• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Popular Mechanics: 500,000 scholars?

adkinsjr

Thinker
adkinsjr
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
206
I heard this claim in a video mocking the 9/11 "truth" cult:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzIbOYaSy8

I was skeptical of this one, even though the video is hilarious and I hate the cult, 500,000 sounds like a lot of people to sign a petition. :jaw-dropp

The claim is made around 5:20.

:confused:
 
Last edited:
adkinsjr said:
I heard this claim in a video mocking the 9/11 "truth" cult:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzIbOYaSy8

I was skeptical of this one, even though the video is hilarious and I hate the cult, 500,000 sounds like a lot of people to sign a petition. :jaw-dropp

The claim is made around 5:20.

:confused:
Click to expand...
I can't remember ever hearing them make this claim (and a quick search reveals nothing). What makes you think this (actually) was a signed petition?
 
I can't remember ever hearing them make this claim (and a quick search reveals nothing).
Click to expand...

Same here...

DGM said:
What makes you think this (actually) was a signed petition?
Click to expand...

True, the vid said 500,000 other scholars and popular mechanics magazine, which doesn't necessarily mean they signed a petition. Still, in order to make such a claim you'd have to have some sort of verification that these people disagree with the cult. I don't see how else you could obtain that proof without some kind of petition.
 
Last edited:
adkinsjr said:
True, the vid said 500,000 other scholars and popular mechanics magazine, which doesn't necessarily mean they signed a petition. Still, in order to make such a claim you'd have to have some sort of verification that these people disagree with the cult. I don't see how else you could obtain that proof without some kind of petition.
Click to expand...

On YouTube??????????


:confused:
 
This is the same fallacy that is used on this sub forum all the time. There are X amount of structural engineers. Only Y have signed a petition for a new investigation; therefore, the remainder do not support the petition.

This fallacious thinking does not take into consideration that the remainded have not investigated the details or are even aware of any such petition.
 
RedIbis said:
This is the same fallacy that is used on this sub forum all the time. There are X amount of structural engineers. Only Y have signed a petition for a new investigation; therefore, the remainder do not support the petition.

This fallacious thinking does not take into consideration that the remainded have not investigated the details or are even aware of any such petition.
Click to expand...
Is it your contention that the structural engineering world is un-aware of the collapses and the NIST reports?
 
DGM said:
Is it your contention that the structural engineering world is un-aware of the collapses and the NIST reports?
Click to expand...

That's not what I said.

You changed 'details' to 'collapses' and 'petition' to 'NIST reports.'

Regardless, you cannot assume that the remainder read the NIST reports or have even studied the collapses beyond what they saw on TV.

Well, I suppose you can assume it since that's exactly what you'll do, but it's fallacious all the same.
 
RedIbis said:
That's not what I said.

You changed 'details' to 'collapses' and 'petition' to 'NIST reports.'

Regardless, you cannot assume that the remainder read the NIST reports or have even studied the collapses beyond what they saw on TV.

Well, I suppose you can assume it since that's exactly what you'll do, but it's fallacious all the same.
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is we're being told by laymen that the collapses are obvious. These opinions are backed up by the "experts" at AE 911. Why have so few SE's noticed what we're being told is "obviously" a CD?
 
RedIbis said:
This is the same fallacy that is used on this sub forum all the time. There are X amount of structural engineers. Only Y have signed a petition for a new investigation; therefore, the remainder do not support the petition.

This fallacious thinking does not take into consideration that the remainded have not investigated the details or are even aware of any such petition.
Click to expand...

It's the same fallacious thinking that does not take into consideration that most of the 1400 have not investigated the (true) details. They merely filled out a form.

In fact, 0 (zero) of the A&E who filled out that form have investigated the details to such an extent that they could publish about them in a real peer-reviewed journal of any relevant profession or field of study.
 
DGM said:
Why have so few SE's noticed what we're being told is "obviously" a CD?
Click to expand...
Because in TrutherLandTM no one in the structural engineering community was much interested in the collapses, and deferred to What They Were Told By The Government.
 
Oystein said:
It's the same fallacious thinking that does not take into consideration that most of the 1400 have not investigated the (true) details. They merely filled out a form.
Click to expand...

How do you know this? Did you interview all 1400 of them?
 
