from Dartmouth - after only 3 years instead of the usual 4.)
or David Griscom (PhD Physics, Brown, 193 publications), Steven Jones (PhD Physics Vanderbilt and Stanford LAC) or Ryan Mackey PhD (CalTech), or Einstein, but at least got an A- in Physics at Colgate University.


The AmEx building is still standing, and going strong, on 220 Vesey Street in NYC. It is also called the World Financial Center Building 1. "Strange" it did not collapse like WTC 7.
www.worldfinancialcenter.com

I found another photo of the steel beams stuck in the AmEx building, and agree that it shows downward motion of the steel beam, and concede on that.

But still, two football fields (between goal posts) is a long way for 4 ton beam segments to bounce and ricochet, without some explosive lateral force involved.

Can you seriously imagine steel the weight of this 4 ton military truck bouncing and ricocheting 2 football fields?
http://www.motortopia.com/cars/1956-daf-daf-ya126-12398

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bcc5f102b3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22947) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bcc6f2e2af.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22948) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bd37ab7900.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949)

I've seen R. Mackey's credentials,now let's have a look at yours. What qualifications do you have that entitle you to tell real engineers that they are wrong?

[TruthersLie]

You refer to Ryan Mackey's paper, the most recent paper (2008, 3 years ago) of the supposedly "peer-reviewed" (by fellow peer Deniers) online "Journal of 9/11 Debunking."
http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

The paper was refuted by Jim Hoffman, who also outlined "Mackey's Methods"
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey
and researcher Kevin Ryan
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf


You really need a dictonary. Ryan mackey wrote 250+ pages of refutation of DR grifter.... 250+ pages. With citations, math and everything backed up.

Jim Hoffman and waterboy managed to write an 11 page response. That isn't a refuation.

In science, a refuation goes POINT BY POINT and shows how someone is wrong.

Hoffman and waterboy manage to handwave away everything, but they don't REFUTE anything.

How is that reading on put orders and the missing 85 videos coming? If you can't figure those out, you will never understand Mackey's whitepaper. (that is ok, twoofs can't figure out a white paper if it bit them... the have never managed to even write one of those let alone a peer reviewed paper)


Ryan Mackey provided mathematical formulas, but no empirical evidence, or references to any experiments, to show if they hold up in real life. Experiments trump theory.

Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole showed, even in his back yard, that thermite explosives could hurl steel at great speeds.
http://www.youtube.com/physicsandreason#p/u/1/5d5iIoCiI8g

So we have an experiment proving before your eyes that explosives can hurl heavy steel at great speeds.
vs. a theory that steel can fall then ricochet over 600 feet, but has never been replicated in real life.


You are missing something important...
if an explosive can throw steel 600 feet, everyone in a mile radius would hear it.


The question is how 4 ton steel beams flew horizontally over 600 feet, (2 football fields) in an arching trajectory, to not only reach, but still have enough force to embed themselves in the walls of the American Express and Winter Garden buildings, like darts in a dart board.


YOu do know what F=MA means right? take a look at the part where you say it is 4 tons and it is falling 1000 feet at gravitational acceleration... that is a rather "duh" question.


Mackey's "Ricochet Theory" claims that steel beams fell down, then bounced or did a "ricochet" over 600 feet laterally. Ever drop a steel beam and see how far it "bounces"? Not far. It is steel, not rubber.


OMG.


The theory assumes that there is something solid to bounce off of. But we can see the floors of the WTC are falling downwards, at nearly free fall speed. Next time you are in a descending elevator, drop a ball and see how high it bounces.


weasel words.... "at nearly free fall speed." You might want to look that up... maybe after you figure out put orders and the rest.


It is claimed that as steel and concrete fell down, it caused the floor below to fall in turn. That uses up energy. Mr. Mackey needs to subtract that energy from the energy required to hurl the steel sideways 600 feet. Maybe the NFL should use steel foot balls if they so easily bounce and travel 2 football fields. :)

The Richochet Theory is about as odd as dropping a fork at dinner, which hits the table leg near the floor, then bounces across the room and sticks itself in the wall. Even when throwing the fork downwards, this is unlikely to happen.

