Q's about AE911T

[phatred]

Ok, sorry to bring up a really old issue here. I looked through alot of the threads about ae911 and didn't find some simple answers I was looking for. I've managed to get into a facebook debate with an old friend about the Zeitgeist movie and he kept mentioning ae911, so I had some Q's.

1. I know sometimes highly intelligent people believe in weird things, but has anyone outside of the ae911 actually check up on the 1400 architects listed on the site? I have a hard time believing that many accredited people believe 9/11 was a controlled demolition.

2. I am basically clueless on physics, does anyone have a really dumbed down version of what Chandler is suggesting happened physics-wise and why it is wrong and how he could've went wrong?

3. I went through alot of the videos and charts on the website and found mostly stuff about the buildings falling at free fall, molten steel, and testimonies from people saying it must of been a bomb because it was so loud (lol'd on that). Do they actually have any theory on how all the people got the explosives in, where they planted it, how they detonated it etc.?

 

[A W Smith]

AE911T is nothing more than an online petition to create an argument from authority logical fallacy. None of the petitioners do any actual research. The only one to submit a comment to a journal was Anders Bjorkman. You can find all you need to know about Bjorkman here
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home

February, 2009: Richard Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth out-does itself:
​

​

We've seen the staggeringly ignorant and outright bizarre nonsense spewed by Gage and the "experts" whose opinions he promotes. Is Björkman's promotion by AE911Truth another fallacious appeal to authority, or has he done some sensible analysis of the events of 9/11? Bjorkman posts as "Heiwa" on the JREF forum:
​

Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.
Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion. And again.
Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, then denies making that claim.
Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum.
Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist.
Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible, even by nuclear weapons. And again. And again. However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations.
Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.
Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact.
Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics.
Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it.
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires."
Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers.
Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed.
Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese, pizza boxes, match boxes, rubber balls, sponges, a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed, a tower of sushi, and a tower of lemons.
Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood. Read about the errors he makes in his website paper here.

A Google search of posts at this forum relevant to AE911T
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=83f87efc6f926f13

 

[Sam.I.Am]

1) Look closer at their current claims concerning membership. Architecture and Engineering professionals. Sounds good right? But not so fast... what is the cutoff point for being considered an architecture professional? A valid state issued license? No. Attended and graduated Architecture classes? No. Works in some capacity (including but not limited to answering the phones) for an architecturally related business? Yep, that's pretty much the lower limit below which they start to call them "Supporters".

Their cutoff for Engineering Professionals have pretty much the same lax standards. Software engineer? Welcome to the fold brother.

In other words the actual total of their membership that actually might have some relevant training in fields that relate to 9/11 are a fraction of what they claim through misrepresentation (and by hoping that many, like yourself, are unaware of their lax standards).

2) There are more than a few threads here on this topic.

3) No. As they put it "That's why we need a new investigation.".

 

[Telltale Tom]

Ok, sorry to bring up a really old issue here. I looked through alot of the threads about ae911 and didn't find some simple answers I was looking for. I've managed to get into a facebook debate with an old friend about the Zeitgeist movie and he kept mentioning ae911, so I had some Q's.

1. I know sometimes highly intelligent people believe in weird things, but has anyone outside of the ae911 actually check up on the 1400 architects listed on the site? I have a hard time believing that many accredited people believe 9/11 was a controlled demolition.

Sure lots of people have had a look at the list. While it is difficult to verify if someone is a landscape engineer from Malaysia, we will accept them from any country as long as they have the word architect or engineer in their degree or in their job title.

We have verified that out of the 3 Professional Structural Engineers registered in the state of New York, that two of them have let their licenses expire. There are only about 5,000 structural engineers in New York state. we have also checked out the 8 registered architects in New York state and they are real architects.

2. I am basically clueless on physics, does anyone have a really dumbed down version of what Chandler is suggesting happened physics-wise and why it is wrong and how he could've went wrong?

I suggest you look at the Youtube videos, particularly those from ae911truth as they are as dumbed down as you can get. The ae911truth ones are tailored for people like you.

I also suggest you donate a substantial ammount of money to ae911truth before it is too late. Then you will feel that that you are fighting the good fight.

3. I went through alot of the videos and charts on the website and found mostly stuff about the buildings falling at free fall, molten steel, and testimonies from people saying it must of been a bomb because it was so loud (lol'd on that). Do they actually have any theory on how all the people got the explosives in, where they planted it, how they detonated it etc.?