RedIbis said:
How do you know this? Did you interview all 1400 of them?
Click to expand...
Because not a single one of them has published anything on the subject.

I guess they just don't think it's very important.
 
RedIbis said:
This is the same fallacy that is used on this sub forum all the time. There are X amount of structural engineers. Only Y have signed a petition for a new investigation; therefore, the remainder do not support the petition.

This fallacious thinking does not take into consideration that the remainded have not investigated the details or are even aware of any such petition.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can hardly believe that only 3 NY structural Professional Engineers (PE's) have signed the petition out of eight thousand registered; and two of these let their license expire. You would have thought that engineers from New York would have cared enough to have investigated.

And as for Building 7, then I am sure most structural engineers in America will have turned off their television as soon as the North Tower collapsed. Because after you have seen two of the tallest buildings in the world collapse it would be hardly worth watching a 47 story tower collapse. That's why we have so little support.
 
Telltale Tom said:
And as for Building 7, then I am sure most structural engineers in America will have turned off their television as soon as the North Tower collapsed. Because after you have seen two of the tallest buildings in the world collapse it would be hardly worth watching a 47 story tower collapse. That's why we have so little support.
Click to expand...

Yea. That's why. :rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
What I'm saying is we're being told by laymen that the collapses are obvious. These opinions are backed up by the "experts" at AE 911. Why have so few SE's noticed what we're being told is "obviously" a CD?
Click to expand...

Because it's obviously not a CD. There are always so-called "experts" to support just about anything, no matter how preposterous, including the literal interpretation of genesis.

http://creationwiki.org/Creation_scientist
 
RedIbis said:
This fallacious thinking does not take into consideration that the remainded have not investigated the details or are even aware of any such petition.
Click to expand...

For the sake of argument, let's assume you're right, and that most scientific minds have simply not heard the alternate theories behind 9-11.

Whose fault is that?

You and your lot have produced almost a decade's worth of books, movies, talk radio, mainstream news coverage, petitions, public events, congressional candidates, infomercials, black t-shirts, unapproved billboards, illicit PA announcements at Wal-Mart, and Internet posts. A decade's worth, Red. Why would a group of educated people not be aware of scientific inquiries into the biggest event in their lifetimes? Especially when the "official story" can be disproven with grade-school physics, as you Truthers so often claim?

Red, if you honestly think the lack of interest is because people aren't aware of the theories, then you must admit that 9-11 Truth is a bigger marketing failure than New Coke, the Edsel, and AYDS appetite suppressant combined.
 
Funny video... I think what he's saying about the 500,000 scholars is what Red Ibis said most likely. There's 500 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth', so he's saying that the rest are not on 'the side of truth'. I wouldn't take that video too seriously. He's making fun of 'Truthers' and their wacko ideas.

Also, there are some good shots of WTC7 in that video. Around the 4:13 mark, I believe. It clearly show just how close it was to 1 & 2. If people can't wrap their heads around the fact that 7 collapsed cause it got mauled by the Towers crumbling, then they are beyond help.

I thought the guy did a good job at making the truther arguments sound as goofy as they are.
 
PS13 said:
Also, there are some good shots of WTC7 in that video. Around the 4:13 mark, I believe. It clearly show just how close it was to 1 & 2. If people can't wrap their heads around the fact that 7 collapsed cause it got mauled by the Towers crumbling, then they are beyond help.
Click to expand...

Other than ignite the fires, what did the collapses of the Towers have to do with the collapse of WTC 7?
 
RedIbis said:
Other than ignite the fires, what did the collapses of the Towers have to do with the collapse of WTC 7?
Click to expand...

Shucks, Red, I would have preferred you respond to tightrope's response to your suggestion that the reason why the truth movement is being ignored is because most experts just haven't heard the alternate theories. That IS a bit more on topic, right?
 
twinstead said:
Shucks, Red, I would have preferred you respond to tightrope's response to your suggestion that the reason why the truth movement is being ignored is because most experts just haven't heard the alternate theories. That IS a bit more on topic, right?
Click to expand...

I thought it would be a waste of time if I had to explain the difference between a petition a scientific inquiry.

I thought my time would be better spent if I pointed out yet again that debris damage did not contribute to WTC 7's collapse.
 
RedIbis said:
How do you know this? Did you interview all 1400 of them?
Click to expand...


You've got one hell of a double-standard going here, RedIbis. You chastise others for assuming that those who have not signed the AE9/11 petition do not agree with the group's claims. However, you uncritically accept that those who have signed the petition are well-versed in the flaws of, say, the NIST reports even though none have demonstrated such knowledge or ability.
 
RedIbis said:
Other than ignite the fires, what did the collapses of the Towers have to do with the collapse of WTC 7?
Click to expand...

The collapse of the towers damaged the infrastructure in the immediate area which cut off the water supply to the sprinkler system. The FDNY lost 343 of their firefighters and much equipment that would be needed to fight those fires. The collapse caused the simultaneous ignition of fires at many locations in building seven, The collapse ventilated the south face of building seven allowing air and convection to support the fires. All the above made for a Uncontrollable fire which caused structural failure.
 
RedIbis said:
How do you know this? Did you interview all 1400 of them?
Click to expand...

I know this because the TM has not published a single paper in a real peer-reviewed journal that supports the AE911T lies.

Have you interviewed the 500,000 non-signatory engineers?
 
Oystein said:
I know this because the TM has not published a single paper in a real peer-reviewed journal that supports the AE911T lies.

Have you interviewed the 500,000 non-signatory engineers?
Click to expand...

No. Don't be ridiculous. That's why I don't make assumptions about what the mass of them believe.
 
Red - You've been schooled on WTC7 numerous times here on JREF. I've read a ton of threads in this section. Don't try to rehash an argument you can't win. WTC7 was damaged from having those 2 huge skyscrapers next to it get rammed with jets full of fuel. You know, the towers got hit by planes, huge fires, collapse and then 7 got damaged, caught fire, fire expanded, 7 fell down like the FDNY said it was going to... You know how and why WTC7 fell...


If I were one who thought that anyone but Al`Queda was responsible for 9/11, I sure would be doing everything I could to get the word out. Not sitting here arguing with people who school me everytime I try to argue a point...

People like Gage, etc... just take donations & give speeches in nice locations across the world & pay themselves a salary (I'm pretty sure that Gage is only doing 9/11 scam, ripping off peoples donations, telling lies for money, swindling people out of their money, 'truth' stuff for his only source of income nowadays).


It's been a decade, Red. 9/11 was done by Al`Queda. The only thing that would even make any kind of sense, and I don't think for a second it happened this way, but the only alternate definition for the attacks would be a LIHOP scenario... and not a "Cheney, Bush, Rice, Tennett knew", but there's maybe a 0.0001% chance that someone(s) inside the US government knew 9/11 was gonna happen and did nothing to stop it.
...I'm not talking about the August 6th memo either...I'm saying knew details. That's the only way any kind of inside job could even make sense. And, I'd set the odds that someone in the US Gov't knew when & where it was gonna happen at +100000. That's 100,000 to 1. Meaning for every dollar you bet, you'd win $100,000 in return. That's how confident I am that 9/11 was NOT any kind of inside job in any way whatsoever.

I've seen every documentary, read ever truther site, heard many, many Alex Jones broadcasts, seen DRG give 'lectures'... I've heard every argument from the truth movement and it's all garbage. All of it.


Assange said that they'll publish 9/11 inside job stuff if it checks out and is real, verifiable info... so far, nobody has blown the whistle... That should tell you something everything. The worlds biggest, most popular whistle blowing company has nothing on any 9/11 inside jobby job.
...... Do you have any idea how much money The Guardian or NY Times would pay for an exclusive story for hard core proof that the federal government knew and did nothing to stop it, or even was behind it? It makes no sense that nobody has come forward with any inside job info. If that info was there, someone would leak it. Nothing as of now. No death bed confessions, nothing.




I'll have you know as well that I've sent now 5 people to this forum to debunk their beliefs that 9/11 was an inside job. All 5 read many threads & followed the sources linked and now understand that they were taken in by scammers & con artists like Jones, Avery, Gage... So if you think the truthers here are doing a good job of arguing for inside job, you're mistaken. This site is the best on the net for debunking. The source page at the top and all the threads here... it's a great thing to have at the click of a mouse.


Anyway... have a good one, Red.

~Cheers
 
RedIbis said:
No. Don't be ridiculous. That's why I don't make assumptions about what the mass of them believe.
Click to expand...

