2335! update: 2416, update: 2444! new update: 2613 and growing!

[wildbilln864]

Last edited Tue Aug 30, 2016, 06:38 PM - Edit history (2)

http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html
vs a few crackpot government shills.

[William Seger]

1. Zero!

Which is the number of valid technical arguments supporting controlled demolition of WTC buildings, vs a growing library of peer-reviewed technical papers written by experts who know how to support their arguments with science and math. Game over in a shut-out.

[wildbilln864]

3. you wished!

[Jeroen]

26. growing library of peer-reviewed technical papers

Care to show us some of these?
Thank you

[William Seger]

27. Sure

Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design
Rini, D., Lamont, S. 2008 Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress - Structures Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders 314

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I
Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1),

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Fire load in a steel building design
Razdolsky, L. 2008 Proceedings of the 4th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, ISEC-4 - Innovations in Structural Engineering and Construction 2, pp. 1163-1167

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002) 95-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

[Jeroen]

28. Thanks

Thanks for the list. Here are some peer-reviewed journal papers that suggest controlled demolition and/or support alternative theories on 9/11

April 2009 | Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Journal: The Open Journal of Chemical Physics
Authors: Dr. Niels H. Harrit (University of Copenhagen) et al
Link: http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

August 2008 | Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
Journal: The Environmentalist (2009) 29: 56-63
Authors: Kevin Ryan et al
Link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
Download Paper (PDF): The Environmentalist – Environmental Anomalies at the WTC Evidence for Energetic Materials

2006 | Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001
Journal: The Journal of Business (by the University of Chicago)
Author: Dr. Allen M. Poteshman (University of Illinois)
Download Paper (PDF): A. Poteshman – Journal of Business 2006 – Unusual Option Market Activity and the 9-11 Attacks

2006 | “What Accounts for the Molten Metal Observed on 9/11/2001?”
Journal: Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 83:252, 2006.
Author: Dr. Steven E. Jones (Brigham Young University)
Link: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/

June 2013 | Some Misunderstanding Related to WTC Collapse Analysis
Journal: International Journal of Protective Structures (Vol. 4, No. 2 / June 2013)
Authors: Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski  (PhD, Structural Mechanics), Tony Szamboti (ME), and Richard Johns.
Link: http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/bl60385h25254748/
Download Preview (PDF): Preview – Some Misunderstandings of WTC Collapse Analysis


Most of the studies you've listed concern the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
Further, these are all theories, some very speculative, and as such subject of debate among scientists.

For example 'Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis'
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Crockett Grabbe 1
1 Research Scientist, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
52242 and SeaLane Consulting, Iowa City, IA 52245-3314. E-mail: [e-mail]
http://scientistsfor911truth.com/docs/Seffen_Grabbe.pdf


Some you've listed are generic studies which have nothing to do with the collapse of the towers itself, such as:

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002)95-800.

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187


I’ve read many studies about the collapses and some of these contradict the official theory on 9/11.
Such as this studie that you provided:

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

Below is from the abstract:
The critical floors where collapses started from are estimated using the well-established fact of the free-fall time of all WTC collapses. To this end, the most comprehensive “hybrid” analysis is advanced taking into account that collapses could start on several floors simultaneously, not on one floor as suggested before. According to this “hybrid” model, at the first stage, several floors collapsed simultaneously as a result of fracture waves causing a dust cloud and, at the second stage, the lower part of tower being intact in the first stage collapsed in the regime of progressive failure. Five different collapse types are studied, including the fastest and slowest collapses, and then the hybrid mode is examined with initial collapse of several floors followed by the “domino-effect” of the remaining floors. It is established that the floors where the WTC collapses started from were located significantly lower than the floors hit by the terrorists and subjected to fire. This conclusion confirms the same former result obtained by using the simple official theory of pure progressive collapse.


Finally, it’s important to note that in all relevant studies you’ve listed, it is assumed that no explosive were active during the collapses.

[William Seger]

29. "no explosives were active during the collapses"

You seem like a reasonable person, so let's take it one issue at a time, please.

The truck bomb that was used in the 1993 WTC bombing was a complex bomb made with several types of high- and low-explosives and even included three tanks of hydrogen gas to increase the thermobaric effect. The intent was to cause the north tower to fall into the south tower. When it went off, it was not only heard but felt all over lower Manhattan and even on Ellis Island. It made a huge hole, taking out floors and walls on several levels, but it didn't destroy any columns.

