An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T's List of Demolition Signs

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
Seeing you are smarter than 1.500 Engineers and international experts regarding construction techniques and material sciences, I'm sure you own a Fortune 500 enterprise yourself. I'm surprised, and feel honored at the same time, that a capacity like you does find the time posting his analysis on these very forums. I stand in awe.


I'm almost sorry I didnt respond to this one sooner.

Your "experts" are better than the actual experts at ASCE, NIST, ICE? I stand in awe. I didnt know an interior home designer is considered an expert in construction techniques and demolition. I didnt know an electrical engineer is an "expert" in demolition.

I doubt you even know the significance of the names and their professions on AE9/11T. A good 99% have about as much say regarding 9/11 as a theologian does about nuclear physics.




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I'm almost sorry I didnt respond to this one sooner.

Your "experts" are better than the actual experts at ASCE, NIST, ICE? I stand in awe. I didnt know an interior home designer is considered an expert in construction techniques and demolition. I didnt know an electrical engineer is an "expert" in demolition.

I doubt you even know the significance of the names and their professions on AE9/11T. A good 99% have about as much say regarding 9/11 as a theologian does about nuclear physics.


(Disclaimer, I don't care about argument from authority from either side of the debate.)

Yeah, it's the old game of moving the goal posts. If someone is an architect, he should be structural engineer or he doesn't know what he's talking about. If he's a controlled demolition expert, he should be a mechanical engineer and a chemist or he doesn't know what he's talking about. If he's a physicist, he should be an architect, or he doesn't know what he's talking about. If he's a .....

Apparently, 'debunkers' need someone who has a bachelors degree, a masters degree, a PhD, a doctorate and a professor's tenure in physics, fire dynamics, chemistry, analytical chemistry, nanochemistry, physical chemistry, chemical physics, structural engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, architecture, metallurgy, forensic biology, mathematics, nuclear physics, politicology, philosophy, journalism, historiography, English literature and should be licensed controlled demolitionist before they have any authority on any subject.

Of course, single issue academics from the 'debunker' camp need only be degreed in one field before they are a straight up Oracle of Delphi on everything from biblical Genesis to collision dynamics to geopolitics and entomology.

Keep moving those goalposts, changing the rules and making new demands!



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


While your comment has some validity, it's also true to say that AE911 Truth - or more accurately those who cite its petition - frequently exaggerate the skills of its signatories. They do this specifically as an appeal to authority. And I often see the nature of the petition and the question asked exaggerated to make it seem more extreme than it is.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Is the new AE911 petition different from the previous petition? The new one states:

"Please Take Notice That:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned" www2.ae911truth.org...

As I remember, the original only asked for a reinvestigation and didn't have the "full inquiry into the possible use of explosives" phrase. Did many unsuspecting people sign a different petition only to have this petition become the "petition?"
You will all be happy to know that the AE911 site has offered a 20% discount on its store items in a bid to discount the truth, so to speak, and offers the "Special Activist Pack" for a mere $230. It is a "$289 value designed for serious activists. Save 20% off our already discounted bulk pricing!" shop.ae911truth.org...
Note that the T-shirt for $18.95 shop.ae911truth.org... has 9/11 EXPLOSIVE Evidence printed on it which certainly makes the case for the T-Shirt purchasers.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


While your comment has some validity, it's also true to say that AE911 Truth - or more accurately those who cite its petition - frequently exaggerate the skills of its signatories. They do this specifically as an appeal to authority. And I often see the nature of the petition and the question asked exaggerated to make it seem more extreme than it is.


Suppose you have two experts saying contradictory things, you bring in a third, he sides with one of either, you bring in a fourth, the field is level again.. In the end, you'll simply have to educate yourself as much as possible in order to draw your own conclusions, much as what a judge does when he hears expert testimony. (We don't have a jury system in my country)

That said, yes, some experts on the side of AE911Truth carry less clout with me than e.g. Bazant. But Bazant isn't omniscient either. And he never did write about WTC 7, according to Greening because he didn't dare touch the subject. Doesn't mean this is 'proof' of controlled demolition. I simply take 'expertise' with a grain of salt these days, and calmly wait, consider and compare.

Remember, there were plenty of 'experts' who said the fires had melted the steel, until prof. Eagar explained why this was impossible. Hell, even Bin Laden (an engineer) said it...

The 'Oregon Petition' w.r.t. to Climate Denial shows convincingly why argument from misleading authority and consensus truth are bad counsel.

All AE911Truth wishes to do, is use argument from authority to open the debate. Argument from authority alone can never truly settle any debate.
edit on 7-2-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


My issue is that all of these that signed on to their list, should have used some reading and critical thinking skills before going along.

This is why I brought up the list they have on the home page, because 90% of the list is a load of horse dung and should have been caught by the "experts", or at least noticed and corrected, if they have any intelligence whatsoever.

However, all this appeal to authority, let me remind you of this old joke that still rings true today. What do you call a medical student that finished last in his PhD. class? Doctor.

Just because they have a bachelors or a doctorate does not make them God. Nor does it make them all knowing in other fields. Best example: Dr. Griffin. What right does a person with a doctorate in THEOLOGY have commentary regarding highrise construction, demolition, chemistry, engineering, etc? NONE. Yet, he opens his mouth, writes a books based solely on personal incredulity and psuedo-science, and he is hailed as a hero and father of the modern truth movement. But this is about as credible as having a veterinarian write a book on how to build bridges and dams.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



This post from 2007, not long after Gage started AE9/11 truth, indicates that it is probably the original petition text.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Here's the problem: the overwhelming majority of the AE911truth petition signers have not done serious research into the question. Of course that is not a requirement to sign a petiton.

