Ae911T exhibits at NCSEA's "Structural Engineering Summit"

[JSanderO]

I suspect these calls for a new investigation from these 10 are based on seeing the pitch from Gage... The "other side" would be the NIST report which is hardly the sort of PR shlock and awe that the AE presentation is. It's not hard for question to arise when one is not familiar with the collapse, the facts and the engineering design of the structure. It DOES look a CD... and it IS a fact that few to no buildings have collapse as 7wtc. But that doesn't mean that it is a CD... but it may mean that they and the public need to better understand that particular collapse.

With all due respect to the NIST effort and those who support it... the slipping of a single girder as the cause for the collapse they see is not a very compelling one.. that is the CASE is arcane, esoteric and in a sense disturbing because the implication is that any high rise that loses sprinklers, and fire fighting... can totally collapse.

Should the public be reassured by the NIST report or be concerned at the trust of it?

It seems to me that the suggested vulnerability of this building to "office fires" is enough to inspire engineers to support a new investigation or perhaps a better and more complete explanation.

This is why AE and Tony have their knickers in a twist of the girder walk off... Is this a common detail or not? Does this represent a widespread vulnerability or not?

I don't support the irresponsible statements AE makes (many of false as well)... but I can see how their sowing doubt can pull in signatures calling for further investigation.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't support the irresponsible statements AE makes (many of false as well)... but I can see how their sowing doubt can pull in signatures calling for further investigation.

It's a very carefully framed version of the fallacy of equivocation, I think. AE911T's genuine aim is to bring about a new investigation into the entirety of the 9/11 attacks, and ideally one that is constrained from the start to the finding that the US government is primarily or solely the instigator of the attacks. However, by carefully avoiding stressing that aim, they do their best to make it look as if what they want is an engineering investigation into the collapse of WTC7 on the basis that the best available explanation is inadequate. The latter is at least arguable, whereas the former is insane, so by stressing the latter they lead people gently into accepting the former. And the mechanism for this is "We need a new investigation," without being too clear on what kind of investigation, into what events, and with what scope.

Dave

 

[JSanderO]

It's a very carefully framed version of the fallacy of equivocation, I think. AE911T's genuine aim is to bring about a new investigation into the entirety of the 9/11 attacks, and ideally one that is constrained from the start to the finding that the US government is primarily or solely the instigator of the attacks. However, by carefully avoiding stressing that aim, they do their best to make it look as if what they want is an engineering investigation into the collapse of WTC7 on the basis that the best available explanation is inadequate. The latter is at least arguable, whereas the former is insane, so by stressing the latter they lead people gently into accepting the former. And the mechanism for this is "We need a new investigation," without being too clear on what kind of investigation, into what events, and with what scope.

Dave

I think you are correct. And this is how I parted company with these "truth seekers" years ago... I simply missed their main agenda... "the inside job/false flag/CD conclusion" because I was and remain interested in understanding the mechanisms leading to these structures collapsing as quickly and completely as they did.

I've learned a lot about this... since naively expecting a group calling itself architects and engineers... for... to actually be shedding light on these issues.

Their approach is cyncial and sneaky and sadly many... even intelligent people fall for it.. the sort of bait and switch you identify.

Ironic when one tries to actually engage these guys with engineering or physics or point out their mistakes... they refuse or accuse you of being a shill and so on. When shown to be incorrect.. they do not back down, revise or yield an inch.