Well to believe in truth you don't need a theory. You just need to believe that some part of the official explanation is not the truth and then you get it, like the rest of us. And the only real solution to that is obviously a new investigation.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

AE911T is nothing more than an online petition to create an argument from authority logical fallacy. None of the petitioners do any actual research. The only one to submit a comment to a journal was Anders Bjorkman. You can find all you need to know about Bjorkman here
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home


A Google search of posts at this forum relevant to AE911T
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=83f87efc6f926f13

He was also heartily publicly bitch-slapped by Bazant a few months or so back in an engineering professionals magazine where he came just short of calling him a blithering idiot... So he's got that going for him too.

 

[A W Smith]

He was also heartily publicly bitch-slapped by Bazant a few months or so back in an engineering professionals magazine where he came just short of calling him a blithering idiot... So he's got that going for him too.

yes. that was amusing.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185871

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

"Footprints" - Inside or Outside?

Over on another thread, I spent some time looking at the consistency of AE911Truth's engineers claims, vs. what AE911 Truth itself says. Worth repeating here, I hope!

Anyone can easily assess the expertise of many of the AE911 truth petitioners from the website.

Take this page, for example, listing only the Engineers and Engineering Professionals supporting the AE911 truth petition.

Search this page locally for the word "footprint."

Bear in mind that AE911truth's "official" position is that only Building 7 "Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint" (point 4 on the WTC7 sidebar of almost every single AE911truth page), while the Twin Towers instead displayed "Improbable symmetry of debris distribution." (Point 2 on the Twin Towers sidebar).

The short version: AE911Truth says the twin towers were brought down by Controlled Demolition (CD) because they fell outside their footprint (in an overly symmetrical manner), while Building 7 was brought down by CD because it fell inside its own footprint.

Here's the ironic part: on the previously mentioned page, a search for 'footprint' shows that fully twenty "Engineers and Engineering Professionals" declare in their personal statements that both the Twin Towers (and possibly WTC7 also) fell in their own footprints, while only 10 "Engineers and Engineering Professionals" agree with AE911truth's claims that only WTC7 fell in its own footprint.

That is, of the 30 "Engineers and Engineering Professionals" making statements about falling within footprints, two-thirds clearly interpret some of AE911truth's fundamental "characteristics of destruction by explosives" incorrectly.

• Twin Towers Fall in Own Footprint: Pyeatt, Townsend, Baker, Moore, Nelson, Southard, Schenavar, Handberg, Davis, Felt, Nakamura, Revesz, Goyette, Manyen, Millikin, Gearing, Cullinan, Simchock, Watsen, Tzetzo
  
• WTC 7 Falls in Own Footprint: Fabersunne, Phillips, Regen, Kosik, Pacheco, Wilmot, Catterall, Schultz, Marshall, Fralick

(Hilight indicates conflict with official AE911truth position.)

Two more points, which illustrate additional evidence for the lack of attention of AE911 engineering professional petitioners to details:

• The Debris Distribution at the Twin Towers was hardy 'symmetrical'
• WTC 7 didn't fall within its own footprint

 

[ergo]

He was also heartily publicly bitch-slapped by Bazant a few months or so back in an engineering professionals magazine where he came just short of calling him a blithering idiot...

Um, no.

Bazant was granted the last word in the same issue that Bjorkman's article was published. Uncoincidentally, Bazant is a member of the review panel of JEM. He was also granted the last word (i.e., "closure") to Gourley's critique, and used the same dismissive, insulting tone that he used with Bjorkman. Highly unprofessional.

Moreover, Bazant never actually "closes" anything. He doesn't intelligently address a single one of Bjorkman's objections. He simply regurgitates the same ka-ka theorizing, citing his own papers, that those objections are intended to draw into question.

It's surprising to me that a professional journal would allow one of its authors, who is also member of its review panel, such a thing called "closure" twice on the same topic and both times occurring in the same issue that the critiquing article appears. What's the hurry? The articles are already reviewed prior to publication. If there are further comments, they can appear in subsequent publications. I question whether this is standard practice.

JEM's professional ethics and standards do seem questionable. One need only read Bazant's "closure", which reads like a circus flyer, to understand this. It's like a colourful synopsis of his entire tome of 9/11 pseudo-science. Indeed, I wish JEM readers would read that closely and follow the references he cites. It would help 9/11 skepticism greatly.

