9/11 world trade center 7

[squealpiggy]

This isn't anything new. 1500 architects sounds like a lot until you realise that there are 105,000 registered architects in the US alone. Somehow saying that 1.4% of architects in the US question the official (sic) story is less impressive.

It gets better though. This group of crackpots is a worldwide group and doesn't decline signatories based on their local situation. Worldwide there are about 1.3 million members of the International Union of Architects. So that puts your proportion down to 0.12% of architects.

So the proportion of architects who believe that WT7 shouldn't have collapsed the way it did is somewhere between just under one and a half and just over one tenth of one percent.

Every profession has a small degree of crackpot lunatics.

Your argument is invalid.

[spytactics]

This isn't anything new. 1500 architects sounds like a lot until you realise that there are 105,000 registered architects in the US alone. Somehow saying that 1.4% of architects in the US question the official (sic) story is less impressive.

It gets better though. This group of crackpots is a worldwide group and doesn't decline signatories based on their local situation. Worldwide there are about 1.3 million members of the International Union of Architects. So that puts your proportion down to 0.12% of architects.

So the proportion of architects who believe that WT7 shouldn't have collapsed the way it did is somewhere between just under one and a half and just over one tenth of one percent.

Every profession has a small degree of crackpot lunatics.

Your argument is invalid.

So you are saying that this argument is invalid because everyone that is an architect didnt join this cause? That has to be the dumbest thing that i have ever heard. If you believe that this building imploded the way it did because of the minor damage it received and the small fires you are more of a crackpot than any of the "theorists" that you would call a crackpot.
Furthermore, you are piggy. The saddest most trolling phaggot in boxing scene.

[squealpiggy]

So you are saying that this argument is invalid because everyone that is an architect didnt join this cause?

I'm saying that it's invalid because it's an attempted argument from authority combined with an attempted argument ad populi and it fails on both counts.

That has to be the dumbest thing that i have ever heard. If you believe that this building imploded the way it did because of the minor damage it received and the small fires you are more of a crackpot than any of the "theorists" that you would call a crackpot.

So the evidence that you have, aside from the minuscule amount of people you have decided constitute experts saying that it "looks like" a controlled demolition, is that you think it "looks like" a controlled demolition?

Now I don't believe in premonition but would anybody, at this point, bet against me if I said that the next few posts would include the words "free fall speed"?

Furthermore, you are piggy. The saddest most trolling phaggot in boxing scene.

And yet I'm an intellectual giant next to you.

[BOXEO _]

It was an inside job, everybody knows that.

[Welsh Jon]

So you are saying that this argument is invalid because everyone that is an architect didnt join this cause? That has to be the dumbest thing that i have ever heard. If you believe that this building imploded the way it did because of the minor damage it received and the small fires you are more of a crackpot than any of the "theorists" that you would call a crackpot.
Furthermore, you are piggy. The saddest most trolling phaggot in boxing scene.

The entire argument was "look at all these engineers and architects that believe in 9/11 conspiracy. How can all these possibly be wrong?"

Squeal piggy pointed out " actually that's not many engineers and architects"

You responded with "yeah so the conspiracy is still real. And also you're gay."

Great thread

[Ryn0]

So you are saying that this argument is invalid because everyone that is an architect didnt join this cause? That has to be the dumbest thing that i have ever heard. If you believe that this building imploded the way it did because of the minor damage it received and the small fires you are more of a crackpot than any of the "theorists" that you would call a crackpot.
Furthermore, you are piggy. The saddest most trolling phaggot in boxing scene.

No the dumbest thing I've ever heard is that because a seemingly large number of architects (which as it turns out and a relatively small amount of architects) is not anywhere near enough evidence to prove your theory. In the same line of thinking I could say well there are 1.2 million that architects that don't believe this theory do you know 1.2 million architects?

The problem with conspiracy theorists is not that they may be right but that they are looking for something to be wrong they often don't look past face value.

The reason no one takes this seriously is not because it is plausible that it was a controlled demolition its just that people spend so long trying to debunk thorough reports that actually make sense rather than gathering evidence that could support their theory.

Look at it this way, Darwin did not spend his years trying to disprove creationism but rather prove Evolution as a realistic, thorough theory and then present it when he had all the evidence.

Additionally and this is my biggest issue, what advantage does the US government get from demolishing World Trade Centre 7? It certainly wasn't to justify a war because the damage to the other trade centres would have been sufficient in the US governments eyes (not in mine but that's a different story).

Because WTC7 was a base of operations for the destruction of the twin towers? There are far easier, less costly way of destroying evidence. I am not against believing well constructed, theories with real control tested evidence but anything other than that will remain conspiracy.

[El-blanco]

The saddest most trolling phaggot in boxing scene.

Haha don't talk about the professor like that.


There is some pretty credible people in that article, it's incredibly arrogant to dismiss them as "crackpots" just because they didn't ask every architect in the world their opinion.

[squealpiggy]

Haha don't talk about the professor like that.


There is some pretty credible people in that article, it's incredibly arrogant to dismiss them as "crackpots" just because they didn't ask every architect in the world their opinion.

None of them are credible if they believe WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. Hey, less than 1/5 per cent of architects are crackpots. They're doing much better than a lot of other industries!

[LSKennedy]

heres the kicker, why building wtc7 then? and not others? whats special about wtc7

that's a good question, but i cannot answer it. i do not know why that building was chosen, but what i do know is that the almost perfect symmetrical collapse is not a natural occurrence. for that to happen, all support beams in the building would need to 'break' at the exact same time. this obviously cannot happen due to fire as fire burns hotter in some places over others.

This isn't anything new. 1500 architects sounds like a lot until you realise that there are 105,000 registered architects in the US alone. Somehow saying that 1.4% of architects in the US question the official (sic) story is less impressive.

It gets better though. This group of crackpots is a worldwide group and doesn't decline signatories based on their local situation. Worldwide there are about 1.3 million members of the International Union of Architects. So that puts your proportion down to 0.12% of architects.

So the proportion of architects who believe that WT7 shouldn't have collapsed the way it did is somewhere between just under one and a half and just over one tenth of one percent.

that's true but you have to remember very few architects are going to come out, putting their career & reputation on the line because they're surely thinking 'i have nothing to gain from speaking out against the official story'.

Your argument is invalid.

it absolutely isn't.

[squealpiggy]

that's true but you have to remember very few architects are going to come out, putting their career & reputation on the line because they're surely thinking 'i have nothing to gain from speaking out against the official story'.

And everything to lose, given that they don't want to be involved with a fringe crackpot like Richard Gage.