Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Originally Posted by Latindancer
This whole business was gone through previously in the "9/11...what really happened?" thread (which I suggest you read if you have the time), in which ENT showed his true colours. He is a cross between a troll and a complete fvckwit.

I'll save myself the trouble - I doubt that there is anything new in that thread ;-)

Good decision. If you are interested at all to get deeper into the mindset of ENT, I would recommend to read this thread he started instead.

https://teakdoor.com/issues/101486-hy...tive-fuel.html

Originally Posted by Moonraker

1,700. WOW

There's over 1 million firefighters in the us and god knows how many architects, yet the nut jobs managed to amass a staggering 1,700 signatures asking for an investigation.

That's nearly 0.0017 of a percent of the firemen alone. What an overwhelming response, I'm convinced.

OK, I misread read that a little. It's not fire fighters, it's architects and engineers.

How many architects and engineers are there in the US?

This might help, from the government labour statistics website: Architecture and Engineering Occupations : Occupational Outlook Handbook : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

I've tried to stick to only the relevant fields, not sure if I can say the same for the nut jobs.....

Quick Facts: Architects
Number of Jobs, 2010: 113,700

Quick Facts: Civil Engineering Technicians
Number of Jobs, 2010: 79,000

Quick Facts: Civil Engineers
Number of Jobs, 2010: 262,800

Total = 455,500

So under those select few categories are 455,500 workers. 1,700 signatures represents 0.0037 of the pool.

Hansuman, you are getting excited about a petition which 99.9963% of architects and engineers HAVE NOT signed.

FAQ #6: Why does AE911Truth Represent Only a Small Percentage of Architects and Engineers?
Written by John-Michael Talboo Wednesday, 14 December 2011 16:03


Q. Isn’t it true that the signatories at AE911Truth represent only a small percentage of all architects and engineers worldwide?

Regardless of the hundreds of architects and engineers
who have signed the AE911Truth petition demanding a
new investigation, the evidence for the WTC controlled
demolition stands on its own

A. Those who raise this point often do so in an attempt to avoid dealing with the scientific evidence brought forth by AE911Truth. The real question should be, ‘Is the evidence that they are bringing forth factual and worthy of a real investigation?’ To that question, the answer is yes. It doesn’t matter whether there is one architect and one engineer, or 12, or 100, or 1,600, or 16,000. Those who question the premises offered because the number of adherents to those premises is deemed too small are engaging in a logical fallacy often referred to as an ‘appeal to majority.’

Consider this example:

“7 in 10 doctors say the pharmaceutical drug Lipitor works, therefore it must work.”

It doesn’t really matter if 10 in 10 doctors say it works: If there is insufficient evidence to support the statement, we cannot simply trust a majority of opinions – particularly if there is a vested interest in dispensing the drug. If a large number of doctors believe that it works, then all that is really worthy of our time is further investigation for evidence to support the claim, but there is insufficient reason to blindly believe the unproven statement based only on a belief by a majority.

AE911Truth accordingly places its spotlight on the evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers, and asks that people not simply believe any explanation blindly, but rather, consider all of the pertinent facts according to the scientific method.

It should also be noted that the failure to condemn the official story by such a ‘majority’ should not be viewed as an endorsement of it. One should not assume that the individuals comprising the majority opinion have all been exposed to all the relevant information on the topic. For example, a recent survey revealed that 75% of New Yorkers had never seen video footage of the destruction of WTC Building 7. It’s also true that most architects and engineers know nothing at all about the third worst structural failure in modern history.

To illustrate, a general lack of knowledge about the explosive WTC evidence was displayed among A/E professionals at the September 11, 2011, NYC premiere of the AE911Truth film, "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out," when an individual who held a professional engineer's license asked during the Q&A session why he had never heard of AE911Truth. An architect at the same screening was found in tears over the terrible implications of the evidence.

Fox News Channel host Geraldo Rivera expressed great surprise when he invited Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer and signer of the AE911Truth petition, on his program in late 2010. For years prior to that, Mr. Rivera was dismissive of the 9/11 truth movement, but stated that he was, "much more open-minded about it… due to the involvement of 9/11 family members and the 1,300 architects and engineers.” In reference to the Remember Building 7 campaign, he said:
"What caught my eye is their claim that more than 1,300 architects and engineers examined the evidence about Building 7 and disagree with the official report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology."
It is also important to note that during each of over 200 live presentations of the evidence detailed in our documentary, 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, a show of hands afterwards consistently revealed that at least 85% of those who were either unsure or who accepted the prevailing opinion about the Twin Towers’ destruction beforehand wound up agreeing with the evidence for controlled demolition after seeing it.

In addition, there is no way to calculate how many A/E’s are aware of this evidence, but are unwilling to take a public stance on such a controversial matter.


