• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

AE911Truth Watch

Christopher7 said:
There are now 283 architects and engineers and the number is steadily growing.

Also:
[FONT=&quot]Hugo Bachmann and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jörg Schneider[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Professors emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH.

Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation
http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article Federal Engineers and Scientists.pdf[/FONT]

Torin Wolf demolitions expert
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2


You can continue to deny the truth but you can't stop qualified patriots from learning the truth and speaking out.
Click to expand...

You are so very gullible.

Why don't you look closely at the sites you link to?
Why don't you look closely at what those people actually say?
Why don't you look closely at how qualified some of those people are?
Why don't you look closely into their backgrounds?

C'mon 'truther' investigator. Stop lapping up everything you're being fed without question.
 
Christopher7 said:
"Implosion" is part of the CD industry's nomenclature.
Hence: Implosion World
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

No amount of sophistry can obfuscate this reality.
Click to expand...

What are you complaining about? Nothing in that post went against people in the demolition industry using the word. Just because the demolition industry have appropriated the use of an inappropriate (in my view) word does not alter the use of the word that I recalled from years ago. It looks as if you are the one trying to "obfuscate this reality".
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
"cut beam in the background was almost certainly cut by a worker"
i.e. He did not know, he is speculating.
The man is entitled to his opinion.

Your reading comprehension is intentionally flawed.
Click to expand...
And you have fantasy and no evidence.
A&E have to be the dumbest guys around not to check out the evidence and figure out Gage is a fraud. Who falls for lies and false information? And they are suppose to be A&Es? There is no evidence to back up Gage's "plagiarized" presentations. He has to be pure nuts on 9/11 issues, there is no logic to it.

Funny how you fight for fantasy when proof is shown you are wrong. You must prove your points with evidence to succeed; you have no evidence.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
[FONT=&quot]Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article Federal Engineers and Scientists.pdf...[/FONT]

You can continue to deny the truth but you can't stop qualified patriots from learning the truth and speaking out.
Click to expand...

Ah. Yet another citation of Dr. Quintierre from the PQ911 site. Tell me, please, what is it about the "official conclusion" that he's challenging again?

(Hint: Think "fireproofing" and "building codes". Oh, shoot, did I just give away the answer??)
 
ElMondoHummus said:
(Hint: Think "fireproofing" and "building codes". Oh, shoot, did I just give away the answer??)
Click to expand...

Well, you had to because Chris most likely has not read Dr Quintierre's comments and most certainly has not understood those comments, but Chris has swallowed hook, line and sinker the 'truther' interpretation of those comments, fed to him by members of the 'truth' movement.

I just hope he hasn't parted with any money.
 
Christopher7 said:
"Implosion" is part of the CD industry's nomenclature.
Hence: Implosion World
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

No amount of sophistry can obfuscate this reality.
Click to expand...

Dave_46 said:
What are you complaining about? Nothing in that post went against people in the demolition industry using the word. Just because the demolition industry have appropriated the use of an inappropriate (in my view) word does not alter the use of the word that I recalled from years ago. It looks as if you are the one trying to "obfuscate this reality".
Click to expand...

The problem is that he doesn't want to agree that, even though widely used in the industry, the term "implosion" is still used figuratively by demolition experts to describe the building collapsing inward on itself. Since it's a figurative term, other people may use it to describe other things as well. This damages Chris's argument because in his world he needs every single use of the word "implosion" to literally mean, "building collapse initiated by removing critical supports using explosives".
 
Minadin said:
The problem is that he doesn't want to agree that, even though widely used in the industry, the term "implosion" is still used figuratively by demolition experts to describe the building collapsing inward on itself. Since it's a figurative term, other people may use it to describe other things as well. This damages Chris's argument because in his world he needs every single use of the word "implosion" to literally mean, "building collapse initiated by removing critical supports using explosives".
Click to expand...

You know that.

I know that.

I suspect that the majority of posters here know that.

Sad really, isn't it.

Dave
 
Christopher7 said:
There are now 283 architects and engineers and the number is steadily growing.
Click to expand...

How many qualified structural engineers and architects are there in (a) the US, (b) the UK, and (c) the rest of the World?

So what proportion do 283 represent, Chris?
 
Architect said:
How many qualified structural engineers and architects are there in (a) the US, (b) the UK, and (c) the rest of the World?

So what proportion do 283 represent, Chris?
Click to expand...

The ASCE has 120,000 I believe...
 
Architect said:
How many qualified structural engineers and architects are there in (a) the US, (b) the UK, and (c) the rest of the World?

So what proportion do 283 represent, Chris?
Click to expand...
A year ago you guys were asking "Where are the experts". Now that hundreds of experts have come forward you simply call them "kooks" and dismiss them out of hand.

Are Mark Loiseaux and Peter Tully kooks?
 
Christopher7 said:
A year ago you guys were asking "Where are the experts". Now that hundreds of experts have come forward you simply call them "kooks" and dismiss them out of hand.

Are Mark Loiseaux and Peter Tully kooks?
Click to expand...

Considering that you reject the work of the thousands (or tens of thousands) mentioned in Architects, who are you to criticise him for being skeptical of the claims of 283?
Especially since their claims have no basis in reality, and are instead based upon an almost embarassing misunderstanding of physics and engineering.
 
Dave_46 said:
You know that.

I know that.

I suspect that the majority of posters here know that.

Sad really, isn't it.

Dave
Click to expand...
The point here is:
WTC 7 imploded.

FEMA recognizes this, Danny Jowenko recognized this, the videos and the debris pile confirm this.

No amount of sophistry can obfuscate this fact.
 
Christopher7 said:
A year ago you guys were asking "Where are the experts". Now that hundreds of experts have come forward you simply call them "kooks" and dismiss them out of hand.
Click to expand...

No, you don't get it. We're STILL asking "where are the experts". Just because someone signs Gage's petition, does not mean that an expert supports 9/11 Truth. There's a few things to take into consideration:

1) Not everyone on the AE911Truth petition is an expert in a field that is even remotely relevant. For example, I recall seeing at least one "Software Engineer" on that petition. A "Software Engineer" is not qualified to analyze the mechanics of a building collapse or the structural integrity of a 110-story skyscraper; he is qualified to analyze machine code.

In fact, there seem to be more non-relevant signatories on that petition than there are relevant experts.


2) A person who signs Gage's petition does not necessarily believe in thermite magic bombs and controlled demolitions. We've seen the technique dozens of times before: questions are worded such that even a debunker like me would find themselves answering "yes". A question like "Do you believe Bush is hiding something?", for instance. Even I would sign that. But, they never ask "Do you believe WTC was destroyed by bombs secretly planted inside by members of our own government?" or "Do you believe that fire can destroy steel-framed skyscrapers?" So you end up with a whole bunch of people signing that actually agree with the NIST version of the collapse, but whose words have been twisted and misinterpreted into a suggestion that they support controlled demolition CTs.


3) Gage does not accept it when people change their minds. Once your name is on his petition it is on there forever. You cannot email him and ask to be removed. The names are there to stay. We've even still got some prank names on that petition. We have informed Gage that they are fake names; he refuses to remove them.

4) Speaking of faked, prank names, how do you think we got fake names onto that petition? Gage provides absolutely no screening process. Anyone can sign his petition and pretend to be an engineer and he does not question it. Even now, all you have to do is email him some credentials that you could've very well made up. So we can't trust that everyone on that petition is actually what they say they are.


I can't speak for everyone else, of course, but THIS debunker is STILL asking "Where are the experts?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom