WTC: Architects and Engineers, what percentage actually disagree with NIST?

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Mick

In the thread, WTC 7 (Building 7), in the context of describing the collapse of this steel and concrete building, you said, on the numbers of architects and engineers signed up to AE911 that 99.99% of the world's architects and engineers are in support of Nist's report. No matter how you try to qualify it, that is how you presented it. Oxy called it just right and challenged it:

You stated it was a 'fact' that 99.99% agree with the NIST explanation. That is patently false.
And you replied

No. I said the seem to agree.
I said that because I know engineers, and if they saw something wrong, they would point it out.
So - at 12.10pm on 26 January, you say you know engineers that would point out if there was something wrong with Nist's explanation.

I subsequently I ask if you've asked your engineer pals about the viability of using Verinage on the towers, you say this

I don't have any qualified engineer pals, and all the Verinage experts are French.
So - I pressed you that you'd recently said you have engineer friends in another thread (WTC7, as quoted above), and I even offered to draft a letter in French if you wanted to find out from a professional, and you then say


I don't have any VERINAGE engineer friends, or any demolition engineer friends, or highrise engineer friends, just regular civil engineering.
Right. So - first you have engineer friends who would tell you if Nist's report was wrong. Then you don't have any engineer pals, then you only have regular civil engineering friends.


If you were the narrator of a book (or, indeed, a witness in court), you'd be considered unreliable.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick

In the thread, WTC 7 (Building 7), in the context of describing the collapse of this steel and concrete building, you said, on the numbers of architects and engineers signed up to AE911 that 99.99% of the world's architects and engineers are in support of Nist's report. No matter how you try to qualify it, that is how you presented it. Oxy called it just right and challenged it:



And you replied



So - at 12.10pm on 26 January, you say you know engineers that would point out if there was something wrong with Nist's explanation.

I subsequently I ask if you've asked your engineer pals about the viability of using Verinage on the towers, you say this



So - I pressed you that you'd recently said you have engineer friends in another thread (WTC7, as quoted above), and I even offered to draft a letter in French if you wanted to find out from a professional, and you then say




Right. So - first you have engineer friends who would tell you if Nist's report was wrong. Then you don't have any engineer pals, then you only have regular civil engineering friends.


If you were the narrator of a book (or, indeed, a witness in court), you'd be considered unreliable.
Alright, shall we just go with "most engineers seem to not be disagreeing with NIST"?

It's unfortunate there's no better sampling. I was wondering how we might go about that... perhaps a survey of some kind? Maybe there's a forum where architects and /or engineers meet, and we would posit the question there? Any ideas?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Quick recap on AE911's membership

This summerizes what Richard Gage thinks:


They claim: "1,700+ A/Es & 16,000 other petition signers", or a petition which reads:

http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
Note that these architects and engineers are not necessarily people practicing architecture or engineering, just people with some qualification or some kind of license. There's approximately 103,000 licensed architects in the US.
http://www.di.net/almanac/stats/number-of-licensed-architects/

There's about 380,000 resident engineering licenses in the US.
http://ncees.org/licensure/number-of-licensees-by-state/

Only the first 280 on the petition are actual licensed architects, which is about 0.27%
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Right. So - first you have engineer friends who would tell you if Nist's report was wrong. Then you don't have any engineer pals, then you only have regular civil engineering friends.
I take it then you also discount the vast majority of the AE911 "Engineers"? given that that they seeming all have nothing to do with engineering tall buildings, or even engineering buildings at all?

Are there any engineers with experience on a building over 20 stories high that are also highly skeptical of the official story?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
This may have been covered elsewhere, but what is the opinion of the folks that 'implode' buildings? Wouldn't they be the experts on controlled demolition?

What I read says that the explosives must be placed on each column and that often some of those columns are physically cut. Also every one I have ever seen, starts with the BOTTOM.

We know that that did not happen on the WTCs
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I didn't start this thread. I didn't title it. Why don't you start your own thread and prove your claim that it's likely 99.99% of A&E's support Nist? I reckon 99% have never even heard of Nist, never mind their report.

How can you miss the point of the post? The first bit is just for the context of your claims - then come the claims.

The questions centre around your reliability as a witness. You said you had engineer friends who would tell you if there was anything wrong with Nist's report. Then you said you didn't have any friends that are engineers - then only civil engineer friends. There's three contradictory statements from you in the last few days - at least two of them are not true, and you must have known they were not true when you wrote them.

Why don't you address the actual point of the post, rather than hiding by ignoring it?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I didn't start this thread. I didn't title it. Why don't you start your own thread and prove your claim that it's likely 99.99% of A&E's support Nist? I reckon 99% have never even heard of Nist, never mind their report.

How can you miss the point of the post? The first bit is just for the context of your claims - then come the claims.

The questions centre around your reliability as a witness. You said you had engineer friends who would tell you if there was anything wrong with Nist's report. Then you said you didn't have any friends that are engineers - then only civil engineer friends. There's three contradictory statements from you in the last few days - at least two of them are not true, and you must have known they were not true when you wrote them.

Why don't you address the actual point of the post, rather than hiding by ignoring it?
Why don't you address the actual point of the post, rather than hiding by ignoring it?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I said that because I know engineers, and if they saw something wrong, they would point it out.
So - at 12.10pm on 26 January, you say you know engineers that would point out if there was something wrong with Nist's explanation.

I subsequently I ask if you've asked your engineer pals about the viability of using Verinage on the towers, you say this

Originally Posted by Mick

I don't have any qualified engineer pals, and all the Verinage experts are French.
So - I pressed you that you'd recently said you have engineer friends in another thread (WTC7, as quoted above), and I even offered to draft a letter in French if you wanted to find out from a professional, and you then say

I don't have any VERINAGE engineer friends, or any demolition engineer friends, or highrise engineer friends, just regular civil engineering.
Right. So - first you have engineer friends who would tell you if Nist's report was wrong. Then you don't have any engineer pals, then you only have regular civil engineering friends.


If you were the narrator of a book (or, indeed, a witness in court), you'd be considered unreliable.
This requires a response.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This requires a response.
No it does not. I don't have engineer friends that are qualified in demolition, verinage, or high rise structural engineering. But I do have engineer friends that are qualified to be on the AE911 list.

That's all.
 
Top