AE911Truth pressures NIST for decision on WTC 7 report

[Jaytje46]

Seems that AE911 want to sue NIST

AE911Truth, together with ten 9/11 family members and 88 architects and structural engineers, appealed NIST’s initial decision on the request for correction on September 28, 2020 — more than eight months ago. Per NIST’s policy, the agency usually responds to appeals within 60 days.

Here is the request in PDF

Not sure what they are talking about here.

The Requestors’ Appeal, and their Request for Correction, clearly show, contrary to NIST’s Initial Decision, that the NIST WTC 7 Report’s conclusion and rationale that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was due to fires and not the use of explosives and incendiaries was more than just wrong

Where is the proof of explosives? Just saying it, does not make it so

Requester’s Appeal, and their Request for Correction, clearly establish that the NIST WTC 7 Report was so factually inaccurate, methodologically unreliable, scientifically unsound, illogical, and biased that it blatantly violated NIST’s IQS requirements of objectivity, utility, transparency, and reproducibility.

So we can scratch their report also, talking about being bias.

 

[carlitos]

Re: "ten 9/11 family members "

How would the families of victims who died in the terrorist attacks on World Trade Center 1 or 2 have legal standing to sue NIST for its engineering report on the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building?

 

[bknight]

How would the families of victims who died in the terrorist attacks on World Trade Center 1 or 2 have legal standing to sue NIST for its engineering report on the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building?

Lawyer fees.

 

[Oystein]

...Report was so factually inaccurate, methodologically unreliable, scientifically unsound, illogical, and biased that it blatantly violated NIST’s IQS requirements of objectivity, utility, transparency, and reproducibility.

This perfectly describes the Hulsey report.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

This perfectly describes the Hulsey report.

And presumably, this is why they are resorting to the courts. The Hulsey report, from what I gather, has not proved the use of explosives, and AE911T have not yet produced a single shred of evidence for them either. Is it possible that this court case is an attempt to justify continuing to collect donations- something to show the suckers that their money has not simply gone to line Gage's pockets?

I also wonder about the involvement of the victims' families. Are they paying the costs, or is AE911T doing that? If they win, do they get anything out of it?
I would have thought that, having seen the 911 Commission Report, suing the US government for incompetence leading to these deaths would be both more productive and have a greater chance of success. I see no obvious benefit to these families in this current court case.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I also wonder about the involvement of the victims' families. Are they paying the costs, or is AE911T doing that? If they win, do they get anything out of it?

I wonder whether their involvement is real or fictitious.

Dave

 

[carlitos]

I also wonder about the involvement of the victims' families. Are they paying the costs, or is AE911T doing that? If they win, do they get anything out of it?

Ugh. I hadn't even thought of the families funding this. I figured that there is a subset of these families that are willing to lend their names to whatever cause, and ae911t is willing to dishonestly use that as a fig leaf for their fund-raising.

Using these families, whose loved ones had been dead for several hours before an empty building fell down, to raise money and pay for these cretins to travel the world and spread lies, would be despicable.

 

[bknight]

Ugh. I hadn't even thought of the families funding this. I figured that there is a subset of these families that are willing to lend their names to whatever cause, and ae911t is willing to dishonestly use that as a fig leaf for their fund-raising.

Using these families, whose loved ones had been dead for several hours before an empty building fell down, to raise money and pay for these cretins to travel the world and spread lies, would be despicable.

Grifters don't care as long as they get the money.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Is Gage still practicing as an architect? I forget... Been a while since I touched these conspiracies. I said this 9 or 10 years ago as a college student on here... and say so more confidently after almost a decade of practical experience following that... His lawsuit's going to get thrown out. It's already a violation of ethics to be knowingly publicizing manipulated data and conclusions drawn from inept research case study practices. I'm not sure why he and his organization thinks it's going to be any different now.

 

[Oystein]

Is Gage still practicing as an architect? I forget... Been a while since I touched these conspiracies. I said this 9 or 10 years ago as a college student on here... and say so more confidently after almost a decade of practical experience following that... His lawsuit's going to get thrown out. It's already a violation of ethics to be knowingly publicizing manipulated data and conclusions drawn from inept research case study practices. I'm not sure why he and his organization thinks it's going to be any different now.

