IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th March 2014, 03:59 PM   #1
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Architects and Engineers Against AE911Truth

A fairly common criticism of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is its quoting of the number of signers of its petition. For example I recently watched a video in which the narrator (I'm paraphrasing) said, 'At first sight the numbers look impressive, 2000+ architects and engineers, but when you compare that number to the actual number of registered architects and engineers it doesn't look so impressive.'

And I found this statement at http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

Quote:
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 of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members 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 of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?
And this from Paolo Attivissimo:
Quote:
...A classic Dunning-Kruger effect. In your opinion, experts are blind but the less competent have 20/20 vision.
Does it not seem strange to you that all the real experts in the field disagree with the "controlled demolition" theories?

Consider the options:

a) all the world's structural engineers are incompetent, wrong or corrupt and you an a bunch of non-experts are right

b) you are wrong and the world's structural engineers are right

Ask yourself which of these scenarios is more plausible. Have a nice day.
Bolding is mine.

The problem with this thinking is that we are talking about two groups: signers of the AE911Truth petition and an 'other group'. But this 'other group', namely all the registered architects and engineers who have not signed the petition at AE911Truth, is simply assumed to have the following characteristics:

1. Knowledge of the objections to the official account of 9/11 made by A&E For 9/11 Truth
2. Interest in the events of 9/11 to the degree that they have formulated rigorous refutations to those objections

But that is only an assumption Ė it has not been shown to be the case. It is not a given that if you are an engineer or an architect then you are automatically aware of the challenges to the official account of 9/11. How do we know that all these people don't question the NIST report in the sense that they have read it and don't see any problem with it? They might not have read it. They might not know that anyone is challenging it.

I would like to know how many registered architects and engineers would be prepared to sign a petition making an active statement of opposition to the claims made by A&E For 9/11 Truth.

I propose setting up a sticky thread called something like,

JREF Architects and Engineers Against A&E9/11 Truth Petition

And to have a sort of form to fill in, something along the lines of:

Quote:
Name:
Qualifications:
Reason for Signing Petition:

I have read and understood all the claims made by AE911Truth.org and I do not accept them as evidence for the idea that the twin towers or building 7 were brought down using controlled demolition.
What do you think?
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2014, 04:05 PM   #2
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,149
Your attempt to label all engineers and architects who do not subscribe to conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks as being "against" the "truth" is both transparent and lame.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2014, 04:09 PM   #3
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Predicted response to the petition: "Don't waste my time with that crazy conspiracy crap."
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2014, 05:56 PM   #4
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Also - there are not 2000+ licensed architects and engineers that signed the stupid thing. Last time I looked, there was around 300 licensed architects and 600 engineers (few of them in the civil/structural) field.

For comparison - there are about 90,000 licensed architects in the US.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2014, 06:34 PM   #5
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,965
A petition to be against the anti-intellectual group which stands for lies? Not needed, anyone one who studies 911, has critical thinking skills can see Gage is a liar by using knowledge, logic, and evidence.

Gage offers zero evidence, fooling a fringe few engineers who refuse or can't think for themselves.
Gage lies help nuts like the Boston Bombers rationalize their acts - the dark side of free speech, giving anti-government nuts some fake reinforcement for hate.

Gage is the bad side of free speech. Lies, hate, and apologizing for 19 murderers is the best Gage can do.

Looks like you have not talked to engineers outside of 911 truth. Why not?

Can you point to any 911 truth evidence? No.
Thus, a petition to be against the fraud of Gage is not needed; only a fringe few engineers have failed and signed up for woo.

Where does 911 truth hide the overwhelming evidence? Why do you never debunk Gage's liars? Are you doing the anti-fantasy petition? Why not go to the nearest college and get the engineers to sign up? Do it. Do a pre-study for the Petition. Report back soon JREF action officer for the anti-Gage petition.


Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Predicted response to the petition: "Don't waste my time with that crazy conspiracy crap."
When he goes to get signatures, he will find out this is answer. Will he go to schools and engineering firms and find out, or keep posting delusional videos by Gage's failed nuts?

Last edited by beachnut; 13th March 2014 at 06:41 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2014, 07:47 PM   #6
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
They might not have read it.
Doesn't matter. If they abide by the standards set by the recommendations from the NIST report, they support it's findings.

Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
They might not know that anyone is challenging it.
Why would that matter? Mob rule? Peer pressure?
kid meatball is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2014, 02:03 AM   #7
Muc
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 388
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
But that is only an assumption – it has not been shown to be the case. It is not a given that if you are an engineer or an architect then you are automatically aware of the challenges to the official account of 9/11. How do we know that all these people don't question the NIST report in the sense that they have read it and don't see any problem with it? They might not have read it. They might not know that anyone is challenging it.