The way this works is as follows: Richard Gage sends out information promoting his talks to architecture firms for "lunch and learns" this is a combination of education and advertisement; companies that sell building products such as flooring, windows, metal cladding, and etc, will give an educational presentation containing a modest amount of technical information, followed by some information about the company's specific products. The company representatives bring lunch for all who want to attend, typically pizza, sandwiches and soda, and a bag of chips. Most lunch and learns are attended in order to fulfill professionals' continuing education requirements Which presentations are heard may be voted on by the staff, or decided on by the principals, or even the secretary. After the presentation is heard, attendees typically sign and date a sheet that verifies their attendance and thus, their eligibility for continuing education credits.

Richard Gage taps into this routine to gain a captive audience for his spiel. My point in laying all this out is that we shouldn't give much credence to the signatories, not because they are necessarily incompetent professionals, but because there is little evidence that they have used their expertise and training in making the decision to sign the petition or not.

What matters more than the number of signatures on the page is whether these people have articulated an explanation for the building collapses that is rigorous and makes use of their professional expertise and experience. So far, all we know is that they got lunch and signed a piece of paper.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


That is what I suspected. I do not doubt their abilities in their field, however I highly doubt they actually did research or even gave a second thought in regards to what Gage is pushing. They jut signed on blindly, and I very much doubt they have any clue to what exactly Gage is pushing.

They may agree that there needs to be a better investigation into what happened prior to 9/11, all the intel failures, the CYA, and all the bungling and banana peel slipping in intel failures. But most got suckered in without the real facts.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So after seven pages, not too many have really done much to go up against the OP. Aside from the trolls, I really havent seen the type of defense of the points brought up by those that religiously follow and believe AE9/11T. I've only seen maybe two or thee posts that addressed the points brought up, but not much of a rebuttal. I figured as much.
edit on 2/7/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)


Your a waste of time to argue with. I already made my case, you have no firsthand knowledge, experience or credentials on anything related to the topic you made. No one needs to convince you anything because you don't WANT to be convinced of anything, you believe 9/11 happened as the government said it happened and that's that for you.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 

Thanks for the link. I am also looking for the petition that was at an architectual or ASME meeting. Maybe they were all asking for an investigation that looked for explosives. If the petition is ever granted, I wonder when enough testing will be done.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 

...I wonder when enough testing will be done.


when they get to the troof.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 

...I wonder when enough testing will be done.


when they get to the troof.


Yes, that seems to be a problem. Discussions in several threads about who would do such a reinvestigation and what the limits would be seem to indicate those that ask for a reinvestigation would continue it indefinitely. Unless evidence of explosives is found, the investigation would not be complete. Ending before the desired result is apparently not an option.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
Your a waste of time to argue with. I already made my case, you have no firsthand knowledge, experience or credentials on anything related to the topic you made. No one needs to convince you anything because you don't WANT to be convinced of anything, you believe 9/11 happened as the government said it happened and that's that for you.


No, all you did was troll on and on. You didnt comment on any of the points I addressed, nor tried to even rationalize their gross errors and lies.

You do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that most of the crap on AE9/11T is actual crap. But instead of you being a troll, how about you show me where I am wrong, or where I need "firsthand knowledge" or "experience" or "credentials" to comment on the comedy of errors on the AE9/11T site. Most of the stuff I wrote about is just the basics that an intelligent person should be able to notice and figure is wrong.

Please, show me where I need "special credetials" to point out the double standard of the truthers in using firefighter testimony? Why do I need it to put commentary into context, or to include testimony that the truthers convienantly left out and claim didnt happen?

Enough of your trolling and start acting like an intelligent, contributing member of ATS. Deny ignorance, not embrace and promote it.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


That's a generous assessment of AE911's intentions. I'd be interested if Pteridine's contention above were true. Certainly that seems more typical of their modus operandi than your rosy notions of their methods.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


It's my opinion as a previous insider. Other previous insiders have a different assessment, that's true. I won't shy away from criticism of AE911Truth but most of the 'grifter' accusations are little more than frustrated hate speech.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


I dont believe the "grifter" term is towards the signers of the petition, as it is more towards Richard Gage and Steven Jones and Dr. Griffin. They are the pushers of this, and the best example is their poor list that I have addressed. Their presentation methods shout "snakeoil salesman" and/or "grifter.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
sreply to post by snowcrash911
 


I am very, very interested, as an observer, about this recent admission:


It's my opinion as a previous insider.........


Dear fellow ATS member in "good standing"......I would wish to engage you in a "discussion".

I happen to be a bit familiar with aspects of aviation....so on THIS topic (Of the so-called "A&Efor911Truth") I can speak (or type) directly to how so-called "A&E49/11Truth" attempt to skew the facts, as regards aviation.....I CAN CLEAR THOSE UP......just ask me.....




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Well... I'm kinda confused as to what you mean here... is AE911Truth making claims about airplanes? Maybe Deets and his embarrassing Pentagon moonlighting, but I can handle him myself.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


AE911"Truth" have been getting their slimy little fingers into many aspects of "9/11 lore and myth"....to include being cited frequently ("Argument to Authority") by that other little "club", the so-called "Pilots" for "Truth".

So yes, there are examples of cross-pollinating occurring......





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join