The Dumbing Down of AE911Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[Mick West]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri_vlLaCkNM


Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a group that promotes the idea that the World Trade Center was destroyed by pre-planted explosives on 9/11 and that the plane impacts and fires were just a cover.

After years of telling people that they should believe them because they are architects and engineers, they have changed tactics. They now promote the idea that it's OBVIOUS that explosives are used, and that anyone can see this. They promoted this idea over the last month with a series of increasingly silly memes.

This prompts a question: if it's so obvious, then what was the point of AE911Truth? What was the point of funding a complicated study of World Trade Center Building Seven for $316,000? What are all those long technical documents on their web site for? Why collect supposed experts if the answer is so obvious?

Of course, the superficial "obviousness" of the collapses looking odd has long been the foundation of 9/11 "Truth". AE911 has simply shed the veneer of science that they couched this in. They never really had a deep understanding of the events of 9/11, they started out thinking it was obvious, and then tried to concoct a series of increasingly bizarre hypotheses to shoehorn in all the things they did not understand. Debris trailing white smoke? Nanothermite rockets! Can't see the top of the building? It has turned to dust!

AE911 has jumped the shark. Their regression to "it's obvious" is a tacit admission that they have no good evidence and that in many, if not all, cases of supposed evidence, they were simply wrong.


References:
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth. (Archive: https://archive.is/41Tqb)

 

[Akton]

A few years ago when I was in college Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth set up a booth in the main plaza of my university and were showing people a video of 9/11 and asking them "does this look like a controlled demolition to you?". When they struck a microphone in my face and asked me this, I had to just say "I have no idea what it looks like. I have no expertise whatsoever in this field so I don't have any frame of reference". I guess that answer didn't give them any material to work with because after that they just started joking about how we must think they're all crazy. Like you say 90% of it rests on "doesn't this one video look kind of weird?"

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The childishness of this all may have a simple explanation. Maybe all the grown-ups have left and kids are playing around in the empty room.

 

[derwoodii]

AE911 exploiting the Gestalt theory principles that minds tend to fill in incomplete parts of large complex events and look for a single explanations or recognizable patterns.

911 was an overwhelming event by any description & AE911 have carefully crafted information to misguide minds to fill in the blanks even if with impossible or explainable concepts. All to take the money and revenue click bait of subscribers much alike a magician trickery.

They now are repositioning to extend this business model to sell to new customers.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Mick's over view of AE911T and the truther people is correct. There are several key points which inform their conclusions.
1. Virtually all truthers have no applicable technical background in the science and engineering which would be used to analyze and understand what happened. The few that have some expertise ignore data and erect false narratives which sound technically convincing to the science and engineering starved supporters. The support is very much like what you will see in a cult like Scientology.
2. They assume that the media, the government and anything "official" is a series of lies. The lies are put forth because the truth is sinister and it needs to be covered up.
3. There had to be a conspiracy to concoct a cover story which was executed by powerful "intel" resources who are the only groups who could possible do such a complex conspiracy, spread it throughout the media and cover up what actually happened and why.
4. The motive was to start war(s) in the ME... and so an attack of the US was required to mobilize public support.

AE911T and those who claim technical credentials use "junk science" to make their case appear credible to their naive and ignorant followers. An example is the meme that "free fall" motion is the tell take sign of a controlled demolition.

Regardless of who first said it....

You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

[...]

 

[Thomas B]

...AE911 have carefully crafted information to misguide minds to fill in the blanks...

I've never been very impressed with AE911. But they do sometimes effectively exploit the blanks that NIST left open and remain open to this day. The most glaring one is taken up by Mick around 20 minutes into the video. While it may be true that there was, for NIST, "no point" to explaining in any detail how the buildings "inevitably" collapsed to the ground, such an explanation, by authoritative sources, would have spared many people the now familiar trip down the rabbit hole.

As Mick says, "they could have simulated it" (22:34) and he even accompanies that part of the video with a promising Z-AXIS video. (I'm not very familiar with it but it seems detailed enough. Zooming in on the floor assemblies and running the model all the way down to the ground would be instructive.) Again, NIST may not have felt any need, but it is genuinely suspicious (a real exploitable gap for a crafty truther) that, in the almost twenty years since the collapses, no engineer has taken the time to patiently explain the mechanics of the total collapse in lay terms.

