Christopher 7
Active Member
As I said before, the demolition of the Trade Towers was designed to look like a gravity driven progressive collapse. It was exploded from the top down rather than imploded from the bottom up.
The Dumbing Down of AE911Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Christopher 7
Active Member
No 50 story building went down at 10:45. The story was planted just like the BBC story was planted.
deirdre
Senior Member.
so... the gov planned to secretly demolish wtc7. but for some reason they decided to tell a bunch of reporters and firemen that a 50 story building would go down at 10:45. and that they should "spread the word" at 10:45. instead of just not telling a bunch of random people, that had zero need to know, that they were gonna secretly blow up a building.
that seems a bit far fetched, don't you think?
Inti
Senior Member.
So it isn't possible to use the appearance of the collapse as evidence either way?
But AE911 are arguing that it "obvious" from the appearance alone. And I thought you were agreeing?
NoParty
Senior Member.
Wow! Well, the politeness policy prevents me from engaging with your line of reasoning frankly:
Things that seem obvious to you, seem _________ to me. I'll leave you to it.
johnny plectrum
New Member
I wish he'd give us an idea of how it was done then!
Christopher 7
Active Member
AE911Truth is saying that if you watch the close-up videos (instead of the one from across the river that the media always shows) it becomes apparent that the Trade Towers were blown up.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Looks like a building collapsing from a progressive structural failure. You think that would look different? If so, why?
Inti
Senior Member.
But as a matter of empirical fact, that does not become apparent, does it? That is, very few of those who have watched any of the videos have reached that conclusion. Nor have more than a tiny proportion of "architects and engineers" who have viewed it. Nor Have many of those people who have watched undisputed controlled demolitions. So it seems to be a historical fact that it is not obvious or apparent that it was an planned intentional demolition..
Christopher 7
Active Member
That's what I thought at first. But if you look closer you can see the top of the building is exploding. Multi-ton framing sections are being hurled hundreds of feet in all directions. Gravity alone cannot do that. Everything is being thrown outward already reduced to dust. Gravity alone cannot do that.
Christopher 7
Active Member
Where in this meme collection are they saying this?
They show different close-ups and comment on them.
Top row, third from left "This is a building exploding."
Top row, fourth from left "The entire top of the building just blew up!"
Top row, fifth from left "Obviously controlled demolition"
etc.
Fascinating. So the cover-up was doomed to fail it someone simply looked a close-up? Do you think the plotters simply did not consider the possibility that there would be eyewitnesses and people with cameras?
How was the scheme supposed to remain secret, if it's so incredibly obvious?
Christopher 7
Active Member
We have no idea how many people are convinced that the Trade Towers were blown up after looking at the close-up videos. However, most of the people who come to see Gage's presentations come away convinced that the Trade Towers were blown up.
We disagree on that point.
Do you have evidence for this?
Christopher 7
Active Member
The plotters did not care that some would see that all three towers were controlled demolitions. They had complete control of the media after 9/11. None of the 36 reporters who said the buildings looked like a demolition, or that they had blown up, repeated those statements again. And the videos of WTC 7 imploding were not seen again on MSM except for a four second clip in the "Rebuilding America" video a year later.
Within hours, the entire MSM was singing the same song – the collapses were due to the plane impacts and the ensuing fires; and bin Laden did it.
It didn't remain a secret. Lots of people saw right away that all three buildings were controlled demolitions. But the perpetrators relied on "shock and awe". The constant repetition convinced the majority of Americans that the collapses were due to the plane impacts and the ensuing fires; and bin Laden did it. Everyone was in a state of shock and therefore susceptible to suggestion.
Christopher 7
Active Member
I remember being at several presentations and the poll afterward. But I don't have any saved. I will ask Richard after this coming weekend.
deirdre
Senior Member.
huh. kinda sounds like AE911's propaganda campaign that is the topic of this thread.
Please come back with more evidence than "Richard said."
And so now you think that if you show anyone these memes, they will realize it was a controlled demolition?
Oystein
Senior Member
Many years ago, AE would report on Gage's presentations and publish the number of attendees and the pre- and post-presentation poll results, where by show of hands he inquired whether attendees believed there were intentional demolitions. Typically, the overwhelming majority (like 90%) already was convinced before, a handful undecided, few individuals thought fire and gravity did it. After the presentation, the unconvinced would mostly have switched to the "yes" crowd.
Small wonder, given that even previously undecided folks would not be representative of the vast majority of people; that they got fed wholly one-sided information; and that they faced tremendous peer pressure from the majority of Truthers in attendance.
deirdre
Senior Member.
most importantly they weren't just shown close-ups of the buildings collapsing and Gage's presentation didn't consist of only "see? it's obviously controlled demolition".
johnny plectrum
New Member
This is one of my 'favourites' of the collapse videos as I think it has the least smoke to hide the progress. It shows the path of the antenna and its delay within the collapse front, the change in dust pattern as the upper block reaches the upper mechanical floor, the remains of the core columns immediately below mechanical floor level and the sheer weight of the dust and its speed of descent.
Try as I might, I struggle to attach any control to it, less so to even think of the word 'obvious'.
I can see falling, tumbling and toppling of substantial chunks of the primary structure and fluttering of cladding etc. but no ejection other than for smoke and dust.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpDRoMJ52ps
Nada Truther
Senior Member
But floors 10 thru 13 are still there, right? Just not the actual corner. Is it possible that they saw bulging in the facade of the building near or towards the SW corner and just said "in the corner", and didn't mean down the actual crease where the two faces meet?
Is it possible that they meant in the general SW corner area?
Nada Truther
Senior Member
Then why go through all the trouble to make it look like no other controlled demo in history? Just do it like normal and use your media controlling powers to explain it all. Seems like it would be easier to just go with a proven method of bottom up, so that you know that it is going to work... if they were not worried about how it looked.
I think I remember seeing WTC going down several times the night that it happened on the news. I don't remember waiting a year...
Christopher 7
Active Member
The memes are intended to get people to take another look at the destruction of the Trade Towers.
Christopher 7
Active Member
Thank you for answering Landru's question.
Of course it was "one sided" The news media has been promoting one side for many years. AE is offering the other side.
If people were willing to raise their hand at the beginning, they were not affected by peer pressure.
Christopher 7
Active Member
At the beginning of this video there is what sounds like an explosion just before the building starts down. That is consistent with what several witnesses said.
At 0:37 the narrator says "We saw some kind of an explosion …"
The antenna started down just a little before the roofline started down.
Note that the antenna starts down in the last frame in the second row but the roof line doesn't start down until the second frame in the bottom row.
This photo shows an external framing section impaled in WFC 3, over 500 feet away from the North Tower.
deirdre
Senior Member.
no it doesn't. and even if it did, how would that make it "obvious" to everyone it was controlled demolition? does controlled demolition make the flag on top of buildings fall before the roof? are you thinking through your theories before you say them?
Christopher 7
Active Member
No. Hayden said "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13", not 'near the corner'.
The photo I posted does not show a bulge.
Furthermore, NIST acknowledged that: "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]
Oystein
Senior Member
And? Your point is...?
This did not answer my question. The best evidence that people are not persuaded is that despite the years, presentations and memes the signatories stand at a little over 3,000 people.
Christopher 7
Active Member
That is denial. The 12 frames clearly show that the antenna starts down before the roof line. Read my post again carefully until you understand it.
No, that detail would not make it obvious. I was just responding to a statement by johnny plectrum
Oystein
Senior Member
That's 3,326 "architects & engineers", not "people". In addition, they have close to 28,000 "other" signatories.
One interesting statistic: So far in 2020, the number of "architects & engineers" signatories has grown by an annual rate of merely 4.1%, while the "other" signatories have grown by an annual rate of 17.7%. Last year (2019), the rates were +5.0% A&E / +9.5% "others".
It appears that AE911Truth has of late been targeting the lay audience for applaud and financial sustenance - and the use of dumbed-down memes seems to speak for this assessment. Perhaps the proportion of architects and engineers ready to fall for the nonsense is lower than it ever was before? It's always been below 0.1% of the total number of A&E professionals.
deirdre
Senior Member.
no it doesn't.
Christopher 7
Active Member
Most people don't sign petitions.
A large number of architects and engineers still don't know that there is a controversy because the MSM studiously avoids talking about it.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
Because there is no actual controversy. There is not a single tall building expert or fire science expert on the record supporting AE911Truth's nonsense theories, and very, very few "experts" in the tangentially related fields who have registered even incredulity about the official story (let alone have supported AE911Truth's claims outright). Of course, if you define controversy as "a disagreement with proposition that is voiced by exactly zero experts with directly relevant expertise and less than 0.001% of those with some expertise in tangentially related subjects" then I guess there is one. But I suspect that level of "controversy" wouldn't make a very catchy meme.
Last edited:
BustedWing
New Member
So to be clear here....
1. Its really obvious it was a controlled demolition, even to a layman, just by "looking at it closely".
2. 3000+ "subject matter experts" agree with this premise and have signed the AE911T petition
3. AE911T have been actively trying to spread the word and recruit new members who are subject matter experts for almost two decades
4. The number of those they have convinced hasn't got past 3000 or so, and in fact has remained stagnant or gone backwards since the mid 2000s.
Do you see the disconnect there?
Surely it's not "really obvious" if an organisation devoted to drawing attention to this "really obvious fact" cant convince people who work in the relevant field?
Where's the disconnect that I'm not seeing that makes it (a) really obvious but (b) not enough to easily convince subject matter experts?
Similar threads
