As an engineer, I am disappointed with A&E-4-9/11truth

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Have you inquired about this with A@E for 9/11 Truth?

Actually, I haven't yet. I wanted to get some imput from ya'll first. I may write them today.

Maybe the blue images from the website are photoshopped versions of a couple of the b@w photocopies made to look more authentic for web design purposes. That would be my bet about what is going on there.

This is what I think they did. But, like I said, isn't that a little deceiving? It makes it appear as if they are in posession of the original blueprints.

Second edit: Scratch the first edit. Sorry, I just had a minor brain cramp. It would take more than that to reverse the black and white tones.

I don't know photoshop, so I really wouldn't know. I'm going to contact them today and see what Gage says.

Now - Now ... no in fighting ... granted things are not always as they should be...
I wonder if David Rockefeller had the building built only to bring them down. after all they never turned a profit... so maybe profit wasnt the motive...?

Here's what I think happened.

Joe malcontent, truther, industrial espionage agent, whatever, sneaks into the archive where the original blueprints are stored. He pulls out his little Minox camera, loaded with B@W film (you don't need colour for documents) and, slavering like a pervert, photographs the lot.

He then scans the negatives, which as negatives, look like white documents with black printing and decides, hey, let's go with the "negative" image, since they look more like what people usually read and if anyone wants to print them, they will save on toner.

The A@E website designer, said, "Look, these are blueprints, so let me photoshop a couple of them to get that original feeling for the site."

Alternate version, Yoshi malcontent, etc., sees chance to sneak into archive while his hated Bushido boss isn't looking, to photograph the firm's crown jewels. Discovers to his horror that the memory stick in his pocket digital is almost full. Being the tenacious slimy rat that he is, he switches to B@W mode to save bytes and starts banzai snapping. Rest of story as above.

Another thought to keep in mind is that the only place these documents are referred to as "blueprints" is in the link to them. Everywhere else they are referred to as "drawings". Maybe they are photos or scans of the original architect's drawings rather than of later generation reproductions.

The original architects and engineers on the WTC project have got to be a very ill tempered bunch by now, I would think. Maybe even nasty enough to leak some ammo to people who are in essence defending them.

Editor's note: Shurely you mean they are called blueprints also on the page of links to the individual drawings. I thought so. Just be grateful that you are kept on here and stop whining about your paycheck.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by ipsedixit]

I have contacted the webmaster of A&E. We'll see what they have to say.

Although you make good points ipsedixit, when these drawings were first leaked to the public, they were called "scans" of the drawings/blueprints etc. Which would be a black background with white lettering if they were scans of actual blueprints like the images they show on their page. Anyway, it will be interesting to see their response if they respond.

As a FF can say that the original blueprints/specs usually mean squat -
over the years all manner of alterations or changes (often undocumented)
are carried out. Often what you find bears little to the original - partitions
where there weren't any or missing partitions. Holes cut into firewalls
(lost a strip mall in our town when someone chopped a 3 ft hole in attic fire wall).

In WTC tenants often made alterations - in South Tower remember
that Fuji bank had cut an escalator between 2 floors (79 and 80 if remember correctly). This was heart of the impact zone and such a
open space would allow fire and smoke to easily travel inside the building

Remember just because its on a piece of paper dont make it right...

i don't know.
seems a little like making a mountain out of a molehill.
the .gif that shows 'blueprints' could just be a case of artistic license.(?) when i took drafting and design in high school, we made 'blueprints' that were purple lines on white paper, but we still called them 'blueprints'.

the .gif is just a link to the actual scans which are black lines and white backgrounds. there's nothing that i found deceiving in the actual content(which is from 911research.com). i'm sure they are the actual building plans, regardless of colour.

curious, though.
it's sad that so many rifts develop between those who are otherwisely allies. paranoia, big detroya.

Originally posted by thedman
As a FF can say that the original blueprints/specs usually mean squat -
over the years all manner of alterations or changes (often undocumented)
are carried out. Often what you find bears little to the original - partitions
where there weren't any or missing partitions. Holes cut into firewalls
(lost a strip mall in our town when someone chopped a 3 ft hole in attic fire wall).

I'm sorry but as a PE, I say not really. All alterations that need a permit are documented. Which include partition walls. Especially in NYC.

Here's a sample page of what I'm talking about.

a810-bisweb.nyc.gov...