In order to embed themselves in the walls, the beams had to travel mostly laterally. By the time the beams arched and reached the AmEx and Winter Garden buildings, they were falling mostly downwards. Thus, they would hit the buildings with a glancing blow. Try hammering a nail in to a wall with a glancing blow. The nail bounces off the wall. You need to hammer the nail horizontally.

Try throwing a dart, either up in an arch, at a board. Or, try throwing a dart from 40 feet above the dart board, and see if it sticks in. It bounces off then down to the floor. But hurl it horizontally (as an explosive would) and you can get it to stick in the board.

According to Ryan's Richochet Theory, steel would have "bounced" up and out in an arch, or directly horizontally then into an arch. Near the WTC, the beam is travelling mostly horizontally, then progressively vertically. Even after 500 feet, it would have been travelling mostly downward.

Notice in the 3rd photo, the steel beam appears to have traveled upwards. Agreed, it could have hit, and sagged down. But we would expect to see more downward scraping marks on the building above the impact point, if the beam was falling mostly down at that point.

If not for hitting what appears to be the 15th Floor of the American Express Building, the steel beam looks like it would have traveled even farther from WTC 1, perhaps 700 over feet.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9b6418d92e8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22941) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9b646bdd73a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22942) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_193154d9b64ddacd9f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22943)

massive arguments from ignorance and incredulity..

how is the reading on your other areas of ignorance and incredulity coming? Any luck? Do you need a popup dictionary?

Stay on one topic until you understand it before running blindly into another brick wall.

[TruthersLie]

So good luck, but the Verification Team is skeptical and tough. They know one bad apple on the list will be what everyone focuses on, not the other 1473. The list of 1474 architects and engineers is verified. There are still things I'm checking out, and JREF is a good way to find alternative explanations for 9/11. But, the AE911Truth list is a major reason I turned from being a 100% Debunker towards being a 98% Truther. These guys know buildings much better than I do.



truther LIE.
There are NOT 1400+ architects and engineers on that list. There are 1400+ architectural and engineering "professionals."

why did they start claiming their list would be degreed and licensed architects and engineers, only to shift to degreed and/OR licensed architects and engineers, only to shift to the current bs of architects and engineering professionals?

Why do you insist on telling this lie?

And to finish the last line.... gee... how many building structural engineers areon that list of "professionals?" Less than 50. Amazing.

How many participated in and helped the NIST reports?

argument from authority rejected. Try again.

[TruthersLie]

AE911Truth had a booth, along with other organizations, at the annual convention for the American Institute of Architects in DC. I volunteered to help get signatures as a way of checking them out, and see if they were for real, after seeing them only on the web.

Richard Gage suggested to the volunteers that we ask architects who were looking at the booths "Did you know that 3 towers collapsed on 9/11?" Most of those that I asked said No.

Then Richard suggested we invite them to see the video screens at the AE911Truth booth. The videos showed about a dozen various views of WTC 7 collapsing, from main stream news sources. This is a representative sequence of videos they used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0GW6QXKyp0

Many of the architects saw these videos for the first time, and signed the Petition to Congress for a new 9/11 investigation. Upon verification of credentials by the Verification Team, their name would be posted in the professionals' petition section on www.AE911Truth.org

The best part was being interviewed by (krasiva) Dina Gusovsky:blush: of Russia Today TV. She didn't broadcast my interview, but I'm in the background.
http://rt.com/usa/news/11-truth-still-in-a-cloud-of-smoke

I believe that the total number of architects you managed to sign up at that conference was.... oh less than 30. Out of 16000+ in attendance. That should tell you something about the people signing up.

My personal favourite part of the video you twoofs try to pass around is how it is w/out sound... amazing.

[CptColumbo]

100 yards, or 300 feet. The "over 500" is because it is better to understate than overstate in debates.
It's better to be accurate.

[BasqueArch]

FWIW, to the Truther nut I have on Ignore: First, I don't have a Ph.D. (my C.V. is on-line; my degrees are B.A. Math, B.A. Physics, M.S. Aeronautics, and Eng. Aeronautics). Second, my whitepaper On Debunking 9/11 Debunking was never peer-reviewed -- there is no venue to peer-review a survey of a fraudulent pseudoscientific book in the popular (and unreviewed) press.

.........

Sure there is.
Have you tried Bentham Open?
It's most popular, though pricey, for the unreviewed articles it e-produces.