Well, I think we can reasonably assume that the overwhelming majority don't accept the same cockamamie "truthers" believe, just as much as we can assume most of them probably don't accept that subterranean aliens are hiding among us.
 
adkinsjr said:
Well, I think we can reasonably assume that the overwhelming majority don't accept the same cockamamie "truthers" believe, just as much as we can assume most of them probably don't accept that subterranean aliens are hiding among us.
Click to expand...


Yea? Says you. Until we ask them, how can we assume they don't accept that subterranean aliens are hiding among us?

;)
 
Telltale Tom said:
Yeah I can hardly believe that only 3 NY structural Professional Engineers (PE's) have signed the petition out of eight thousand registered; and two of these let their license expire. You would have thought that engineers from New York would have cared enough to have investigated.

And as for Building 7, then I am sure most structural engineers in America will have turned off their television as soon as the North Tower collapsed. Because after you have seen two of the tallest buildings in the world collapse it would be hardly worth watching a 47 story tower collapse. That's why we have so little support.
Click to expand...

There are very good reasons why they don't care.The truth will dawn on you one day.
 
RedIbis said:
No. Don't be ridiculous. That's why I don't make assumptions about what the mass of them believe.
Click to expand...

Good. I didn't say you make assumptions about the 1400. But certainly, the whole point of advertising this number 1400 is to fool people into certain assumptions, wouldn't you agree?
 
Oystein said:
Good. I didn't say you make assumptions about the 1400. But certainly, the whole point of advertising this number 1400 is to fool people into certain assumptions, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

No I wouldn't. It's simply to list those professionals who doubt the official hypotheses about the collapses.
 
RedIbis said:
No I wouldn't. It's simply to list those professionals who doubt the official hypotheses about the collapses.
Click to expand...

Is there any explanatory or convincing value in it that is epistemologically valid, and not fallacious in the sense of your Post #7? Yes or no?
 
RedIbis said:
Nope. The fires spread because of a lack of water supply not debris damage. You should know this.
Click to expand...

Nope, the damage destroyed the seals and firestops allowing the fires to migrate from floor to floor much faster than they would have been able to in an undamaged building.

Oh, and something should be said about venitlation as well.

ETA: Oh, never mind, I see DGM covered the issue.
 
RedIbis said:
Originally Posted by Oystein
It's the same fallacious thinking that does not take into consideration that most of the 1400 have not investigated the (true) details. They merely filled out a form.
Click to expand...
How do you know this? Did you interview all 1400 of them?
Click to expand...

Anyone can easily assess the expertise of many of the AE911 truth petitioners from the website.

Take this page, for example, listing only the Engineers and Engineering Professionals supporting the AE911 truth petition.

Search this page locally for the word "footprint."

Bear in mind that AE911truth's "official" position is that only Building 7 "Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint" (point 4 on the WTC7 sidebar of almost every single AE911truth page), while the Twin Towers instead displayed "Improbable symmetry of debris distribution." (Point 2 on the Twin Towers sidebar).

The short version: AE911Truth says the twin towers were brought down by Controlled Demolition (CD) because they fell outside their footprint (in an overly symmetrical manner), while Building 7 was brought down by CD because it fell inside its own footprint.

Here's the ironic part: on the previously mentioned page, a search for 'footprint' shows that fully twenty "Engineers and Engineering Professionals" declare in their personal statements that both the Twin Towers (and possibly WTC7 also) fell in their own footprints, while only 10 "Engineers and Engineering Professionals" agree with AE911truth's claims that only WTC7 fell in its own footprint.

That is, of the 30 "Engineers and Engineering Professionals" making statements about falling within footprints, two-thirds clearly interpret some of AE911truth's fundamental "characteristics of destruction by explosives" incorrectly. :jaw-dropp

Twin Towers Fall in Own Footprint: Pyeatt, Townsend, Baker, Moore, Nelson, Southard, Schenavar, Handberg, Davis, Felt, Nakamura, Revesz, Goyette, Manyen, Millikin, Gearing, Cullinan, Simchock, Watsen, Tzetzo
Click to expand...

WTC 7 Falls in Own Footprint: Fabersunne, Phillips, Regen, Kosik, Pacheco, Wilmot, Catterall, Schultz, Marshall, Fralick
Click to expand...

One more point, which illustrates additional evidence for the lack of attention of AE911 engineering professional petitioners to details:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom