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

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
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.
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.
 

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
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.
No 50 story building went down at 10:45. The story was planted just like the BBC story was planted.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No 50 story building went down at 10:45. The story was planted just like the BBC story was planted.
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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
warning
I don't want another mega-thread about every little 9/11 claim. Please refrain from the usual gish-gallop/whack-a-mole. The issue here is AE911's new instance that it is "obvious" that controlled demolition was used.
 

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
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?
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
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.
Looks like a building collapsing from a progressive structural failure. You think that would look different? If so, why?
 

Inti

Senior 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.
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

Banned
Banned
Looks like a building collapsing from a progressive structural failure. You think that would look different? If so, why?

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

Banned
Banned
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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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

Banned
Banned
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..

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.

So it seems to be a historical fact that it is not obvious or apparent that it was a planned intentional demolition.

We disagree on that point.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
If there's anything we can safely assume about folks who would find their way to a
Richard Gage presentation, it's that they would be a truly random sample,
and open-minded.
 

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
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?
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.
How was the scheme supposed to remain secret, if it's so incredibly obvious?
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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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
And so now you think that if you show anyone these memes, they will realize it was a controlled demolition?
 

Oystein

Senior 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.
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.
that they got fed wholly one-sided information;
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
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.

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

Active Member
But the corner was gone between floors 10 and 13.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Banned
Banned
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.
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

Banned
Banned
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
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.
1599601177094.png
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.
1599602349586.png
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Note that the antenna starts down in the last frame in the second row
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

Banned
Banned
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?
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]
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff 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.
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

Banned
Banned
no it doesn't.
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.

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?

No, that detail would not make it obvious. I was just responding to a statement by johnny plectrum
the path of the antenna and its delay within the collapse front.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
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.
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.
 

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
It's always been below 0.1% of the total number of A&E professionals.
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
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.

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
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.
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?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
N Gimble UFO = Upside Down Jet? UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
Z.W. Wolf Ukrainian Plane Crashes in Flames in Tehran - Shot Down By Iran's IRGC Current Events 43
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
Mick West Trees Burnt Down to the Roots in Widfires [Old Stumps] Wildfires 2
Mick West Molten Steel in the Debris Pile, Cool Down Time? 9/11 51
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 120
McGurnicle Why some people fall down the rabbit hole Escaping The Rabbit Hole 28
Mick West Debunked: Furious American Citizens In San Bernardino Burn Down Radical Islamic Mosque General Discussion 20
Mick West Unusual Trail on the Russian Su-24 shot down By Turkey Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West How to Track Down a Contrail with FlightRadar24.com Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 19
Pythagoras Drones shot down in Turkey and Ukraine, Russian or not? General Discussion 20
Bruce Lansberg Claim: Jeroen Akkermans: Framents prove MH17 was shot down by a Russian made BUK Flight MH17 34
Mick West Debunked "When the gunman realizes that nobody else is armed, he will lay down his weapons" [Satire] Quotes Debunked 0
M Debunked: this photo shows a Ukraine Mig-29 shot down MH17 Flight MH17 66
M Claim: MH17 was shot down by separatists using BUK stolen from Ukraine army Flight MH17 32
C MH17 Malaysian 777 Carrying 295 People Shot Down Over Ukraine Flight MH17 410
qed How did I end up down here? Escaping The Rabbit Hole 14
WeedWhacker Large Images now Resize Down to 1600 Pixels Max. Site Feedback & News 9
TWCobra Evergreen Air shutting down Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Debunked: US Reported In Panic After Chemtrail Planes Forced Down In India and Nigeria Contrails and Chemtrails 1
tryblinking contrailscience down? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
JFDee NY Times: "A Conspiracy Melts Down Into Washers and Dryers" Conspiracy Theories 2
M ISO of Former Engineers and Architects Signatories of the A&E for 9/11 Truth Statement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Mick West Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - 990 Tax Returns, Employee Compensation 9/11 32
Mick West Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research? 9/11 450
lee h oswald WTC: Architects and Engineers, what percentage actually disagree with NIST? 9/11 9
Related Articles


























Related Articles

Top