3000+ architects and engineers say evidence shows 9/11 was controlled demolition

[AthensToJerusalem]

I used to believe in the official story of what happened on 9/11 and thought anyone who didn’t was some kind of crazy person. But a while ago, I came across the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The rigorous and professional work that they have done to demonstrate what really happened on 9/11 was very different from the official story is overwhelming.

The number of credentialed architects and engineers who agree is now 3000 and still growing.

There is now a federal court case regarding this very issue that you might want to look into. So far, the mainstream media has completely ignored it, but it’s happening.

 

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been moved to a more appropriate forum.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Dave-W]

And yet another group of deniers is heard from.

 

[AthensToJerusalem]

The point is that it is simply *impossible* for the official story to be true. Unless the laws of physics somehow changed radically in one place for a short time. Which is an extraordinary claim.

Also, there is an actual court case regarding this happening now. If that doesn’t quality it as legitimate, I don’t know what does.

I thought this was a serious forum.

 

[AthensToJerusalem]

P.S.: A few relevant items from the group’s news site:

Grand Jury to Hear 9/11 Evidence: “We have received and reviewed the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry’s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions.” - Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney.

‘Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry...announced the filing of a “petition supplement” naming persons who may have information material to the federal grand jury investigation of the World Trade Center’s explosive demolition on September 11, 2001.’

‘FBI Sued For Failure To Report Known 9/11 Evidence to Congress: “
The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and 9/11 victim family members Robert McIlvaine and Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli announced today a joint federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI for their failure to perform a congressionally mandated assessment of any evidence known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission related to any factors that contributed in any manner to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The action for declaratory and injunctive relief is being brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 702, 706, and the federal mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. 1361, because of federal agency failures to comply with the mandate from Congress.’

It this does not qualify it as legitimate, what would?

 

[tampasteve]

P.S.: A few relevant items from the group’s news site:

Grand Jury to Hear 9/11 Evidence: “We have received and reviewed the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry’s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions.” - Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney.

‘Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry...announced the filing of a “petition supplement” naming persons who may have information material to the federal grand jury investigation of the World Trade Center’s explosive demolition on September 11, 2001.’

‘FBI Sued For Failure To Report Known 9/11 Evidence to Congress: “
The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and 9/11 victim family members Robert McIlvaine and Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli announced today a joint federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI for their failure to perform a congressionally mandated assessment of any evidence known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission related to any factors that contributed in any manner to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The action for declaratory and injunctive relief is being brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 702, 706, and the federal mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. 1361, because of federal agency failures to comply with the mandate from Congress.’

It this does not qualify it as legitimate, what would?

They are legitimately trying to bring a suit to court, but that does not make their case legitimate nor necessarily any "evidence" they may have. In the USA one can sue almost anyone, including the Federal Government, for any reason they see fit. Whether the court hears the case, or if it has any merit is notwithstanding.

 

[Dave-W]

Also, there is an actual court case regarding this happening now.

And there have been court cases to prove the Holocaust never happened, and that the Sandy Hook school shooting never happened.

 

[SeventyOne]

The point is that it is simply *impossible* for the official story to be true. Unless the laws of physics somehow changed radically in one place for a short time. Which is an extraordinary claim.

Also, there is an actual court case regarding this happening now. If that doesn’t quality it as legitimate, I don’t know what does.

I thought this was a serious forum.

You should know that around here that if you don't follow the group think in lockstep on many of these items, then you would be considered a conspiratorial nut job.

I'm not the least bit surprised about this. It doesn't take a genius to see the BBC reporting on the destruction of building 7 while it remains upright in the background behind the reporter, only to have it free fall unaided upon itself about 15 minutes later, and then to realize that something is very wrong.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I would tend to agree that something weird happened with the World Trade Center. I grew up in New Jersey, right accross the Hudson from Manhattan. Those buildings were solid. They technically should not have crumpled like they were made of ash.

 

[Hank77]

They are legitimately trying to bring a suit to court, but that does not make their case legitimate nor necessarily any "evidence" they may have. In the USA one can sue almost anyone, including the Federal Government, for any reason they see fit. Whether the court hears the case, or if it has any merit is notwithstanding.

They aren't suing anyone. A Grand Jury has been convened who they are hoping will investigate by looking at evidence and calling witnesses. Whether that happens or not is up to the Grand Jury.

 

[John 1720]

I would tend to agree that something weird happened with the World Trade Center. I grew up in New Jersey, right accross the Hudson from Manhattan. Those buildings were solid. They technically should not have crumpled like they were made of ash.

Hi Grace,
MIT to the rescue - read all about why they crumpled.
Peace, in Christ
John 1720
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

 

[tampasteve]

They aren't suing anyone. A Grand Jury has been convened who they are hoping will investigate by looking at evidence and calling witnesses. Whether that happens or not is up to the Grand Jury.

I suppose I was misled by the statement on their website?

For the first time ever, 9/11 family members and advocates are taking legal action against the FBI aimed at forcing the Bureau to assess and report the evidence known to the FBI of the World Trade Center’s explosive demolition as well as other unreported 9/11 evidence.

In 2014, Congress mandated the FBI to form an external commission to conduct “an assessment of any evidence now known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission related to any factors that contributed in any manner to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.” A year later, the FBI released the Commission's final report, which did not include an assessment of evidence related to the WTC demolition nor an assessment of several other areas of evidence known to the FBI.

Now the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and AE911Truth need your help to advance our historic lawsuit and bring this key evidence to light.​

Side note, I personally find it scammy that they are soliciting donations for this, but that is just my opinion.

 

[SeventyOne]

Hi Grace,
MIT to the rescue - read all about why they crumpled.
Peace, in Christ
John 1720
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

There are problems with the analysis, such as it assumes a basically uniform burn across the floors. There's also this from page 10 where the causal assumptions are admitted to have no longer been a factor: "An important puzzle at the moment is why the adjacent 46-story building, into which no significant amount of aircraft fuel could have been injected, collapsed as well. Despite the lack of data at present, the likely explanation seems to be that high temperatures (though possibly well below 800◦C) persisted on at least one floor of that building for a much longer time than specified by the current fire code provisions."

If I had to guess, since the bulk of it was written within a week and a half of the incident, prior to any real analysis, the purpose might have been just to take a peek at the feasibility of the assumed cause at the time, rather than on any hard analysis.

 

[Dirk1540]

I would like to hear a reply to post #8, the claim that the BBC announced that building #7 was destroyed 15 minutes before it actually happened.

It doesn't take a genius to see the BBC reporting on the destruction of building 7 while it remains upright in the background behind the reporter, only to have it free fall unaided upon itself about 15 minutes later, and then to realize that something is very wrong.

 

[Lost4words]

Another conspiracy theory!

Never before had a fully fuelled airliner crashed into such a big tall building. The force, the explosion, the fuel, the heat, the shock wave, the combustibles in the building etc.

Anyone that believes it was deliberately demolished needs to get back to reality asap.

God bless all those that perished.

 

[Dirk1540]

I think that people getting their heads chopped off for merely asking questions about something is one scary sign of social engineering!

I see social engineering in the power behind 2 empty words called ‘Conspiracy Theorist.’ Empty because it’s not even being used right. I get it, I saw the Mel Gibson movie, a ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ has an answer for EVERYTHING! And NOTHING is ever a coincidence.

But now, if you so much as see some merit behind even ONE point (out of 10) that a full blown conspiracy theorist makes, and you dare ask a question about it publicly, society will jump down your throat and call you a tin foil hat wearing whack job conspiracy theorist! Yeah THAT social engineering is what I’m talking about.

 

[SeventyOne]

I would like to hear a reply to post #8, the claim that the BBC announced that building #7 was destroyed 15 minutes before it actually happened.

Me too. Here's a compilation someone did with the reporter talking about the building collapsing with it still in the background. When I first saw this it was years ago it was more drawn out raw footage, but this one seems to sum it up nicely. Of course there are guesses out there about how it collapsed, but I have yet to hear a satisfactory response as to how the media received word of it's collapse, prior to its collapse. Also, I was wrong about the 15 minutes. It seems it was reported about 20 minutes prior to collapse instead.

 

[John 1720]

There are problems with the analysis, such as it assumes a basically uniform burn across the floors. There's also this from page 10 where the causal assumptions are admitted to have no longer been a factor: "An important puzzle at the moment is why the adjacent 46-story building, into which no significant amount of aircraft fuel could have been injected, collapsed as well. Despite the lack of data at present, the likely explanation seems to be that high temperatures (though possibly well below 800◦C) persisted on at least one floor of that building for a much longer time than specified by the current fire code provisions."

If I had to guess, since the bulk of it was written within a week and a half of the incident, prior to any real analysis, the purpose might have been just to take a peek at the feasibility of the assumed cause at the time, rather than on any hard analysis.

Yes, pretty much all of this has already been answered, as well as other objections by conspiracy theorists. Occam's razor!
6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST's New WTC 7 Report

 

[Albion]

I would like to hear a reply to post #8, the claim that the BBC announced that building #7 was destroyed 15 minutes before it actually happened.

an incorrect report was received by the BBC which conveyed it to the public, unverified?

Any conspiracy would certainly not have allowed the reporter to announce that something had happened which every viewer could see on his own screen was not correct.

 

[SeventyOne]

Yes, pretty much all of this has already been answered, as well as other objections by conspiracy theorists. Occam's razor!
6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST's New WTC 7 Report

Just because a question is answered doesn't automatically make the answer accurate.