Since he is truthing full time, and may be unemployable, he has not been practicing architecture in one and a half decades, but last I checked (already years ago - the last time they tried to troll an AIA convention) he still retained his license.

 

[MileHighMadness]

It all about the money...

 

[JSanderO]

The 20th anniversary of 9/11 is approaching. There have been many lessons from the event and many from the aftermath in trying to understand what happened including understanding how intelligent educated people can descend into a rabbit hole of dumb.

The engineering and physics of the events of 9/11 have been satisfactorily been explained. Assumptions had to be used in the explanations because real time data was not available so reason educated, informed assumptions were made... such as the heat from fires... where, how long, how hot.

By far the most troubling aspect of 9/11 are the truthers and people who refuse to accept engineering and critical thinking and become "conspiracy believers". There are some who try to support their conspiracy beliefs with "science" and "engineering. But these attempts are flawed. And then comes the denial.

Gage was an early entrant into the rabbit hole. He did not possess the technical background and belief the fake science being peddled. It didn't help that terms like "pancake collapse" were used early on to describe a much more complex phenomena.

So Gage collected a merry band of followers who would support him in collecting more naive followers who would gladly enter into the 911 truth echo chamber of non sense. He made a career of it and did quite well.. in a sense. To a few he's a hero fighting for truth. For most he's a cult leader exploiting ignorant people. Gage comes up with a new shiny object every few years to fuel his business model of growing his cult which pays him for whatever nonsense he can produce. It's a job... someone has to do it. Gage seized the opportunity.

Truthers are in denial and are hardly interested in the truth about what happened. Their beliefs are driven by anti establishment and anti government and anti media bias. But even that is somewhat understandable. We all live in a media environment flooded with marketing and misinformation used to exploit or profit.

 

[Petra]

Before I venture further I'd like to get agreement on this general statement:

If there are only two hypotheses needing consideration, Hypotheses A and B, and 10 points can be found that favour Hypothesis A over Hypothesis B while none can be found to favour Hypothesis B over Hypothesis A, we should plump for Hypothesis A being correct assuming there is no evidence that contradicts it.

Agree, yes or no. If no, why?

 

[Oystein]

Before I venture further I'd like to get agreement on this general statement:

If there are only two hypotheses needing consideration, Hypotheses A and B, and 10 points can be found that favour Hypothesis A over Hypothesis B while none can be found to favour Hypothesis B over Hypothesis A, we should plump for Hypothesis A being correct assuming there is no evidence that contradicts it.

Agree, yes or no. If no, why?

Well, yeah.
If.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Before I venture further I'd like to get agreement on this general statement:

If there are only two hypotheses needing consideration, Hypotheses A and B, and 10 points can be found that favour Hypothesis A over Hypothesis B while none can be found to favour Hypothesis B over Hypothesis A, we should plump for Hypothesis A being correct assuming there is no evidence that contradicts it.

Agree, yes or no. If no, why?

(This is going to be fun!)

OK, agreed.
Now what?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Before I venture further I'd like to get agreement on this general statement:

If there are only two hypotheses needing consideration, Hypotheses A and B, and 10 points can be found that favour Hypothesis A over Hypothesis B while none can be found to favour Hypothesis B over Hypothesis A, we should plump for Hypothesis A being correct assuming there is no evidence that contradicts it.

Agree, yes or no. If no, why?

What are your two hypotheses?

 

[Austinlegro]

Before I venture further I'd like to get agreement on this general statement:

If there are only two hypotheses needing consideration, Hypotheses A and B, and 10 points can be found that favour Hypothesis A over Hypothesis B while none can be found to favour Hypothesis B over Hypothesis A, we should plump for Hypothesis A being correct assuming there is no evidence that contradicts it.

Agree, yes or no. If no, why?

I would raid my piggy-bank and stick it all on hypothesis A.

I'm nearly old enough to remember St Thomas Aquinas' five proofs too...

 

[Petra]

(This is going to be fun!)

OK, agreed.
Now what?

It's so great we agree, Cosmic Yak. It's always good to establish agreement.

