AE911Truth pressures NIST for decision on WTC 7 report

[bknight]

No, for the simple reason that there were no twin tower demolitions.

It escapes me why anyone would present a video that's EDITED!!!! with an overlayed electronic dancefloor track. That destroys any pretense at credibility and respectability right at the outset.

How could you fail to notice that in the actual, explosive demolition, stuff was ejected BEFORE the building section above started to come down? Whereas at the twin towers, stuff ejected AFTER the top part started coming down.
Cause precedes effect.

I sense some hopeless desperation in your post, as you try hard to cling to your old, tired, long-debunked fantasies.

What the man said. ^^^^^

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

For descriptive term how about "banana peel". In this building demolition in China we see floors at large intervals being blown out with gravity doing the work for the sections of building in between the blowouts. Couldn't the twin towers demolitions have been caused by a similar type of demolition but rather than the blowouts occurring at large intervals and very obviously being horizontal blowouts being much more frequent less obvious blowouts - every couple of floors perhaps.
https://youtu.be/jO15CXhsTM4

How do you explain the resistance to collapse we saw in the Towers then your Talking about a second or two faster collapse than what was observed in the towers, that's not possible given the visual evidence.

 

[ozeco41]

Yet I was the first to figure out Mathmaticly why the collapse, was so fast though the mechanical Floors, off Center strikes using applied leverage reduce the energy needed to sheer connections.
That fact was used by DBB, In his paper with Banzant and Greening.
The paper a Hypothetical simply showed why the collapse was so Rapid and Total.

I find it astonishing that members are still quoting the paper:
"What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?" as authoritative when it relies on the Crush Down/Crush Up hypothesis proposed by Bazant & Verdure.

"column buckling"??? in the pancaking, "Rain of Overwhelming Momentum Collapse", "banana peel" or any of the other suggested terms to describe the process which did not crush or buckle columns.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I find it astonishing that members are still quoting the paper:
"What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?" as authoritative when it relies on the Crush Down/Crush Up hypothesis proposed by Bazant & Verdure.
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/webjref/clip420500.png[/qimg]

"column buckling"??? in the pancaking, "Rain of Overwhelming Momentum Collapse", "banana peel" or any of the other suggested terms to describe the process which did not crush or buckle columns.

I am referring to the computer simulation not the paper, the computer simulation was done after the paper. The paper was an abstract simplifcation, and the program and paper as I said we're hypotheticals.
You may not have viewed the program Ozeco41.
It was much closer to the real event.

 

[ozeco41]

I am referring to the computer simulation not the paper, the computer simulation was done after the paper. The paper was an abstract simplifcation, and the program and paper as I said we're hypotheticals.
You may not have viewed the program Ozeco41.
It was much closer to the real event.

No problem. You referenced the paper. It is wrong.

We are off-topic here. If you or any other members want to challenge my "It is wrong" comment or simply needs an explanation - post the request in an appropriate thread and tag me.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No problem. You referenced the paper. It is wrong.

We are off-topic here. If you or any other members want to challenge my "It is wrong" comment or simply needs an explanation - post the request in an appropriate thread and tag me.

I may do so because as some topics of the paper are simplified, it's Math is dead Right, which is the Important part of the computer program.
That is thanks to Frank Greening, DBB, and the Poster Einstein at physorg. If the old thread at physorg was still available it would show that the DBB, Einstein, and Greening did address many of your complaints in the updated computer simulation.

 

[JSanderO]

Column crushing has always been a stretch in the collapse phase which was floors "failing" from the over loading of floors from above crashing down on them. Someone called it ROOSD and that was apt.

But the top blocks DID lose axial support. It's possible that some columns failed... loads were redistributed to other columns pushing the working load above their capacity and this could be a similar "runaway" situation of failed columns... leading to the top blocks collapsing down. No way for the top blocks to drop unless they lost axial support. Total load essentially did not change nor increase.