Gourley's chronicle of his JEM paper submission process is here.

 

[ergo]

Dave Thomas still doesn't understand what a demolition footprint is.

 

[332nd]

Um, no.

Bazant was granted the last word in the same issue that Bjorkman's article was published. Uncoincidentally, Bazant is a member of the review panel of JEM. He was also granted the last word (i.e., "closure") to Gourley's critique, and used the same dismissive, insulting tone that he used with Bjorkman. Highly unprofessional.

Moreover, Bazant never actually "closes" anything. He doesn't intelligently address a single one of Bjorkman's objections. He simply regurgitates the same ka-ka theorizing, citing his own papers, that those objections are intended to draw into question.

It's surprising to me that a professional journal would allow one of its authors, who is also member of its review panel, such a thing called "closure" twice on the same topic and both times occurring in the same issue that the critiquing article appears. What's the hurry? The articles are already reviewed prior to publication. If there are further comments, they can appear in subsequent publications. I question whether this is standard practice.

JEM's professional ethics and standards do seem questionable. One need only read Bazant's "closure", which reads like a circus flyer, to understand this. It's like a colourful synopsis of his entire tome of 9/11 pseudo-science. Indeed, I wish JEM readers would read that closely and follow the references he cites. It would help 9/11 skepticism greatly.

Gourley's chronicle of his JEM paper submission process is here.

... It surprises you that an engineer who wrote a paper on 9/11, responded to a comment in the same journal and cites his paper? When he is on the review panel?

 

[A W Smith]

Um, no.

Bazant never actually "closes" anything. He doesn't intelligently address a single one of Bjorkman's objections. He simply regurgitates the same ka-ka theorizing, citing his own papers, that those objections are intended to draw into question.

Um, yes. Bjorkman handwaved off Bazants differential equations as unnecessary. Without even attempting to show what Bazant got wrong in those equations. Not only that Bjorkman failed to send in his copyright release in a timely manner before publishing.

 

[Oystein]

Dave Thomas still doesn't understand what a demolition footprint is.

If ergo had taken the time to read the statements of the petitioners that talk about fottprints, would not have written such a foolish remark and instead he'd know that most of them clearly talk about the buildings' footprints (the rest talk about them unclearly).

 

[Oystein]

Um, no.

Bazant was granted the last word in the same issue that Bjorkman's article was published. Uncoincidentally, Bazant is a member of the review panel of JEM. He was also granted the last word (i.e., "closure") to Gourley's critique...

It's surprising to me that a professional journal would allow one of its authors, who is also member of its review panel, such a thing called "closure" twice on the same topic and both times occurring in the same issue that the critiquing article appears. What's the hurry? The articles are already reviewed prior to publication. If there are further comments, they can appear in subsequent publications. I question whether this is standard practice.
JEM's professional ethics and standards do seem questionable. ...

It would have been dead easy to corroborate that this is indeed standard practice at the JEM, which is a leading and highly respected journal in its field for good reasons:

Just go and look at the journal!

If you look at back issues of the JEM, you will find that they frequently contain a section "DISCUSSIONS AND CLOSURES", and you will also find, that closures are always published, if at all (authors may chose not to respond) in the same issue. For example, take the February 2010, Juli 2009 or April 2009 issues, which contain discussions and closures by non-editors in the same issue.

It seems like ergo never reads scientific journals and is unable to do even the easiest and most basic research on scientific journals, such as scanning the table of contents. Yet he makes confident pronouncements and questions mightily their quality. Chuzpe can be a virtue, but often it is not.

 

[Architect]

2. I am basically clueless on physics, does anyone have a really dumbed down version of what Chandler is suggesting happened physics-wise and why it is wrong and how he could've went wrong?

It's worse than you think.

The analysis and design of tall structures (broadly anything over 20-25 storeys) is actually highly specialist and there are comparatively few architects and engineers who are sufficiently familiar with the issues to comment with any authority. So, for example, Gage's own CV seems to be little more than a few low-rise educational and commercial structures.

It would be like asking your GP to explain how to actually do heart surgery. He might have read about it whilst he was a student, but you can bet yourself a lot of money that he wouldn't actually know where to start if he was in the operating theatre himself.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Um, no.

Bazant was granted the last word in the same issue that Bjorkman's article was published. Uncoincidentally, Bazant is a member of the review panel of JEM. He was also granted the last word (i.e., "closure") to Gourley's critique, and used the same dismissive, insulting tone that he used with Bjorkman. Highly unprofessional.