I originally raised this in another thread. I bring it up here only to point out that, through no fault of his own, this is probably the weakest part of Mick's video if our aim is to actually disabuse truthers of their false beliefs. He is reduced to handwaving about "inevitability" and "chaos" because a concrete, detailed, and authoritative explanation simply doesn't exist. It should. Like Mick says, it could.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

I've never been very impressed with AE911. But they do sometimes effectively exploit the blanks that NIST left open and remain open to this day. The most glaring one is taken up by Mick around 20 minutes into the video. While it may be true that there was, for NIST, "no point" to explaining in any detail how the buildings "inevitably" collapsed to the ground, such an explanation, by authoritative sources, would have spared many people the now familiar trip down the rabbit hole.

As Mick says, "they could have simulated it" (22:34) and he even accompanies that part of the video with a promising Z-AXIS video. (I'm not very familiar with it but it seems detailed enough. Zooming in on the floor assemblies and running the model all the way down to the ground would be instructive.) Again, NIST may not have felt any need, but it is genuinely suspicious (a real exploitable gap for a crafty truther) that, in the almost twenty years since the collapses, no engineer has taken the time to patiently explain the mechanics of the total collapse in lay terms.

I originally raised this in another thread. I bring it up here only to point out that, through no fault of his own, this is probably the weakest part of Mick's video if our aim is to actually disabuse truthers of their false beliefs. He is reduced to handwaving about "inevitability" and "chaos" because a concrete, detailed, and authoritative explanation simply doesn't exist. It should. Like Mick says, it could.

Making a reliable credible "model" which laypersons can understand and accept would required real time data from the collapses which simply was not available then or now!
The alternative was to simulated using "credible" data input supplied by the "researcher". Given the complex of these collapses this appears to be way beyond the scope of most research operations including NIST.
In fact, NIST did produce "simulations" and an animation which appears to not match the real world event. YES the building did totally collapse with those reasonable inputs but this was not enough to convince doubters that a non CD driven collapse was possible. Why does the simulation have to have a one to one correspondence to real world?
NIST apparently decided that showing a collapse can take place without CD and with reasonable inputs satisfied their mission.
I feel that NIST dropped the ball in explaining how progressive collapses upfold, how they go "runaway" and why they are unstoppable and how the actual structure defines the form of the collapse. I believe the form follows function.... the collapse form was in the DNA of the structural design was essentially ignored allowing the public to assume that these structures were common and not very different from other high rises. These structures had remarkable unique features which very much key in understanding how they progressed and the form they took.

 

[Thomas B]

I feel that NIST dropped the ball...

Yes, and AE911T picked it up and ran with it. The engineering profession (and Popular Mechanics) could have tackled them and taken back control of the game. But, two decades later, we're still arguing that a detailed model of total progressive collapse is expensive and (scientifically) "pointless", instead of acknowledging that it would be intellectually interesting, rhetorically effective, and, at the end of the day, worth it. Calling this gap an obvious sign of "fraud" is of course going too far. But it is disappointing and, from a certain point of view (that we understand all too well by now), suspicious.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Perhaps the "meta issue" related to 911 and so many other things around us is that we are essentially a nation of idiots and most things are "dumbed" down to a sort of lowest common denominator. It is unreasonable to expect things to be aimed at PhDs and a high information public. But when should things be aimed at the high information "educated" consumer?
Everyone felt a need to understand hot those buildings came down. How do the "experts" honor that goal? Given that absent real time data precise moment by moment "replay" was not possible. What should have been done? What was sufficient? What caveats needed to be included.

++++

Speaking personally my curiosity led me to the internet and sites such as MetaBunk where I learned enormous amount about structures, physics and all the technical issues involved in the collapses. I have a good start being an architect... but 99% of the people have no technical background... how do you satisfy their need to know and understand?

+++++

cross posting... @Thomas B... I do think some university group should have tackled this an produced credible simulations... better than the Perdue work. Do you think if a simulation with a close match to real world would actually show what did happen? Or could it still be just one of several/many possibilities? And would that even matter?

 

[Thomas B]

@Thomas B... I do think some university group should have tackled this an produced credible simulations... better than the Perdue work. Do you think if a simulation with a close match to real world would actually show what did happen? Or could it still be just one of several/many possibilities? And would that even matter?

