1,000 Architects and Engineers Call for Grand Jury into 9/11

[veracity]

http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/latest-news-at-a-glance/911-news-at-a-glance.html

To Be Announced at Ground Zero: 1,000 Architects and Engineers Call for Grand Jury into 9/11

1,000 Signatures from “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” to be Submitted Today to Congress

Petition Cites New Scientific Evidence of Explosive Demolition at WTC

WHEN: Fri. February. 19, 2010, 10:00-11:00 AM

WHERE: Ground Zero, Manhattan (in front of the PATH Station)

[SDuderstadt]

1. I don't believe ae911truth can be trusted to...

accurately portray the number of "architects and engineers" that have signed said petition. Their website is always trumpeting the number of "architects and engineers" they supposedly count as members.

However, they also list the "architect and engineer" members and you can easily vet that list. The last time I did it, I gave them the benefit of the doubt whereever possible and I came up with a number less than half of what they claimed. You can do the same thing yourself. You'll find a large number of them are neither liceensed nor registered (I did however, count all the retired engineers or architects who are retired and have let their licensing lapse). They not only lista number of people who are architechural and engineering "professionals" (Hint:they are not licensed architects or engineers), they also include people like software engineers and landscape architects which, to me, is highly misleadind.

Again, you can check for yourself, but I would not trust Richard Gage any farther than I could throw him. Beyond that, 1000 sure "sounds" impressive until you take into account that ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) alone has in excess of 130,000 members. If ASCE signs on, I might sit up and take notice.

[Subdivisions]

2. Here's the list of petitioners:

http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

You will see that their are some foriegn signers of the petition. If those signers hail from countries whose citizens were killed on 9/11, they should be included. All other foriegners should be struck from the petition as should any unverifiable entries. This will shore up the petition and give it legitimacy as a representation of those seeking a new investigation.

Personally, I don't care whether or not the valid signatories are degreed and liscensed professionals. I would submit that they need only to be American citizens and citizens of nations that lost people in the attacks.

Having said all that, I have to include a disclaimer: I have no idea what makes a petition such as this valid except that the signatories should all be real people. As far as I know, it's not like a petition to put a special provision on a ballot, for example. I am assuming that it's purpose is merely to demonstrate that there is support for the measure being requested, in this case a grand jury investigation. So, if anyone reading this knows what kind of weight such a petition carries and whether it is considered a valid instrument for requesting a grand jury, please chime in because I've composed this entire post without really knowing all that much about the legality and weight of this sort of petition. Then again, A&E has probably already crossed this bridge.

[SDuderstadt]

3. My point is that Gage is making an "appeal to authority" by only including...

"architects and engineers". I am not quibbling with their right to petition, nor do I really care who signs it. What I take issue with is Gage representing people who are not architects or engineers as duly qualified professionals. I don't know of a single state that allows you to hold yourself out as an architect or engineer without licensure/registration.

As I said earlier, some time ago, I spot checked the AE911truth website and found . Checking it now, I find that Gage now refers to 1038 "architectural and engineering professionals", so the claim made earlier that it contains the signatures of 1000 archotects and engineers can be easily disproven. My issue here is only with Gage's honesty and he is free to dupe as many people as he wants, however, I would say the low penetration of actual architects and engineers means not many of them are folled by him.

[Subdivisions]

4. Hold on to your dentures because I'm about to say something that might make your jaw hit the dirt...

You are right. :o

Wait, what? Did I, Subdivisions, just say that the Duder is right about something? Yes. I agree that Gage 'is making an "appeal to authority" by only including "architects and engineers"'. This is, however, contingent on your previous vetting of the petition signatories and my trust that you did indeed make an honest effort and report of it. (Jesus, what's happening to me?)

Say, Duder, do you remember back when I was trying to convince you OCTers, unsatisfactorily if I recall, that I was agnostic on the topic of 9/11 and that my position was merely that a new investigation was necessary to answer as yet unanswered questions? I based that then on three things: the buildings looked like they were CD'ed; the seeming lack of military intervention; and my hatred and distrust of both the bush administration, especially cheney, and the neocons, and specifically PNAC. I also said many times that I was willing to be proven wrong in my assertions regarding 9/11. Well, I still want a new investigation and I am still willing to be proven wrong.

As I've said many times, I'm not part of the "Truther Movement" but rather someone who is not convinced the official story is the absolute truth of 9/11. I always realized that proof is futile in the absense of evidence. So, though the towers looked CD to me, I have never really been completely convinced of it. As with so much about 9/11, I have my doubts and suspicions. But, I'm always willing to learn, to evaluate, to compromise, and, yes, even to concede and admit I was wrong or mistaken.

Which leads me to a confession of sorts. I have always been guarded with respect to Richard Gage. I'm not one that is given to follow anyone without at least some analysis into what they are all about. My analysis of Gage was that he is an activist calling for a new investigation. Great. That's me too. However, I also know a marketing effort when I see one. Gage might truly believe that he's the man for the job he's doing but I never was fully convinced that his motives were pure. It boils down to this: While Gage may actually believe in his cause and action, he is also, it seems, not above profitting to a degree from the Truth Movement. So, while a lot of the information he imparts is somewhat compelling to me, I have largely dismissed him as a factor in finding the truth that I believe alludes us as a nation.

[SDuderstadt]

5. Agreed, SD....

I have watched many of Gage's presentations and I can point to the unbelievable errors he makes even without notes. I have no doubt that he believes what he is saying, but he is also dead wrong about many things. It seems to me that ae911truth needs a much better spokesperson.

Again, thanks for the respect and civility.

[Neily]

21. Can you summarize those points?

I tend to feel the same about Gage... and several others within "the movement." However, it is hard for me to determine truth when he and others get into technical details I don't feel qualified to analyze.

So, if you can sum up his blunders Dude, that would be helpful.

[Make7]

6. RE: trying to convince

 

Subdivisions wrote:

... do you remember back when I was trying to convince you OCTers, unsatisfactorily if I recall, that I was agnostic on the topic of 9/11 and that my position was merely that a new investigation was necessary to answer as yet unanswered questions?

You might have been more convincing if you hadn't previously said that 9/11 was a false flag attack. That seems to be somewhat less agnostic than your current position. Not to mention that you have said in the past that you sometimes post bullshit to waste people's time.

More consistency in what you post might give people a better idea of where you actually stand.
 

[Subdivisions]

10. I don't care if you're convinced or not by anything I say...

I still believe 9/11 was a false flag attack. I just don't know exactly how it was planned and executed. But, I have my suspicions. You know all the players. The bushes and bin ladens. The origins of Al Qeada. cheney and his secret energy meetings. You didn't think that I've been advocating for a new investigation without having a goal I want to see achieved by it, did you?

I will address the balance of your comments in a moment, but first...

I guess I could have been more succinct in describing my position with regard to 9/11. What I meant was that, overall, I'm agnostic regarding the events of that single day, September 11, 2001. Until a new independent and comprehensive (perhaps multi-national) investigation is conducted (as if) and discovers that those buildings were CD'ed or the Pentagon videos showing an approaching 757 are presented into evidence, I will sit upon the fence, waiting. I might have to wait forever, like I've been waiting forever to see evidence of a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination and for evidence that a Christian God exists in Heaven.

On the other hand, I remain firm in my suspicion that there's more to the story of the planning that lead up to the attacks which I am not at all agnostic about. Indeed, I believe that even if the official story of the attacks on that day is correct - that the buildings all collapsed due to damage sustained in the attacks; that a 757 hit the Pentagon; that Flight 93 did indeed bury itself in the ground, and that Saudi terrorist hijackers pulled it all off - there's still good reason to suspect that a faction of our own government helped plan or allowed this false flag event. I suspect that that faction is the neocons of PNAC infamy. And it is the goal of confirming or quashing this suspicion that drives my interest in 9/11.

Getting back to your comments about my history here, I'll say it for the second time today in this forum: You're right. On two counts. That does seem somewhat less agnostic (which I have just explained above) and, yes, I have posted opinions and comments just to get a rise out of you guys because, well to be honest, I don't particularly like some of you. But the reason you know that I did that is because I said I did it. And, on the topic of 9/11, you've seen to it that those of us who have questions have no venue for discussing the issues without certain ones of you swooping in to hijack what you perceive to be delusional thinking, which says something about you. After all, if we're as silly and goofy and delusional as we have often been charged here to be, then what does it say about you that you would engage us at all? I also do not like the Mods of this sub-forum. (Watch this post get deleted because of that statement). I never appreciated having my posts deleted while others' posts, which were just as offensive/abusive/rule-breaking but were allowed to remain. I also did not appreciate having important posts explaining my positions deleted while alerting, to no avail, on those posts I found offensive in some way. So, I walked down the hall to GD where I have much better success discussing the important issues of the day, even scoring a few #1s on the Greatest Page and having suffered only a couple of deletions in my four years there.

There is, however, a welcome breath of fresh air down here in the Dungeon of late. At least one of you has decided (for whatever reason) to approach your opposition with considerably more civility and tact and that is a approach I can abide and which I hope will spread to the others of you who have yet to get the memo.



This post will self-destruct in the amount of time it takes for a mod to see and read it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. with regard to the mods

I've found that when I'm confused by the mods' decisions, a polite PM generally elicits some clarification of their reasoning. I daresay it helps that I've been a mod myself (on another board, many years ago) and find it easy to sympathize.

If you expect a lengthy post to be deleted because of one sentence, you really might consider... never mind. :)

After all, if we're as silly and goofy and delusional as we have often been charged here to be, then what does it say about you that you would engage us at all?

First of all, I think it's evident that the "we" in your statement lumps together people who don't think alike.

Speaking only for myself, I have three motivations, in no particular order.

One is to learn more about 9/11. Certainly if there is any reason to think it was a false flag attack, I would like to know. Beyond that, I'm pretty omnivorously curious.

The second is to explore people's disagreements and on what terms it is possible to discuss disagreements. Among other things, I'm interested in the difference between what one might call closed-loop conspiracism (where the very fact that I disagree with a conspiracy theory constitutes evidence that I am in on the plot -- no reasoned discussion possible) and those who are open to discussion but tend to "connect the dots" in very different ways than I do. (People on both sides of this divide come up with psychological accounts of people on the other side, some of which make more sense than others.)

Third, I don't think that freehand speculation or outright nonsense deserve a judgment-free zone, here or anywhere else. When I first came to DU, I was aghast at how much bullshit seemed to be universally accepted. I came to understand that DU has many informal subcommunities, and if a post gets 50 recs and no one posts a disagreement, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a majority view, much less a consensus view. Nevertheless, I think it's weird and possibly dangerous to write off entire threads or forums as exempt from reasoned critique.

Oh, yeah, and this one inexplicably didn't make my list of three, but sometimes I get so mad at people that I wonder how amazingly wrong I can make them look. I don't think that's a major factor in my standing decision to post here, but I'm afraid it probably best explains some individual posts.

I guess it says, in short, that I care about what gets posted on the discussion board -- presumably like everyone else who posts on the discussion board. Probably we're all crazy, more or less.

[Subdivisions]

14. Good post. Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned words. n/t

[Make7]

16. Well, at least I understand your position now. Thanks for the clarification.

In my opinion, a new investigation is extremely unlikely. The only chance would seem to be if some evidence were to surface that would be impossible to politically ignore. Whether the truth movement's efforts will lead to any such discovery remains to be seen, but the chances probably become more remote as time continues to pass.

Based on the past participation of the people in the 'September 11' forum here at DU, it is nearly certain that any idea someone posts is going to be met with challenge and disagreement. Sometimes that can be viewed as a positive thing - ideas developed in echo chambers are not always as robust as people believe when presented before persons with opposing viewpoints.

Anyone who has been posting in the 'September 11' forum should already be familiar with the dynamics they will encounter. Given the number of posts dedicated to the unjustness of the atmosphere, one wonders why some of those people spend so much time continuing to post in the sub-forum. Why would people continue to do the same thing time and time again but expect a different result? It's not like the internet doesn't offer people the opportunity to join discussions where the conversation is more to their liking. Perhaps there is more than meets the eye regarding why people decide to post in this particular corner of DU.

I find it amusing that you believe the only reason anyone knew that you previously posted bullshit was that you admitted it. How hard do you think it is to tell when someone is posting something that is untrue or logically incorrect? As far as the motives for doing such a thing, usually the responses given when called on it allude to the sincerity of the poster in question. I would imagine that the amount of traffic in this sub-forum would decline significantly if it were not for people posting things to get a rise out of others.

YMMV.

[Neily]

20. Odd the numbers haven't increased over time

"Checking it now, I find that Gage now refers to 1038 "architectural and engineering professionals", so the claim made earlier that it contains the signatures of 1000 archotects and engineers can be easily disproven"

And, don't you find it odd that the number has stayed pretty consistent over the past several years (near 1,000). One would think the list of support would grow through all the outreach he has done.

[Neily]

19. I agree the 1,000 emphasis is pointless...

"Again, you can check for yourself, but I would not trust Richard Gage any farther than I could throw him. Beyond that, 1000 sure "sounds" impressive until you take into account that ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) alone has in excess of 130,000 members. If ASCE signs on, I might sit up and take notice."

I have always thought it was silly how they try to trump up consensus by using a number altogether. And, as you said, who knows what kind of architects and engineers they really are. If he were to try to show consensus by having a polling agency conduct a scientific poll of a certain classification of architects and engineers, that would give a better idea of the amount of consensus or lack thereof.

[ATTC]

22. OS Apologists Amuse me

"accurately portray the number of "architects and engineers" that have signed said petition. Their website is always trumpeting the number of "architects and engineers" they supposedly count as members.

However, they also list the "architect and engineer" members and you can easily vet that list. The last time I did it, I gave them the benefit of the doubt whereever possible and I came up with a number less than half of what they claimed. You can do the same thing yourself. You'll find a large number of them are neither liceensed nor registered (I did however, count all the retired engineers or architects who are retired and have let their licensing lapse)."

But did you take the same time to vet the list of Popular Mechanics who claims over 300 experts yet cites none of them as they deceptively try to pad the list of experts in engineering by listing people like photographers and when you really look at the list it's a half a dozen people who were connected to the official investigations of 9/11 that they list, and again no citing or sourcing.

But of course not. You have an agenda so you don't mention that. Nor ever took the time to scrutinize it

[SDuderstadt]

24. Since the OP is about ae911truth....

why would I be talking about Popular Mechanics, dude?

[BeFree]

7. Good news, Thanks.

A Grand Jury would be a grand new beginning.
Can't fathom why anyone would object, except Cheney.

[KDLarsen]

8. I see Jan Utzon is on the list

Fairly amusing, considering that he has openly admitted to not reading a single damn report on the WTC collapses :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

9. IMO, it's very important that the investigations and inqueries continue as

much as possible --

Of course 9/11 was MIHOP --

This is simply about power -- and at the moment it is in the hands of fascists -- !!!

[Ohio Joe]

12. "and at the moment it is in the hands of fascists"

Who are you referring to?

[SDuderstadt]

15. I find that people who casually throw terms like...

"fascist" and "authoritarian" around, usually have no idea whatsoever what it would be like to live under a fascist or authoritarian regime.

[Kesha]

23. I don`t understand your problem

A Reichtagsfire - Check

Leading aggressive wars - Check

Torture - Check

Concentration Camps - Check

Health Care - Nope


Ok, there is at least one difference.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Let me make sure I get this straight....

they don't trust the various government investigations, so they're asking for another government investigation?

[pberq]

17. Press conference

The Feb. 19 Press conference can be viewed here:

http://vimeo.com/9614190

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Is that the press conference...

...where Steven Jones suggested that the crisis in Haiti was "manufactured" in order to grab Haiti's oil?