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?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

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.

Then Why did it fall on Filtermans Hall in an uncontrolled collapse that resembles simple Column Kicking after the building was Hulled by an internal collapse, and what about the Engineer Predicting the collapse if the fires were unfought for a long duration of time.
Why did Column Kicking of the Movement frame resemble what would be expected in a Natural Collapse, with the curtain wall landing on top of the Rubble pile?
What about reports of the building leaning the direction it fell hours before any News cast predicting its fall.
What about the other two Tower that collapsed do to fire?
Your theory gas serious flaws please send me the 5000, as I answered your questions.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

You see, Petra, you lose right from the start.
You have not stated what the two hypotheses are, nor why these two are the only ones that should be considered. What about nanothermite, disguised missiles, space dustification rays, nuclear bombs built into the WTC when it was constructed, or any of the other ludicrous unevidenced fantasies possibilities?
Let's assume that fire is one, but you have not explored that in any detail at all: you have not shown there is no evidence in favour of fire-induced collapse. Then, what exactly, specifically, is your opposing claim, and why is it the only alternative to fires that should be considered?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You misspelled 'predictable'.

Oh, possibly, but I do enjoy this kind of thing. You could see the intended heffalump trap from a mile away, but it's engaging watching a truly inept attempt at a logic trap.

 

[Robin]

Journalists pre-announce its supposed unanticipated collapse.

Who "supposed" that?

In fact it was a highly anticipated collapse based on internal and external inspections of the building by experienced FDNY officers and OEM in which they noted missing columns from the south face, the corner torn off for 17 floors, collapsed floor sections over at least 4 floors an elevator car ejected from its shaft, dangling beams and loud creaking noises

Besides that it had been burning unfought for about 7 hours. Chief Nigro pulled the effort to save the building at about 1:30 pm or 2pm after assessing the building to be unstable and in danger of collapse.

I have a file of ordinary fire fighters as well who talk of the extent of the fires, the noises the building was making, things falling off of it and that it just didn't look right.

AE911Truth themselves that one of the criterion for a controlled demolition is "sudden onset" (and you acknowledge that they do).

So clearly this building has failed to meet one criterion that AE911Truth set for a controlled demolition.

 

[bknight]

What are your two hypotheses?

It is super secret, he is a critical thinker after all.

 

[Myriad]

"Went in" is a term used in common speech to describe having entered a structure. Which is exactly what a newscaster would be asking a firefighting officer about under the circumstances cited. Firefighters enter structures in order to fight fires therein.

If I said I noticed a new restaurant and went in, would you think I meant that I walked through the door to the interior of the restaurant, or that I demolished it?

You have provided no evidence for your claim that "went in" is a term used in controlled demolition at all, with any other meaning besides entering a structure.

If that's your #1 "point," it's overwhelmingly likely that the other nine are unevidenced nonsense too.

 

[Robin]

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

I will take your word that "pull it" might be used in the demolition industry.

But it can have other, more common meanings, such as "pull the operation to save the building" or "pull the contingent of firefighters" which is what the conversation is about.

And I am not sure why he would be telling a commander of the FDNY to demolish a sky scraper.

And if Silverstein was a king pin in an elaborate scheme that would have taken years of planning and cost hundreds of millions of dollars and involved thousands of henchmen, wouldn't he keep it, you know, secret? Not blab it on national television like he was some kind of Austin Powers villain.

So the interpretation that by the term "pull it" he was using demo industry jargon to mean "demolish the building" is not internally consistent, and doesn't fit the context of the reported conversation.

On the other hand the more obvious interpretation that he meant either "pull the operation to save the building" or"pull the contingent of fire fighters" is consistent and matches the context of the reported conversation.

--- sudden onset of destruction;

AsbI pointed out earlier WTC 7 was demonstrably not sudden onset and so fails this criterion for a controlled demolition.

straight-down, symmetrical collapse through path of greatest resistance including actual free fall acceleration into building footprint;

Please supply your calculations for "path of greatest resistance" as well as your technical understanding of the term. Also can you describe what you consider the path of least resistance giving your justifications or link to a technical paper that does the same, citing page numbers of where they do this.

 

[Gamolon]

--- 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)

Can you explain where the “pyroclastic” clouds came from in the video below that shows a Verinage demolition that uses no explosives?

https://youtu.be/3GNhEpHfgfI

 

[beachnut]

someone woke up in a pit of 9/11 truth BS and decided to believe

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

It appears you never asked Larry what he meant... Big fail (your post is dumber than dirt, and a box of rocks.

He meant pull the firemen... already great losses.

guess what, WTC fail in Fires no fought...

If a building is on fire, and we don't fight it, don't be surprised if it fails.


It appears you never read the NIST reports, you don't have any knowledge of fire science, and the properties of steel, and don't know what structural engineering is.

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...

This kind of makes your entire post proof you don't understand fire, fire science, and much more. It has been 20 years, and you could have earned a PhD in structural engineering by now, and studied fire science. Think about expansion and contraction, and what happens in fire.

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....

oops, you mean 9/11 truth nuts... you blindly believe liars and Richard Gage.

 

[Robin]

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.

AE911Truth have run an extremely well funded publicity campaign for about 15 years to convince experts that these were controlled demolitions.

In spite of this only a miniscule proportion of people in the field have been convinced to sign their petition and there is no guarantee of expertise or anything like it.

I have taken a survey of their comments and they seem to show evidence of little research.

For example one signatory indicated he believed that the wings of the planes that hit the twin towers sliced through the perimeter columns while remaining intact, showing that he had not even read the NIST report although he claimed he had, or even examined any of the freely available photographs of the damage.

The one signatory that I was able to chat to ignored any attempt to discuss details but instead launched into the usual preposterous allegations that I must be in on the conspiracy.

AE911Truth themselves have used demonstrable falsehoods to further their claims, (I can give details if you want) which casts their sincerity into doubt.

Among the technical literature put out by the 9/11 truth movement, only the Hulsey report has shown any degrees of professionalism.

 

[Robin]

Oh, and no evidence of explosions that stacks up.

And no sounds of explosions audible on the videos, even those taken a few blocks away.

And if you present evidence of an audible explosion sound that requires the use of filters (ie the Chandler video) then it is not evidence of sounds of explosioms.

 

[Gamolon]

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.

Why didn't you include the part where David Restuccio said he believed WTC7 came down on it's own? Was that intentional on your part?

"Pull it" (as others have mentioned) was Larry referring to pulling firefighters out of the building. "It" refers to WTC7

​

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

Yet you post no links to any of these indicators.

​

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.

How many of these other steel frame buildings had similar construction to WTC7 and had unfought fires?

​

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

And there were a number of journalists and lay people who said it collapsed due to fire.

​

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.​

Two people? That's 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;

Explosions do not mean it was explosives. There was no physical proof of explosives ever found.

The kink is evidence of the column failure due to fire

You need to look up the definition of a pyroclastic cloud because those were not them.

Limited damage to adjacent structures means it wasn't controlled. How does your rationale regarding damage to adjacent buildings apply to the Twin Towers?

​

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.

Again, there was never any evidence of explosives.

​

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

Can you point to one paper that explains the process of controlled demolition? Like how much explosives were used, where they were placed, etc. I haven't seen one paper that does this.

​

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.

One person. Wow!

​

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.

What percentage is that compared to the total number of all the licensed engineers in the world? Pathetic.

 

[beachnut]

No evidence for Controlled Demolition

...

So far, no one has... refuted any of my 10 points favouring controlled demolition. ...

Not one of the 10 points is evidence for Controlled Demolition.

Your experts in relevant fields including demolition; architecture; structural, civil, mechanical, metallurgical, chemical, electrical design and fire protection engineering must have mental issues, and not have any critical thinking skills. These 10 points make you appear to be gullible and unable to comprehend reality, unable to apply critical thinking skills required for problem solving.

Can you name every one of your experts?

Do you have something new besides 10 old failed talking points from 9/11 truth fantasy of CD?

- typing practice time

 

[carlitos]

In a virtual Olympiad of stupidity, the idea that buildings falling down was them falling into the “path of greatest resistance” is up near the top.

Things that fall somewhere on Earth tend to fall:

Downward.

Toddlers understand this.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As for steel framed buildings not collapsing in fires.

What about the ones that did collapse?

 

[Dave Rogers]

As for steel framed buildings not collapsing in fires.

What about the ones that did collapse?

Well, the game has always been "If you ignore all the actual evidence, then there's no evidence for the official story, so you have to accept the crap I just copied from someone slightly less stupid than me," so I suppose all the actual steel framed buildings that collapsed in fires don't count because reasons.

Dave

 

[Robin]

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.

This couldn't be more wrong - here are some quotes from fire fighters who were there on the day:

LIEUTENANT ROBERT LAROCCO Ladder 9 Lower Manhattan

https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. We ran into a few of our old buddies from Rescue 2.

FIRE FIGHTER THIRD GRADE TIERNACH CASSIDY ENGINE

https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110413.PDF

Q. Why was building seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two --

A. From tower two.

Q. -- that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A. Correct.

Q. Because it really got going, that building seven. I saw it late in the day, and like the first seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors.

A. It was fully engulfed. That whole building -- there were pieces of tower two in building seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot. But just looking up at it from ground level, however many stories it was,some-odd, you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to rhe other. That's an entire block.

Gerard Suden, Ladder 43.
First grade Firefightef

https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110022.PDF

It had to be hundreds of yards away but by the time we got up and climbed up a little bit and knew which way one tower was, we did start to hear the siren, but it was such an open area that we weren't sure if it was coming -- it seemed like it was coming from the left or straight ahead. We weren't sure, and to the right of us whatever building it was, I'm not sure, there was a really good fire going.

Visibility was really low. I remember we kept saying to each other wow, look at the (inaudible) .
Q. Building 7?

A. I would think so. I would think that would probably be it before it fell. I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.

We all got together and kept going. I lost track of time. I don't know how long that took either. That had to be a good little while, maybe an hour of hiking and following this bull horn still. It was all craters and beams and what not. Not that we lost, but we separated from the original amount of guys. So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and what not

LIEUTENANT JAMES MCGLYNN OF ENGINE 39

https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

I just climbed out of there and followed the ropes down, followed the I beams up and over. At the same time we were walking out, [[/b]b]and sure enough, that building was still involved. I'm like, is it going to come down next?

Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about half an hour later it came down.

Q. No kidding.

A. I mean, thank God everybody was out of there at that point.

Captain Christopher Boyle, 18 year veteran, NYFD

August 2002 Firehouse magazine

"A little north of Vesey I said, we?ll go down, let?s see what?s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what?s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn?t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we?re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn?t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn?t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn?t look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, 33 year veteran, NYFD

August 2002 Firehouse Magazine

Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

We got to Chambers and Greenwich, and the chief turns around and says, "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.

PARAMEDIC LOUIS COOK Division 2, ALS coordinator.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110103.PDF

 

[Petra]

This couldn't be more wrong - here are some quotes from fire fighters who were there on the day:

What you're preferencing is alleged testimony over visual evidence. We see WTC-7's collapse shot from seven vantage points and from none of those vantage points do we see any fire certainly nothing like what is described below. Nor during the whole course of the day do we see fire on nearly all floors.

"We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. We ran into a few of our old buddies from Rescue 2."

I believe that the testimony you quote may well have been produced under "exercise" conditions. Many admitted-to exercises were conducted on 9/11 and we can see that certain visual evidence has the hallmarks of "exercise" rather than reality. I have to say that generally speaking the testimony is rather odd, wouldn't you say, with a lot of irrelevant, not credible and otherwise unsupported information you wouldn't expect in a genuine testimony. Larocco speaks of seeing F15 fighters that were "fully-armed". Who else saw these fighters and what does "fully-armed" refer to?

Obviously we must prioritise the visual evidence over testimony that bears no relation to reality.

Try to match up what we see in the video with the testimony. It cannot be done.
https://youtu.be/Vgx8Uwo-Vxc

 

[Petra]

Well, the game has always been "If you ignore all the actual evidence, then there's no evidence for the official story, so you have to accept the crap I just copied from someone slightly less stupid than me," so I suppose all the actual steel framed buildings that collapsed in fires don't count because reasons.

Dave

Please reference those buildings. Shyam Sunder himself said that until WTC-7 no building higher than 15 stories had collapsed due to fire.

From the horse's mouth.

And relevant professionals say it's not a "thing", high rise steel frame buildings collapsing due to fire.

Anyone willing to put forward their 10 points or even just the one. Let's say that other high-rise steel frame buildings had collapsed from fire. That point doesn't FAVOUR fire over CD, does it?

Anyone really willing to do due diligence and provide 10 points that favour fire over CD, not just try to pick holes in my points.

 

[Petra]

Oh dear, I can see I'll just go round and round in circles here.

Let's forget picking holes in my argument that I constantly need to defend.

Let's just make it that you come up with 10 points that favour fire over CD. Make your own 10 points favouring fire. Can you do it?

It's hilarious to me that they offered WTC-7's collapse on a platter, actually filming it from seven vantage points. They SHOWCASED its collapse because they knew that only a small percentage of people would recognise it so clearly for what it is.

Collapses by fire and collapses by CD cannot be confused. There is absolutely no confusion ... and yet people will defend the ludicrous fire lie till their death.

So come up with your 10 points FAVOURING fire over controlled demolition. I really want to see that.