Moreover, Bazant never actually "closes" anything. He doesn't intelligently address a single one of Bjorkman's objections. He simply regurgitates the same ka-ka theorizing, citing his own papers, that those objections are intended to draw into question.

It's surprising to me that a professional journal would allow one of its authors, who is also member of its review panel, such a thing called "closure" twice on the same topic and both times occurring in the same issue that the critiquing article appears. What's the hurry? The articles are already reviewed prior to publication. If there are further comments, they can appear in subsequent publications. I question whether this is standard practice.

JEM's professional ethics and standards do seem questionable. One need only read Bazant's "closure", which reads like a circus flyer, to understand this. It's like a colourful synopsis of his entire tome of 9/11 pseudo-science. Indeed, I wish JEM readers would read that closely and follow the references he cites. It would help 9/11 skepticism greatly.

Gourley's chronicle of his JEM paper submission process is here.

Unless I am very much mistaken, Bjorkman's nonsense wasn't an article at all, but a letter.

 

[240-185]

Some of the engineers are clearly not in their domain. We have software engineers, electricity engineers, telecommunications engineer (lol wut?).

Plus, some of them are totally unknown to the university they're claiming to come from. Some of them didn't know they were on Gage's list. Some of them are... dead.

 

[triforcharity]

Dave Thomas still doesn't understand what a demolition footprint is.

Is a "demolition footprint" usually 16 acres, including other buildings?















No. Stop making **** up ergo.

 

[triforcharity]

Um, no.

Bazant was granted the last word in the same issue that Bjorkman's article was published.

Yepo. Common practice.

Uncoincidentally, Bazant is a member of the review panel of JEM. He was also granted the last word (i.e., "closure") to Gourley's critique, and used the same dismissive, insulting tone that he used with Bjorkman. Highly unprofessional.

He gave it exactly what was needed.

Moreover, Bazant never actually "closes" anything. He doesn't intelligently address a single one of Bjorkman's objections. He simply regurgitates the same ka-ka theorizing, citing his own papers, that those objections are intended to draw into question.

And your point?

It's surprising to me that a professional journal would allow one of its authors, who is also member of its review panel, such a thing called "closure" twice on the same topic and both times occurring in the same issue that the critiquing article appears. What's the hurry? The articles are already reviewed prior to publication. If there are further comments, they can appear in subsequent publications. I question whether this is standard practice.

It is. Look at any of the other papers that appear in the journal that have discussions.

JEM's professional ethics and standards do seem questionable. One need only read Bazant's "closure", which reads like a circus flyer, to understand this.

JEM's ethics are above reproach. They are one, if not THE top engineering journal in the WORLD.

It's like a colourful synopsis of his entire tome of 9/11 pseudo-science. Indeed, I wish JEM readers would read that closely and follow the references he cites. It would help 9/11 skepticism greatly.

Maybe you can prove him wrong? Feel free to write a rebuttal and submit it to JEM for review. Let us know how that works out for you.

Gourley's chronicle of his JEM paper submission process is here.

And just when I thought the pile of **** couldn't get any taller, you put another steaming pile on top of it.

 

[triforcharity]

Some of the engineers are clearly not in their domain. We have software engineers, electricity engineers, telecommunications engineer (lol wut?).

Plus, some of them are totally unknown to the university they're claiming to come from. Some of them didn't know they were on Gage's list. Some of them are... dead.

Landscape engineers.........

That one always cracked me up.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Dave Thomas still doesn't understand what a demolition footprint is.

Actually, the point is that dozens of AE911truth's celebrated engineers don't understand what a "footprint" is.

Ergo, doing a driveby name-calling isn't going to convince anyone. If I'm wrong about footprints, don't just claim I don't understand, but EDUCATE me as to why that is so. That is, explain what a "footprint" of a collapsing structure is, how a "demolition" footprint differs from a design "footprint", why debris falling inside OR outside of a "footprint" always indicates a controlled demolition, that sort of thing.

Or, you could simply call names, without any explanation of technical details, or mundane matters like facts and evidence.

Your choice. Were I to wager on where you'll take this, I'm not expecting to see any explanations, definitions, data and facts from you, rather just more name-calling bluffs.

In other words, I'm calling the hand. Show your cards, or fold.