Remembering Building 7

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Lenny Bruce was literally arrested by the government for a comedy routine that by today’s standards is, well, tame by comparison. crap, we literally have on Prime Video a movie called the Aristocrats, where comics rehash the Aristocrats joke, which if we’re being honest is absolute trash-tier degeneracy.

Hell, around my little town there are literal flags that state outright ““F” Biden”, “Let’s Go Brandon”, or are those ‘take
no prisoners’ flags. Not one person has been told to take their flags down by a government official. In fact, there’s a restaurant that flies a LGB flag, and it’s typically packed during lunch hour - however, I won’t go there since I disagree with the mindset of someone who flies that flag. Am I restricting their right to free speech by exercising my right of association?

- Doc

[BeNotDeceived]

So these 3,000+ Architects and Engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the twin towers and building 7 are all crackpots with no substance whatsoever to their claims and concerns as professionals? Got it.

https://www.ae911truth.org/

[Chap]

Architects and Engineers

... and, glancing through the list, rather a lot of people who are just names and a place of residence.

A list of people limited to those with professional qualifications in the field of design and safety of large steel structures would be rather more relevant. The title 'architect' includes anyone who designs a building from a bus shelter upwards.

[Doctor Steuss]

... and, glancing through the list, rather a lot of people who are just names and a place of residence.

A list of people limited to those with professional qualifications in the field of design and safety of large steel structures would be rather more relevant. The title 'architect' includes anyone who designs a building from a bus shelter upwards.

You just wait a minute. Looking through the engineers, there's someone with a degree in agricultural engineering. Let's not discount the possible role irrigation played in the conspiracy. There are also a lot of electrical engineers listed, and people with degrees in computer science.

[Marcus]

So these 3,000+ Architects and Engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the twin towers and building 7 are all crackpots with no substance whatsoever to their claims and concerns as professionals? Got it.

https://www.ae911truth.org/

So you believe a theory on the basis of the number of people who agree? Come on.

But if you want to do it by numbers, okay. There are well over 3 million engineers and architects in this country. 3,000 of that number is 1/10th of 1 percent, so far more than 99.9% of architects and engineers in this country did not sign.

Like I said, though, numbers like your 3,000 are irrelevant. I'm having a difficult time believing you've really researched this if that's your argument.

[BeNotDeceived]

So these 3,000+ Architects and Engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the twin towers and building 7 are all crackpots with no substance whatsoever to their claims and concerns as professionals? Got it.

https://www.ae911truth.org/

So you believe a theory on the basis of the number of people who agree? Come on.

But if you want to do it by numbers, okay. There are well over 3 million engineers and architects in this country. 3,000 of that number is 1/10th of 1 percent, so far more than 99.9% of architects and engineers in this country did not sign.

Like I said, though, numbers like your 3,000 are irrelevant. I'm having a difficult time believing you've really researched this if that's your argument.

Yeah, my 7 years of research and conclusions based on scientific evidence, facts, eyewitness accounts and broken laws of physics rests upon the # of architects and engineers who have signed a document calling the destruction of 3 WTC skyscrapers a controlled demolition.

[BeNotDeceived]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cLSW2Ax2FC0

[K Graham]

Richard Gage is a moron.

[Marcus]

So you believe a theory on the basis of the number of people who agree? Come on.

But if you want to do it by numbers, okay. There are well over 3 million engineers and architects in this country. 3,000 of that number is 1/10th of 1 percent, so far more than 99.9% of architects and engineers in this country did not sign.

Like I said, though, numbers like your 3,000 are irrelevant. I'm having a difficult time believing you've really researched this if that's your argument.

Yeah, my 7 years of research and conclusions based on scientific evidence, facts, eyewitness accounts and broken laws of physics rests upon the # of architects and engineers who have signed a document calling the destruction of 3 WTC skyscrapers a controlled demolition.