In WTC tenants often made alterations - in South Tower remember
that Fuji bank had cut an escalator between 2 floors (79 and 80 if remember correctly). This was heart of the impact zone and such a
open space would allow fire and smoke to easily travel inside the building

An escalator being removed would be a major operation that would need permits, drawings and specs.

Remember just because its on a piece of paper dont make it right...

This I will agree with. You don't know how many times we ask the owner, building manager etc. if they have drawings of their own building and the answer is no. That is one of the recommended changes to the code by NIST that I am all for. The mandatory upkeep of current and historic drawings. You'd be amazed how many owners don't have the drawings to their own buildings.

Anyway, the discussion really isn't about permits, drawings and specs. It's about A&E possibly altering the images on their website to make it appear that they are in possession of the originals. Which I pretty much know for a fact that they are not.

Originally posted by billybob
i don't know.
seems a little like making a mountain out of a molehill.
. . .
curious, though.
it's sad that so many rifts develop between those who are otherwisely allies. paranoia, big detroya.

I couldn't agree more. I think we are in a dangerous phase of this whole enterprise. We have to face the fact that there have been no payoffs for the truth. Yet. We are in the darkest hours of the movement. People may start to get cabin fever on the life raft.

The longer we go with no payoff, the more we seem like cranks for holding onto our position. Blowing the whole argument off for an imagined infraction has been done numerous times in numerous threads in this forum. "Lint on their shoulders. They gotta be lying. I'm outta here! I'm going back to my comfort zone."

People do what they have to do.

I keep reminding myself that on 9/11 they made a molehill out of a couple of mountains in 15 seconds max. each. That's a controlled demolition. There is no way around it. Domino one. All the other dominos follow on. Controlled demolition to mass murder, to the rise of the fourth reich. The smiley face reich. The new feel good naziism.

Long live 9/11 truth! Smash fascism!

[edit on 13-11-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by billybob
i don't know.
seems a little like making a mountain out of a molehill.

Actually not to me and I'll explain.

the .gif that shows 'blueprints' could just be a case of artistic license.

It could be but to me it makes it appear they have in their possession the originals Which they don't.

(?) when i took drafting and design in high school, we made 'blueprints' that were purple lines on white paper, but we still called them 'blueprints'.

Same with me. They really didn't start to be called drawings until the advent and use of CAD where we could just plot them out cheaper than running prints. But blueprints as the A&E site shows were becoming obsolete in the 40's and the towers were built in the 60's.

the .gif is just a link to the actual scans which are black lines and white backgrounds. there's nothing that i found deceiving in the actual content(which is from 911research.com). i'm sure they are the actual building plans, regardless of colour.

The thing I find decieving is that A&E put actual "blueprints" on their page. This makes it appear they have the original blueprints. Which they don't I believe. And which I even believe the originals wouldn't have been "blueprints" to begin with.

curious, though.
it's sad that so many rifts develop between those who are otherwisely allies. paranoia, big detroya.

I'm not trying to create a rift at all. I still have respect for Gage. I am still a signed member to their site. But, as a signed member, I feel if we are going to call for "truth", we must be "truthful" ourselves. No matter if people don't understand "blueprint" "blueline" "blackline" "drawing" doesn't matter. It is those of us who do know the difference that can see that this can be considered decietful are the ones who matter. How does Gage want to be respected when someone can point to his site and laugh beause they know he is in a way lying?

Basically, shouldn't an actual person calling for truth say something when they see even their own side not being truthful?

reply to post by ipsedixit


I couldn't agree more. But, let me ask. If you are say on any kind of "team" and you see one of your own being untruthful, would you call them out on it or just let it go? Is this not what we are fed up with on the whole police state issue, the catholics molesting children issue, etc. etc,. That the good ones let the bad ones go just because they are on their "side"? The more we let our "cronies" get away with things, the more we become like the very thing we are against IMO.

reply to post by Griff

I think it is important to be as scrupulous as we can in the truth movement. If we take shortcuts or fudge the truth, we give the propaganda machine on the other side ammunition to use against us. So as far as that goes, I'm with you in the spirit of what you are doing.

I think we have to be very careful, though, about unintentionally sowing doubt of our own position. I may quibble on details with Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, or the A@E 4 9/11 Truth guys, but on the main points, controlled demolition, conspiracy within government, coverup and hidden agenda, I agree with those people.

