# "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2016, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917 "2016-08-06T07:26:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/161 "2016-08-08T06:15:06Z")
:sigh: Correcting my last post: It is not about them, the AE911 people are a lost cause, what I and many do here is for the ones that were **fooled** by those guys. Sorry, but it has been demonstrated in studies on conspiracy theory that for the deniers of the evidence and the official report\*\* it is very damn important to also deny what most of the experts do think about an issue.\*\* It has also been shown that one way to bust their bubble in front of the people that are being misled is to point out what the real consensus is. [http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf](http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf) What the AE911 guys are doing there in your sorry links is a tested and most used misleading tactic. **It is crucial for the truth to point out the real support trash peddlers like those ones from AE911 actually have** , they have very little of it among the vast majority of experts. And we should never forget ever how fake experts are a common thing to see in controversial subjects. (controversial as in only among common folk, many issues dealing with scientific matters have a consensus for or against mostly settled years ago) > **[The 5 telltale techniques of climate change denial | CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/opinions/cook-techniques-climate-change-denial/)** > > Knowing the tactics used by deniers can help inoculate people from a misleading view of reality. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/162 "2016-08-08T06:18:19Z")
Some youtube videos involving simulations of 9/11 have appeared in my youtube suggestions… Just involves the plane crash: I think this is good evidence for the official story: Then this one about Building 7 would be good as conspiracy theory evidence (though it is by the same person) I think Penn and Teller could have done a better job at supporting the official story. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/163 "2016-08-08T06:22:31Z")
The whole ‘airplane fuel doesn’t burn hot enough’ argument is bogus. A puddle of such fuel burning on its own is not very hot, but if it’s burned as an aspirated vapour or gas, it can burn plenty hot - that’s how old-fashioned kerosene blowtorches work. In the context of WTC, all it needs is for some burning fuel to spill down elevator shafts or ventilation ducts, and for the heat from that fire to a)vaporise some more fuel and b)set up an airflow (because hot air rises in a chimney), and the conditions for jet fuel to burn much hotter than normal suddenly exist. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/164 "2016-08-08T06:24:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …it has been demonstrated in studies on conspiracy theory that for the deniers of the evidence and the official report\*\* it is very damn important to also deny what most of the experts do think about an issue.\*\* It has also been shown that one way to bust their bubble in front of the people that are being misled is to point out what the real consensus is… I wouldn’t normally fall for conspiracy theories, but like I said they talked about “vs. only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports” and it is only late in this thread that that issue was resolved for me. So I thought maybe I was on the side of the majority of informed experts. Maybe people were ruling out the possibility of this conspiracy because of the implications rather than because of the evidence. I mean they had a lot of counter arguments for the Popular Mechanics book. So when people here mentioned Popular Mechanics I thought “well they’ve already addressed that” (apparently). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/165 "2016-08-08T06:27:38Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > I wouldn’t normally fall for conspiracy theories, but like I said they talked about “vs. only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports” and it is only late in this thread that that issue was resolved for me. So I thought maybe I was on the side of the majority of informed experts. Maybe people were ruling out the possibility of this conspiracy because of the implications rather than because of the evidence. I mean they had a lot of counter arguments for the Popular Mechanics book. So when people here mentioned Popular Mechanics I thought “well they’ve already addressed that” (apparently). Thing is as **scr4** points out, most of their counterarguments are just a continuation of their already demonstrated joke arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/166 "2016-08-08T08:44:54Z")
I’m genuinely curious…why are so many posters attempting to rehash this issue with an obviously dedicated “truther” (although he says he’s not one)? As mentioned a number of times in this thread, there are a few threads–and the links were even provided–on this board, not to mention the links to the actual science (as opposed to “truther science”) involved have been provided, too. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/167 "2016-08-08T09:06:05Z")
Monty: I guess they want to add their 2 cents on specific issues. If people had kept on just telling me to read all the other threads I would have assumed their counter-arguments were weak and continue to be a “dedicated” truther. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/168 "2016-08-08T09:30:04Z")
