1000 Architects and Engineers Question Official 9/11 Story - Washington Times Article

[Makalakumu]

Ahem, do a search on 9/11 whistleblowers and see what you come up with. It's not true to say that no one has come forward.

Anyway, before this starts getting personal, there's two points that jumped to my mind when I saw this article.

1. It's getting harder and harder to say there is no reason to question the official story of 9/11. With all of these architects and engineering professionals coming out en-masse and petitioning Congress for a new investigation, even the most ardent skeptic has got to take a second look.

2. This is getting more and more attention in the media. Now, even the MSM can't ignore this. Hell, Glenn Beck on his radio show and on TV has said that 9/11 Truthers are violent and/or will attempt to harm the President! Hahahahaha...

The reason this doesn't go away is because there are legitimate points here.

 

[Big Don]

Oh For Christ's sake: KOOK THEORIES DEBUNKED

 

[Marginal]

How many are structural engineers????

I'll give you a relatively recent event of an architect not being an engineer. Remember Montreal's Olympic stadium?

When it was decided to finaly complete the tower to put the fabric roof, a much simpler static roof as opposed to the original retractable, engineers looked at the design and requirements to finish the supporting tower, and noticed that as designed, it could not support ITSELF, let alone the roof.

He was paid to design it like that by the US government in order to cast doubt on all architects so that their opinions would be disregarded by the Sheeple.

It's so clear.

 

[Bruno@MT]

These are all straw-men of what they are actually saying. Think about it for a minute. Why would a trained professional argue something so obviously wrong? The truth is that they don't argue these straw men. The media would have you think that this is what this group is actually saying. Have you read any of the papers published by this group? They are all on the website.

Well, I bet you can find all sorts of educated people arguing for anything ridiculous.
There are many scientists and engineers who argue for creationism or UFO visits, but that doesn't mean they are right.

When my brother finished his masters in computer science, one of his classmates wrote a rambling manifesto on how the shroud of turin was genuine and then enrolled in one of the strictest christian monasteries where he still works as a janitor / kitchen help because everything is done in latin and he is bad with languages. That guy was a trained professional as well, and finished one of the most difficult educations in our universities. And I could give lots of examples of teachers of mine (with masters degrees and / or PHds) which were fit for the psych ward.

Titles and degrees are no guarantee for sanity or clarity of mind.

Now, I have watched documentaries in nat geo about 911 truthers, and have seen good refutations of all major accusations. What went on politically and how much was known in advance is another angle, and one which I don't want to get into here. But when it comes to the collapse of the towers, My knowledge and experience tell me that no foul play was involved.

Or to draw another analogy: there are still people who believe that the moon landing was staged despite massive amounts of proof to the contrary. It still doesn't change a thing, and I actually know a military engineer who still says it couldn't have happened.

 

[Ken Morgan]

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Like a couple others have said about themselves, I too do not know enough about the science and engineering involved to know one way or another. But I tend to doubt most 'big' conspiracy theories, on the general premise that they just don't work - people talk. Only small secrets can be kept.

And from the point of view of expertise versus laypersons, the only conspiracy theory I can claim any expertise in is the 'fake moon landing' conspiracy theory. As a photographer, I've examined the claims made by conspiracists that the moon landing photos were faked. I can tell that they know nothing about photography. I can't tell if they're faked or not, but I can say that they are exactly what a camera would be expected to record under those circumstances. So if they are faked, the fakers got the science right regarding photography. That doesn't mean they're real, but it does mean that the people who claim they're fake based on 'errors' they think they see don't know what they're talking about.

I suspect that many 9/11 conspiracy buffs are in a similar situation; they think they see errors where a trained professional would not.

The government is big, can be evil, and generally serves itself over the people. That's bad enough. We don't need to invent stories to paint the government in a bad light; the truth is awful enough.

 

[CanuckMA]

Look at the most simple reason why it can't work.

To do a controlled demolition, you need to precisely place shaped charges on support structures.

In a building, those structures are buried behind walls.

So crews would have had to come in to the building when it was empty - impossible in an office building, there are always people working inthere.

Cut holes in walls, place and wire the charges, patch and paint the walls and be done before anybody notices.



And regarding the famous building 7 argument. Do you know what kind of structural damage was caused by the ground vibration and air displacement of the 2 towers colapsing?

 

[Makalakumu]

they think they see errors where a trained professional would not.

Great post. I tend to agree, however, in this case we now have a large group of professionals pointing out that major errors have been made with the government's story.

