Just wanted to make a few points to those who do their own research on things important to them about understanding the data and most importantly the context of things you read online.

When Saherbal posts about the numbers of people from respected positions who question 9/11 she should be informing herself of the context. I am using her as an example not to single her out but because the topic was something I know something about (certified engineering technician, 20 years in the construction industry, 8 of those in the architecture field) and was something I tried to do my own research on after reading the topic.



Let's look at architects and engineers first:

Their are 113,700 registered architects in the US in 2010 (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and ... itects.htm) and just looking at building related engineers there were 262,800 civil engineers in 2010 (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and ... ineers.htm) this excludes materials engineers, aerospace engineers, chemical engineers, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, industrial engineers, etc...

So purely BUILDING related professionals total 376,500 professionals. 1500 represents 0.4% of the total. Not a statistically significant segment of the profession. (1 out of every 250).

Let's look at #'s of professors:

1,756,000 post secondary teachers in 2010 (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-traini ... achers.htm) that's an even worse showing at 0.02% of the profession or 1 out of 5000. Perhaps because they are usually better trained in critical thinking and fact based research.

How about pilots and aviation professionals?

103,500 pilots (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-a ... pilots.htm) and as for aviation professionals that would include aerospace engineers totalling 81,000 (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and ... ineers.htm) and others probably, but taking those two major professions that totals 184,500 people, 250 of which is 0.1% or 1 in 1000.

As for the first line of military, police and government officials there are over 1,000,000 police and officer ranked military personnel alone, government officials would be even higher and I didn't bother looking that number up. Using 1,000,000 as a conservative, round number that's 0.02% or again 1 in 5000 people.

So while saying 1500 architects and engineers think 9/11 was a setup or coverup or whatever sounds significant it isn't.

Context is everything.

There's another context in which those percentages should be viewed.

Only a minority of people will overtly come out against the mainstream beliefs on any given issue, regardless of what they privately believe. It's in most people's interest, career and relationship wise, to 'run with the herd', and not to make waves.

We see it clearly illustrated with regard to religion. Most educated people today realize that religious dogma is superstitious nonsense, but they go through the motions to avoid the stigma that still attaches to 'non-believers' in many areas of society.

But that's only my opinion.

Ed

As opposed to statistical fact which is what Greenspree presented.

Falsely equivalent, religion can neither be confirmed or denied by science.

Also, the numbers of people openly questioning religion are many orders of magnitude greater than 0.02% of the population.

I am wondering what the percentage of "conspiracy theorists" are in the general population. Maybe 1 in 5000?

According to wikipedia 15%....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_po ... y_theories

I think that the biggest thing to take from this is that everyone should be open minded and willing to accept that they could be wrong BUT recognize that which is most reasonable and likely.

I am always willing to concede that most things in life are not absolute, and quite frankly statistics usually bear this out (0.02% may not be statistically significant but also not impossible).

However, certain "conspiracy theorists" don't seem to want to recognize the extreme unlikelihood of certain aspects of their theories.

We must also remember that sometimes academics like to discuss implausible issues merely as an academic discussion and this may infer some validity to it (re: physicist study spiderman's web strength or batman's cape soaring abilities, to Tom Flanagan's recent fiasco)

Well those stats are old but was the first thing i could find in a few sec.
There are to date 1799 A&E and 16,593 other supporters. The 1799 are willing to put their careers on the line for a new independent investigation. As well their qualifications have been checked out. Do you know who much time it takes to put a project like this together and to do speaking engagements? Not alot of people are willing to do what Richard Gage has done,so EX makes a great point. People who come out against the Gov and 9/11 commission is called tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.Once you get that name people don't really like to associate with ya. There is a taboo about those kinds of people.

Arod makes this point which i find ridiculous myself. Is that all of those people are C students and i I want to know the statical analysis that they all be C students? I have looked at both sides and have alot of unanswered questions.
Further more How many arguing on this site against me have even looked at any of the facts I've laid out? I can tell you the the 3 most vocal haven't,I could be wrong but chances are I'm not.


I'm going to ask you have you looked on the other side ,have you looked on any of the many many pages i've posted?


There are many, many millions around the world of us truth seekers.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/high-level-officials-eager-to-spill-the-beans-about-what-really-happened-on-911-but-no-one-in-washington-or-the-media-wants-to-hear.html
Zogby Poll: Half of New Yorkers Believe Government Complicity in 9/11 that was in 2004
http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11timeline60pg


He won his case, why? Even the UK courts know they can't hide it much longer and go along with the corruption. Is there proof well there is over 2000 videos of the same reporter talking building 7 collapsed when it was still standing in the background. CNN did the same.
BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
Are all these videos of the same video from the same conspiracy site where someone made it all up? Or is it true?
How can you report a building collapse when it still standing and was standing 20 to 1/2 hr later?
years later BBC claims in 2007:BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost. How convenient that you cannot get it in the archives anymore. but you can still get it from youtube.
CNN clip look over his right shoulder it still there.
9/11 WTC 7 May Collapse or Has Collapsed CNN 4:20pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53n6exShLx0
Did this one come from a conspiracy site?