Monty: BTW what evidence do you have that I’m still “obviously” a “dedicated” truther? ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/169 "2016-08-08T10:12:07Z")
As they say, “If it walks like a duck…” ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/170 "2016-08-08T10:32:56Z")
Truther: “a person who doubts the generally accepted account of an event, believing that an official conspiracy exists to conceal the true explanation; a conspiracy theorist.” I don’t think I fit that definition… I don’t have doubts about the idea that only planes and fires were involved. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/171 "2016-08-08T10:45:35Z")
Why are we even still making any arguments about the “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”, when we’ve already established that that claim is an outright lie? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/172 "2016-08-08T10:48:31Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > Truther: “a person who doubts the generally accepted account of an event, believing that an official conspiracy exists to conceal the true explanation; a conspiracy theorist.” > > I don’t think I fit that definition… I don’t have doubts about the idea that only planes and fires were involved. Then why are you giving those wack jobs free publicity? ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/173 "2016-08-08T11:01:14Z")
If you ever wondered, “How easily can Dopers be baited?” Here’s your answer. This thread. Seriously, y’all all soooooo easy! John Clay is making you twist and dance! ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/174 "2016-08-08T11:50:01Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > Well they had a 4 part response to the Popular Mechanics book so it seemed they were quite knowledgeable on the subject. Can you imagine if they had a 5 part response, or even a 6 parter? They would have been unassailable! > [@JohnClay](#): > > I never claimed to be an informed academic or anything. Yeah, no danger of that based on your inability to evaluate sources or arguments. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/175 "2016-08-08T11:52:55Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Why are we even still making any arguments about the “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”, when we’ve already established that that claim is an outright lie? Maybe by “openly supported the NIST WTC reports” they mean architects and engineers who have officially stated that opinion online or in an article? ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/176 "2016-08-08T11:56:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Then why are you giving those wack jobs free publicity? I thought requoting them would be relevant to this thread. And sometimes I quote things from [answersingenesis.org](http://answersingenesis.org) ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/177 "2016-08-08T12:48:27Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > I thought requoting them would be relevant to this thread. And sometimes I quote things from [answersingenesis.org](http://answersingenesis.org) And every time you do, your credibility drops further. How is using citations that have been repeatedly shown to be lying helping your case? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/178 "2016-08-08T13:10:04Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > Maybe by “openly supported the NIST WTC reports” they mean architects and engineers who have officially stated that opinion online or in an article? I don’t know about you, but one of the nice mental “shortcuts” in modern society is that we have professional bodies that aggregate feedback from their members and make official statements on their behalf. I leveraged this a lot when researching controversial topics about raising infants, e.g., “Well, what does the AMA say about this?” It’s much better than reading posts from individual doctors, and/or unsubstantiated claims about “x number of doctors approve of this asshattery.” With that in mind, read this [concise post](http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/) about how many members these professional bodies have. The first two mentioned might be the most relevant, so remember that the ASCE assisted with the NIST report and backs it fully, and the AIA has [publicly disavowed the truther movement](http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19339). ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/179 "2016-08-08T13:25:29Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > The whole ‘airplane fuel doesn’t burn hot enough’ argument is bogus. A puddle of such fuel burning on its own is not very hot, but if it’s burned as an aspirated vapour or gas, it can burn plenty hot - that’s how old-fashioned kerosene blowtorches work. > > In the context of WTC, all it needs is for some burning fuel to spill down elevator shafts or ventilation ducts, and for the heat from that fire to a)vaporise some more fuel and b)set up an airflow (because hot air rises in a chimney), and the conditions for jet fuel to burn much hotter than normal suddenly exist. Plus you have to consider [what else is in the mix](http://xkcd.com/966/). ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/180 "2016-08-08T13:33:26Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > Maybe by “openly supported the NIST WTC reports” they mean architects and engineers who have officially stated that opinion online or in an article? If that were the case, why don’t they have a list of those 1700 architects and engineers, along with the citation/quote for each of them supporting their cause? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917.md?page=10)