I've always liked the sporting spirit of Jim Hoffman and 911 Research, I just thought their challenge would have been met by now. (For those who don't want to click through: the challenge is to build various WTC-like structures that undergo top-down progressive collapse.) It's possible that some of the specs need to be modified a little to respect the issues of scale that will be familiar to people at this forum. (If you build a 10-foot structure, for example, it probably doesn't need to stand up in a 100 mph crosswind to prove anything.) But by now the internet should be full of videos of plausibly loaded structures collapsing progressively under their own weight.

People who say that the problem "doesn't scale well" are no doubt right, but they still need to tell us what the smallest, cheapest structure would be to demonstrate the basic principles. Intuitively, it's implausible that given completely free choice of materials and scale you can't build something of a manageable size to meet the challenge.

Remember that many truthers have the (somewhat reasonable) feeling that if you take one part of an essentially homogeneous (and very sturdy) structure and drop it onto another part, the smaller part will not be able to destroy the larger part. They have to be shown either (1) that this can indeed happen when the structure is appropriately loaded (essentially meeting Hoffman's challenge) or (2) that thinking of the WTC as one "rigid box" impacting another is wrong in crucial ways. The most effective way of showing them this is with real-world models. A good simulation might be almost as effective.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Remember that many truthers have the (somewhat reasonable) feeling that if you take one part of an essentially homogeneous (and very sturdy) structure and drop it onto another part, the smaller part will not be able to destroy the larger part. They have to be shown either (1) that this can indeed happen when the structure is appropriately loaded (essentially meeting Hoffman's challenge) or that (2) that thinking of the WTC as one "rigid box" impacting another is wrong in crucial ways. The most effective way of showing them this is with real-world models. A good simulation might be almost as effective.

This is NOT what happened. The top (weaker) block did not "detached" and drop destroying the (stronger) block below.

The destruction in the twin towers was largely as Mick describes... weak floors collapsing and BY PASSING the columns. Yet there has always been fog/uncertainty about how the mass of the upper block was "liberated" from the structure to collapse... and and certainly no consensus about how did the upper constellation of columns "detached" and mis aligned axially losing support and collapsing.

 

[Thomas B]

This is NOT what happened...

You'd be taking my second option, I guess. But we don't need to go through this again. Whatever happened, the problem is that it hasn't been explained to the public by experts. This leaves this "blank" in the discourse for AE911T to exploit.

 

[Mick West]

AE911 seem to be alienating some of the own supporters:

And then there is some rationalizing:

 

[benthamitemetric]

Whatever happened, the problem is that it hasn't been explained to the public by experts. This leaves this "blank" in the discourse for AE911T to exploit.

You may believe this, but that doesn't make it true. The 9/11 truth movement never caught on in a significant way and current support for it is anemic and dwindling by any meaningful measure (donations to 911 truth orgs, activity on 911 truth-related websites and forums, number and size of 9-11 truth-related public events, google searches on 9-11 truth-related terms, etc.). It thus seems that the NIST explanations for the collapses, along with the other related investigative reports and sources of information (news, congressional hearings, books, magazine articles, websites, etc.) are a sufficient basis for the vast majority of people to reject the claims of 9/11 truth. While there is a case to be made that the NIST report could be improved in some respects (and what couldn't?), most of the discussions of the NIST report's failings are had between a few die hard truthers and a few skeptics, with only a minuscule peanut gallery of fence sitters liable to be swayed one way or the other. I suspect an improved NIST report would change very few minds on this subject.

And AE911Truth's tactics here are actually telling us that its board believes that the fence sitters who are likely to break their way are not going to do so because they see a hole in NIST's explanations; it's going to be because they are completely ignorant, or not trusting, of NIST's explanations and are predisposed to believe in the demolition conspiracy. These memes may as well be a Rorschach test for their audience that gets at just that.

 

[Thomas B]

The 9/11 truth movement never caught on in a significant way and current support for it is anemic and dwindling by any meaningful measure.

I agree with you that the movement is in serious decline, both quantitatively and qualitatively. But I think it had a serious heyday around 2005-8 (using the same measures you suggest). In fact, it's the height of its popularity that I think is most instructive to explain, not its current state of decline.

