1,600 verified architectural and engineering professionals

[Marokkaan]

1600 failed nuts on 911, and you post a video to make fun of me, replay. You post off-topic tripe which is proof you are evidence free like 911 truth, like Gage. ..., don't post evidence to support your insane claims, post a music video, make fun of me. Sound logic, make fun of people, avoid posting evidence, evidence which you don't have. smoking

Not a single one of the 1600 has evidence to support their claims, and they have not shown probable cause for a new investigating, they have shown their ignorance like you do by falling for Gage's delusions.

Who has looked up the earnings for AE in 2010, has Gage reached peak woo? Marijuana (lol, the spell checker did this, is this how you get your inspriatoin?), this is the best you can do, post an autobiographical video?

I said, "Philip has done nothing, he knows nothing. A perfect follower for 911 truth, signs up and does nothing.", and you post a video. Please tell me what what Philip has done to support the claims made by you and Gage. Do you have any proof to go with your blind posting of nonsense?
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=986420

Things you can't comprehend so you post music video to attempt a weak attack on me. Things you can't discuss because you don't care if you spread lies and delusions. What do you do, post nonsense to support your nonsenses. Post a music video to support your evidence free stand on 911.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/JournalWTCPentagon.pdf

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31542.pdf

1600 verified they are incapable of figuring out 911, and a video confirming it.

Instead of trolling, tell me your evidence of the official conspiracy theory.

 

[beachnut]

Instead of trolling, tell me your evidence of the official conspiracy theory.

There is no official conspiracy theory. There were 19 terrorists who murdered on 911. 911 truth can't figure it out. 911 truth followers let Gage do their thinking. Your thread with zero comments in the OP, no evidence. Proving no evidence, you post a video to make fun of me. The only interesting thing about your thread, spell check your name. 911 truth offers zero evidence, 911 truth will never have evidence to support Gage's failed claims on 911. Better post another off-topic video, more substance then your posts, and Gage's delusions. 911 truth makes the insane claims, 911 truth must bring the evidence. ... gain knowledge, use critical thinking skills, discover Gage is a fraud.

http://cms.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

LOL, you presented evidence 1600 people don't think for themselves and you made zero comment. A thread void of evidence ...

Your fact filled OP.

http://cms.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

wow

If you are an intelligent person, backing Gage is proof to the contrary.

I suspect your research on 911 is as extensive as long hand typed posts.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/JournalWTCPentagon.pdf
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31542.pdf

What did Gage's organization earn in 2010? Is it out yet?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Instead of trolling, tell me your evidence of the official conspiracy theory.

why? I debunk CTs, not educate the ineducable about mainstream physics and engineering. If you want to study the evidence for the OCT get yourself an education and a brain then read the 911 report, NIST reports etc.

All your theories have huge gaping holes, the OCT does not, so not much if any debunking needed there.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Within a September 13, 2011 FOI response from the New City Department of Buildings (DoB), it is noted that World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7 have been deemed sensitive buildings and thus, plans for these buildings have been exempted from disclosure by statute because "if disclosed, the documents requested would endanger the life or safety of any person."

Another punch in the face of open society, because as we all know the towers on one hand and building 7 on the other hand are completely different cases and therefore this "catch-all" excuse can't be anything else but transparent BS.

 

[beachnut]

Another punch in the face of open society, because as we all know the towers on one hand and building 7 on the other hand are completely different cases and therefore this "catch-all" excuse can't be anything else but transparent BS.

Another off-topic post by 911 truth follower who can't figure out 911. Am I still your ... Have a great day, this is how may days of failure for you and 911 truth? 3,675 days, nice work.

 

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by 911blogger.com
Within a September 13, 2011 FOI response from the New City Department of Buildings (DoB), it is noted that World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7 have been deemed sensitive buildings and thus, plans for these buildings have been exempted from disclosure by statute because "if disclosed, the documents requested would endanger the life or safety of any person."

Where is this "New City" ???

 

[bill smith]

Another punch in the face of open society, because as we all know the towers on one hand and building 7 on the other hand are completely different cases and therefore this "catch-all" excuse can't be anything else but transparent BS.

There must be a way to get them to further define 'plans for sensitive buildings are not released under FOIL, on the grounds that, "if disclosed, the documents requested would endanger the life or safety of any person'.,

Those buildings are gone so it's not like terrorists could use any information disclosed. What other possible reason could there be where disclosure of the documents 'would endanger the life or safety of any person' You are spot on that the 'catch-all' excuse is a dead giveaway that their backs are right against the wall on this.

 

[NoahFence]

Another punch in the face of open society, because as we all know the towers on one hand and building 7 on the other hand are completely different cases and therefore this "catch-all" excuse can't be anything else but transparent BS.

Bwaaah haa haaaa


Those plans are scanned and readily available on the internet for anyone to peruse.

The rest of that request was either for items that were not under their domain:

As to your request for permits pertaining to construction projects (set forth in number one above), all public records maintained by DOB are routinely made available for public inspection at the office/division of the New York City Department of Buildings at which said records are maintained. Please contact the Manhattan Borough Office (212-566-0268), located at 280 Broadway, New York, New York 10007 to determine the hours at which the records you requested are available.

Or records that simply do not exist:

As to request number 2, BIS shows no elevator records during the time period requested.

As to request number 3, I am advised by the Director of Application Support that our system is not able to provide BIN information by dates. Since there is no record containing this information, your request is for information that is not
properly a FOIL request, since FOIL applies only to existing records.

I'm sure they don't exist due to some evil NWO Illuminati MossadJew procedure, right?