$800 peer reviewed
$8,000 reviewed by non-peers.

[beachnut]

OK. Most people know that I mean the playing area, from goal post to goal post, not counting the End Zone. That's 100 yards, or 300 feet. [/URL] Playing area? Sorry, the playing area for a football field is 360 feet. It would be impossible to make a touchdown with only 100 yards of playing area. So you joined 911 truth, A&E who can't figure out 911. Very interesting. The evidence is slowing coming out.


Maybe the NBA should use steel basketballs since steel is so "bouncy". :rolleyes: (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949) No wonder you volunteer for Gage the delusions spreader. You act like an object in motion will stop when it hits the ground, that is why I asked you about a ball bouncing, you don't seem to grasp the real world, don't shoot the ground near you!


I'm no John Hagelin (PhD Physics, Harvard; BA Summa Cum Laude from Dartmouth - after only 3 years instead of the usual 4.)
or David Griscom (PhD Physics, Brown, 193 publications), Steven Jones (PhD Physics Vanderbilt and Stanford LAC) or Ryan Mackey PhD (CalTech), or Einstein, but at least got an A- in Physics at Colgate University. Hagelin, is he a loon like Jones on 911? Griscom? LOL, Griscom can't identify a compass.


Physics, and A-? ... you are not using it, the physics, you are not using it since you joined Gage and his failed claims on 911.




The AmEx building is still standing, and going strong, on 220 Vesey Street in NYC. It is also called the World Financial Center Building 1. "Strange" it did not collapse like WTC 7.
www.worldfinancialcenter.com (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949) It was not on fire, steel is not strong in fire. You failed to gain some knowledge in structural engineering when you signed up for woo with Gage's fraud.

I found another photo of the steel beams stuck in the AmEx building, and agree that it shows downward motion of the steel beam, and concede on that. (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949) Reality?

But still, two football fields (between goal posts) is a long way for 4 ton beam segments to bounce and ricochet, without some explosive lateral force involved. E=mgh is the available energy, for both towers the energy over over 230 2,000 pound bombs. More than enough energy to eject beams. I you made an A in physics you could see the energy is there, but you have failed to use math and physics to back up your false claims, your lack of understanding. E=mgh, over 200 2,000 pound of energy available! Is that enough? YES

Wow, enough energy to eject hundreds of pieces of steel exactly like we see on 911. If you would do the math you would see. Why do you fail to do the math for yourself and pick Gage's moronic lies?

Why did Gage fail to do the math? He is a fraud. Just asking questions and giving answers!

Can you seriously imagine steel the weight of this 4 ton military truck bouncing and ricocheting 2 football fields?
http://www.motortopia.com/cars/1956-daf-daf-ya126-12398 (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949) [URL="http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949"] (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22948)
You image idiotic claims of explosives, why do you ask a question when you have not figure out it is possible? Gage keeps the questions to where there is no real answer for his delusions.
Can you imagine the energy available in the WTC collapse. Do the numbers and prove you passed physics. E=mgh, more than enough. Did you really take physics? Why are you not using it?

[BasqueArch]

.....
The question is how 4 ton steel beams flew horizontally over 600 feet, (2 football fields) in an arching trajectory, to not only reach, but still have enough force to embed themselves in the walls of the American Express and Winter Garden buildings, like darts in a dart board.
......



If you Zen this picture long enough, the answer to how the perimeter walls landed at that distance will manifest itself.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/columns.jpg

[twinstead]

If I wanted to deal with arguments from ignorant incredulity I'd debate my 6 year old.

[TruthMakesPeace]

FWIW, to the Truther nut I have on Ignore: First, I don't have a Ph.D.
OK, no over-estimation of your intelligence intended. Seriously, you have great credentials. Someone said you have a PhD from CalTech. You sound like one, so there was little reason to question it.

Anyone who does research for JPL has to be pretty smart. I wish Congress was smart enough to upsize NASA, and stop wasting all the funds on hundreds of military bases we don't need (Italy and Singapore are friends, if not Iraq and Afthanistan) and get some bases on the Moon. We should have had one by 2001, instead wasting billions on the Viet Nam War.