Regarding secrets, again, most of the time, I think the secrets get out. Even big secrets of some pretty horrible actions, performed by various governments, have eventually gotten out as time passed. Even in this case, we've had numerous individuals from inside government coming out and saying that something untoward has happened.

The curious thing (and the news story posted seems to violate this observation) is the nearly complete MSM blackout of what these people may have to say. I read an interview with a major report in the alternative press and he said something to the effect that if there was anything to this story, someone would have taken it and gotten a Pulitzer prize with it.

The interviewer then proceeded to lay down a large laundry list of people who have come forward, everyone from engineers to FBI and CIA agents, to firefighters and police, that left the reporter speechless. It's fear that keeps these guys in check. Fear of being labeled a conspiracy theorist. Fear of retaliation. Fear of losing face.

The people who looked at this stuff and signed the petition put their names down and there degrees and put all of that on the line to point out that something is amiss. Here's a list of people who have signed this petition.

http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

 

[Makalakumu]

Well, I bet you can find all sorts of educated people arguing for anything ridiculous.

Granted, you do have a point, but in this case we now have at least 1000 individuals with trained discernment who have looked deeply into the matter and now think we need a new investigation. As this number grows, this argument is going to get harder and harder to make.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Like a couple others have said about themselves, I too do not know enough about the science and engineering involved to know one way or another. But I tend to doubt most 'big' conspiracy theories, on the general premise that they just don't work - people talk. Only small secrets can be kept.

Like you, Bill, I don't know the science, but I also have trouble believing that any government is competent enough to manage a conspiracy such as this.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Like you, Bill, I don't know the science, but I also have trouble believing that any government is competent enough to manage a conspiracy such as this.

Bingo. That's an excellent point. We're talking about the government that routinely loses laptops full of taxpayer data, gets hacked, can't manage a computer upgrade for the IRS or the FAA (look up both debacles for a huge list of money-wasting failures), and yet can create this monstrous conspiracy and keep it quiet, AND manage to completely cow the MSM into silence - in and outside the USA, and through a presidential / party regime change. Nah. They're not that good. In this case, I don't think anyone is that good, but these guys, definitely not. They can't even keep gate-crashers out of a White House dinner party.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Bingo. That's an excellent point. We're talking about the government that routinely loses laptops full of taxpayer data, gets hacked, can't manage a computer upgrade for the IRS or the FAA (look up both debacles for a huge list of money-wasting failures), and yet can create this monstrous conspiracy and keep it quiet, AND manage to completely cow the MSM into silence - in and outside the USA, and through a presidential / party regime change. Nah. They're not that good. In this case, I don't think anyone is that good, but these guys, definitely not. They can't even keep gate-crashers out of a White House dinner party.

Anyone that sharp would have found the WMDs.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Anyone that sharp would have found the WMDs.

:lfao:

 

[Makalakumu]

One thing that I would like to point out is that saying that we don't know what happened and saying that the government blew up the buildings are two very different things. My personal opinion is that I think all of this research points out the fatal errors in the government's explanation of events. It does not show beyond all doubt that the government was involved in a conspiracy to blow up the buildings. It's reasonable to look at this and want a new and independent investigation.

 

[Archangel M]

One thing that I would like to point out is that saying that we don't know what happened and saying that the government blew up the buildings are two very different things. My personal opinion is that I think all of this research points out the fatal errors in the government's explanation of events. It does not show beyond all doubt that the government was involved in a conspiracy...

Oh come on! I call BS on THAT ONE.

I read through that monster of a thread I found here and you yourself has argued the "only controlled demo could do that" theory. The "government cover-up" crap is the cornerstone of all this "truther" crap. Don't try a bait and switch now.

 

[MBuzzy]

Here's the thing....1000 people agreeing on anything - particularly when I myself think they are wrong doesn't mean a whole lot. Especially when you consider just how many professional engineers (and architects are out there. Although I wouldn't even consider the opinion of an architect unless also trained as an engineer) are out there. Figure every level of municipality in the country employs AT LEAST one Civil Engineer - and that is at all levels from town, city, state, etc - every one of them. That doesn't include departments of transportation or state or municipality run construction entities. It also doesn't include private industry, who employs an order of magnitude MORE than that. Until that number reaches in the order of 50,000, major new agencies and probably the government really aren't going to take notice.

Personally, when the American Society of Civil Engineers, who incidentally conducted their own investigation, comes out in favor of these doubts, it won't take ANY convincing. To put it in perspective, ASCE is the professional organization of ALL Civil Engineers - that includes Structural engineers. In fact, the current president I believe is a structural engineer. This is the collection of all Civil Engineers (membership is pretty highly encouraged for everyone in our field), with the leadership being some of the best minds in the field. If there was any substance to these doubts and accusations, the ASCE would have found them - I have no doubt of that. Their response to the incident was very well thought out and is very respected within the community. To be perfectly honest, I trust their collective opinion more than these 1000 and more than any architect, or for that matter most OTHER types of engineers. I trust their opinion more than my own.

For new agencies and the government to take notice, you're going to need an authoritative, qualified entity to get on board and convincing them is going to require REAL evidence. Everything that I've read - as a Structural Engineer - seems kind of silly to me that these people don't know how those things are explained. Such as the collapse of Building 7 or the "explosive sections of concrete." To ME, those things are not only normal, but to be completely EXPECTED in such an incident. Particularly when considering the subsurface conditions on the island of NYC. I'm surprise more buildings weren't catastrophically damaged

 

[MBuzzy]

Another good point - as Canuck pointed out earlier, a controlled Det looks MUCH different. Even strategically placed explosives (not requiring the visible disturbances) would have caused a MUCH different demolition profile.

 

[Makalakumu]

Oh come on! I call BS on THAT ONE.

I read through that monster of a thread I found here and you yourself has argued the "only controlled demo could do that" theory. The "government cover-up" crap is the cornerstone of all this "truther" crap. Don't try a bait and switch now.

I've change my mind about a lot of thing in the past and will probably change it again. Global warming is probably the issue where I've changed my mind the most. Four years ago, I was firmly in the Al Gore camp on that one. Now? Heh. I wouldn't deny that the needle wavers back and forth, it's always in response to something I'm seeing or reading at the time. I try to take a look at the total pool of relevant evidence when looking at these things.

That said, my opinions will NOT be consistent. I'm constantly revising based on new information. Right now, I'm feeling more skeptical, but information like this tends to tip the needle back towards feeling like there really is something to alternative theories.

 

[Makalakumu]

Another good point - as Canuck pointed out earlier, a controlled Det looks MUCH different. Even strategically placed explosives (not requiring the visible disturbances) would have caused a MUCH different demolition profile.

Even in the case of Building Seven? How would a controlled demolition be different then what was witnessed?

 

[Makalakumu]

Here's the thing....1000 people agreeing on anything - particularly when I myself think they are wrong doesn't mean a whole lot. Especially when you consider just how many professional engineers (and architects are out there. Although I wouldn't even consider the opinion of an architect unless also trained as an engineer) are out there. Figure every level of municipality in the country employs AT LEAST one Civil Engineer - and that is at all levels from town, city, state, etc - every one of them. That doesn't include departments of transportation or state or municipality run construction entities. It also doesn't include private industry, who employs an order of magnitude MORE than that. Until that number reaches in the order of 50,000, major new agencies and probably the government really aren't going to take notice.

Personally, when the American Society of Civil Engineers, who incidentally conducted their own investigation, comes out in favor of these doubts, it won't take ANY convincing. To put it in perspective, ASCE is the professional organization of ALL Civil Engineers - that includes Structural engineers. In fact, the current president I believe is a structural engineer. This is the collection of all Civil Engineers (membership is pretty highly encouraged for everyone in our field), with the leadership being some of the best minds in the field. If there was any substance to these doubts and accusations, the ASCE would have found them - I have no doubt of that. Their response to the incident was very well thought out and is very respected within the community. To be perfectly honest, I trust their collective opinion more than these 1000 and more than any architect, or for that matter most OTHER types of engineers. I trust their opinion more than my own.

For new agencies and the government to take notice, you're going to need an authoritative, qualified entity to get on board and convincing them is going to require REAL evidence. Everything that I've read - as a Structural Engineer - seems kind of silly to me that these people don't know how those things are explained. Such as the collapse of Building 7 or the "explosive sections of concrete." To ME, those things are not only normal, but to be completely EXPECTED in such an incident. Particularly when considering the subsurface conditions on the island of NYC. I'm surprise more buildings weren't catastrophically damaged

Several of the people on the list are top engineering professors at major universities. They have filed official complaints about the NIST report to the major licensing agencies. They believe that these scientists should have their licenses revoked for putting out these reports with obviously flawed conclusions. We'll see what happens with that...