I issued an Occam's Razor challenge (initially offering $5,000 but withdrawing it simply because it was a gimmick) for 10 points favouring the hypothesis opposing mine for a number of "events" including the collapse of WTC-7. Of course, I put my own 10 points forward favouring my chosen hypothesis.

So far, no one has responded to that challenge either with 10 points (or even just the one) favouring the fire hypothesis and nor has anyone refuted any of my 10 points favouring controlled demolition.

I will summarise my 10 points below with a link to them in more detail including links to evidence.

Please offer either a refutation of my points (not from the summary though, from my page) or 10 or fewer points favouring the fire hypothesis for the collapse of WTC-7.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/collapse-of-wtc-7.html

1. They tell us
While it may seem counterintuitive, the perps actually tell us what they're up to underneath the propaganda and in a conversation showing signs of scripting newscaster, Brian Williams, asks fire lieutenant, David Restuccio, "Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?" ["Went in" is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]

Journalists pre-announce its supposed unanticipated collapse.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC-7, says he said to "pull it", a term used in controlled demolition.

​2. Foreknowledge of controlled demolition
Quite a number of indicators of foreknowledge

3. No reason to suspect fire
No fire obvious at time of collapse, many high rise steel frame buildings aflame without signs of collapse, no allusion to fire on the day by those commenting on its collapse.

4. Lay people on the day alluded to controlled demolition
A number of journalists alluded to controlled demolition on the day.

5. Professionals in the field of controlled demolition recognise CD from manner of collapse - As perhaps suggested by Point 4, when a building collapses by controlled demolition the MANNER of its collapse from an OUTSIDE perspective tells all. This is why when two men in the field of demolition, explosives loader, Tom Sullivan and demolition expert, Danny Jowenko talk about the collapse of WTC-7, they have no hesitation in stating that it was a controlled demolition just from observing it.

6. Characteristics of controlled demolition (with none of fire) clearly displayed in collapse
--- explosions pre-collapse (to weaken the building) and explosions during collapse (to bring it down);
--- kink in middle at top just as it begins to fall (this reflects the weakening of the central columns first to make the building fall in on itself);
--- sudden onset of destruction; straight-down, symmetrical collapse through path of greatest resistance including actual free fall acceleration into building footprint;
--- pyroclastic-like clouds of pulverised concrete (the clouds include the gases from the incendiaries used which is why they look similar to the clouds from volcanic eruptions);
--- limited damage to adjacent structures; complete collapse and dismemberment of steel frame;

7. NIST's exclusion of CD based on unscientific rationale - NIST excluded investigation of the most obvious hypothesis of controlled demolition based on the claim that there were no loud sounds of explosions heard. Videos attest otherwise. Even setting aside sounds of explosions it would be unscientific to exclude investigation of controlled demolitions as many other characteristics of controlled demolition are present as indicated above while from visual observation, fire does not indicate any role at all.

8. NIST's explanation based purely in theory and speculation not in physical reality

9. Ex-NIST employee discusses absurdity of NIST's explanation (with backup from experts) - From 1997 until 2011, Peter Michael Ketcham worked at NIST as a computational scientist and was Chair of the Applied Mathematics Series for a time. While he was aware of the investigations into the WTC building collapses he did not pay much attention and it wasn’t until 2016 when a friend mentioned to him that there was a growing body of evidence showing that the official story was incorrect that he started to look at the NIST reports. Within a short space of time he realised that the NIST investigation was not sincere and genuine and became furious with himself for not having paid attention earlier. He describes the report on WTC-7's collapse as being like a Rube Goldberg device (in its explanation of how a single column failure caused a domino effect leading to failure of columns across the building) and follows this by likening it to the Emperor’s New Clothes (in how the model of the collapse is both oddly truncated and does not match the reality of the collapse). No one from NIST has come out and condemned or otherwise said a word about Ketcham's statements.

10. Experts in relevant professions speak out
A number of experts in relevant fields including demolition; architecture; structural, civil, mechanical, metallurgical, chemical, electrical design and fire protection engineering.

 

[timhau]

(This is going to be fun!)

