It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another Look at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bilk22

The reason the OP is so long is BECAUSE proof was presented. Just because it spells a story you don't like doesn't make it a hoax. Try again.


There was no "proof" in the OP, just a bunch of unfounded claims, deflections, mixed with some already known facts meant to confuse people from the truth and make them feel guilty if they question the official story.

op posts this rubbish all the time, are you really falling for what the op presented? If so which part convinced you?




posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bilk22

Did you miss all the links interspersed throughout his paragraphs that back up his claims? That is called proof. Seeing how his OP was three posts long, I find it unlikely that you clicked every one of those links to dismiss them as valid proof.


Maybe the scattered links and videos could be considered as evidence of the op's opinion, but proof? Not even close...lol



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: real_one

Looked pretty well written to me. He made some good comparisons to things like the amount of engineers that are members of the website versus the number of architects and engineers in the world as well as the type of engineers. After reading that thread, it established quite well that AE991 for truth is not a very reliable source when citing physics claims about the towers collapsing. But I can see why a truther would think it is disinfo. Can't have you guys accepting contradicting evidence, that would force you to admit that your ideas stand on shaky grounds.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: real_one




There was no "proof" in the OP, just a bunch of unfounded claims, deflections, mixed with some already known facts meant to confuse people from the truth and make them feel guilty if they question the official story.


I love how people keep accusing me of using dodgy sources or in this case unfounded claims considering that the main source of this thread is the A&E for 9/11 truth website. I have no idea what deflections you are talking about and you may have known some of the facts presented in this thread but that is not to say every one else doe.

Secondly this is not about making people feel guilty about questioning the official story, I question the official story all the time and never feel guilty about it.



op posts this rubbish all the time, are you really falling for what the op presented? If so which part convinced you?


I always find this a little offensive and disappointing but not surprising. I have said this before, but I will say it again, most of the time I use ATS as a educational tool, so last week I wanted to research more into A&E for 9/11 truth which I did and I then use ATS as a platform to organise my findings and present them. In a way its not really for anyone's benefit other than my own. I am not trying to change anyone's mind but when i see utter ignorance being presented as fact on the boards I will argue my case.

That said I do like a little bit of appreciation (thank you to the mods for the applauses and my other member for their kind U2U's) and its really annoying when my research is branded "rubbish" by someone who presents no argument of their own. In almost every thread I write on 9/11 I do my best to load it with sources and always try to ignore any personal bias. If you do not like where that evidence and logic leads to that is your problem, go and do your own research and present a solid fact based counter argument.

You don't think A&E for 9/11 truth is a questionable source, fine show my a factual logical argument to back up that assertion and I might just develop a modicum of respect for you.
edit on 28-3-2015 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I think it is funny that there are some calling links "dodgy", when every single "fact" that comes from that side is far from being legit.

It is ok for them to use links and youtube videos though, and they take it as the "truth".

Nice op and informative.
edit on 28-3-2015 by liejunkie01 because: spelling sorry



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

Thanks for that dude,

Its always nice to get some feed back from my fellow members.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Its worth reading this page

www.ae911truth.org...

To see how many of the signatories are not qualified in structural engineering but are instead engineers from other professions, such as electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, chemical engineers etc.

The term "engineer" is a blanket one. Even a lot of architects are not fully qualified structural engineers and employ people seperately to check their designs.

Take those things into consideration and suddenly the 2340 starts to shrink considerably.

Its a poster child for always checking your sources



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Here is another BOLD FACE LIE on the ae911 site.



Yes. Airplane impact tests that were conducted during the design of the Twin Towers showed that the skyscrapers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which has more energy upon impact than the 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11.

The b707 is smaller physically and weighs less than the b767.

