Hi I haven’t discussed 9/11 conspiracy theories before. I’m rewatching the original Zeitgeist movie on Youtube. The first segment about the origins of Christianity is appalling but I’m finding the 9/11 section intriguing. Anyway after looking on Wikipedia I came across “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth”:
Here’s their site:
it is a non-profit “education” organisation.
I didn’t know about Building 7’s collapse before:
They have over 2500 signatories of architects and engineers. http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html
It seems that for each one you can see their details including a statement about their views.
It has been estimated that there are about 700 qualified scientists that believe in young-earth creationism. If their belief in the authority of the Bible, there is pressure on them to believe that maybe Genesis is literally true.
But what pressure is there for these architects and engineers to be in this organisation? Are they all conspiracy nuts?
Here is their evidence section:
it claims:
“Since 9/11, however, independent researchers around the world have assembled a large body of evidence that overwhelmingly refutes the notion that airplane impacts and fires caused the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7”
So is this just an example of conspiracy nuts that have as much evidence that there is that the moon landings were faked?
It claims “As of the date of this publication, there are almost 1,700 architects and engineers who openly support the findings of AE911Truth vs. only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports”
I’m focusing on this specific website this time… and the “overwhelming consensus” of SDMB is different from what a huge number of architects and engineers seem to claim… I mean architects and engineers would be very qualified to talk about this in a similar way that politicians would be qualified to talk about the Illuminati but can you find a similar website where large numbers of politicians are providing evidence that the Illuminati exists?
It seems unlikely that “the three worst structural failures in modern history” happened all at the same time, especially when one of the buildings only had fires on two or three floors…
Each and every one of those claims has been discussed, repeatedly, on this board and plenty of others. Popular Mechanics even did an article debunking most of the claims.
If you wanna open that can of worms, search the forum for 9/11 Truth and be ready to dedicate the next few months of your life to reading.
It looks like Popular Mechanics even published a book about it:
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
I haven’t read much about it but it seems unlikely that 3/3 buildings would collapse in a way that appears to be a controlled explosion (visually). In movies buildings don’t collapse like that at all.
All the threads cite their sources, which include academic and professional. 100% of actual, peer-reviewed, academic sources support the official story.
Look 'em up, or don’t, but I wouldn’t expect many people around here to re-engage that dead horse topic.
Even talking about it for this long has made me feel skuzzy.
Those links talking about the PM book also provides sources. You said “the overwhelming consensus is that it’s conspiracy theory nonsense on par with the Illuminati”.
“Conspiracy theory nonsense”? I know what that looks like and I know that there is hardly any evidence about the Illuminati. Well there is the Bilderberg Group but they don’t have huge numbers of related videos and pages after pages of in depth stuff that these people have.
BTW the statement “This topic has been done to death on the SDMB” implies that there has been a lot of interest in the topic including people who are supporting the conspiracy theories. On the other hand the David Icke reptilian theory probably hasn’t been “done to death” which provides more evidence about the “overwhelming consensus is that it’s conspiracy theory nonsense”.
BTW what do you think of “As of the date of this publication, there are almost 1,700 architects and engineers who openly support the findings of AE911Truth vs. only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports”? Do you think that there are actually many thousands of architects and engineers who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports and they just deliberately lied?
I’d be happy to lecture about good sources versus garbage sources (and burden of proof.) But that’s what I do for a living, and if you’re good at something, never do it for free.
Fall semester’s about to start. Register for my Comp. I class.
Ok but you haven’t gone into any specifics about their arguments other than saying that “Each and every one of those claims has been discussed, repeatedly, on this board and plenty of others. Popular Mechanics even did an article debunking most of the claims.”
If “the overwhelming consensus is that it’s conspiracy theory nonsense on par with the Illuminati” why were “Each and every one of those claims has been discussed, repeatedly”? It sounds to me like some posters were not agreeing with the “overwhelming consensus”.
Previous threads? If “the overwhelming consensus is that it’s conspiracy theory nonsense on par with the Illuminati” why would there be multiple threads on this? Is there also the same number of threads going over and over about the Illuminati on these forums?
BlakeTyner did try to respond to my arguments specifically though he just tried to explain away the number of people mentioned rather than any of their specific arguments. One of my main interests is about Building 7…
Yes. Threads. When the 9/11 Truther movement was still a thing, they came here to “just ask questions” (ie mention something, have it explained, then move the goalposts and mention something else.)
It wasn’t long-term SDMB members arguing for the conspiracy. It was Truthers brigading–or trying to.
That sounds like you’re saying that the threads were from a while ago… so then maybe it is better for me to start this new thread rather than reopen long dead threads… maybe they left because they didn’t like the “consensus” here.
Well I’ve been a SDMB member for at least 10 years… I’ve been a seeker of the Truth (but not claiming too strongly to have definitely found it though I do cling to my beliefs for a while until I’m sure they’re wrong). In this case I’m saying that from my POV it seems like Building’s 7 collapse looks like a demolition. I can’t understand how a fire on 2-3 floors would cause it to suddenly collapse like that in such a clean way. Rather than keeping on telling me to look in other threads I’d like it if people could explain that to me. Thanks for explaining how those 2000 names could have got there though.
