Would 777 Architects and Engineers endorse BS? No way!

[Scepcop]

[ProfWag]

[ciscop]

[Scepcop]

ProfWag,
That is a low down cheap way to try to discredit something, and not reasonable or realistic either. Even a child could debunk what you just wrote. My God. Jesus.

Dude, um, you raise the bar to an impossible standard that no one can fulfill. Who is an expert on planes crashing into buildings then? No one! There is no such degree or certification called "planes crashing into buildings".

Professional architects and engineers may not be crash experts but they have better than average knowledge about structural design, stability, gravity, weight, laws of physics, etc. They are far more credible than average, and definitely more than you! Let me see your qualifications.

Show me where AE911Truth said they talked directly to 20,000 architects?

It's not possible in one weekend to talk to 20,000 people. Can you do that? So why are demanding that they do it?

In real life dude, which you seem to be out of, professional architects are busy and have professional lives and family lives. For one to get them to personally look at something is a rare accomplishment. Professionals don't waste their time. Just getting any to endorse something is a big accomplishment. So far AE911Truth has grown from 400 architects and engineers to 786 today. That's a great accomplishment, you little pessimistic scoffer!

Let's see you try to get 786 architects and engineers to sign their name to something.

It doesn't mean that 99 percent disagreed. Many of them said they'd consider it or they just don't have the time to look at it or the interest. You are jumping to conclusions.

No one can deny that getting 786 architects and engineers to sign their name to something is a BIG ACCOMPLISHMENT. They would NOT do that if something were BS.

Agreed?

Remember Frank Martini, one of the engineers of the WTC, who was killed on 9/11, said the WTC could withstand multiple impacts from jetliners. And the WTC did withstand it. There is no logical reason for the sudden collapse with no resistance below it, other than calculated controlled demolition.

ciscop, I am disappointed in you. Even if a skeptic looked at the sky and denied that it was blue, you'd be impressed. Very LOW standards you have there.

[ciscop]

hahahahahaha you are right!
if the skeptic pointed to the sky and said it wasnt blue it would be true
because it was very late at night.. skeptics are sharp

and scescop should i remember you
that skeptics are the ones with higher levels of need proof and data and validation
while believers jump of excitement by any anecdote that supports any of their beliefs?

hey... and jesse ventura
the governor.. he also believes in being explosives in the buildings and he is a sharp guy (i do believe that)
who knows, i am just not that interested in conspiracy theories.

[Scepcop]

[ProfWag]

What the freak are you talking about? There is all sorts of proof in the official story. Stop spreading fallacies Mr. Wu.

[Scepcop]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[Edx]

Winston,

There is right now at least two no planers in AE911 Truth, meaning that they believe no planes were used on 911 at all. Anders Bjorkman and some other guy I cant remember the name of. On Patriots Question 911 there is also a former military Major who also says that no planes hit the towers at all.

Therefore, according to your logic you must also believe no planes hit the towers.

Is that what you believe? Or could these supposedly qualified people be wrong about that?