If people want to research things about 911 maybe they should start researching the conspiracy websites them selves.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
None of what I'm about to say is fact, only speculation. I'm only suggesting that maybe there is more to that quote than you are allowing for. Perhaps they mean that a fully loaded b707 passenger and fuel wise (the maximum known potential force to be Exerted by an airplane to the building) would have provided more energy than a passenger airliner with only something like 30 percent passenger capacity and therefore NOT loaded with maximum fuel. I'm not even saying I agree with that. just something to consider to say maybe they weren't lying. a reply to: samkent



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
First of all, great thread and probably a more important one than people are giving it at the moment. It's good to understand the motives behind each potential source of information. I agree and don't argue with the potential interest conflicts and the credibility of the AEfor911truth members based on credentials. To completely
Contradict myself though, regardless of the motive what this group has accomplished is to challenge the other organizations to dig in and really stand behind their claims. That's all anyone can do. It's important to note the difference between Gage promoting alternative theories that may or may not be true vs. Gage simply questioning and challenging the "authorities" to back up and prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt. That's all any of us can do, and this doesn't require any credentials or standing in any professional field. We need to disassociate his trust in the official story from his engineer status. Also, I would say that if he really is misusing his AIA title inappropriately on such an important issue it would be legally possible to stop him. Maybe not, but I'd like to know more about that.

So as I said while I don't disagree with the questioning of the validity of the group's professional standing, I then would have to look at the groups you cite as upstanding professionals:


All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.


I'll address this kind of line by line. Yes, all of Gage's papers and studies are peer reviewed because he can't hide behind veils such as "jeopardizing public safety" or "in the interest of national security" whenever anyone asks him a tough question. Maybe there is some flaws in his work, but I'm trying to really hammer home that his most important achievement isn't to present his own theories to be refuted. It's to question the other theories. To that point, FEMA and NIST, while apparently both agreeing to reject Gage, do not agree with each other on their findings based on their own separate reports. The main difference to me is that NIST doesn't even claim to have steel from building 7 where FEMA does. If they aren't even basing their independent analysis on the same information how are they automatically to be more trusted? Please correct me if some of these statements are just me regurgitating conspiracy arguments, I mean that because if I am and it's proven the opposite then it's a large point won. Is it not true that NIST has never released it's computer simulations to be peer reviewed or their results found to be repeated by a separate organization? I don't know about the American society of civil engineers but did they ever do their own investigation or are they just "agreeing" with the possibility of the NIST report? I say possibility because it's important to ask whether they agree simply that this COULD have happened or are any of them actually saying for sure THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED? Those are two very different kind of supports. The 9/11 commission certainly has no professional standing and are a question mark all their own in general. finally we have popular mechanics. I really don't know either way why they suddenly became the authority but again I ask did they just go through the NIST report and give technical reasons why it could have happened or did they do their own studies to try and repeat the findings using their own sources? I will also say that one of the biggest supporters and spewers of the popular mechanics article and book is a man called Michael shermer, founder of skeptics magazine who makes a lot of money off this type of stuff, who I've talked to via e-mail personally and who I feel is only marginally less of a crackpot than Alex jones.
I guess I'm countering your very legitimate worries over the motives of the AE9/11truth movement with concerns of my own that perhaps some of these reputed sources on the other side either have questionable motives, lack of professional qualifications , or aren't experts that have peer reviewed and duplicated the official findings either but are just trusting the work done by the original "experts" and offering more of a moral support shoulder.

edit on 1-4-2015 by TheBolt because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt




Perhaps they mean that a fully loaded b707 passenger and fuel wis





The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Ok, so I'd be curious to know if the takeoff weight for either flight 11 or flight 175 exceeded 336,000 pounds. a reply to: samkent



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

I have gave you a star for this post because I believe its probably the best counter argument for my OP put forward thus far.

I will try to address as many of your points as i can.



That's all anyone can do. It's important to note the difference between Gage promoting alternative theories that may or may not be true vs. Gage simply questioning and challenging the "authorities" to back up and prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt.


For a lot of people it already has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, that is unless you are posting on a conspiracy forum. Additionally, Gage is doing more than just looking for a new investigation, his group actively supports the controlled demolition by thermite conspiracy theory based on some highly questionable science. (Link)




Also, I would say that if he really is misusing his AIA title inappropriately on such an important issue it would be legally possible to stop him. Maybe not, but I'd like to know more about that.


As I pointed out in the OP AIA have distanced themselves from Gage and his group, they do not like that he uses AIA as some kind of status symbol to back up his claims that the AIA themselves do not agree with. I do not know about the procedure for having a AIA member removed.