Remember the name Coleen Rowley, I'm telling you this cause this is what happened to her, she is a whislteblower about the events leading up to 9/11.
http://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org ... een-rowley
Paul Wellstone you might want to look into some information on him and what happened. alot of questions there too.He questioned it.

Fact is you are totally wrong as usual.
I have been reading the same garbage that you continue to post since LONG before you started posting it. Face it. You are far from original. The only difference is most of the conspiracy folks have moved on and don't keep dredging up debunked garbage from 5 and 10 years ago.

You sir(and i'll use that lightly ) have not shown 1 fact. Not 1.
Here is an excerpt from 1 of your sites. lol 2 weeks for rescue operation were done and i quote.

This is the website you quoted from Raiders.http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Maybe because they were still there because October 30, 2001: Citing safety concerns, the New York City officials announce plans to reduce the number of uniformed personnel on the site. Out of the approximately 160 firefighters on duty on the site, 25 would remain, and 25 of the approximately 90 police officers (the NYPD and the PAPD) would stay on.
That was Oct 30th wouldn't that have been longer than 2 weeks your web site you posted. That is some fine work they did there. No they never have firemen at rescue operations at smouldering buildings,with fires and gas still leaking. Just can't happen firemen are for fires only aren't they Raiders There is some of YOUR garbage sites.

Just wanted to add 1 more thing to that Raiders.

Physics Journal Publishes [color=#0000BF]Hard Peer-reviewed Evidence of WTC Explosives.[/color]http://investigate911.org/Nano-thermite.htm
Isn't that what YOU keep asking for?

Are you functionally illiterate or are you just trying to play the fool?
I was almost going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you actually read some facts for once. Of course that would be too much to hope for I guess.

Try again.
Here is the link in case you lost it.
Try reading the entire article instead of one paragraph.
Call a friend and have them help you out.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

I did read it, i read it 4 times just to make sure of what i was reading and then got someone else to read it also.
The anonymous guy of the site asked and i quote. why would they have firemen there? I did read the rest of the paragraph. And the next. I keep coming back to that question,why does he ask that?
So then i went to find the pic he was talking about to look at it to make sure it was the same, it isn't even on the page he has in the link it's the page before. Look at the pic i count 5 straight cut (broken ) beams and 1 the cut he is talking about on an angle with all the slag (for lack of a better word because i don't 'know that lingo.)stuck on it and another i can't be sure if it' an angle looks to be but the beam maybe leaning making it look like an angle cut. What are the chances of 4 beams breaking off on a straight ?

Was looking at another page of your genius. Comparing a 47 story building to a theater with unobstructed views to make his point that steel structures do collapse due to fires. Isn't that liken watermelons to blueberries? Here is the page read it for yourself.
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
The pdf he is making his point with.www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

In another page he is comparing thermite with nano thermite.
Nano (or super) thermite is more powerful than simple thermite. The difference is explained here:

I guess your genius don't know the difference but Dr. Steven E. Jones, Physicist does.Dr. Steven E. Jones, Physicist who was first to discover Nano-thermitic explosives in the WTC dust, co-authored the peer-reviewed paper concluding his discovery.

Here is the video your genius gives as an example of simple thermite eating it's way through a car.
http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php

Anon doesn't even dare to put his name on the site to back up what he is saying but 1799 A&E gives their name and credentials,and so doesn't Dr. Steven Jones a Physicist. Why should i believe Anon who doesn't even dare to put his name to his site.
If your worth your weight in salt you should at least put your name on it.Wouldn't you think?

You mean the same Dr. Steven Jones who got his ass kicked out of BYU because of his nutjob conspiracy theories?

Very interesting website. A lot of information in it.

The problem with it, is that no matter how much science or fact is put in front of conspiracy theorist's, they will refuse to beleive anything of the sort.

Little things likes facts and science are, as I said, lost on them.

Especially when they don't have the capacity to comprehend what a rhetorical question is and are not bright enough to figure out the context of the quotes they are trying to defend their case with.

Oh i understand alright. Just like the debunker anon can say the certain people in Gov had nothing to do with the put options. But thing is he can't say who put the put options up and there was NO TRACES to BIN LADEN. So how can he rule out anyone from the gov. Second when certain people in the Gov worked for Banks prior to particularly in the area discussed of put option trades in the banking industry.
here is a quote from the NIST report.

Here is a new article put out in 2012. Certain key persons are mentioned here. It explains alot what wasn't put in the NIST report.
Insider trading 9/11 ... the facts laid bare Mar 21, 2012
Page 1 of 3
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 1Dj05.html

Now here is a much better experiment of how super thermite works.
Kinda well actually out and out debunks you debunker. Who says and i quote
Kinda blows your debunker out of the water.
9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate Nov 10, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCi ... r_embedded

So i have looked at you site and still too many questions.