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.
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)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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?