Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[Gravy]

Hmm excellent post, I am watching the video and will check the other stuff out.

Great, thanks. Take your time...this stuff isn't going away.

What I don't understand is why conspirators would go through so much trouble trying to prove the towers were done by explosives if they were completely wrong? What are they getting out of it? I mean it seems like they are only seeking the truth like anyone else...

Nope, they're politically motivated, and a few may have a profit motive as well. Much of the material in their presentations is political. Since Bush is gone we'll be seeing less and less of this.

The emails I get from truthers these days are nearly all incoherent rants. Most of the sane people have long since left the "truth" movement. Example from yesterday, quoted in full:

yessss....the ART of the DRY snitch...you have many fine tools...young sith....come....your EMPORER calls.....

Source:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
Page 92 of YOUR document states:

Steven Jones, scientist and Mormon, is deliberately misrepresenting the events of 9/11.

as stated it was because you point out the REAL evil that is the mormon (if in seditious)INTENT and not in actual fact considering the context, that I decided to email you with an offering of the evidence...

I see I should have offered you a noose, block of ice, and a tape of your 'documentaion' (read: DISinformation) read in the relentless monotone and confused obstrafucation of a fed chairman at report before the congress and the glacial pace of a 'special prosecutor' appointed to investigate the dispersement of the GRAND THEFT TREASURY...taxpayer welfare to the rothchild family and their jew 'home'land holding company/ military (NOT)'defense' contract in perpuity.......

....sweat dreams.....(NOT a mis-spelling)....

 

[my ill will]

lol That is total nonsense. It is good to have someone provide the evidence for their arguments in a calm manner, most of what I get on these forums is nothing more than intelligent insults...

One question for you, what about the invasion of Iraq based on the idea of nuclear weapons, when there were none found... I mean we invaded multiple countries and I'm sure we got oil out of it... do you know anything about that matter?

I mean it seems likely that they WOULD do something like that if they really wanted control and oil in the middle east...

 

[bje]

What I don't understand is why conspirators would go through so much trouble trying to prove the towers were done by explosives if they were completely wrong? What are they getting out of it? I mean it seems like they are only seeking the truth like anyone else...

Why would the government go through so much effort of wiring a building with explosives, secretly, with lots of people who could be found out or spill the beans, setting it up to fall contrary to controlled demolitions, when crashing a plane without the towers falling would have just as much a profound effect?

So, why would you even entertain mad 9/11 Deniers constructing elaborate schemes?

 

[bje]

One question for you, what about the invasion of Iraq based on the idea of nuclear weapons, when there were none found...

Confirmation bias.

It's the same reason the 9/11 Truth Movement formed to begin with.

 

[VespaGuy]

lol That is total nonsense. It is good to have someone provide the evidence for their arguments in a calm manner, most of what I get on these forums is nothing more than intelligent insults...

One question for you, what about the invasion of Iraq based on the idea of nuclear weapons, when there were none found... I mean we invaded multiple countries and I'm sure we got oil out of it... do you know anything about that matter?

I mean it seems likely that they WOULD do something like that if they really wanted control and oil in the middle east...

Are we now on the invasion of Iraq?

So far in this thread you have brought up:
"credited experts"
towers look exactly like a controlled demolition
thermate
molten pools of steel

Perhaps you should pick ONE peice of evidence that you feel is the strongest and discuss it.

 

[bonavada]

Let's not forget that other aspect that the truthers have to conceal: what the collapses sound like. (See my video linked above, my ill will).
Oh, and of course there's the fact that not a single piece of steel shows the effects of demolitions explosives or incendiaries. Zero.

Exactly.
But and on it goes >>>>>>> Hushaboom = thermite = molten steel = 9EleventyEleven!!!!!

It's the unending Maypole dance of the desperate dunces.

BV

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Well suffice it to say, this is my first time sitting through one of his video presentations in full... and whooo boy.... I finally understand what he means by "the path of greatest resistance"... and the answer's not making me think any better of his credibility...

 

[Corsair 115]

I mean it seems likely that they WOULD do something like that if they really wanted control and oil in the middle east...

That might make sense if the U.S. imported most of its oil from the Middle East, or more specifically Persian Gulf nations. It doesn't. Did you know that the #1 source of foreign oil for the United States is Canada?

Consider the following:

In 2001, the U.S. imported 972.5 million barrels of crude oil from Persian Gulf nations (defined as including the countries of Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates); in percentage terms, that amounted to 28.56% of total U.S. imports that year. In 2007, the U.S. imported 771.9 million barrels of crude oil (21.08% of total imports) from Persian Gulf nations. That's a reduction of 20.6% in the number of barrels being imported from the Persian Gulf.

In regards to Iraq specifically, in 2001 the U.S. imported 290 million barrels of crude oil (8.52% of total imports) from that nation; in 2007, that was down to 176.7 million barrels (4.83%). In terms of the number of barrels, that's a reduction of 39.1%.

