Why WTC evidence struggles to be heard in the engineering community

A common argument used by those who oppose our organization’s mission to obtain a new investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center towers 1, 2, and 7 on 9/11 is often, “Why aren’t there even more architects and engineers who have signed your petition?”
In a world of roughly seven billion people, which we can assume includes millions of building trade professionals, it’s an all too easy tactic to marginalize the 3,645 on our petition as a paltry minority, and to convey a simplistic picture in which every person with an architectural or engineering degree has been equally exposed to the World Trade Center controversy and to the evidence of controlled demolition on 9/11. This marginalization is based solely on the false premise that every architect and engineer has already been presented with the facts surrounding the issue and has already rendered an informed judgement. 
That is simply not the case. 
Though we have done a great job in spreading awareness of the WTC evidence, considering the mighty forces we constantly battle, mass familiarity with the World Trade Center controversy is an ongoing fight, and we still have work to do. While we would welcome balanced coverage of our evidence and a spirited debate by the mainstream media and by professional engineering associations, the fact is that these institutions have already lost that debate by opting only to stifle it.  
The refusal to dig deeper and question the unscientific claims of NIST has been both a revealing display of institutionalized censorship within a society that prides itself on promoting open and free discussion, and a sociological case study of the effects of cognitive dissonance on a population.
NIST RFC panelists v3 1024 opt 
Big lies require massive cover-ups, and while we can’t say in the case of the World Trade Center demolitions that the cover-up is worse than the crime, the effort to stifle discussion of the unpleasant truths surrounding the destruction of the three towers that fell on 9/11 has added another layer of tragedy to the event. 
“You can divide the crime into three sections,” said AE911Truth Chairman, Roland Angle, during a recent interview on our podcast, 9/11 Free Fall.  “The planning, the execution, and the cover-up.”
In his upcoming book, Engineering the 9/11 Cover-Up: How the WTC Evidence was Kept Secret from the World,, Angle will focus on this third aspect of the 9/11 crime.  In particular, he will explore how certain individuals and professional associations that make up the engineering community played a role, either knowingly or unknowingly, in brushing aside a true professional inquiry into how the WTC towers really came down. 
While Angle’s book will explore the more overt attempts by those in positions of power within the political world of the engineering field to stamp out discussion of the controlled demolition evidence, there exists other factors, too that discourage more rank-and-file engineers from exploring the issue further or prompt them to stay silent.
First, as is the case in many professions, engineers have a greater incentive to look away from controversial issues that spring up within their field, and to simply go along with the status quo. 
When you strip away all platitudes and professional sentimentality, the plain truth is that engineering is a business, and the primary goal of any business is to make money. Sadly, controversy and its potential impact on a firm’s bottom line can often be the first and last thought in the minds of a firm’s management team, leading many managers to directly or indirectly urge its employees to steer clear of anything that might reflect negatively on the company in the minds of their clients. 
Given the targeted campaign against the subject of 9/11 truth by the media over the last two decades, potential biases of new clients continue to be a factor that every engineer considers before throwing their name into the WTC debate, and often swaying them to simply not get involved, despite what they may privately think.
esquire hit piece loose change dylan avery jason bermas
Esquire magazine's Operation Mockingbird CIA handlers using strawman tactics, and guilt by association, in a hit piece styled character assassination of the creators behind Loose Change and a desperate move to try and discredit the 9/11 research movement.
Second, people are social animals and instinctively tend to look first for the validation of leaders within their pack before exploring new intellectual ground. In the engineering world, the leaders come in the form of professional associations, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association (SEA), which set the tone and topics of discussion within the engineering community.     
Unfortunately, when it comes to the question of what really happened to the WTC towers on 9/11, these professional associations have more at stake in the issue than a mere refusal to face an ugly truth.
“That presents the problem that we are faced with,” says Angle. “(Those atop) the professional engineering associations — primarily from ASCE and the SEA — were the ones that actually conducted the investigations and wrote many parts of the reports that NIST produced, so they have a vested interest. They are signatories to the original NIST reports and it’s going to be difficult for them to admit that the reports are not consistent with the evidence.”
In essence, this has been one of the most difficult obstacles that AE911Truth has faced when it comes to reaching the engineering community. The ones who hold key positions within the leading engineering organizations have already personally committed their names and credentials to the NIST narratives, creating a conflict of interest that influences their decisions when it comes to the WTC issue, resulting in an overall ignorance of the WTC controversy within their memberships and a lack of exposure by engineers to the evidence that conflicts with NIST’s claims. 
Roland Angle’s book is still being written. When it’s complete, it will dive even deeper into the issue of the cover-up and produce a clear indictment of those who have played a role in denying justice to the nearly 3,000 people who died at the World Trade Center on 9/11. 
We urge our supporters to not only add a copy of Angle’s book to their personal libraries once its completed, but to also share it with engineers and others in positions of authority and influence however they can. 
Though they often say that history is written by the “winners,” history is not always won by those on the side of the majority. In fact, it is often a galvanized minority that impacts events and their outcomes more so than the majority— most of whom typically sit on the sidelines, waiting to align with whichever side comes out on top in the end. 
By zeroing in on those responsible for the cover-up, through his book, Roland Angle is taking a giant and necessary step towards bringing the 9/11 truth movement onto the side of the “winners.”
When it’s finished, Engineering the 9/11 Cover-Up will forever attach names and groups to the word, “cover-up” whenever it’s spoken by those who champion a new WTC investigation and, in the end, history will remember what they have done.


Related articles