It thus seems that the NIST explanations for the collapses, along with the other related investigative reports and sources of information ... are a sufficient basis for the vast majority of people to reject the claims of 9/11 truth.

If this were true, the movement would never have been as popular as it was. More importantly, AE911T wouldn't have had the support it needed to be founded. (Keep in mind that it was able to emerge precisely in the wake of the NIST investigations and their perceived shortcomings by the broader Truth movement.) I think the demise of 9/11 Truth is more a function of its own political inefficacy than the strength of NIST's science. People are just exhausted and demoralized by the failure to gain any ground at all. Many really did think 9/11 could be "re-opened". They were all "hope and change" about it. (Remember the excitement about Charlie Sheen potentially getting the ear of Obama?) Crucially, as the "culprits" retire and die, bringing them to "justice" becomes a dimmer and dimmer prospect, and the sorts of people who derive meaning (and income) from movements like this shift their attention to projects that have a greater chance of success. (Not to mention clearer career paths.)

I suspect an improved NIST report would change very few minds on this subject.

Yes, I agree with you that there's now only a small core of specialists on both sides who would benefit from a new NIST-type investigation. All the necessary knowledge is already available to them. The people I'm interested in are the newcomers to the issue (a never-ending supply of them are born every day, of course), who can be spared a trip down the rabbit hole, and therefore the need for any debunking at all, simply by finding an expertly written popular explanation of the most dramatic progressive collapse in engineering history. It could fittingly include some discussion on why NIST thought the exercise was, as Mick puts it, "pointless" from a scientific point of view. The answer is that the science of the process was already understood -- which makes that discussion so easy (in principle) to write.

These memes may as well be a Rorschach test for [AE911T's] audience.

Many of them, yes, I'd agree are like that. But the one that my original post in this thread relates to is importantly different. The gap it points to is quite real, and remains real even after you start looking for ways to fill it in. A layperson who is new to the issue will be rightly puzzled by the apparent lack of "official" interest in the question of total progressive collapse. It's one of those things you expect to be able to easily debunk ("There must have been more than half a page!") but then find is largely correct. (Even if there's a good reason for it.)

In short, I agree with you that the 9/11 Truth Movement is basically over. But I don't agree with you that this vindicates the original investigations and, especially, their communication to the public. This thing should have been put to rest long ago and should never have gotten as big as it did. There should be much less need for debunking in this area than there still is.

 

[Mick West]

Jeff's discussion regarding NIST's explanations moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/je...if-nist-made-their-case-regarding-9-11.11368/

 

[benthamitemetric]

In short, I agree with you that the 9/11 Truth Movement is basically over. But I don't agree with you that this vindicates the original investigations and, especially, their communication to the public. This thing should have been put to rest long ago and should never have gotten as big as it did. There should be much less need for debunking in this area than there still is.

If you hang around here long enough, you'll likely see that there exists in this world a group of people who are predisposed to believe conspiracy theories. Many psychological studies have shown this to be true. With something as complex as the collapse of the twin towers or WTC7, there are plenty of fundamentally unanswerable questions on the backs of which for those people can stack whatever beliefs they want. It would not matter what NIST or anyone else wrote.

I've been talking to truthers for going on 10 years now and I've yet to meet a single one who's issue with the "official story" could be fairly boiled down to "NIST's reports and other communications could have persuaded such person that the buildings collapsed due to fire, but, instead, due to NISTs imperfect messaging, such person instead chose to believe a set of theories completely at odds with everything in those reports and every other related government report (including the 911 commission report and PENTTBOMB investigation report)." You seem to be combining two things that are true--(1) the NIST report is imperfect and (2) people believe things to the contrary of NISTs conclusions--in a causative relationship where none likely exists. The pathway to getting conspiracy theorists to drop their chosen conspiracy theory is almost never going to be a "better" government report.