At the level that the north tower collapse began, the total cross-sectional area of the columns was over 6000 square inches of structural-grade steel, and to trigger a collapse you'd need to take out at least something over half of the columns, maybe two-thirds. A conventional demolition would of course use high-explosive cutter charges which have a distinctive sound that can be heard on virtually every YouTube demolition video. And they are not like the explosions reported in wildbill's video: they're not small explosions that you would need to be inside the building to hear, and they certainly do not happen randomly all over the building minutes or even hours before the collapse begins. Cutting through over 3000 square inches of steel would require a serious amount of explosives, and it that's what had happened, almost everyone in Manhattan would have immediately known it, and we would too from the videos. Furthermore, no explosively cut steel was found in the rubble, even though the clean-up crew were experienced in CD, and dozens of experts, both government and independent, looked through the rubble for "interesting" pieces to save. So, there is simply no evidence of explosives, even magical silent ones.

But this is not like the famous aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That is a statement about trying to infer without having any information. However, if there are things that really should be observed if the hypothesis were correct but they are not observed, that is positive evidence of absence and the hypothesis is disproved. Ergo, explosives did not bring down any of the buildings.

If you agree with that, then we can discuss the "thermite hypothsis," which Jones invented solely to cover the truck-bomb-sized hole in the "explosives hypothesis."

[Jeroen]

30. Classic, controlled demolition

Last edited Wed Nov 4, 2015, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Your argument is based on the absence of evidence for a classic, controlled demolition:

1. No explosions were heard before or during the collapse;
2. No evidence of explosions were found in the debris;

However, you seem to ignore numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel. These explosions ‘have been debunked’ as exploding generators, popping bolds, floors dropping on floors below and so on. Because explosives are ruled out a priori, debunkers provide alternative explanations, as the ones mentioned. Again, the most obvious cause, namely explosives, is ignored because it contradicts the official narrative. The same holds true for other strong indicators of explosives such as:

1. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph;
2. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds;
3. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the crush zone;
4. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile;

Also, you dismiss the nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples, as well the thermite incendiaries on steel beams. You also ignore the molten steel & iron found in the debris piles. I’ve read the ‘debunking arguments’ debunking the nanothermite, iron microspheres and molten steel & iron, but I am not convinced.

As for the absence of evidence for a classic, controlled demolition, this of course, is to be expected. Those who orchestrated the collapses needed to conceal the use of explosives. Therefore the structures were weakened by a series of smaller explosions before the final chain of explosions was initiated.

I often hear the incompetent argument: the US government is not competent enough to pull of 911. However, the MIC, ‘the deep state’ or how you want to call it, is. And it is fact, not fiction that similar plans existed before 911 such as Operation Northwoods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

To conclude, you and I will have to agree to disagree. You support the official narrative and to be fair, that is the logical thing to do. Those who question the official narrative, like me, have to prove the existence of a conspiracy, which, of course, is very hard to do because the evidence is concealed or destroyed. Those who ask questions are ridiculed and dismissed as irrational, unscientific and even unpatriotic. In other words, there are no incentives to question 911. This in itself is questionable.

Edit to add video

[William Seger]

31. I don't have any problem with people who "question the official narrative"

That's always a good idea, and I try to do it myself. However, I do have a problem with people who claim to be "just asking questions" but then it turns out they aren't really looking for plausible answers because they believe (in the religious sense rather than the rational) that there's only one answer and they already have it, apparently through some process or source not actually involving the weak or totally invalid arguments they offer to support their answer. And I definitely have a big problem with people who literally peddle bullshit and call it "truth," and occasionally with people who can't seem to tell the difference but then it turns out they really don't want to know the difference.

My position is simple: if you've got a better explanation for the building collapses than the "official narrative," then let's hear it. So far, no demolition theories have even reached the level of plausible, much less substantiated, not by a long shot -- certainly not demolitions with magical silent explosives nor with magical "nanothermite" paint chips that don't contain the elemental aluminum necessary for a thermitic reaction but can nonetheless melt through steel columns of varying sizes with the same timing precision as high-explosive cutter charges. If you speculate that it might be possible to cut through 3000 to 4000 square inches of steel with a series of charges smaller than conventional cutter charges (since even individually those would certainly have been heard for quite some distance away from the buildings), down to and including those final charges, I suggest trying to put some sensible numbers to that hypothesis. Until then, I think I'll keep it in the "not by a long shot" column.

> Because explosives are ruled out a priori, debunkers provide alternative explanations, as the ones mentioned. Again, the most obvious cause, namely explosives, is ignored because it contradicts the official narrative.

Nonsense. I certainly don't agree that explosives are the "most obvious cause" of explosions in a fire, but "obvious" doesn't really matter: You would still need to rule out all the mundane and expected causes, regardless of how obvious, before declaring something extraordinarily implausible to be the most probable cause. But anyway, it's rather disingenuous of you to suggest I "ignored" explosives "because it contradicts the official narrative" after I just gave you a couple of evidence-based reasons why I rule out explosives.

> The same holds true for other strong indicators of explosives such as:

> 1. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph;
> 2. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds;
> 3. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the crush zone;
> 4. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile;

No, those are not at all "strong indicators of explosives." In fact, 1, 2, and 4 cannot be explained by cutter charges. When similar things are seen in a controlled demolition, they are the result of the tremendous kinetic energy unleashed when that much mass falls that far; they are not caused by the cutter charges that initiated the collapse. Suggesting that those were the result of explosives in the WTC is to suggest that the perps loaded the building with an order of magnitude more magical silent explosives than they needed to bring down the building, for absolutely no reason. We don't need such implausible speculation when there was more than enough kinetic energy to explain everything observed, and when nothing that was observed actually requires explosives.

And item 3 is simply wrong: the ejections are pneumatic rather than explosive. When you watch a demolition video and see "squibs," they appear suddenly and then immediately start slowing down. That's because the dust and debris cloud was accelerated by a single impulse from the blast. When you watch videos of the WTC "squibs" the clouds maintain a constant speed and in many cases even speed up. That isn't possible without having a continued applied force, which is the flow of air out of the building.

> Also, you dismiss the nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples, as well the thermite incendiaries on steel beams. You also ignore the molten steel & iron found in the debris piles. I’ve read the ‘debunking arguments’ debunking the nanothermite, iron microspheres and molten steel & iron, but I am not convinced.

Yes, I dismiss "nanothermite composites" because: (1) Harrit's paper claiming to have found thermite is junk science that avoided doing any of the tests that would have ruled out thermite, as proper scientific testing should have done, and it drew illogical conclusions from data that actually strongly suggested it wasn't thermite; (2) there has been independent confirmation by a real forensic chemist that the chips are exactly what they look like -- paint -- and are incapable of thermitic reaction; (3) the claim that iron microspheres are a "signature" of themite is totally bogus and a demonstration of the incompetence of the researchers, since they can be produced in incinerators; (4) there is no evidence of any thermite-melted steel; (5) no one has demonstrated a thermite device that could cut through WTC columns; and (6) even if such a thing were possible, doing so with the synchronization required to explain the 9/11 collapses is highly implausible. And yes, I dismiss "molten steel & iron" because molten metals such as aluminum and lead would be expected in a fire like that, and there is no positive identification that any molten metal observed was actually steel. Futhermore, if there was any type of molten metal in the debris weeks after the collapse, thermite certainly doesn't explain why (unless it was the magical variety that could burn for weeks).

Steven Jones came up with the thermite nonsense, not because of any evidence, but as a way around the inconvenient fact that what "looks like a controlled demolition" didn't sound anything like a controlled demolition. Whether you're convinced or not, there's a reason that Harrit and Jones could never get that paper published in a real peer-reviewed journal: it's junk, and you don't need to be a chemical engineer to see why.

> I often hear the incompetent argument: the US government is not competent enough to pull of 911. However, the MIC, ‘the deep state’ or how you want to call it, is. And it is fact, not fiction that similar plans existed before 911 such as Operation Northwoods.

Regardless of who you speculate the perps were, it isn't just a matter of competence. You are postulating that they were either too insane to realize how little chance they had of pulling off such an unnecessarily complicated and risky hoax and then successfully keeping it covered up after the investigations began, or they were too stupid to come up with a scheme that wasn't so absurdly complicated and risky yet accomplished the same presumed objective. When you add up the improbabilities of successfully pulling it off and getting away with it to the implausibility of such a thing being planned in the first place, then demolition is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Instead, we get fallacious arguments based on dubious and erroneous facts strung together with personal incredulity.

[zappaman]

2. Numbers are fun!

Let's do some math.
There are roughly 4 million engineers in the world and roughly 2 million architects.
So about 6,000,000 architects and engineers.
You say 2335 are part of ae911truth?

Can you tell me what percentage of the worlds architects and engineers are part of ae911truth?