Most technical experts have never had a chance
to view the or the other
pieces of evidence that confirm the controlled
demolition hypothesis

Even if the flawed argument of ‘strength in numbers’ is to be seriously considered, the comparison should actually be between the AE911Truth petition signers and those who have publicly supported the official story - after studying the evidence for controlled demolition. The latter group only consists of the several dozen engineers that created the NIST WTC reports, along with a handful of various professionals who have openly advocated NIST’s claims and dismissed those of AE911Truth. This total pales in comparison to the more than 1,600 architects and engineers (as of December 2011) who are calling for an independent investigation of the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7. As , "There is a good reason why there is no group called 'Architects and Engineers that Publicly Support the Official Story’." The numbers would be embarrassing. Few have even taken the time to examine the more than 12,000 pages of documents intended to obscure the issues and ignore the most critical evidence.

Other ignored variables include the fact that there are more than 13,000 additional signatories at AE911Truth, which include many highly credentialed people in other fields equally as relevant to the issue. These ‘other’ petition signers include metallurgists, physicists, explosives experts and demolition contractors. Furthermore, there are other 9/11 truth groups which should also be taken into account that represent hundreds of people credentialed outside the fields of architecture and engineering, such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Finally, as noted by AE911Truth contributing writer Gregg Roberts, the logical fallacy known as ‘moving the goalposts’ is also at play here. Roberts writes, "...'Debunkers'... dismissed our arguments first because, allegedly, no engineers agreed with us. While that was never true to begin with, after AE911Truth was formed and scores of engineers signed the petition, these debunkers predictably moved the goalposts, saying we didn't have any engineers who know anything about heavy steel structures such as tall buildings." However, dozens of structural engineers, such as those featured in the documentary 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, have rejected the official story in favor of controlled demolition, citing the overwhelming evidence for that conclusion, much of which was entirely ignored by the official reports. With the "argument from missing authority" refuted, Roberts concludes, "the goalposts will no doubt just be moved again by people who simply don't want to face the evidence."

Fortunately, these false arguments have not stopped hundreds of architects and engineers and thousands of other concerned citizens from examining the evidence and signing the petition for a real investigation. While strength in numbers is not proof in itself, it amplifies our voice as we share the truth of the World Trade Center catastrophe with the world.

Those who raise this point often do so in an attempt to avoid dealing with the scientific evidence brought forth by AE911Truth.

Fucking hell

Gotta love the constant straw man arguments

and asks that people not simply believe any explanation blindly, but rather, consider all of the pertinent facts according to the scientific method.

THE IRONY

Originally Posted by Moonraker

OK, I misread read that a little. It's not fire fighters, it's architects and engineers.

yes good catch, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth is another professional organization calling BS on the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory,


FF 911 Truth




An Appeal to Firefighters, Present and Past from a retired FDNY Lieutenant

Fellow Firefighters, A great tragedy befell our community on September 11, 2001, an unprecedented 343 deaths in the line of duty. As horrible as that toll is, if there were a rational explanation for it, we could accept it and mourn. We all understood the risk we accepted when we took the oath of office, that chance might cut short our lives when we placed ourselves in harm’s way in the public’s service. This is what we are paid for and it is our honor.

However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination. We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half. We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon “evaporated”. There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it.

Trade Tower #7 by itself is the “smoking gun”. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission didn’t even mention it, and F.E.M.A. actually stated they DIDN’T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT.

Brothers, I know that the implications of the above are hard, almost unthinkable, but the official explanation is utter nonsense, and three hundred and forty three murdered brothers are crying out for justice. Demand a genuine investigation into the events of September 11!

-Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY (ret)


Lt. Vodvarka served on FDNY Ladder Co 26, Rescue Co. 3, Rescue Co. 1, Engine Co. 92, Ladder 82 and Ladder 101. He was awarded the Merit Class 1 award, the Prentice Medal.

One fire fighter from a million.

The guy really is one in a million

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Those who raise this point often do so in an attempt to avoid dealing with the scientific evidence brought forth by AE911Truth.

Fucking hell

Gotta love the constant straw man arguments

Could you be specific in what you're labeling "straw man arguments"


I've also noticed from you and your "Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory" defender colleagues, an affection for RULE #19,

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Architects & Engineers:

Solving the Mystery of
World Trade Center Building 7

Proof hasn't been ignored, it's been debunked.

Originally Posted by Moonraker

One fire fighter from a million.

The guy really is one in a million

are you really that fucking lame, or just pretending? or is it, "WILLFULLY BLIND?"

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » Petition

It's no wonder your type can be found on messageboards vigilantly defending the "Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory"




Solving the Mystery of
World Trade Center Building 7