I suggest watching Mick's interviews with former truthers to get a better sense for how and why people go down that path and how they escape the rabbit hole. They go down that path because they are predisposed to look at something like AE911Truth's memes and see in them demolition explosions (likely without knowing what demolition explosions actually look like), they stay down that path because the beliefs that brought them there become part of their social identity and their social circle shifts to include more and more fellow path travelers, and they only leave when external factors make them reevaluate their world view in some fundamental way. When they get to that point, websites like this are invaluable resources for them to use to finally break free, and I think there is a time before someone starts down that path and develops a social identity as a conspiracy theorist when perhaps websites like this are helpful too (perhaps as much because they offer a countervailing social space as because of the arguments cataloged here). But I seriously doubt many people are going to read something like a NIST report (no matter how you propose to rewrite it) before going down that path or not. And I guess that's where we'll have to agree to disagree--you believe there are likely many such people.

In any case, to the extent that government reports can prevent people from going down that path in the first place, I think its hard to argue anything other than that the NIST reports were sufficient for that purpose. In a country of 330 million+ people, how many people do you think will be out protesting for 911 Truth in 10 days? The number of active 911 truthers is seemingly on a path that is asymptopic with the background number of people who at any given time are going to believe in conspiracy theories of all kinds. There are likely very, very few people who believe 911 truth without believing in several other conspiracy theories. 911 truth beliefs are thus just a symptom of a larger disease, not an acute ailment caused by deficiencies in NIST's explanations.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Conspiracy followers do not trust any mainstream narratives... ergo no matter what NIST produced it would not make any difference to their views of 9/11.

 

[Thomas B]

If you hang around here long enough ... I've been talking to truthers for going on 10 years.

Believe me, I've been hanging around forums like this and talking to truthers for longer than that. My views are based on experiences that are probably as rich and varied as yours. That doesn't make me right, I know. But since you bring it up, I thought I'd mention it.

There exists in this world a group of people who are predisposed to believe conspiracy theories. Many psychological studies have shown this to be true.

I've looked at this, and I'm unimpressed with the studies. (If you have a favorite one, let me know, and maybe I can persuade you.) It's trivially true that some people suffer from mental conditions that resonate nicely with conspiracy theories. But their problems are not going to be solved by debunking. In fact, I tend to think it's irresponsible and cruel to try to do so. A lot of the "tin foil"/"crazy" rhetoric among debunkers is, as I'm sure you know, in somewhat poor taste for precisely this reason. The people who are truly beyond the reach of rational argument are often suffering terribly. They really do need professional help -- not insults to that effect.

As to the group of otherwise "normal" people who are "predisposed" to these sorts of theories, I think it's basically like arguing about movies or sports. They don't take it as seriously as we sometimes think. And it ultimately leads them to entirely mainstream political positions (like voting for one of the major parties) that people hold for complicated reasons, and in which 9/11 plays a minor role.

The truthers I find most interesting are precisely those that take it seriously, hold their views rationally, and are open to the better argument. Here, I often find myself embarrassed by the fact that I'm constructing arguments (and thought experiments) that I should just be able to refer to in the work of people more qualified than me. I feel like expert opinion has let me down. To stay on the topic of this thread: I feel the sting of that "half a page" meme. Like I say, I think it hits a mark.

I've yet to meet a single one who's issue with the "official story" could be fairly boiled down to "NIST's reports and other communications could have persuaded such person that the buildings collapsed due to fire, but, instead, due to NISTs imperfect messaging, such person instead chose to believe a set of theories completely at odds with everything in those reports and every other related government report..."

It's not the imperfect messaging but the absence of a detailed explanation, which persists to this day. More on this in the next section...

The pathway to getting conspiracy theorists to drop their chosen conspiracy theory is almost never going to be a "better" government report. ... I seriously doubt many people are going to read something like a NIST report (no matter how you propose to rewrite it) before going down that path or not. And I guess that's where we'll have to agree to disagree--you believe there are likely many such people.

I do disagree with you about this. But I'm not sure why we'd just leave it at that. There are so many historical events that don't have (successful) conspiracy theories attached to them that, leaving aside the possibility that they're actually true, there must be something in the "official" response that explains why some of them do. I want to stress that I'm not just interested in the government report -- it's the response of the whole engineering community and its representatives in the popular press that I'm critical of. NIST could certainly have done better (and they had a good sense of what they up against, as the WTC7 press conference and FAQ showed). But others could have taken up the issue.