 

[BasqueArch]

Supreme Court Ruling Upholds Delusionals Rights
Not Knowing What You’re Talking About, Fabricated Opinions
Still Legal On The Interweb.
______________

Willful Ignorance Fails To Deter The Shameless
Encouraged By Ruling, Truthers Redouble Factless Output -
Error Latrines Overflow.
​

 

[Oz1976]

Actually, close to 15,000 people now have signed it.

Out of 311,000,000. Can you do the math? Is that super juggernaut strength? Nope. You fail yet again. Not even 1/10th of 1%.

 

[triforcharity]

Another punch in the face of open society, because as we all know the towers on one hand and building 7 on the other hand are completely different cases and therefore this "catch-all" excuse can't be anything else but transparent BS.

Yeah, except for the fact that they have already been released.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html

Awesome fail there chief. You can even view it in high resolution. They might be referring to the originals.

You can contact Silverstein Properties to get them.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

True. Truthers seem to be misunderstanding the function of the body. Architect, Grizzly Bear, and whoever else understands this professionally, please let me know if I've got this right or not, but: The way I understand it is that organizations like the ICC develops the IBC specifically for legislators to adopt. It's never expected that it has legal standing straight out of the box, but rather it's the professionally determined guidelines that help those legislators write law.

Have I got that right?

I'm personally unsure as I haven't directly dealt with building codes in-depth, or more precisely areas that concern recent changes. I think Animal or Architect would know better on that one. I've only dealt with them 2nd hand during the construction of our SD2011 competition entry when we had to communicate with our engineer and architect consultants.

What I can say, is that in most cases, the basic requirements are covered by the IBC, and then if there are additional requirements not scoped in the IBS, but present in codes withing a specific local, then the codes must conform to the local one. For example Miami-Dade county has code specifications that deal specifically with wind resistance/impact glass requirement that the IBC doesn't scope since it's a more general set. We had that happen several times during the course of the design development and construction.

Anyway, if the engineer or architect of record determines that the building doesn't conform sufficiently then they have the authority to refuse signing the documents. So in my experience, codes once approved had to be matched with our construction, of course this is only one project so far. When we designed the deck to our building, the engineer of record wouldn't even sign our drawings unless we used 2 by 12's for the girders (100 pounds/sq. ft load scenario)

 

[Minadin]

And, my buddy's name has still not been removed from that list, after, what, 3 years?

There are virtually NO practicing architects who subscribe to this malarkey.

 

[Minadin]

True. Truthers seem to be misunderstanding the function of the body. Architect, Grizzly Bear, and whoever else understands this professionally, please let me know if I've got this right or not, but: The way I understand it is that organizations like the ICC develops the IBC specifically for legislators to adopt. It's never expected that it has legal standing straight out of the box, but rather it's the professionally determined guidelines that help those legislators write law.

Have I got that right?

Basically. The ICC is a group of building officials (in the US, mostly, which makes their name about as inane as calling the US baseball championships the World Series) that makes comments and adjustments and clarifications to a standard set of building codes. These codes may be adopted, or not, by any local authority, with or without modification by that authority.And, they come out with a revised version almost every year, but the local authorities having jurisdiction are rather slow to update to them.

So, I have some projects right now that are under IBC 2003, some under 2006, some 2009. There aren't usually very substantial deviations from year to year, but in some cases, there are significant differences. In addition to that, any local authority is allowed to modify the code, and while they usually make very minor adjustments, sometimes they are pretty big.

 

[BasqueArch]

True. Truthers seem to be misunderstanding the function of the body. Architect, Grizzly Bear, and whoever else understands this professionally, please let me know if I've got this right or not, but: The way I understand it is that organizations like the ICC develops the IBC specifically for legislators to adopt. It's never expected that it has legal standing straight out of the box, but rather it's the professionally determined guidelines that help those legislators write law.

Have I got that right?

------

On top of that, the real point behind showing that the ICC pays attention to the NIST findings is to demonstrate that they're taken seriously in the architectural and engineering fields. The IBC is modified by professionals only after consideration of proposed changes, which means that the findings that changes are based on are accepted by said professionals. If they didn't accept the findings, why would they change the code?

The objection that it does not hold legal standing isn't even an intelligent argument; it's already known that it does not. Accepting that lack does not negate the fact that professionals studied and accepted the findings. It only means that there's a step between development of such model code and it's introduction into law. It's an attempt at deliberate deception to try and argue that the lack of legal standing indicates lack of professional acceptance.

If one wants to build, repair or expand a structure, you have to get a "building permit" from the county allowing you to do so after review and approval of the plans. The county passed a law that says that the design has to comply (here) with the IBC 2009. (And the Zoning Ordinances.)

Architecture, Structure, MEP has to comply with the prescriptive IBC 2009 or you don't get a building permit. If you do work without a permit you receive a "stop work order" from the permits department inspector. If you ignore the order you can get arrested, charged and fined. So yes, the IBC 2009 has "legal standing" in my county.

"IBC 2009 - Chapter 1: Scope and Administration.
A building code, as with any other code, is intended to be adopted as a legally enforceable document to safeguard health, safety, property and public welfare."

The idea that you can argue with the building inspector that the IBC 2009 has "no legal standing" is as cute as arguing with the IRS that the Constitution says paying the income tax is voluntary.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Another punch in the face of open society, because as we all know the towers on one hand and building 7 on the other hand are completely different cases and therefore this "catch-all" excuse can't be anything else but transparent BS.

Which WTC 1,2 and 7 did they ask about? The old ones or the new ones......