As an engineer, I am disappointed with A&E-4-9/11truth

I hope I'm not overstepping the ATS bounds with this thread, but, I was just to A&E-4-9/11truth's website and I have to say, I'm as dissapointed with them as I am with NIST. Are we not professionals anymore?

One thing that clued me in was that they have "blue-prints" on their front page. "Blue-pirints" were rare after 1940. In 1940, we started using "white-prints" with a white background and blue lines. Sometimes called "blue-lines".

Seriuosly. Are we being "jived" by both sides?

[edit on 11/10/2008 by Griff]

I'm with ya Griff....

A&E Founder Richard Gage.....

Reply button isn't working.

I hear ya TY. Gage is an architect. I will not say anything bad about architects as they go through a gruelling trial to get where they are also. But, a structural engineer it does not make them. Hell, I am a structural engineer, but, I know that the tower's collapses etc. are over my head in many ways. If anyone claims any differently, you have to question IMO. That is not a slight on anyone. Here nor there.

Sorry. I forgot to link where I saw them.

www.ae911truth.org...

I'm skeptical because I think they shouldn't be "blue-prints" in the 1960's. If someone knows any different, please let me know. As I have found that "blue-lines" started in the 40's, which is what I was used to when I produced them in the early 90's. Now, we just use "black-lines". AKA "drawings".

[edit on 11/10/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff

I'm not a technical guy like you Griff or a party animal like Throaty (although I must admit I aspire to be like Throaty), so could you give me a little more detail here about why the use of the term "blueprints" disturbs you. Is it on the documents they have for download, thus marking them as forgeries, or is it simply their use of incorrect jargon.

If it is the latter, maybe they are just trying to make themselves understood by ordinary people who don't know the current jargon terms.

Was there anything else that you didn't like about them?

[edit on 10-11-2008 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


Yea. like on mythbusters, they use blue print paper even though it's outdated - why? because it's something people recognise

I don't think the term 'blue-print' will ever go away regardless of the technique used to produce hard copies of the original draftsman's work on transparent film. We were using the standard UV exposure method of quickly making full size prints of original drawings as late as the 1990s but admittedly they were were not white on blue, that's just related to the type of sensitized paper, exposure and developing. These days the originals are digitally stored and hard copies are produced on large XY plotters or simply viewable on a monitor.

Classical indian ink draftsmen were becoming an endangered species in the 90s with the introduction of autocad type applications. The drawings on the A&E site are obvious printed copies (note the random spots) - I'd be more interested in whether they are accurate and up to date and who has the original transparencies with all amendments included.

Edit: to remove the word 'heliograph' which is a communication system but that's what we called the machine that made the prints, probably incorrectly.



[edit on 11/11/2008 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I'm not a technical guy like you Griff or a party animal like Throaty (although I must admit I aspire to be like Throaty), so could you give me a little more detail here about why the use of the term "blueprints" disturbs you. Is it on the documents they have for download, thus marking them as forgeries, or is it simply their use of incorrect jargon.

On the page I linked to, they are shown as blueprints with white lines and blue background. Unless they have the original copies and they are really blueprints, why are they shown like this? Because when you click on the link to view them, they are scanned copies (can't really tell whether they where blueprints or not). Why not just show them as they are? Why be grandiose and show them as blueprints? I'm not saying they're forgeries, just saying it's a little dishonest IMO.

If it is the latter, maybe they are just trying to make themselves understood by ordinary people who don't know the current jargon terms.

I thought about this, but they actually show them as blueprints on their page. If they actually have photographed images of the original "blueprints" (if they were blueprints), why can I only view the shotty scanned images that you can't really read?

Was there anything else that you didn't like about them?

What happened to their forum? Why do they have a store to buy things?

reply to post by Pilgrum


Have you ever had a paper cut from the blueline paper before the salts were exposed? Ouch. Double wammy.

Originally posted by Griff
Have you ever had a paper cut from the blueline paper before the salts were exposed? Ouch. Double wammy.

I had the developing solution get into paper cuts if that counts. Lets you know your nerves are functioning properly.

The sensitised paper we used had a yellow coating that created positive copies IE developed black where UV didn't hit it, white where it did.

reply to post by Griff


www.ae911truth.org...

Wow!

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The sensitised paper we used had a yellow coating that created positive copies IE developed black where UV didn't hit it, white where it did.

Same thing we used to use. Mylar cuts are the only thing I've found to be worse.

So correct me if I am wrong the only problem with ae911truth.org is the blueprint graphic?

How about the substance on the sight? Do you agree with any of that?

Just wondering.

reply to post by Niobis


Look at the link I posted a few posts up. Maybe I'm not being clear enough about what I'm saying?

I'll put some pictures to help.

Here is how they show them on their page



Here is how they come up when viewed.



Now, if they have images of the originals (which might be clearer than a scan) why can I only view the crappy scanned images?

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
How about the substance on the sight? Do you agree with any of that?

It's been awhile since I've really delved into their site so, I'm going by memory here. Some I agree with. Some I don't. But, I will say that I am still a signed member there and so far, this isn't enough to make me withdraw my signature.

In the construction trade if you refer any show drawings or the structural pages if you refer to them as anything but blueprints,they will give you a blank stare,whats so upsetting about that?

What is so upsetting is that on the webpage, they show them as actual blueprints, but when you go to view them, they are scanned images with no "blue" in them whatsoever. So, they either "made" the blueprints on their site look like that or they have the actual images of the originals.

If they have the actual images of the originals, why aren't they viewable?

If they made those prints look like that on their site just so people can understand that they are drawings, then it is dishonest IMO. Because it makes it look like they themselves have the original blueprints (if they were indeed blueprints and not blacklines, bluelines etc.)

That's my beef. It's just showing a level of dishonesty that I would like to not see from a group claiming to support the "truth".

[edit on 11/11/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there an issue of some kind in regard to the blueprints of the World Trade Center? Isnt it true that it wasn't possibe to view the actual blueprints? Or am I thinking of another set of technical drawings?

On another point, these buildings were built back in the 1970s were they not? I'm assuming that "blueprints" were actually blue at that time.

I looked at one of the black and white drawings that are available for download and the only thing that occurred to me was that the printing, in block letters, wasn't very neat. I remember the engineering guys in my residence at university as being, generally, neat freaks with much better printing skills. But that was a long time ago, during the age of the slide rule.

Maybe there is some legit reason why they did not reproduce the drawings in blue? Would that have required a legal release of some kind from the owner of the buildings or the architectural firm? Just a thought.



[edit on 11-11-2008 by ipsedixit]

Reply button still isn't working for me.

You bring up good points ipsedixit but, I think they manipulated the pics of the documents they use in their web page.

If they scanned a blueprint that has a dark background, wouldn't the backround be the dark part of the scans instead of the printing?

I remember when these first got "leaked". The links of the the black printing on a white background were what was leaked. I'd like to know where Gage got those images of the white lettering with blue background. And if he has the originals, why isn't it mentioned anywhere?

reply to post by Griff


I saved the blue image from the website to my computer and enlarged it with IrfanView. the image amounts to a low resolution thumbnail that is impossible to read. I don't even know for sure that it represents blueprints of the WTC. Maybe this is a case of web designer artistic licence that is not really an image of WTC blueprints, but just "artwork".

Could the leaked documents have been printed out from stolen computer data in a process far removed from the 1970's? Obviously not I guess, because they are obviously produced by some optical process. Maybe stolen optical images of the original blue blueprints were changed to black and white images in photoshop because it was thought that it would enhance their legibility.

I'm out of my depth here and just tossing ideas around. Have you inquired about this with A@E for 9/11 Truth?

Edit to Add: I just looked again at your uploaded images and the white one looks like a photocopy to me. These are undoubtedly stolen photocopies of the original "blue" prints. Maybe the blue images from the website are photoshopped versions of a couple of the b@w photocopies made to look more authentic for web design purposes. That would be my bet about what is going on there.

Second edit: Scratch the first edit. Sorry, I just had a minor brain cramp. It would take more than that to reverse the black and white tones.


[edit on 11-11-2008 by ipsedixit]