We Are Change Atlanta @ Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Present: Engineering Destruction

We Are Change Atlanta & The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Present


Engineering Destruction
Saturday September 11th 2001 (The 9th Anniversary)
7:30 - 9:30 pm @ The Plaza Theater 1049 Ponce De Leon 30306
Suggested Donation of $10.00
(Sliding Scale available, No One Turned Away!)
All proceeds go to support the 9/11 Truth Movement and our Brave and Beloved First Responders!

Engineering Destruction is a multimedia presentation
given by Mechanical Engineer and Architects & Engineers representative, Derek Johnson. His presentation explains
the forensic science of the 9/11 demolitions for the laymen, that once understood overwhelmingly points to the need for
a new and independent investigation of 9/11.
All proceeds go to support the 9/11 Truth Movement and our Brave and Beloved First Responders!

As we enter the Ninth anniversary of the War on Terror, the war in Afghanistan is intensifying, tensions in Iraq are resurfacing, and the possibility of a U.S. led attack on Iran is growing daily. Reflection upon the central premises and objectives in America’s vast military enterprise in the Middle East has never been more urgent. The stakes have been raised. Questioning The Official Story Of 9/11 Is Now A Matter Of Human Survival. We Can Not Ignore The Calling Of History Any Longer.

Please Stand With Us, As We Honor All Who Have Perished Due To The False Flag Terrorist Attacks Of 9/11.

We Must Be The Change We Wish To See In The World!



WACA_Plaza_Flyer_VerticalStack.jpg596.85 KB

RE: Great Graphics

Thank you Kindly!! :)

Derek Johnson Does a Fine Job...

with the CD evidence.

Way to Go ATLANTA!

Derek Johnson is a dedicated, resolute patriot!!

Derek has contributed so very much towards 9/11 Truth and the constitution.
He works extremely hard at it...and he can "out wrestle" those radio talk show hosts in a verbal round-about throw down.
Excellent Atlanta!

"All 3 Towers Collapsed at Free Fall Accelerations..." - FALSE

Why is this false claim prominently featured in an advertisement? I'm sure that Richard Gage knows that WTC 1&2 collapsed at less than free fall acceleration, and WTC 7 (visible exterior, at least) collapsed at free fall acceleration only during the first couple of seconds, or so.* Why not ask him about these claims, being that ae911truth's name is being used?

Even changing the verbiage to "nearly free fall acceleration" (which is what the ae911truth.org website says) is problematic, because nobody has produced a definitive theory of collapse that everybody can agree reliably predicts collapse speeds. Even if such a theory was believed to exist, how would it be rigorously tested?

The WTC 7 collapse is highly damning for a non-conspiratorial scenario, from the point of view of it's free fall acceleration phase. But how can you hope to credibly argue about CD for WTC 1&2, using false premises? What's going on here? Somebody trying to take ae911truth down?

Now, if you watch David Chandler's video "Race with Gravity", he plots the 'speed' of the "demolition wave", and finds that the 'acceleration' of the demolition wave is actually 'faster' than free falling pieces of the WTC tower. (His video is on youtube, here.) However, that still doesn't qualify as the physical collapse of the building, itself. At least, that's not how most people, debunkers and 911 truthers alike, would consider the collapse of the building, itself.** After all, one could easily create a demolition wave which outpaces gravity, but make the demolition of such little impact, that the building remains standing.

So, you have to estimate the collapse time of the building according to what you can see, which is a problem, since by the time the collapse is ending, it's pretty well obscured. (Alternatively, you can try and use the seismic records.)

* The debunkers make a big deal about the collapse of the WTC 7 penthouse, and act like they know details of a broadening, interior collapse. But they are dishonest, filling in the chasms between their more reasonable speculations and facts with speculations that are nothing more than guesses, covered over with bluster and wishful thinking. I'm not happy about some 911 truth claims, either, but at least I think the truther mistakes are honest ones.

** An analogy. If you go out at night, and point your flashlight at one star, and then take 1 second to point it at another, you cannot say that the electromagnetic light waves have traveled faster than the speed of light. If the stars are separated by 100 light years, nothing physical or even electromagnetic traveled at the speed of 100 light-years/1 sec.

If you define a fictitious speed as "the distance between pointed-to stars divided by the time it took to point from one, to the other", then yeah, sure, this fictitious speed is faster than the speed of light! However, defining speed this way will get an exasperated look from your physics teacher.

Suggestion for fixing up the advertisement

Change #2 to say: "WTC 7 Initially falls at free fall acceleration"

Add a #5: "Demolition Wave of WTC 1 plotted at GREATER than free fall acceleration " *

*ala Chandler

Are we a "Truth" movement or

Are we a "Truth" movement or what? Is this a relative undertaking or is it a total system wide movement? The term "engineered destruction" was the cause of a "major" serious debate within AE911Truth during the time of the February press conference. Many people left the organization over this debate.
What exactly is the thinking behind using the term "engineered destruction"? My issue with the term is that it introduces a semantic complexity that tends to draw thinking away from what really happened that day....mass murder using conspired crime planning with controlled demolition being the preferred method for "murder". "Engineered destruction" is wimpy and misleading in its descriptive.


No conspiracy.
Just deadlines and getting the word out there.
If anyone finds fault it is mine alone and not ae911truth.org

We are learning as we go and will be sure to address this in future mailings.

Thank you for your consideration on the groups behalf.

PS> Engineering Destruction was chosen by AE911Truth official Engineer Derek Johnson. You may have to take the title up with him.

Would you please consult with ae911truth, then update & resend?

You have, in ae911truth, an organization of professionals that have risked their reputations for the thankless task of trying to act like responsible citizens, in a society with a systemically rotted government. I don't think it's fair to them to put them in a position where they have to defend their good intentions, in the face of an easily debunked claim.

Everybody makes mistakes, but I believe that there is time to rectify this particular one, at least partly, no?

Making excellent points

as always, metamars. I hope ae911truth heeds your advice. I'm happy to see the noun "acceleration" is now used instead of "speed" to describe freefall. Freefall is defined by acceleration measurements, not dividing height of fall by time of fall, which yields an average.

Oh, and the graphics are great indeed.


Didn't you mean to type September 11, 2010 instead of September 11, 2001. regarding the date of the presentation. I can understand the mistake. Shoot, we've typed 9-11-01 so many times, it's automatic. Well, we should fix the above error. Thanks for all you guys do. My hat goes off to you all here.

On second thought

The fact that it is a "wimpy" description makes it easier for the uninitiated to accept it, and "Engineered destruction" might make people curious.

I wouldn't want to see it used often but I think Derek knows his audience, so let's see how this works.