Lies of AE911Truth Exposed 1

It is time to bring the lies of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 “Truth” (AE911Truth) to light.

First, as we see, here, AE911Truth claims that over 24,000 Architects and engineers came face to face with the truth.  However, as this site points out, if you go to AE911Truth’s own site, you’ll see they only added 50 new petitioners, and if you watch the videos from AE911Truth’s own Web site, you’ll see that only 4 of those 50 were architects or engineers.

As we see here, that means the actual percentage of Architects and Engineers that are members of AE911Truth is a whopping 0.000166%.

In addition, if you go a little further down the Web site here, you will see even more evidence of Ae911Truth’s deception.  The owner of this Web site (who I might add is, as we see here, by his OWN ADMISSION, a LIBERAL who, again, by his OWN ADMISSION, is more than willing to believe the worst of the Bush Administration.  However, unlike AE911Truth, the “Scholars” for 9/11 “Truth,” etc, he is, at least, an honest researcher) points out that a little further research shows that there’s a problem with the Architects and Engineers for 911Truth’s claim to have 640 architects and engineers asking for a new investigation.  In point of fact, that total of 640 includes architect and engineering students, as well as other people who work  in those offices ( Hint: People who work in those offices aren’t necessarily architects or engineers- they could be secretaries). In point of fact, when everyone except those with licenses and degrees is excluded, there are only 284 names, and that’s with a broad definition of engineer- there are landscape and electrical engineers on that list (source). Scroll further down this site, and you will see that AE911Truth is again using the Beijing skyscraper fire just last February to “prove” their point.        

AE911Truth states’ that the Beijing skyscraper was comparable in size to WTC 7, which is technically true, but this site points out some details that AE911Truth leaves out: 1) The skyscraper in question was REINFORCED CONCRETE and steel, much like the new WTC 7 will be- and concrete is far more resistant to fire than steel.  This site also makes an aside that the “truthers” who support a controlled demolition of the WTC use the Madrid Windsor fire and make a big deal out of the fact that it didn’t collapse, while ignoring the fact that the steel in the Madrid Windsor fire DID melt, and it’s the reinforced concrete that survived, 2) The Beijing skyscraper was built  by Arup AFTER conducting an EXTENSIVE study of the WTC collapses, and 3) The Beijing skyscraper was built to withstand major earthquakes.  If it’s built to withstand the huge earthquakes that often occur China ( and the Pacific Rim ( aka, the “Ring of Fire”) in general, how is fire going to bother it?

Oh, and one other detail: As I pointed out in a previous article, there are two other differences as well: 1) The Beijing fire was fought, and 2) Unlike WTC 1,2, and &, the Beijing skyscraper did NOT suffer SEVERE structural damage before catching fires.

When it comes to honesty, AE911Truth makes Bill Clinton look like a Boy Scout.

%d bloggers like this: