Are There Any Professional Groups Rebutting 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?

DannyBoy2k

New Member
I've heard that the American Society of Civil Engineers refute the AE911 crowd which is quite useful when people pull out the "there are X number of members" "proof by numbers" card.

But the questions become, is that actually true, and if so, can someone point me to it, and does anyone know of any other groups that has made clear statements that the official theory makes sense to them? Pilots organizations or other similar?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The American Institute of Architects rejected a motion to support investigation of WTC7 by

3,892 to 160 in 2015
4,176 to 529 in 2016
4,113 to 182 in 2017

http://aiablueridge.org/2017/news/a17-update
Resolution 17-5: Investigation of the Total Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, sponsored by Daniel Barnum, FAIA, and 50 Members of the Institute, failed with 4113 votes against and 182 votes in favor (with 179 abstentions). The resolution’s sponsors questioned the conclusions offered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2008 about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. They argued that the Institute should support “a new investigation into the total collapse of WTC7.”
Content from External Source
I think that demonstrates quite well the degree of support that AE911 has within the AIA. The 2017 resolution (see attached delegate booklet) gave a comprehensive list of the "evidence" that AE911 thinks is conclusive, yet only 4% of the membership agreed. THis is significantly lower than comparable surveys of the general public.

Consider this is a motion entirely written by AE911, so it's comparable to polls that AE911 has carried out, for example back in 2011 (10th anniversary) with a carefully crafted poll, AE911 managed to get 48% on New Yorkers to agree to support a new investigation into WTC7 - essentially the same as the AIA resolution.
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/532-wtc7-poll.html
Given the above information, 48 percent are in favor of the Manhattan District Attorney or New York City Council opening a new investigation into Building 7’s collapse, 44 percent are opposed and 8 percent don’t know or refused to answer.
Content from External Source

This suggests that, on average, the more you know about architecture, the less likely you are to support Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
 

Attachments

  • 2017-Official-Delegate-Information-Booklet.pdf
    503.6 KB · Views: 584
  • 2016 AIA delegate information booklet.pdf
    659 KB · Views: 537
  • Building-7-Poll-Results-Website-Release.pdf
    101.3 KB · Views: 536
  • 2015-AIA-National-Convention-Offical-delgate-Information-booklet.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 475
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
Yeah...I was wondering...I've heard that the American Society of Civil Engineers refute the AE911 crowd which is quite useful when people pull out the "there are X number of members" "proof by numbers" card.
But the questions become, is that actually true, and if so, can someone point me to it, and does anyone know of any other groups that has made clear statements that the official theory makes sense to them? Pilots organizations or other similar?
Where did you hear that? Got a citation?
Even if "the ASCE" did address AE911T claims (I doubt this!), this would not be a move in the "numbers game", for the ASCE certainly lays no claim to represent the opinions of any number of members, nor have they asked their members of their opinions and tallied them.

I kind of remember that years ago the CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban habitat, an international group of professionals in the industry of developing tall buildings; a lobby?) weighed in on 9/11 CTs, but couldn't say how large the group was then, and if such communications had the backing of what majority of members.
 

DannyBoy2k

New Member
Where did you hear that? Got a citation?

No, that's why I said I heard it, because I DON'T have a citation. Or, I didn't at that point. But, I then went and did some more in-depth digging around here and there.

Even if "the ASCE" did address AE911T claims (I doubt this!)
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Explanation, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, September 13 2001, with revosion, extension and appendices added on the 22nd and 28th. A copy can be found here: http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is the official ASCE newspaper, and material in it has to pass critical review by other members.

The Journal has also independently reviewed and found no issue with the NIST report for Tower 7. http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000398



this would not be a move in the "numbers game", for the ASCE certainly lays no claim to represent the opinions of any number of members, nor have they asked their members of their opinions and tallied them.