If 9/11 was a false flag op, exposing it will get America to re-establish our priorities. We need companies like Lockheed focused on building Lunar Modules again, rather than F-35's. The human race needs to expand to other planets, in case something happens to the Earth.

my whitepaper On Debunking 9/11 Debunking was never peer-reviewed
The Journal of Debunking 911 says "Peer-Reviewed Papers:" on www.JOD911.com. Likewise, people question the "peer reviewed" www.Journalof911studies.com. One side's "peer" is the other's "sympathizer."

I understand that factual inaccuracy lies at the very heart of the Truth Movement
Each side of 9/11 is trying to establish a final conclusion of what happened. Conclusions are based on facts. But we only had a time and money pressured, partial discovery of the facts of 9/11. Partial facts can only lead to partially supported conclusions, filled in with assumptions. Such conclusions are only partially satisfying to critical thinkers.

That's why we see hundreds of web sites and forums asking questions about 9/11. JREF has no threads calling for a new Challenger investigation because NASA, Dr. Richard Feynman, and other scientists did it right.

We need the release of all the information that is being suppressed by the Government. It only raises questions when we don't get to see pre-crash Pentagon photos, 911 logs, and data from all FDRs which have always been recovered in other crashes. Why can't we get transcripts of Bush & Cheney, who should have been interviewed separately and under oath to tell the truth. How can a critical thinker be satisfied with such guilty behavior?

We need more repeatable experiments, with real substances, not just computer models, to establish the facts. If NIST wants to use computer models, they should release all the data used in them.

In my whitepaper. It works out to a minimum of about 800 kg TNT.
The math looks good. If there is some way to support the formulas experimentally, as Jonathan Cole did with his back yard thermite tests, that would be good.

[QUOTE]In other words, explosives so enormous (about 1.5 x a Mk.84 JDAM in this case) that their use would be utterly unmistakable, and quite lethal.
There was an article in the MIT Review about nanotechnology that could enable smart bombs to be smaller, yet with more "bank for the buck."
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/14105/page1/?a=f

[dc1971]

JREF has no threads calling for a new Challenger investigation because NASA, Dr. Richard Feynman, and other scientists did it right. All of the major questions were scientifically investigated and answered.

We need the release of all the information that is being suppressed by the Government. It only raises questions when we don't get to see pre-crash Pentagon photos, 911 logs, and data from all FDRs which have always been recovered in other crashes. Why can't we get transcripts of Bush & Cheney, who should have been interviewed separately and under oath. Why not take an oath if one is going to tell the truth? How can a critical thinker be satisfied with that?

We need more repeatable experiments, with real substances, not just computer models, to establish the facts.


Cicorp, if you are a member of a 9/11 Truth organization I will be more than happy to contribute and support a new investigation. I have posted a message about this elsewhere on this forum!

[R.Mackey]

Cicorp, if you are a member of a 9/11 Truth organization I will be more than happy to contribute and support a new investigation. I have posted a message about this elsewhere on this forum!

Don't bother, the guy is a ruddy broken record. Even his anecdotes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6927927#post6927927) are inaccurate and recycled.

Some people simply do not wish to learn anything.

[waypastvne]

The question is how 4 ton steel beams flew horizontally over 600 feet, (2 football fields) in an arching trajectory, to not only reach, but still have enough force to embed themselves in the walls of the American Express and Winter Garden buildings, like darts in a dart board.


Could it have been a Trebuchet? They don't make much noise.

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/Trebuchet45-300x225.jpg

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/damagecopy.jpg

Just Asking Questions.

[newton3376]

OK, no over-estimation of your intelligence intended. Seriously, you have great credentials. Someone said you have a PhD from CalTech.

How would you know if an Engineer does or does not have "great credentials"? What qualifies you to make such a judgement call?

You sound like one, so there was little reason to question it.

What does someone with a PhD "sound like"? I'm assuming you do not work side by side with Engineers/Scientists on a regular basis.....


That's why we see hundreds of web sites and forums asking questions about 9/11.

We see hundreds of websites because there are many delusional and unintelligent people out there.

The math looks good. If there is some way to support the formulas experimentally, as Jonathan Cole did with his back yard thermite tests, that would be good.

How would you know the math looks good?