Too funny. Don't say stuff you don't mean, then. Or are you just changing your mind because you were caught being irrational? After all, you were pretty clear here about how important you consider the number:

So these 3,000+ Architects and Engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the twin towers and building 7 are all crackpots with no substance whatsoever to

their claims and concerns as professionals?

[Res Ipsa]

So these 3,000+ Architects and Engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the twin towers and building 7 are all crackpots with no substance whatsoever to their claims and concerns as professionals? Got it.

https://www.ae911truth.org/

So you believe a theory on the basis of the number of people who agree? Come on.

But if you want to do it by numbers, okay. There are well over 3 million engineers and architects in this country. 3,000 of that number is 1/10th of 1 percent, so far more than 99.9% of architects and engineers in this country did not sign.

Like I said, though, numbers like your 3,000 are irrelevant. I'm having a difficult time believing you've really researched this if that's your argument.

Ah, once again I'm too slow. The BLS for 2020 lists a skosh over 2.5 million employed engineers. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes170000.htm Given that the list doesn't purport to be limited to employed engineers, 3 million sounds reasonable.

No profession is immune from crackpots. Crackpots include the full gamut of intelligence, education, and experience. And it's very common for even an expert in some field or other to be a complete crackpot on a specific subject. Academia is littered with examples. It tends to happen when an expert offers opinions on subjects other than their specific area of expertise. And, sadly, when we get old.

If one is a genuine skeptic, even offering this type of list is a huge red flag that one is dealing with crackpots. BeNotDeceived, are you aware of Project Steve? If not, you really should read up on it. https://ncse.ngo/project-steve. It demonstrates exactly why your list isn't the evidence you think it is. Take a look at surveys of the nutty things people believe. A .1% rate of crackpottery in any defined group sounds pretty low.

One last thing: I've used the term "crackpot" because it's the term you used. What's actually going on is cognitive biases that all brains have that can lead us to draw incorrect conclusions. The primary ones are generally helpful, and one can make a reasonable argument that our brains have them because they gave us an evolutionary advantage.

The first is patternicity. Our brains are very good at finding patterns in data. Often, they are too good. We also commonly find patterns in purely random data. Given the amount of information we have access to today, as opposed to hundreds of thousands of years ago, our brains will inevitably find patterns in data that mean absolutely nothing. Exhibit A -- The Bible Code.

The second is intentionality. Our brains are biased toward attributing patterns to someone's intent. Regardless of what your brain wants to believe, there are coincidences. Lots of them. Given the number of events that occur in the world, coincidences are inevitable. And our brains are bad at recognizing coincidence. Richard Feynman used to start a lecture by saying something like: on the way here, I walked past a car with license plate WTK 692. Do know what the odds are of that happening? The trick is in how to correctly think about the odds. In that example, the correct way to think is "what are the odds that Professor Feyman would walk past a car with a license plate?" "Not, what are the odds that Feynman would walk past a car with a specific license plate?" Why, because the odds that something happened, when it has already happened, are 100%.

The odds of finding some pattern in any large, complex set of data approaches 100%. And, in an incident like 9/11, we have a tremendously large and complex amount of data. That you, I, or anyone else can find a pattern doesn't tell us whether what we are looking at means anything or is the product of confidence. That's counterintuitive for our brains, but it's a fact of how they work. And once our brains find a pattern, another bias kicks in -- confirmation bias. Our brains will naturally emphasize evidence consistent with the pattern they think they've found and discount or ignore contrary evidence.

When our brains infer the existence of a conspiracy from a pattern found in data, they are making a fundamental error in reasoning. Our brains don't want to stop and think seriously about whether the "pattern" means anything or is the product or coincidence or about whether the pattern is actually the result of the intentional actions of a person or group. Because of confirmation bias, the conclusion that there is a pattern caused by intentional actors is reinforced to the point that evidence against the existence of the conspiracy is interpreted as evidence of the coverup of the conspiracy. It become akin to a religious faith that cannot be shaken by any evidence.