Maybe. But if, as noted, the article above, as an example, passes critical review, is placed in the society journal, and no great protest comes...that would point strongly towards the notably larger number of members of the society agree with it, at least from an engineering point of view. And while "there are more of us than you, so we're automatically right" is, in and of itself, utter nonsense, "truthers" are keen on using such arguments, and so using them right back with a, by far, larger group is karmically satisfying.

I kind of remember that years ago the CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban habitat, an international group of professionals in the industry of developing tall buildings; a lobby?) weighed in on 9/11 CTs, but couldn't say how large the group was then, and if such communications had the backing of what majority of members.

Well, the CTBUH started with 6 members in 1951, and has about 14000 now, so assuming a reasonably level increase...

They too commented on the NIST report, and found no fault in it. http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/T...ISTWTC7/tabid/739/language/en-US/Default.aspx
 

Oystein

Senior Member
No, that's why I said I heard it, because I DON'T have a citation. Or, I didn't at that point. But, I then went and did some more in-depth digging around here and there.


Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Explanation, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, September 13 2001, with revosion, extension and appendices added on the 22nd and 28th. A copy can be found here: http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is the official ASCE newspaper, and material in it has to pass critical review by other members.

The Journal has also independently reviewed and found no issue with the NIST report for Tower 7. http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000398

Maybe. But if, as noted, the article above, as an example, passes critical review, is placed in the society journal, and no great protest comes...that would point strongly towards the notably larger number of members of the society agree with it, at least from an engineering point of view. And while "there are more of us than you, so we're automatically right" is, in and of itself, utter nonsense, "truthers" are keen on using such arguments, and so using them right back with a, by far, larger group is karmically satisfying.
...
Would you agree, and is it fair to say, that you are here to learn? This post sounds a bit as if you are fairly new to the debates of 9/11 CTs. You seem not to understand a few issues that are indeed outside the realm of non-professional education, and which I certainly took some time to learn when I got involved into such debates in 2009.

First: The ASCE is an association of civil engineers, and one of the things they do is publish a number of scientific jounals. These journals are not "newspapers". And they are not "ASCE newspapers", perhaps it isn't even appropriate to call them "ASCE journals": There are no journalistic guidelines, no editorial board with some sort of agenda. Scientific journals are in the business of publishing scientific papers - authored by whoever cares to submit manuscripts. Each journal has editors that handle submissions. The defining way of handling submissions is the so-called "peer review": Other scientists, knowledgeable in the subject of the study, are selected to referee the manuscripts. These peer reviewers are independent - they need not be members of the ASCE. They makre recommendations to the journal: Publish as is, reject, or have the author rework some stuff before publishing.
Important: There is absolutely NO reason at all to suspect that the content of published articles represents ANYONE at all within the ASCE! Indeed, ASCE journals have published submissions made by Truthers!

The way academia or professionals react to a journal paper is not "praise" or "protest". Rather, papers are discussed; sometimes someone does a study confirming results, and has it published, sometimes someone does a study refuting the results, and has it published. Sometimes, discussion letters are written and published. In that case, the original author is given a chance to respond; that's called " closure".

In short: Publication of an article in any ASCE journal does not imply support or agreement of the ASCE as a body, or of any members.


Next: You were talking about the ASCE "refute the AE911 crowd" - AE911Truth was founded in 2006, and slowly became known in 2007. Surely, a paper published immediately after 2001 cannot be construed as "refuting the AE911 crowd".
 

Redwood

Active Member
As far as I know, no organization has ever addressed Truther claims, except as mentioned that AIA has voted down Truther resolutions.

However, awards have been given out to reports that conform to the general "official narrative", which implicitly means rejecting Trutherism. See the Weidlinger report.Weidlinger 2015 Grand Award.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Any insight as to the relative 'spike' in 2016?
There was different wording in 2017, which from the start was saying NIST was wrong. But it might just have been down to who spoke about it. They would have to kind of slip it past the architects to get bigger numbers, so perhaps the 2017 working and presentation was too rant-like?

In 2016 they added more "evidence" over the 2015 resolution. It's hard to say though. There's some videos of the event.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's possible that AE911's attempts to promote the resolution actual backfired. They had a substantial effort this year to reach out to all the delegates, mailing or emailing out this brochure to the delegates:
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/2017-AIA-WTC7-Resolution.pdf
20171024-172430-2z2po.jpg

Now while people might support a new investigation simply because they thought the old one was not very good, far fewer professionals are going to support a new investigation based on a statement that there's overwhelming evidence for controlled demolition. Because there isn't overwhelming evidence, in fact there's quite the opposite. AE911 simply do not realize this.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There's a video of the Dan Barnum's AIA presentation in 2016 when they got 11%
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/videos/vb.59185411268/10153486980576269/?type=2&theater
20171025-153315-n46gn.jpg
20171025-153300-3o5wt.jpg
He basically gives the same information given in the pamphlet.

The vote is described as "Simple Majority Vote of Present Delegates". Each delegate represents a portion of the membership of their local chapter, so if there's a chapter with 200 members and five of them attend as delegates, then they get 40 votes each.

Here's AE911's take on the 2016 vote:
http://action.ae911truth.org/o/50694/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1349706

11% of AIA Delegates Vote ‘Yes’ on
Supporting New WTC 7 Investigation

Near-Threefold Increase Underscores Growing Awareness
Resolution 16-3, which was sponsored by 97 AIA members affiliated with AE911Truth, garnered 11% of the delegates’ votes, losing 529 to 4,176. The 11% tally represents nearly a threefold increase over the 4% won last year.
...
Double-Digit Support Highlights Changing Attitudes

For those of us who were present both last year and this year, the tone of the debate was strikingly different. We felt a much higher degree of receptiveness, as well as a reluctance by opponents of the resolution to enthusiastically champion the official account.
...
The growing of acceptance of our position and the weakening confidence in the official explanation appears to be driven by a number of factors. Perhaps most important was the decision to include the WTC 7 evidence in this year’s resolution. Also, our intensive mail and email campaigns over the past 12 months seem to be paying dividends.

In addition to tripling support for the resolution, we gained 148 petition signers, distributed more than 1,000 brochures and DVDs, and made numerous contacts with architects wanting to assist our efforts.
Content from External Source
And their take on the 2017 results:

CALL FOR PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY GOES UNHEEDED
Resolution 17-5 garnered only 4% of the vote from delegates, down from 11% last year. The question is, “Why?”
FACED WITH OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST NEW WTC 7 INVESTIGATION, ARCHITECTS VOTE ‘NO’
Representatives of the American Institute of Architects’ local and national governing bodies voted overwhelmingly against supporting a new investigation into the total collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) at the Institute’s annual business meeting held in Orlando on April 26, 2017.

Resolution 17-5, which was sponsored by 70 AIA members — and which initially had the backing of more than 200 members before the AIA introduced a rule late in the process that required handwritten signatures from sponsors — garnered 4% of the vote from delegates.

The 4% tally was a setback to concerned AIA members and activists who had hoped to continue the upward trajectory that saw support for a reinvestigation grow from 4% in 2015 to 11% last year.

In spite of powerful remarks by architects William Prevatel, David Mack, and Richard Gage, who urged their fellow members to follow their conscience, most of the 400+ delegates in attendance voted against putting the AIA on record as supporting a new investigation. The question is, “Why?”