I'll be back later to check your math...

[OBenario]

6. ?

"Can you tell me what percentage of the worlds architects and engineers are part of ae911truth? "

Can you tell me what percentage of the world's architects and engineers claim to agree with US government official theory on 9-11?

[wildbilln864]

4. now 2354. and climbing. n/t

[zappaman]

5. Holy crap!

What's that bring the percentage up to?
Still waiting on your math...

[wildbilln864]

7. Do you imagine there'ssome significance to the percentage?

There's not! And by the way the number of architects & engineers now is up to 2366...But here's you a math problem equally significant. What percentage of the world's population believes in an all seeing all knowing all powerful being that lives in an elusive place in the sky called heaven? What do you account for that percentage?

[greyl]

8. I'm so glad you asked, here's some homework so you might answer your own questions honestly.

Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time

In this age of supposed scientific enlightenment, many people still believe in mind reading, past-life regression theory, New Age hokum, and alien abduction. A no-holds-barred assault on popular superstitions and prejudices, with more than 80,000 copies in print, Why People Believe Weird Things debunks these nonsensical claims and explores the very human reasons people find otherworldly phenomena, conspiracy theories, and cults so appealing. In an entirely new chapter, "Why Smart People Believe in Weird Things," Michael Shermer takes on science luminaries like physicist Frank Tippler and others, who hide their spiritual beliefs behind the trappings of science.

http://amzn.to/1P2ibQX

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

In The End of Faith, Sam Harris delivers a startling analysis of the clash between reason and religion in the modern world. He offers a vivid, historical tour of our willingness to suspend reason in favor of religious beliefs―even when these beliefs inspire the worst human atrocities. While warning against the encroachment of organized religion into world politics, Harris draws on insights from neuroscience, philosophy, and Eastern mysticism to deliver a call for a truly modern foundation for ethics and spirituality that is both secular and humanistic. Winner of the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award for Nonfiction.

http://amzn.to/1P2ibQX

The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True

Filled with clever thought experiments and jaw-dropping facts, The Magic of Reality explains a stunningly wide range of natural phenomena: How old is the universe? Why do the continents look like disconnected pieces of a jigsaw puzzle? What causes tsunamis? Why are there so many kinds of plants and animals? Who was the first man, or woman? Starting with the magical, mythical explanations for the wonders of nature, Dawkins reveals the exhilarating scientific truths behind these occurrences. This is a page-turning detective story that not only mines all the sciences for its clues but primes the reader to think like a scientist as well.

http://amzn.to/1P2ibQX

[wildbilln864]

9. wasn't asking you but perhaps you could answer in your own words?

brieflly please then after which I may consider your post.

[greyl]

11. Wrong, false, and untrue. You did ask, "What do you account for the percentage...yada yada"

You do not appear to be genuinely inquisitive.

Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time

In this age of supposed scientific enlightenment, many people still believe in mind reading, past-life regression theory, New Age hokum, and alien abduction. A no-holds-barred assault on popular superstitions and prejudices, with more than 80,000 copies in print, Why People Believe Weird Things debunks these nonsensical claims and explores the very human reasons people find otherworldly phenomena, conspiracy theories, and cults so appealing. In an entirely new chapter, "Why Smart People Believe in Weird Things," Michael Shermer takes on science luminaries like physicist Frank Tippler and others, who hide their spiritual beliefs behind the trappings of science.

http://amzn.to/1P2ibQX

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

In The End of Faith, Sam Harris delivers a startling analysis of the clash between reason and religion in the modern world. He offers a vivid, historical tour of our willingness to suspend reason in favor of religious beliefs―even when these beliefs inspire the worst human atrocities. While warning against the encroachment of organized religion into world politics, Harris draws on insights from neuroscience, philosophy, and Eastern mysticism to deliver a call for a truly modern foundation for ethics and spirituality that is both secular and humanistic. Winner of the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award for Nonfiction.

http://amzn.to/1P2ibQX

The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True

Filled with clever thought experiments and jaw-dropping facts, The Magic of Reality explains a stunningly wide range of natural phenomena: How old is the universe? Why do the continents look like disconnected pieces of a jigsaw puzzle? What causes tsunamis? Why are there so many kinds of plants and animals? Who was the first man, or woman? Starting with the magical, mythical explanations for the wonders of nature, Dawkins reveals the exhilarating scientific truths behind these occurrences. This is a page-turning detective story that not only mines all the sciences for its clues but primes the reader to think like a scientist as well.

http://amzn.to/1P2ibQX

[William Seger]

10. 2366? Up 12 in the last 6 months?

What happened to the 150 Gage claimed to have from the AIA convention? What happened to the 25 he claimed from the NCSEA convention? Gage must have been "estimating."

But you have a point: it really doesn't matter how many people believe in magical silent explosives, so Gage is wasting his time.

[wildbilln864]

12. up yes.

and the number of people that believe the official conspiracy theory is going down.

[William Seger]

13. You ignore attrition. Many former "truthers" have discovered they were lied to

... by people like Gage, but we've already established that the number is irrelevant anyway. Of course you think that everyone is as impervious to facts and reason as you, but in fact, there's a natural small limit to the size of the "truth movement" that Gage wants to lead because there's a limit to the number of people who are irrational enough to believe in magical silent explosives planted all over a 24x7-occupied office building by black ops ninjas, for no apparent reason. But even if there wasn't such a limit, there isn't any number that would suddenly turn that perfectly idiotic theory into "truth." Regardless of the excuses your delusions force you to invent, that's why Gage's "movement" has never risen above being a weird net cult.

[wildbilln864]

14. your post has so many false assertions William. But you know that. n/t

[William Seger]

18. No, I don't know that, and apparently neither do you

I give you ever chance to refute anything I say. Have at it.

[wildbilln864]

19. you assert that no one could have...

placed explosives/incendiaries in the buildings without being noticed but that's long been proven not to be true. you continue with your nonsense about "magical silent explosives" which is your own false creation. Thermit is quite quiet from the distances recorded and there are explosions recorded on video. Deny all you wish but it's still true. You ignore the fact that the towers collapsed at freefall in #7's case and allmost freefall in the towers. They were demolished.

[wildbilln864]

15. 24/7!? No...

[wildbilln864]

16. yep!

[William Seger]

17. Oh, the magical delayed remote action bombs?

So you believe people in or near the buildings heard bombs all over the place, including out in the street, well before the buildings collapsed (and you're sure they were bombs because nothing else sounds like an explosion and nothing else explodes in a fire), and then when the magic was just right, they caused the buildings to collapse up where the planes hit? Is that supposed to be less idiotic than magical silent explosives?

[wildbilln864]

22. yeah there you go making up shit again.

Pretending I said things I did not won't get you anywhere but I guess that's all you got.

[GGJohn]

20. Give it up wildbilln864,

nobody outside of a few crackpots, is buying what you're trying to sell.
The world has moved on, again, except you and a few crackpots.

[wildbilln864]

21. yea well I'll be here to remind them...

but thanks for your opinion.

[GGJohn]

23. Here? On a chat board?

Yeah, you're really getting the word out.
Well, it's a free country, feel free to make a fool of yourself.

[wildbilln864]

24. doesn't seem to slow you down any.

but I spread the info everywhere I go. You'd be surprised to know how many people don't even know what really happened on 9-11. Or about PNAC and fires burning under the towers for two months. But most do know things weren't as we were told. The smart ones at least. Yes you would be surprised I'm sure.
By the way, it's not really a free country. More free than some but not as free as a few .

[GGJohn]

25. Spread the word where ever you go?

I'll wager a lot of people's eyes glaze over.
Face it, the country and the world have moved on from this 911 truther bullshit, the vast majority of people aren't buying the kook conspiracy you and your few kook's are trying to sell..
Good luck in your endeavor.

[Logical]

32. +1000 nt

[zappaman]

33. C'mon now...

Everyone needs a hobby.

[wildbilln864]

34. 2,374 n/t

[wildbilln864]

35. 2409!

http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html

[whitefordmd]

36. Weird argument

Is it some sort of Appeal to the Super Minority argument?

[wildbilln864]

37. not an argument

just a fact.

[whitefordmd]

38. So your posting a fact, but not trying to make a point? Very sensible. eom

[William Seger]

39. I actually take some small comfort

... from knowing that such a small percentage of structural engineers (which are actually only a few dozen out of that 2409) are that irrational and incompetent. That means that if you needed the services of a structural engineer, there is only a very minute chance that you'd end up with one that dumb. Having an incompetent doctor is a far more serious problem.

[whitefordmd]

40. I used to work with a Structural Engineer that was neck deep into all sorts of woo.

He was not incompetent regarding his designs, but he sure did believe some wacky stuff.

Area 51, Black helicopters, Aliens among us sort of stuff.