Yeah....those backyard truther "experiments" really are quite convincing...:rolleyes:

[TruthMakesPeace]

Some people simply do not wish to learn anything.
Actually I have learned many things from JREF, more than from most 9/11 sites. For example, yesterday I made a new post on 911Blogger and referenced the work of Oody from JREF. Previously 911Blogger had no news about the April Gallop case. JREF is to thank for bringing more information to the debate.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-06/judge-john-walker-george-walker-bushs-cousin-judges-april-gallops-suit

[Scott Sommers]

Previously 911Blogger had no news about the April Gallop case. JREF is to thank for bringing more information to the debate.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-06/judge-john-walker-george-walker-bushs-cousin-judges-april-gallops-suit

Thank you circop, for pointing this out. However, I'm not surprised to hear this.

As I have said many times, Truthers seem extremely unknowledgeable even about 9/11 matters. How many times have you heard Truthers here talking openly about how they have never heard fundamental events, important people, or seminal concepts in 9/11 conspiracy. If you're arguing about things with them, you can just make things up.

[TruthMakesPeace]

Cicorp, if you are a member of a 9/11 Truth organization I will be more than happy to contribute and support a new investigation.
Given the nature of your previous posts, there is a high probability that you are feigning interest, in order to make some kind of joke.

But to answer your question, I like to keep my independence, but have volunteered to help various organizations that help bring out the truth, and have donated to the James Randi Educational Foundation.

I have been an amateur magician, and admire James' work, especially debunking the likes of Uri Geller and Peter Popoff. As Randi says: "I want to be as aware as I possibly can." It takes critical thinking to get to the truth.

[Disbelief]

Anyone who does research for JPL has to be pretty smart. I wish Congress was smart enough to upsize NASA, and stop wasting all the funds on hundreds of military bases we don't need (Italy and Singapore are friends, if not Iraq and Afthanistan) and get some bases on the Moon. We should have had one by 2001, instead wasting billions on the Viet Nam War.



I know this is OT for 9/11, but can you really not figure out why we would maintain bases in friendly countries? Strategic importance and staging for deployment come to mind.

Why would you want to maintain bases only in unfriendly countries? Would that not be harder and more expensive?

[dc1971]

Given the nature of your previous posts, there is a high probability that you are feigning interest, in order to make some kind of joke.


Well believe what you want. I am being serious.

[Dave Rogers]

The Journal of Debunking 911 says "Peer-Reviewed Papers:" on www.JOD911.com (http://www.JOD911.com). Likewise, people question the "peer reviewed" www.Journalof911studies.com (http://www.Journalof911studies.com). One side's "peer" is the other's "sympathizer."

The Journal of Debunking 9/11 was set up as a deliberate parody of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, with the aim of pointing out that anyone can put a group of articles on the Internet and pretend it's a peer-reviewed journal. We know that the Journal of 9/11 Studies does not practice impartial peer-review, and anyone with any scientific training who reads its content can also judge that it doesn't practice competent peer review.

Each side of 9/11 is trying to establish a final conclusion of what happened. Conclusions are based on facts. But we only had a time and money pressured, partial discovery of the facts of 9/11.

Not true. Firstly, a final conclusion of what happened has long ago been reached, to a level of detail and certainty at the very least comparable with that to which conclusions can be reached on any other event of major historical significance. Secondly, the repeated implication that the 9/11 Commission carried out the sole enquiry into 9/11 is one of the most commonly repeated and most obviously false truther lies; the FBI investigation into 9/11 is the most extensive criminal investigation in US history, and NIST has undertaken well-funded and thorough investigations into the building collapses.

Partial facts can only lead to partially supported conclusions, filled in with assumptions. Such conclusions are only partially satisfying to critical thinkers.

And outright lies can only lead to unsound conclusions, but for some reason these appear to be completely satisfying to conspiracy theorists.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

How many times have you heard Truthers here talking openly about how they have never heard fundamental events, important people, or seminal concepts in 9/11 conspiracy.

Too true. Why, just the other day, one of them claimed that Osama Bin Laden wasn't even wanted by the FBI!

Dave

[Scott Sommers]

Too true. Why, just the other day, one of them claimed that Osama Bin Laden wasn't even wanted by the FBI!

Dave

I suspect some of frustration we see here among the conspiracy crowd is the realization they've been caught missing really obvious and easily understood things that they should have known about. Their way of handling it is to deny it, disappear from the forum, or just slink deeper into their weirded out world.