Keep in mind that, since progressive collapse wasn't even a serious scientific puzzle, it could have been explained to laypeople from day one. Over the years, that explanation could have become ever more detailed (and even presented in terms of several likely scenarios/hypotheses) without any need for special investigations. The buildings simply behaved like our existing structural models predicted. And, yet, engineers politely stayed out of it. I can understand why conspiracy theorists found that suspicious, and why uncommitted curious minds let that fact alone sway them, at least for a while.

There are likely very, very few people who believe 911 truth without believing in several other conspiracy theories.

This is a tricky issue, though maybe a bit tangential to our main theme (maybe another thread?). If you think about it, this is actually a rational position. To think that 9/11 being an inside job is the only time in history that such a conspiracy was organized would be weird. 911T may be (and I suspect often is) the first conspiracy theory someone takes seriously, but, since it implies a "deep state" cabal that is capable of such things, other events would be needed to confirm it. So they look at things like OKC and are reminded of JFK, and then Tonkin and Pearl Harbor, and they decide that there are enough questions (and connections) there too. In other words, they try to fit this new idea into a rational theory of history and find that it's at least possible. Now they're committed to a long-term project: to relearn history. They've run into what Norman Mailer called "a hitch in historiography".

[Update: I went ahead and started a separate thread on this last point.]

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

CDs are examples of progressive collapses! They don't need to destroy the entire building but enough of the structure so that it destroys itself. So perhaps the essential meme of these building collapses is how was the structural matrix "dismantled" such that it was not able to perform the mission of remaining static and directing all loads to the foundations of the building.

Ideas like FF may resonate with truthers because it appears self evident. Something with no support... falls with no resistance (FF) and so if they "reason" if there is FF then all the members which were resisting ... read: directing the axial forces to the foundations.... completely failed or were "removed". So this "fact" however is not understood because there are explanations which do not involve column destruction which can to complete loss of axial support. It probably was something that should have been explained in official reports or in the mainstream media. FF became on the the truther pillars. And it did so because it was something about structure that you don't need an engineering or science degree to understand.

All three and in fact almost every structural collapse involves a structure that fails to perform... despite the fact that everyone knows that all structures are designed and built stronger than they need be. So reasoning tells the truther you either mechanically destroy the elements of the structure (frame) or you do something that overwhelms these elements. Reasoning tells them you are not adding sufficient loads to overwhelm the elements. But it also should tell them that if you can rearrange the loads... and the paths they take within the structural matrix you might be able to create cases where elements ARE overwhelmed. This is the so called "load redistribution" that may allow a damaged structure to remain standing.... but only if the redistributed loads do not exceed the capacity of the nodes that receive them. Enter the progressive failure model.

I would think that some basic structural concepts need to be understood by anyone who looks at the collapses and ask how could that have happened if it wasn't a engineered demolition or CD. And if it WAS engineered how did the designer figure out how to take the structure down.... economically and not destroy neighboring properties. All collapses seem to remain fairly compact and close the the foot print.... and that too is something is not the sole province of CD... and easily explained by the fact that the driving force of a collapse is gravity.

Truthers go down the rabbit hole because they largely don't understand statics, structures, basic physics so they haven't the tools to understand. Ask a laymen to explain how a plane flies. Without knowledge of some physics it can't be explained.

So AE911T is doing what works... dumbed down "explanations" which are deceits and dishonest because that is the level of sophistication of their target audience. I doubt whether Gage will take his dog and pony show to an engineering school and try to sell them on CD or be able to do it if he bothered to try.

++++

The curious thing is that there are many building professionals / engineers who fall for this fantasy. THAT is a more interesting phenomenon than the typical naive truther who dives down his rabbit hole. And citing these "experts" is a logical trap for many who go through life trusting people who know more than they do. It's something everyone does when they go to a doctor or get on an airplane.

 

[SR1419]

"does this look like a controlled demolition to you?".

The funny...or sad thing...is that it doesn't even remotely resemble a controlled demolition. Starts at the top, silently, and does not "implode" in the least. No controlled demolition cast shards of building for blocks.

 

[Christopher 7]

The funny...or sad thing...is that it doesn't even remotely resemble a controlled demolition. Starts at the top, silently, and does not "implode" in the least. No controlled demolition cast shards of building for blocks.

The demolition of the Trade Towers was designed to look like a progressive collapse. That's why it doesn't look like a classic demolition.

