25 January 2010

Numbers For Truth.

I had a conversation (and I use that term loosely. -ed.) with a "9/11 Truther" the other day, who claimed that over "700 architects and engineers" agree that the World Trade Center towers were toppled by some kind of pre-planted explosives / sinister government plot / Dick Cheney. That 700 number seems to be very important talking point for the Truthers, in a see-how-many-professionals-agree-with-us credability angle.


As a licensed architect who has worked on mid-rise and high rise buildings, and therefore know a bit about how to they are constructed (and how the WTC was constructed), I'm growing very tired of this Luddite argument. And I'm especially tired of folks trying to use my profession to bolster it. The Truthers are not interested in "truth"; they are trying to sell a conclusion with some circumstantial implications and very few facts. That's why that 700 number is so important.

So I did a little research to put that precious number in context. There is indeed a group of architects and engineers who believe that the World Trade Center towers were toppled by means other than what we all saw - Islamic nuts in hijacked planes. But does that 700 number represent a credibly large consensus of my fellow design professionals, as the Truthers imply? Um... no. Not even close.

Let's take a look at just the architects. According to this, in 2008 there were 141,200 architects employed in the United States. According to this at the architects and engineers 9/11 Truther website, to date 251 "architects and architectural professionals" have actually signed onto a petition for a new investigation. If you take out the 69 unlicensed interns, landscape architects, and engineers listed in the wrong place, you are left with 182 architects - out of 141,200 - calling for a new investigation. Do some quick division and you find out that that equals... 0.00129%.

Consensus? My arse.


tanabear said...

Currently there are over 1,000 architects and engineers who have signed the petition demanding a new investigation into 9/11. The total number of architects in the United States is unimportant. That number is only relevant if they have specifically stated that they agree with conclusions reached by NIST and can state what those conclustions are. This would be a very small percentage of all the architects in the US.

Most people when presented with the evidence do begin to question the official narrative. For instance, NIST now admits that WTC7 did enter free-fall for 2.25 seconds or 8 stories. This is something they initially denied. How can this phenomenon be explained by NIST's fire theory? It can't. A demolition hypothesis can best explain the visual evidence. The evidence that 9/11 was a false flag terror event is overwhelming at this point.

The Truth Marches On...

.....CLIFFORD said...


The number is relevant because Truthers use it as proof that their theories have credibility with those who should know. Richard Gage uses it quite often in his YouTube videos for just that point.

No, most people do not - and have not - questioned the official narrative, because there is NO empirical evidence that you, or anyone on your side, can present to support your claim. The best you have is circumstantial conjecture, subjective interpretations, and inference.

If you KNOW what happened, please write a cogent argument for your position in your own words (no Google pasting). And present the math - I understand statics and dynamics (again, no Google pasting). I presume you are a licensed are a licensed architect or engineer, so I'll give you 30 minutes, starting... now.

P.S. Besides being an architect, I was in the engineers in the Army. So know about, and have handled, thermite. Just so you know.

.....CLIFFORD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
.....CLIFFORD said...


Your time is up. Didn't think you could.

MacAoidh said...

I still wonder two things:

1. If the twin towers were taken down in controlled demolitions, then why on earth would you go through the hassle of hijacking four different airplanes? Was it a coincidence that jihadist freaks hit the Pentagon and were miraculously taken down over Pennsylvania on the same day? And how do the Truthers propose to explain those other two hijackings?

2. How difficult is it to believe that a jumbo jet hitting a building at a couple hundred miles an hour and spewing an ocean of jet fuel all over a building might compromise its structural integrity? It really doesn't seem like much of a stretch to think that if you do THAT to a building, it will come down. Buildings aren't built to withstand a jumbo jet plowing into the 75th floor.

bfreedom said...

1. For the spectacle. The purpose of terror attacks is, in fact, terror.

It would be much harder to blame controlled demolition on foreign terrorists, so planes were needed and the demolitions were to clean up the evidence.

2. You could possibly make that argument for one building, perhaps. But how can three buildings completely collapse at near free fall speed from two planes?

In regards to the 700 vs. 141,000 argument, you're trying to include neutral parties. If you haven't looked at the evidence, you obviously won't have an opinion so of those, they could go either way. The point is, over 700 have actually looked at the evidence and determined that we need a new investigation.

You could use your argument to disprove any argument, to simply state that merely because a larger demographic exists than has signed on to any one side, that instantly disproves the argument of one side in particular. Makes no sense.

Just Me said...

Oh silly me; here I thought terrorists were trying to kill Americans. I forgot the number one reason Americans are murdered; it's Bush's fault. Muslim radicals are really sweet and loving by nature; all this "terrorist" stuff is just a conspiracy by the Bush family to take over the world.

So when we get hit hard again (and at this rate, we will relatively soon), can we blame Obama? After all, he'd has much more to gain by crushing Americans.

tanabear said...

Clifford: "No, most people do not - and have not - questioned the official narrative, because there is NO empirical evidence that you, or anyone on your side, can present to support your claim."

Okay, but my point was how many people even know what the official explanation is. Before the discussion can continue I need for you to explain the official explanation, only then will the criticisms of it be understood.

Can you do that?