Yes, all of Gage's papers and studies are peer reviewed


Show me one peer reviewed paper he has written that has been published in a reputable journal regarding 9/11 (Note: The Journal of 9/11 studies is not reputable)



To that point, FEMA and NIST, while apparently both agreeing to reject Gage, do not agree with each other on their findings based on their own separate reports.


Both are different reports in the FEMA Report they stated that they could not definitively conclude what has caused the collapse of WTC-7 and that further research would be required. NIST provided that further research, there disagreement is not surprising nor is it proof of anything.



Is it not true that NIST has never released it's computer simulations to be peer reviewed or their results found to be repeated by a separate organization?


Yes this is true, however that is itself does not prove anything its more of a what I call a anomaly with the official story, something that on its own does not quite make sense but when looked at in the bigger picture does not really hold much significance.



I don't know about the American society of civil engineers but did they ever do their own investigation or are they just "agreeing" with the possibility of the NIST report?


They had a active role in both investigations, not only did they agree but they assisted with the research and stand by it as a organisation.



finally we have popular mechanics. I really don't know either way why they suddenly became the authority


Popular mechanics is one of the biggest technology and science magazines, they actually consulted over 300 experts from range backgrounds in compiling their article and subsequent book on debunking 9/11 conspiracies.



but again I ask did they just go through the NIST report and give technical reasons why it could have happened or did they do their own studies to try and repeat the findings using their own sources?


Have you read the book, like i said they conducted their own research with the help of over 300 experts.



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Thank you for the star. I appreciate the understanding about points in open discussion. I would like to point out right here for anyone who may not know that I only question the official story and therefore these points countering the integrity of the questioners not necessarily because I don't believe the official story underneath it all, but more on the basis of what I feel is unconvincing "proof" of the official story and the suggestion that any investigation on the official side didn't really even consider any other outcome. To the topic of this thread in particular I don't really buy the Gage and AE9/11truth thermite theory because they aren't selling enough to back it up. However:


For a lot of people it already has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, that is unless you are posting on a conspiracy forum. Additionally, Gage is doing more than just looking for a new investigation, his group actively supports the controlled demolition by thermite conspiracy theory based on some highly questionable science. (Link)


Like I said, I agree completely that Gage and his thermite theories are based on some questionable science and unverifiable forensic evidence at the WTC site. to me though, as I have consistently maintained, the lack of a better alternative is no reason to believe the official story. I also underhand that you specifically have explained to me in other threads that you have your own reasons for leaning toward the official story but I also know how much you've researched to form your opinion. Others who haven't considered all the facts need to do so and make up their own mind. Some say it has been proven beyond a reasonable doesn't already but I implore you to remember where you were before you did all your research. Look only at what has been presented to us from the official organizations and it really isn't that clear.
In support of this:


Both are different reports in the FEMA Report they stated that they could not definitively conclude what has caused the collapse of WTC-7 and that further research would be required. NIST provided that further research, there disagreement is not surprising nor is it proof of anything.


NIST did provide further research and it remains in my mind inconclusive. They as I said before were basing their investigation on different facts than FEMA, not just expanding on it. The number one issue is that FEMA said it had steel from building 7, which it catalogued and had photos of, etc. NIST did NOT have steel from building 7. This is actually less information to work with in that case. Also


Is it not true that NIST has never released it's computer simulations to be peer reviewed or their results found to be repeated by a separate organization? Yes this is true, however that is itself does not prove anything its more of a what I call a anomaly with the official story, something that on its own does not quite make sense but when looked at in the bigger picture does not really hold much significance.


I maintain this holds a great deal of significance. How can any body or group of independents verify this work if they can't peer review it? All they can do is study the results and discuss whether it is possible. This is a big part of the basis for the counter against AE9/11truth, that these other more reputable sources back up NIST. They can't look at the calculations and factors NIST considered and fully duplicate them because they have no access. I want to make sure there is the distinguishment of the meaning of the term "support". I submit that when choosing between Gage and NISTit is reasonable and telling that these other bodies have chosen NIST. I ask one thing: do they say they support NIST and agree with their science and he possibility of the results as what COULD have happened or do they fully commit and say "yes we believe this IS WHAT HAPPENED"? I'm going to use one of the most unscientific arguments ever posted on any engineering discussion forum in history here but please indulge me. Lol. In the movie miracle on 34th street, *spoiler alert* the judge rules that he sides with the post office and confirms that the individual person is in fact Santa Claus. Now, would you walk away from that telling everyone the judge actually believes this man to be Santa Claus or is it safer to say he simply left the onus on the Post Office but supported their decision because it would have been career or political suicide to not do so? For me these reputable scientific organizations aren't wrong in denouncing Gage's alternate explanations, but I can't accept that as reasonable doubt that NIST is right.



but again I ask did they just go through the NIST report and give technical reasons why it could have happened or did they do their own studies to try and repeat the findings using their own sources? Have you read the book, like i said they conducted their own research with the help of over 300 experts.