Originally, I did not recognize that the Trade Towers were controlled demolitions. I was thinking about all the people inside. It wasn't until 2005, when I first saw a video of WTC 7 imploding and I realized that it was a controlled demolition, that I took a second look at the Trade Towers and realized that they were controlled demolitions too.

In order for the entire building to fall straight down as WTC 7 did, all the supporting structure has to fail at the virtually same time. The core area starting down a fraction of a second before the rest of the building is a signature of a building implosion. Fire is random and cannot cause all the columns to fail at the same time in the precise manner of a building implosion.

You don't have to be an expert to recognize that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition any more than you need to be a rocket scientist to recognize a rocket when you see one.

 

[Mick West]

You don't have to be an expert to recognize that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition any more than you need to be a rocket scientist to recognize a rocket when you see one.

It sure resembles one, but the majority of the memes from AE911 are about the Twin Towers collapse, and saying how "obvious" that is. So if:

The demolition of the Trade Towers was designed to look like a progressive collapse. That's why it doesn't look like a classic demolition.

What are they talking about?

 

[Christopher 7]

It sure resembles one, but the majority of the memes from AE911 are about the Twin Towers collapse, and saying how "obvious" that is. So if:

What are they talking about?

At first glance it looked like a natural collapse to most, but not all people. Willy Nelson is among those who recognized the Trade Towers were controlled demolitions right away. I am embarrassed that I didn't see it right away. But when I took a second look it became obvious.

The memes are asking people to take a second look

 

[Mick West]

At first glance it looked like a natural collapse to most, but not all people. Willy Nelson is among those who recognized the Trade Towers were controlled demolitions right away. I am embarrassed that I didn't see it right away. But when I took a second look it became obvious.

So you think the design of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers was only god enough to fool a casual first impression?

So why hasn't EVERYONE figured it out by now? If it's so obvious?

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Odd that there is no evidence in any of the steel in the debris and collected or CD type destruction of the steel.
Gravity drives all collapses...
Willie Nelson should stick to singing.

 

[Christopher 7]

So you think the design of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers was only god enough to fool a casual first impression?

So why hasn't EVERYONE figured it out by now? If it's so obvious?

Because most people haven't taken a second look. That's what the memes are for.

 

[Mick West]

Because most people haven't taken a second look. That's what the memes are for.

So you think it's actually OBVIOUS with a second look?

So what's AE911 for?

 

[Mick West]

Here's another from today:

Interestingly, besides saying "exactly like a controlled demolition", they are going all the way to claiming the BBC knew what was going to happen in advance. A pretty stunningly improbable thing, if you stop and think about it.

 

[Christopher 7]

Here's another from today:

View attachment 41540

Interestingly, besides saying "exactly like a controlled demolition", they are going all the way to claiming the BBC knew what was going to happen in advance. A pretty stunningly improbable thing, if you stop and think about it.

AE is saying that the BBC was told it was going to happen in advance.
Here's a little known fact. CNN announced that a 50 story building went down at 10:45 a.m. There is no chance that could have been a mistake. It had to have been a planted story like the later BBC planted story.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_E6RhuEQu4&eurl

 

[Mick West]

There is no chance that could have been a mistake.

Really? So it's obvious then?

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

The press was told that the FDNY had withdrawn their survey crews after it was determined that the building show signs of being fatally damaged and warping... confirmed by transit survey. FDNY created a no go safety zone around the building because of the predicted collapse.

CD people simply say that they knew because they were planting explosives. [...]

 

[deirdre]

CNN announced that a 50 story building went down at 10:45 a.m.

Hey you ,i was just thinking of you this morning. and here you are.

CNN didn't announce that... it says

FRANK: Aaron, just two or three minutes ago there was yet another collapse or explosion. I'm now out of sight, Good Samaritan has taken me in on Duane Street (ph).

But at a quarter to 11:00 there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower. And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon.

Now, as I think Patty (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and others have told you, all of Manhattan is covered -- downtown Manhattan is covered with thick white ash and building material. The ambulances have been coming now from as far as Long Island. All the rescue workers are being equipped with gas or face-filter masks.

that doesn't sound like a whole building. that wording sounds like part of a building collapsed. and what does 10:45 have to do with wtc7?