Lastly, here are the top ten nations in terms of U.S. crude oil imports for 2007:

1. Canada (689.2 million barrels, 18.82%)
2. Saudi Arabia (528.2 million barrels, 14.43%)
3. Mexico (514.1 million barrels, 14.04%)
4. Venezuela (419.2 million barrels, 11.15%)
5. Nigeria (395.6 million barrels, 10.80%)
6. Angola (181.8 million barrels, 4.97%)
7. Iraq (176.7 million barrels, 4.83%)
8. Algeria (161.8 million barrels, 4.42%)
9. Ecuador (72.1 million barrels, 1.97%)
10. Kuwait (63.8 million barrels, 1.74%)

To put the above into another perspective, the U.S got 32.86% of its total crude oil imports from its two neighbouring nations.

Note: Source for the figures given above is the Energy Information Administration.

 

[Quad4_72]

lol That is total nonsense. It is good to have someone provide the evidence for their arguments in a calm manner, most of what I get on these forums is nothing more than intelligent insults...

One question for you, what about the invasion of Iraq based on the idea of nuclear weapons, when there were none found... I mean we invaded multiple countries and I'm sure we got oil out of it... do you know anything about that matter?

I mean it seems likely that they WOULD do something like that if they really wanted control and oil in the middle east...

Well if you want to go there my ill will, then answer me this. If the government was able to pull off the most elaborate conspiracy in the history of planet Earth without a single person coming forward that was involved in the conspiracy and saying anything, then why could they not plant WMDs in Iraq? Planting WMDs in Iraq would be cake compared to what it would take to pull of 9/11.

 

[GodisEnergy]

Here's a video by me that examines claims by AE911truth:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926

From my website:

The two Hardfire shows with myself and Richard Gage, head of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, are now online. The host is 9/11 conspiracy believer John Clifton. Here's some info on the shenanigans they pulled to try to get the upper hand before and during the shows. Or, save time and just go to this point in the second show when Gage "jumps the shark" and displays his staggering ignorance of structures and engineering for all to see. Funny how Gage didn't promote these shows before or after they aired!


Please read this letter of mine and tell me how credible Richard Gage is:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12

More analysis of AE911truth claims by knowledgeable people:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept

This coming from a bus tour driver ,wheres your structural engineering degree.

And someone who beleives the Paint company supplied the Red chips ( paint which explodes )

 

[MarkyX]

This coming from a bus tour driver ,wheres your structural engineering degree.

Richard Gage and his ilk aren't structural engineers in high rise buildings either.

The key difference between Gage and Gravy is one of them used cardboard boxes as a model for an 110 story office building.

 

[GodisEnergy]

The same rules of physics applies to cardboard as it does for steel.

AE911truth does have structural engineers liar

 

[dtugg]

The same rules of physics applies to cardboard as it does for steel.

AE911truth does have structural engineers liar

Have you ever heard of the square cube law? No? I didn't think so. Look it up on Wikipedia.

And AE911Truth does have people that are supposedly structural engineers. One of their star members is that guy who thinks the WTC was blown up using nuclear weapons. Even that must be too insane for you. Right?

 

[Hokulele]

The same rules of physics applies to cardboard as it does for steel.

Such as the rule of scale?

AE911truth does have structural engineers liar

Which makes their deliberate lies or delusional mistakes all the worse.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The same rules of physics applies to cardboard as it does for steel.

Except for that pesky issue of materiality, strength scaling, and the square cube law... slightly problematic if you're making that case....

AE911truth does have structural engineers liar

It most certainly does, however their authority alone is does not constitute that the contentions they set forth are correct. This a blatant appeal to authority; I'm more interested in their demonstration of their expertise than their status as professionals.

This coming from a bus tour driver, wheres your structural engineering degree.

A degree is one of several necessities to certify someone as a professional. However, studying the subject in enough detail can offer laymen sufficient information to understand concepts relating to the field. Once again, I'm interested in the information they present being correct and can be verified through the subjects they cover. Whether the individual is a poet, an astronomer, or a custodian on the flea market has no bearing on a person's knowledge of a subject so long as they learned the material at some point and have retained it and understood it.

 

[Baylor]

The same rules of physics applies to cardboard as it does for steel.

Not quite at Heiwa's level, but still Stundie-worthy.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Well I try to be as uncontrolled by what I see as possible, but the fact is that the towers falling do look exactly like what a controlled demolition looks like...

You've seen a 110-story building demolished prior to 9/11?

 

[MarkyX]

The same rules of physics applies to cardboard as it does for steel.

AE911truth does have structural engineers liar

structural engineers in high rise buildings

Learn to read, dumbass

 

[A W Smith]

The same rules of physics applies to cardboard as it does for steel.

AE911truth does have structural engineers liar

no. no they don't, its a matter of scale. strawman cardboard model noted.

 

[GodisEnergy]

Except for that pesky issue of materiality, strength scaling, and the square cube law... slightly problematic if you're making that case....


It most certainly does, however their authority alone is does not constitute that the contentions they set forth are correct. This a blatant appeal to authority; I'm more interested in their demonstration of their expertise than their status as professionals.


A degree is one of several necessities to certify someone as a professional. However, studying the subject in enough detail can offer laymen sufficient information to understand concepts relating to the field. Once again, I'm interested in the information they present being correct and can be verified through the subjects they cover. Whether the individual is a poet, an astronomer, or a custodian on the flea market has no bearing on a person's knowledge of a subject so long as they learned the material at some point and have retained it and understood it.

So in essense it doesnt matter as long as it supports your theories
Yes or no if not then take back what you all said about David ray Griffin.