Someone who is interested in this issue should find it fascinating that AE911Truth is only commissioning surveys re this that target the general, uninformed public, like for example in the recent YouGov surveys. Since the organisation is obvoiusly not called "Just about any layperson that we happen to ask for 9/11 Truth", this should normally be puzzling, if the motives behind it would not be so obvious. Because, seriously, who cares if Joe Average, office worker from Toronto, thinks that - shocker! - this heavily edited video without sound of WTC7's collapse totally looks like a "controlled demolition"? "And this survey tells me that thousands of "architects and engineers" agree, so there must be something to it!"

What you would normally expect an organisation to do whose strategy is built upon an appeal to the authority of architects and engineers who, supposedly, know something about structural engineering, is asking those. Do a survey targeting those particular professionals. Universities do similar surveys on a regular basis. There are companies selling large datasets with contact data of firms and/or individuals from certain professions which can be obtained for moderate sums. AE911 could write to several thousand of them, asking them to take part in their survey (without trying to doctor the numbers by including their own petition signers or irrelevant professions like interior architects or software engineers, of course). And maybe they don't even have to do it that way. They can simply ask YouGov if they have a large enough sample group of architecture and structural engineering professionals to narrow the survey down to them. Ideally, also put a target group of actual high rise/skyscraper architects and engineers within the general target group, then compare what the high rise professionals and the general building professionals think. After that, compare those numbers to the general public numbers of the YouGov survey AE911 commissioned for marketing purposes and look if they come anywhere close.

Given the confidence with which AE911Truth advertise themselves as being backed by a large number of "building professionals", this should normally be one of the first things they would want to do, as a positive result would greatly help them to advertise themselves on an appeal to authority and suggest large support within the professional community. They are not doing it, though, and they know damn well why.

Last edited by Muc; 14th March 2014 at 02:06 AM.
Muc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2014, 03:40 AM   #8
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,167
AE011T has less than a handful of high rise architects and structural engineers who are vocal in pushing AE's talking points. You have a collection of signers of their petition who are silent and likely don't know any of the details about the buildings or the collapses.

Gage appeals to lay persons who then go on about how they are a few thousand architects who agree with Gage's talking points... which is not about looking for the truth about the destruction but about advancing their CD theory which is couched in an appeal for a new investigation.

We all know if they wanted a new investigation they would be investigating and studying the buildings., the effects of fire, how connections perform under stress, how does light weight no stone aggregate fair in such collapses and so on.

No most of the professional engineers have not studied the event either, but likely understand how unfought fires can be fatal to steel frames.. causing lots of warping and collapse and expect more catastrophic mechanical destruction when more mass is involved.

The AE claims and approach is rather disingenuous.... all smoke and mirrors and lacks any of the approach which would appeal to the vast majority of professionals. They are not beating a path to Gage to sign on... are they?
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2014, 05:24 AM   #9
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 22,569
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
What do you think?
I think the squeaky wheel gets the oil. There will be a vociferous handful of cranks in all professions, but everyone else ignores them. Somehow, you seem to find this astonishing.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2014, 05:37 AM   #10
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,390
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
But that is only an assumption – it has not been shown to be the case. It is not a given that if you are an engineer or an architect then you are automatically aware of the challenges to the official account of 9/11. How do we know that all these people don't question the NIST report in the sense that they have read it and don't see any problem with it? They might not have read it. They might not know that anyone is challenging it.


This is trivially true, but ask yourself this: what percentage of engineers do you think might have taken an interest in the findings of the investigation into the most significant engineering event of our lives? We can't claim it's 100%, but what would be a reasonable claim? 50%? 10%?

10% doesn't sound unreasonable, which means out of the 123,000 civil engineers you listed, 12,300 of them probably have read the NIST report. Even if it was only 1%, which I think would be ridiculously low for a profession noted for both its curiosity and interest in ongoing training, that's still 1,230, just from this one group alone. As others have mentioned, even this 1% group far outweighs the people on A&E's list that are actually civil and structural engineers.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2014, 06:19 AM   #11
Snarf
Critical Thinker
 
Snarf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 462
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
It is not a given that if you are an engineer or an architect then you are automatically aware of the challenges to the official account of 9/11. How do we know that all these people don't question the NIST report in the sense that they have read it and don't see any problem with it?
How do you know that all the signers of the A&E911T petition have read the NIST report? Follow-up question - Is it a requirement to read the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports before being allowed to sign the petition?
Snarf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2014, 01:34 PM   #12
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Your attempt to label all engineers and architects who do not subscribe to conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks as being "against" the "truth" is both transparent and lame.
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Predicted response to the petition: "Don't waste my time with that crazy conspiracy crap."
It is probably true that many, perhaps a majority, of engineers have not read through either the NIST reports or the contentions about it that AE911T has made.
However, its a good bet that the vast majority know that three, of the ten or so buildings involved in Manhattan, collapsed globally. Its a good bet as well that they, and the vast majority of other professionals in relevant fields, know of the airliner into the Pentagon, and of one that crashed into the field n Penn.

