Thread: 9/11

Originally Posted by Seraph

One of the issues involved here is that of engineering, design, architectural etc, building codes and fire codes, insurance and actuarial issues, and related things.

I just wanted to highlight this and add a point: Some "Truth About 9/11" websites and documentaries have produced petitions signed by 5,000 professional engineers who "are asking troubling questions" or "agree that the official version is incomplete," etc. Suffice to say, some of these sites and movies are very eager to create the impression that 5,000 engineers support the "controlled demolition by CIA-planted explosives" hypothesis.

But in fact, the vast majority of these engineers are asking questions about how to improve the fire-resistant insulation on steel girders, and whether the fuel tanks for Building 7's emergency electrical generators were properly constructed, etc. (And I suspect that some of the engineers who signed this or that petition were kicking themselves afterwards, upon realizing that their positions had been misrepresented.)

P.S. Decades ago, "telekinetic spoon-bender" Uri Geller went on Johnny Carson's talk show, and ended up rather embarrassed -- Geller didn't know that Carson had worked professionally as a stage magician in his younger days, and thus Carson had no difficulty spotting Geller's фокусы. So, of course, Geller's "telekinesis" suddenly didn't work, and he had to make up an excuse about solar flares, or something. James Randi and Penn & Teller have made the same point: scientists are sometimes easy "marks" for con-artists, because scientists tend to assume that everyone is being honest, and aren't trained in deception (as magicians are, of course). So I suspect that some of the scientists and engineers who get quoted by "9/11 Skeptics" were deceived, as Geller tried to do with Carson; and others were simply quoted out of context without their permission.