They did have their own experts but did you go through this list the same way you went through Gage's list of experts? How many have expertise in the actual field of structural engineering related to high rise construction? Maybe they all do, I don't know, but I just want to make sure you do. This to me though is the same as anything else. You and I are no more qualified than anyone. All we can do is ask the experts. Popular mechanics did little more than what you have done really. You've done your own independent research. What I mean though is to have someone go put their hands on the evidence like it was the first time it was handled and do up models as if no one has ever done one on this before. A real, fresh, honest to goodness independent investigation considering all the options. These experts from what I can tell only set out to investigate what they were told.
Plus, popular mechanics didn't only focus on the collapse but attempted to debunk almost everything else as well. Gage makes the mistake of going to far by not just questioning what we were told and asking for further explanation but by expanding to suggest some unfounded and risky alternate theories which undermines his credibility and honesty of intention which is exactly what this thread is about. Popular mechanics, a long standing scientific journal, makes the unfortunate error of trying to shoot down all other questions, even non science related ones. They take many liberties and make some pretty bold and unfounded statements of their own on topics they really have no authority on. If they had stuck to the science it's hard to argue but with all the rest it makes it easy to question their integrity and intentions as well. Then you have sceptics magazine immediately touting all this information and I have to wonder how closely tied is this 100 year old institution to a half baked professional conspiracy debunker.
I guess even after what you responded with I still have the same questions.

I know this is long but I need to clear one thing up. I must have misused the term "peer reviewed" when speaking of Gage. What I meant was that all his papers and claims are accessible to scrutiny from every avenue, professional or otherwise while NIST and other official sources are able to put out information as they see fit and chalk everything else under "threat to national security".





a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
If I may add something to this discussion, I've already posted this video a couple of times, but have yet to receive a response from any of the NIST supporters. In this vid the presenter makes some pretty important criticisms of the NIST report.




posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   
The average salary of a CEO managing a nonprofit with a budget of less than $499,999 annually is $60,206 for 2014. This according to a Nonprofit Times report. Seems given the fact Gage performs multiple roles in the organization, he is actually on par with the average salary in the industry.
edit on 27-1-2016 by Snails because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2016 by Snails because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Snails




he is actually on par with the average salary in the industry.

The point remains that he and his crew are making a living perpetuating a conspiracy that he is not qualified to deduce.
Essentially he is profiting off the deaths of 3000 people.
At least the undertaker(s) provided a service for their fee.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Flawed NIST report???? Where's your documentation that it's flawed?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Snails




he is actually on par with the average salary in the industry.

The point remains that he and his crew are making a living perpetuating a conspiracy that he is not qualified to deduce.
Essentially he is profiting off the deaths of 3000 people.
At least the undertaker(s) provided a service for their fee.


And I suppose that a plane accident investigator is profiting off the deaths of the plane passengers when he conducts his enquiry?
Really! These comments are just stupid ad hominems. If you don't have anything intelligent to add to a thread, why post on it? Gage is not trying to perpetuate a conspiracy. All he is trying to do is to bring the general public's attention to facts about 9/11 that contradict the official account of what happened on that day.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi




All he is trying to do is to bring the general public's attention to facts about 9/11 that contradict the official account of what happened on that day.

Year after year, dollar after dollar.
He's never shown what type of explosives and where they were placed.
He's never shown any proof of explosives.
He's never shown proof that the trusses and beams were not weakened by heat.

He has zero experience in designing sky scrapers.
If you bother to research his real world design experience you will find it's limited to rather small structures.

If he's the 'do gooder' that you feel he is why doesn't he have any other job other than ae911?




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join