Content from External Source
Their reasoning for the decline:
Our efforts this year were clearly hampered by two factors: the AIA’s decision to deny AE911Truth an expo booth and the fact that the business meeting was held before the convention rather than on the final day of it. The schedule change gave us no chance to communicate our message on the expo floor (with or without a booth) and resulted in fewer rank-and-file members attending the business meeting (10% fewer votes were cast this year).
Content from External Source
 

Oystein

Senior Member
This is only tangentially related, but talking of Daniel Barnum, FAIA:

The title "FAIA" stands for "Fellow of the AIA" - a title awarded by the FAIA for outstanding leadership and lifetime achievements. From memory, about 3,000 of the ca. 90,000 AIA members are FAIA. Richard Gage takes great pride in the FAIAs who support him - by signing the petition or supporting AIA resolutions. They had 19 FAIAs listed on their petition, several of them deliberately placed very near the top of the list.
But then, within the last few weeks, in two spurts, 13 of these 19 were deleted! Of the remaining 6, one (Eason Cross) has one additional word to his biography: "Deceased". So they just lost almost 3/4 of their FAIA members.

I bet the deleted signatories either never knew they signed a petition in support of Gage's woo, or have decided to withdraw that support; and that Gage's hand was forced somehow, for deletions of signatures are rare.

So, apparently, one professional group that expresses opposition to AE911Truth is - a significant portion of AE91Truth!
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Thanks Mick.
I endured the brutal 4-minute turd that was Dan Barnum's "presentation." :oops:
I find it inconceivable that such an embarrassingly weak plea could've won many over.

Ironically, I think AE911Truth's explanation might actually be close to true: :eek:
If they had a nearby expo booth to befriend, lobby and cajole delegates in 2016,
but not in 2017, that seems like a likely explanation for the different votes...
(though both votes are still relatively small).
 

Oystein

Senior Member
It's possible that AE911's attempts to promote the resolution actual backfired. They had a substantial effort this year to reach out to all the delegates, mailing or emailing out this brochure to the delegates:
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/2017-AIA-WTC7-Resolution.pdf
...
This Resolution 17-5 was eventually supported, as your link shows, by 69 AIA members - as submitted to the AIA, in spring 2017.
A Newsletter sent out in early December 2016 however claimed that at that time the Resolution already had "Over 175 Architects to sponsor" it:
http://action.ae911truth.org/o/50694/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1361897

This Newsletter linked to a PDF document much like the one you linked to, which used to contain the 175+ names - but that link is dead now: http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/AIA-Resolution-Mailer.pdf
But the Wayback Machine has a copy: https://web.archive.org/web/2017022...uth.org/images/PDFs/AIA-Resolution-Mailer.pdf

It listed the following 16 FAIA:
  • Franziska Amacher, FAIA
  • Daniel Barnum, FAIA
  • Robert Brown, FAIA
  • Jim Dalton, FAIA
  • James Fausett, FAIA
  • Cheryl McAfee, FAIA
  • John Miller, FAIA
  • Norbert Peiker, FAIA
  • William Rakatansky, FAIA
  • Louis Sirianni, FAIA
  • William Stanley, FAIA
  • Richard Taylor, FAIA
  • Walt Teague, FAIA
  • LeRoy Troyer, FAIA
  • Jonathan Warburg, FAIA
  • Jane Weinzapfel, FAIA
The final supporters list had these 10 FAIA:
  • Fernando Abruña, FAIA
  • Daniel Barnum, FAIA
  • Lawrence Connolly, FAIA
  • Rosemary McMonigal, FAIA
  • John Miller, FAIA
  • Barry Moore, FAIA
  • Richard Taylor, FAIA
  • Jonathan Warburg, FAIA
  • Jane Weinzapfel, FAIA
  • Saul Zaik, FAIA
Only 5 names in common!
I think they are playing fast and loose with the names of their supporters, and that much of the claimed support is not actual supporting their CTish claims. I suspect that they can occasionally woo a professional into initially supporting them, but that most converts revert once they revisit the issue, or are revisited.
 

Inti

Senior Member.
It's tempting to start a small research project by asking the FAIAs whose names were removed whether they changed their minds, and why. However, if I was a professional who had been mislead into a public since that I later regretted, I would probably be reluctant to give the matter any further public airing.
 
Top