 

[deirdre]

Here's a little known fact. CNN announced that a 50 story building went down at 10:45 a.m. There is no chance that could have been a mistake.

heres a live report, 2 blocks from the twins...so not wtc7

25:13 in video

10:50-10:51am 9/11/2001 report from downtown
ROSE: "you saw the collapse of the top of the world trade center.. well it looks like a large chunk of that debris has hit a building very close by about 2 blocks away near an elementary school causing another explosion. so for the last few minutes i've been watching people running from that direaction, there was one man [unintelligible]..i see several emergency workers carrying other emergency workers from the scene, there's a haze everywhere it's very very difficult to see, but the whole area has been covered by soot and ash, it looks almost like snow. so people are running up the street from this new explosion.you can see them slipping on the ash and having to drag each other up the street."

Source: https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2011/09/08/911-north-tower-collapses.cnn

 

[Inti]

At first glance it looked like a natural collapse to most, but not all people. Willy Nelson is among those who recognized the Trade Towers were controlled demolitions right away. I am embarrassed that I didn't see it right away. But when I took a second look it became obvious.

The memes are asking people to take a second look

I am really puzzled; which known controlled demolitions of towers does this collapse resemble, in your opinion? I have watched half a dozen towers demolished, often at quite close quarters, including one where I used to live. None resembled any of the WTC videos at all. Nor do any of those videos of controlled demolitions I have seen online.

 

[NoParty]

CNN announced that a 50 story building went down at 10:45 a.m. There is no chance that could have been a mistake.

I'm not sure what you're saying: The video you posted emphasizes that visibility is almost non-existent
and that he's--live and unverified--repeating second hand info of someone hurrying by. This would appear to be dubious information, at best. To say "CNN announced" kind of implies that CNN had vetted that comment.

 

[Christopher 7]

Really? So it's obvious then?

Yes

 

[Christopher 7]

The press was told that the FDNY had withdrawn their survey crews after it was determined that the building show signs of being fatally damaged and warping... confirmed by transit survey. FDNY created a no go safety zone around the building because of the predicted collapse.

CD people simply say that they knew because they were planting explosives. [...]

The building was not warping. The transit supposedly saw a bulge at the SW corner between floors 10 and 13.

Hayden:
Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors.
Firehouse Magazine interview

But the corner was gone between floors 10 and 13.

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed.
NCSTAR 1A, p. xxxvii [PDF p. 39]

 

[Christopher 7]

Hey you ,i was just thinking of you this morning. and here you are.

CNN didn't announce that... it says

FRANK: Aaron, just two or three minutes ago there was yet another collapse or explosion. I'm now out of sight, Good Samaritan has taken me in on Duane Street (ph).

But at a quarter to 11:00 there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower. And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon.

Now, as I think Patty (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and others have told you, all of Manhattan is covered -- downtown Manhattan is covered with thick white ash and building material. The ambulances have been coming now from as far as Long Island. All the rescue workers are being equipped with gas or face-filter masks.

that doesn't sound like a whole building. that wording sounds like part of a building collapsed. and what does 10:45 have to do with wtc7?

Hi Dierdre. It's been a while. Thank you for your assistance while I was learning how things work here.

The collapse of the 50 story building the reporter was talking about took place ~15 minutes after the North Tower went down. So it was not the North Tower.

It's possible that the demolition was planned for 10:45 when no one would see it because of all the dust from the collapse of the North Tower.

 

[Christopher 7]

heres a live report, 2 blocks from the twins...so not wtc7

25:13 in video

10:50-10:51am 9/11/2001 report from downtown
ROSE: "you saw the collapse of the top of the world trade center.. well it looks like a large chunk of that debris has hit a building very close by about 2 blocks away near an elementary school causing another explosion. so for the last few minutes i've been watching people running from that direaction, there was one man [unintelligible]..i see several emergency workers carrying other emergency workers from the scene, there's a haze everywhere it's very very difficult to see, but the whole area has been covered by soot and ash, it looks almost like snow. so people are running up the street from this new explosion.you can see them slipping on the ash and having to drag each other up the street."

Source: https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2011/09/08/911-north-tower-collapses.cnn

But no other 50 story building collapsed. The report must have been about WTC 7.