Its a good bet that they watched events unfold by watching TV coverage.
Its also extremely common for 911 truth to characterize the fall of the towers and #7 as very obvious controlled demolitions.

Its also a good bet that the vast majority saw nothing to disabuse them of the idea that the towers went down as a consequence of aircraft impacts and fire. Nor did they see any thing to disabuse them of the idea that WTC7 fell as a consequence of the collapses of the towers, or that the Pentagon was hit by an airliner or that a plane crashed in Penn.

If they had, they'd have questions, and would be much more likely to seek out more information and thus come across AE911T.

In addition , those who did read the NIST reports have, for the large part, also not sought out more info and this come across AE911T.

Except for a small fraction of such professionals, that did not happen.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 14th March 2014 at 01:41 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2014, 07:03 PM   #13
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,829
Nobody cares enough about A&E Truth to bother, lol. How often do you see professionals discussing rampant idiocy? It is beneath them.
Sceptic-PK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2014, 09:06 PM   #14
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
My "belief" is if there were sepecific problems with the NIST that would be grand enough to warrant delving into 'CD' the comments and responses to updated building code recommendations would have been through the roof. Putting aside the fact that AE911 is full of appeals to authority, I would suggest that people who push that idea have no concept of how building code regulations have a ripple effect over construction costs and design strategies... and the codes are quite bureaucratic already... bureaucratizing even more with fraudulent conclusions wouldn't require a measly "petition" to get people up in arms over them near as I can concern myself on.

Plus... why give A/E911 free ads?
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2014, 09:28 PM   #15
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 39,528
"Architects and Engineers Against 911 Truth" is a very truthful name for Richard Gage's shonky organisation.
__________________
"We stigmatize and send to the margins
people who trigger in us the feelings we want to avoid"
- Melinda Gates, "The Moment of Lift".
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2014, 07:21 AM   #16
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,661
Originally Posted by Snarf View Post
How do you know that all the signers of the A&E911T petition have read the NIST report? Follow-up question - Is it a requirement to read the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports before being allowed to sign the petition?
There's evidence that some haven't read the 9/11 Commission Report.

Like this one:
[...] Also the 9/11 Commission Report did not mention the 47-story WTC 7, which fell the afternoon that the two towers fell in the morning! A sure sign of a false report.
Daniel W. Richard, http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-se...stigation.html

This might not come directly from Steven Jones but looks like they put it in his mouth. It would be fun if it was a direct citation:
Dr. Steven Jones is in the forefront of independent scientific researchers investigating the events of 9/11. A former professor of physics at Brigham Young University, his research indicates that the World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed not as a result of the impact of airplanes, but rather the result of intentional, controlled demolitions using precisely timed detonations of pre-planted explosives. In fact, one of the skyscrapers, 610 foot tall, 47-story, WTC Building 7, was not even hit by an airplane, yet it disintegrated and fell into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds. It is of interest to note that Building 7 was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-se...-movement.html

The Commission report does mention WTC7. Multiple times. That hoax has been a talking point of Gage until he realized it was inaccurate, possibly since I noted it myself in this forum long ago. It is a deformed version of something that I believe was first mentioned by D.R.Griffin, that the report doesn't mention its collapse. Someone understood that incorrectly without having read the report, and parroted that the report doesn't mention the building. It's been a good indicator of who hasn't actually read the report they are criticizing, and just taking the charlatans' talking points as true.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2014, 06:56 AM   #17
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 18,345
How about if the architects and engineers of AE911T actually used their professional expertise to produce some rigorously quality-controlled papers, carefully reviewed by one another to eliminate all errors and flawed reasoning, that document and correct the supposed shortcomings of the NIST analysis and the consensus historical narrative of 9/11?

Yeah, I know; wishful thinking, thy name is Myriad. That would be like expecting members of a group named Astronomers for Preventing Asteroid Impacts to actually use astronomy to identify and track dangerous near-earth asteroids, instead of hosting square dances at state fairs to rase awareness of the problem.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2014, 07:38 AM   #18
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
"The Commission report does mention WTC7. Multiple times. That hoax has been a talking point of Gage until he realized it was inaccurate, possibly since I noted it myself in this forum long ago.

It is a deformed version of something that I believe was first mentioned by D.R.Griffin, that the report doesn't mention its collapse.

Someone understood that incorrectly without having read the report, and parroted that the report doesn't mention the building. It's been a good indicator of who hasn't actually read the report they are criticizing, and just taking the charlatans' talking points as true."
"The devil is in the details."

It is what the 9/11 Commission failed to report about WTC7 that is glaring.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2014, 07:44 AM   #19
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
That hoax has been a talking point of Gage until he realized it was inaccurate, possibly since I noted it myself in this forum long ago.
Do you think that POS lurks here?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2014, 07:45 AM   #20
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"The devil is in the details."