I'm not criticizing you for being scrupulous about the way the blueprints should be presented, but I am concerned, hoping that what you are saying is properly understood and not taken out of context and used against us in a propagandistic way.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I think we have to be very careful, though, about unintentionally sowing doubt of our own position. I may quibble on details with Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, or the A@E 4 9/11 Truth guys, but on the main points, controlled demolition, conspiracy within government, coverup and hidden agenda, I agree with those people.

I totally agree. There's a fine line we must walk when criticizing our own.

I'm not criticizing you for being scrupulous about the way the blueprints should be presented, but I am concerned, hoping that what you are saying is properly understood and not taken out of context and used against us in a propagandistic way.

I do have the habit of not getting my point across 100%. So, I agree with your and billybob's concerns.

Like I've said. This incident has not changed my mind when it comes to 9/11. Nor has it made me withdraw my signature from the A&E site.

Thanks for pointing out that I need to be careful when walking on this thin ice.

Thanks Griff. I feel quite reassured. My worst fear was that you might have become disaffected. Your presence on the side of 9/11 truth here on ATS is one of it's main strengths. No-one deals with pseudo-engineering BS better than you do.

Originally posted by Griff

Like I've said. This incident has not changed my mind when it comes to 9/11. Nor has it made me withdraw my signature from the A&E site.

I agree, it's not a big deal.

But what about this little tidbit? He's saying... STILL... that the towers fell at freefall speed.

www.ae911truth.org...

"Until 9/11/01 most physicists would have agreed that the one that didn't have to crush though 100,000 tons of steel would fall first — at free-fall speed."

Or this? The buffoon is showing a picture of compressed floors, with concrete and all.... and using it as an example - weirdly - of molten metal? Or what? Why the deception here? Are you not worried by this too?

www.ae911truth.org...

"Previously molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises. Hydrocarbon fires can burn at a maximum temperature of 1,800°F which is about 1,000° short of the beginning melting temperature of steel. Where did the molten metal come from? Why do FEMA and NIST deny its existence? "

i also tried to find the genius there - not sure if he's a signer like you or has actually submitted an arcticle they put up - who was convinced that nukes were used. Are you disturbed by that? Even just a little bit that Gage would allow these kind of crank theories to be up on his website, when he's trying to represent himself as "serious"?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Even just a little bit that Gage would allow these kind of crank theories to be up on his website, when he's trying to represent himself as "serious"?

I agree that he's not perfect. If it were my website, I would just put up the evidence. No theories of any kind. Big or small. Here or there. For or against.

[edit on 11/14/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

I agree that he's not perfect. If it were my website, I would just put up the evidence. No theories of any kind. Big or small. Here or there. For or against.

But the statement of "freefall speed" and the photo of the compressed floors *IS* his evidence Griff. The other dude.... whatever.

Hence my Q - does it bother you at all that he uses the false statement about freefall speeds, and a photo of compressed floors to make a point about molten steel to make his points?

As a skeptic, the moment I saw these inconsistencies, the bar that he would need to get over would go waaaaaay up before I would take anything he presents as representing anything truthy......

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
But the statement of "freefall speed" and the photo of the compressed floors *IS* his evidence Griff.

How fast do you think they fell and what is your evidence?

I think it was about 15 seconds maximum (from the video footage), which is close to free fall speed, way too fast for anything but a controlled demolition. Are we in agreement on that?

The use of the phrase "freefall speed" is shorthand, like the phrase "fell into it's own footprint". Neither thing actually happened, but what happened was close enough to merit those loose conversational descriptions.

If the discussion here is about scrupulous scientific accuracy, then I understand the objections, otherwise it doesn't seem helpful to me to raise objections of that sort. Too debunkeresque for me.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

1-I think it was about 15 seconds maximum (from the video footage),

2-which is close to free fall speed, way too fast for anything but a controlled demolition. Are we in agreement on that?

1- Agreed

2- No. It was about 70% slower than freefall speed.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by ipsedixit

1-I think it was about 15 seconds maximum (from the video footage),

2-which is close to free fall speed, way too fast for anything but a controlled demolition. Are we in agreement on that?

2- No. It was about 70% slower than freefall speed.

Please elaborate.Saying that it was 70% slower than freefall speed is not the awesome rebuttal it sounds like.

It's the kind of statement you read about in "How to Lie With Statistics." The buildings fell in about 5 seconds or so slower than free fall speed and way, way, way faster than they would have in anything resembling an unassisted collapse.

Each floor collapsed about .05 seconds slower than free fall speed. Right?

[edit on 15-11-2008 by ipsedixit]