You misspelled 'predictable'.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's so great we agree, Cosmic Yak. It's always good to establish agreement.

I issued an Occam's Razor challenge (initially offering $5,000 but withdrawing it simply because it was a gimmick) for 10 points favouring the hypothesis opposing mine for a number of "events" including the collapse of WTC-7. Of course, I put my own 10 points forward favouring my chosen hypothesis.

So far, no one has responded to that challenge either with 10 points (or even just the one) favouring the fire hypothesis and nor has anyone refuted any of my 10 points favouring controlled demolition.

I will summarise my 10 points below with a link to them in more detail including links to evidence.

Please offer either a refutation of my points (not from the summary though, from my page) or 10 or fewer points favouring the fire hypothesis for the collapse of WTC-7.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/collapse-of-wtc-7.html

1. They tell us
While it may seem counterintuitive, the perps actually tell us what they're up to underneath the propaganda and in a conversation showing signs of scripting newscaster, Brian Williams, asks fire lieutenant, David Restuccio, "Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?" ["Went in" is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]

Journalists pre-announce its supposed unanticipated collapse.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC-7, says he said to "pull it", a term used in controlled demolition.

​2. Foreknowledge of controlled demolition
Quite a number of indicators of foreknowledge

3. No reason to suspect fire
No fire obvious at time of collapse, many high rise steel frame buildings aflame without signs of collapse, no allusion to fire on the day by those commenting on its collapse.

4. Lay people on the day alluded to controlled demolition
A number of journalists alluded to controlled demolition on the day.

5. Professionals in the field of controlled demolition recognise CD from manner of collapse - As perhaps suggested by Point 4, when a building collapses by controlled demolition the MANNER of its collapse from an OUTSIDE perspective tells all. This is why when two men in the field of demolition, explosives loader, Tom Sullivan and demolition expert, Danny Jowenko talk about the collapse of WTC-7, they have no hesitation in stating that it was a controlled demolition just from observing it.

6. Characteristics of controlled demolition (with none of fire) clearly displayed in collapse
--- explosions pre-collapse (to weaken the building) and explosions during collapse (to bring it down);
--- kink in middle at top just as it begins to fall (this reflects the weakening of the central columns first to make the building fall in on itself);
--- sudden onset of destruction; straight-down, symmetrical collapse through path of greatest resistance including actual free fall acceleration into building footprint;
--- pyroclastic-like clouds of pulverised concrete (the clouds include the gases from the incendiaries used which is why they look similar to the clouds from volcanic eruptions);
--- limited damage to adjacent structures; complete collapse and dismemberment of steel frame;

7. NIST's exclusion of CD based on unscientific rationale - NIST excluded investigation of the most obvious hypothesis of controlled demolition based on the claim that there were no loud sounds of explosions heard. Videos attest otherwise. Even setting aside sounds of explosions it would be unscientific to exclude investigation of controlled demolitions as many other characteristics of controlled demolition are present as indicated above while from visual observation, fire does not indicate any role at all.

8. NIST's explanation based purely in theory and speculation not in physical reality

9. Ex-NIST employee discusses absurdity of NIST's explanation (with backup from experts) - From 1997 until 2011, Peter Michael Ketcham worked at NIST as a computational scientist and was Chair of the Applied Mathematics Series for a time. While he was aware of the investigations into the WTC building collapses he did not pay much attention and it wasn’t until 2016 when a friend mentioned to him that there was a growing body of evidence showing that the official story was incorrect that he started to look at the NIST reports. Within a short space of time he realised that the NIST investigation was not sincere and genuine and became furious with himself for not having paid attention earlier. He describes the report on WTC-7's collapse as being like a Rube Goldberg device (in its explanation of how a single column failure caused a domino effect leading to failure of columns across the building) and follows this by likening it to the Emperor’s New Clothes (in how the model of the collapse is both oddly truncated and does not match the reality of the collapse). No one from NIST has come out and condemned or otherwise said a word about Ketcham's statements.

10. Experts in relevant professions speak out
A number of experts in relevant fields including demolition; architecture; structural, civil, mechanical, metallurgical, chemical, electrical design and fire protection engineering.

How does the saying go?

Same **** different day?