It is what the 9/11 Commission failed to report about WTC7 that is glaring.

MM
lemme guess...

Thermite! Thermate! Iron Microspheres! NanoTermites!

NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2014, 07:47 AM   #21
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,729
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"The devil is in the details."

It is what the 9/11 Commission failed to report about WTC7 that is glaring.

MM
Like what? Do you feel the same way about St Nicholas church or the Marriott? You know, under Marriott is where the 93' bomb was placed?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 18th March 2014 at 07:51 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2014, 07:58 AM   #22
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Like what? Do you feel the same way about St Nicholas church or the Marriott? You know, under Marriott is where the 93' bomb was placed?
Wait....

93 Bomb? What's that? The prior government attempt at nuking the towers with termites?

(FYI - acknowledging incidents outside of truther talking points, regardless of relevance, is frowned upon)

NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2014, 09:38 AM   #23
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,661
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"The devil is in the details."

It is what the 9/11 Commission failed to report about WTC7 that is glaring.

MM
Whatever.

Still a good way to catch who hasn't read the report that they are criticizing.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2014, 09:40 AM   #24
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,661
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Do you think that POS lurks here?
No, I think that readers of JREF that are close to him may have passed the info.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2014, 11:24 AM   #25
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
A fairly common criticism of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is its quoting of the number of signers of its petition. For example I recently watched a video in which the narrator (I'm paraphrasing) said, 'At first sight the numbers look impressive, 2000+ architects and engineers, but when you compare that number to the actual number of registered architects and engineers it doesn't look so impressive.'
Yep. Especially if you're familiar with the incidence for mental illness.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"The devil is in the details."

It is what the 9/11 Commission failed to report about WTC7 that is glaring.

MM
Would you care to discuss the incorrect assertions that many Truthers perpetuate?
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2014, 03:30 PM   #26
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Would you care to discuss the incorrect assertions that many Truthers perpetuate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report
Quote:
The 9/11 Commission Report, formally named Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, is the official report of the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2014, 05:42 PM   #27
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
THANKYOU
Somebody finally brought up the reminder that the commission report was not dedicated to the engineering investigation, it was about the events leading up to the attacks. It's amazing that this still has to be reiterated 12 and a half years after the events took place because people want a conspiracy... :\
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2014, 04:59 AM   #28
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
People can be idiots.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2014, 07:17 AM   #29
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,390
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
THANKYOU
Somebody finally brought up the reminder that the commission report was not dedicated to the engineering investigation, it was about the events leading up to the attacks. It's amazing that this still has to be reiterated 12 and a half years after the events took place because people want a conspiracy... :\

I was going to mention this as well. It's one of the points I raised in my talk about A&E9/11 I gave last year. Whining about the Commission Report failing to discuss WTC7 in detail is purely a red herring. There's no reason for this report to discuss WTC7, as it wasn't a direct target of any terrorist attack*.




*Outside of Truther's "Inside Jobby" fantasies, of course.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2014, 04:48 PM   #30
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I was going to mention this as well. It's one of the points I raised in my talk about A&E9/11 I gave last year. Whining about the Commission Report failing to discuss WTC7 in detail is purely a red herring. There's no reason for this report to discuss WTC7, as it wasn't a direct target of any terrorist attack*.




*Outside of Truther's "Inside Jobby" fantasies, of course.
It's the absolute worst argument ever. I believe MM is much smarter than this. What's his game? Has he been fooled by the hype or is he himself a hype man? (paid shill??? lol)

And you're welcome Grizzly Bear

Noah, indeed their ideas can be.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2014, 10:28 AM   #31
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
And now I start asking the OP why I should be concerned about how many people are in AE911 or why there should be an AE against AE911 group? The hubbub over the commission report not discussing WTC 7 is one of many good examples of when numbers of people arguing for or against something are irrelevant. Put another way... Should I be impressed that 2000 architects and engineers who are supposed to be more experience than me in this field aren't able to grasp the most basic purposes for the reports? The fact that the commission wasn't for engineering?

I always see this notion that "they're experts in their fields and there's lots of them voicing this!". Well... what exactly do people expect me to tell them when they're basing their views on something that's distorted?

Meh... my answer to the OP is ultimately "no"... AE911 is free to do as they wish but until they demonstrate a little competence in their case I don't care for giving them the publicity or free advertising. They don't have the legitimacy to warrant an "opposition" group dedicated to them.
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2014, 10:35 AM   #32
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Predicted response to the petition: "Don't waste my time with that crazy conspiracy crap."
You really hit the nail on the head.

I know folks that would be qualified through education and profession to have a valid opinion on the subject that have -0- interest in even discussing any "alternative" theory of 9/11 -they simply can't be bothered with such ********.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.