During the initiation phase... before the top blocks dropped... heat was the driven of the process. It would lower the strength of steel. It would lengthen and warp lateral steel and this may have caused column ends to go out of axial alignment, reducing bearing area and leading to buckling. Column ends were not restrained.. and splices were not terribly robust (in my opinion). Asymmetry in the heating and initial mechanical destruction led to enough uneven heating and support that both the top blocks tipped...

And of course all the columns in the lower block were bypassed and undamaged as collapse phase destroyed the floors... the vast majority of the twin towers.

7wtc's sequence seems to have been:
local elongation of beams and girders at columns 79 and perhaps 80 and 81.
There may have been buckling of these columns on floors 12, 13 .... The columns were 2 story heights.
EPH loses support and it's mass descends through the NE side of the building
The local collapse of floor mass likely "disrupted" the several transfer structures on floors 5-7. This disruption may have what caused the entire building's axial structure to begin to fail. The debris collecting inside the tower at its base may have disrupted the 23 columns supporting the moment frame at the perimeter. A crush up may have ensued as whatever integrity remained in the tower was being crushed as it hit the ground.

 

[pgimeno]

Yes.

Why not use a descriptive term. Which aligns with the unique aspects of the WTC design and the main features of the rapid collapse.

The debris material fell down the open office space created by the tube in tube design.

It was a runaway process. Which resulted in global destruction.

So why not "runaway open office space destruction". We could possibly turn it into an acronym for brevity - both brief and specifically relevant to the WTC Twin Towers collapses.

There's a method for solving systems of linear equations, by making operations with the rows of a matrix by adding another row multiplied by a number to it, in such a way that the first element is zero in the second row, the first two are zero in the third, the first three are zero in the fourth and so on, until you have a matrix in upper triangular form. For some matrices, that operation consists simply of subtracting two consecutive rows and storing the result in the second.

Since it's triangulation, and it incrementally eliminates columns from a matrix using subtraction, why not call that method "Triangulation by Incremental Elimination of Columns through Subtraction" (TIECS)?

The answer is simple: because it already has a name, and that name is Gaussian elimination. If you mention TIECS to anyone familiar with Gaussian elimination, you'll be giving them a hard time until they understand that you're referring to it, not to mention wondering why don't you call it by its well established name.

Why not call the collapse of the towers "runaway open office space destruction" (ROOSD)? Well, because that failure mode already has a name: progressive collapse, or more informally, "pancake collapse" when it refers to the vertical kind of progressive collapse.

You may want to argue that TIECS only applies to matrices where a subtraction is enough; that's irrelevant, though: it's still regular Gaussian elimination.

Similarly, you may want to argue that ROOSD only applies to the way the Twin Towers collapsed, for whatever reason; but it's still progressive collapse.

So...

Why not use a descriptive term.

Because it already has one.

 

[JSanderO]

Runaway is more "final" than progressive. Open Office space implies column free floors which were DESTROYED by falling mass from above. Progressive implies some sort of "development" or change...
There were no stacks of pancakes.... the collapse almost completely destroyed the floors.

 

[ozeco41]

Similarly, you may want to argue that ROOSD only applies to the way the Twin Towers collapsed, for whatever reason; but it's still progressive collapse.

Yes, we don't need the word "apple" because we already have "fruit" and (reversing the burden of proof) I cannot prove that apple is not fruit.

That argument is as futile now as it was for all those previous years it was recycled.

Setting aside the false logic - if it wasn't so pathetic I could ask why the ridicule is only reserved for the one acronym "ROOSD" and has NOT been directed at the several others raised recently. By some members who may be uninformed about the history of this forum.

Because it already has one.

It has a generic class label. It warrants a specific label or acronym because the WTC Twin Towers collapses were a distinct form of progressive collapse. The debate was confused for many years, primarily because analyses did not recognise the actual mechanism of collapse. Specifically why the twin Towers collapses' progression stage was not adequately explained by macro analysis of motions OR 1-dimensional approximations.

 

[Oystein]

...
Why not call the collapse of the towers "runaway open office space destruction" (ROOSD)? Well, because that failure mode already has a name: progressive collapse, or more informally, "pancake collapse" when it refers to the vertical kind of progressive collapse.
...

Indeed as ozeco explained, pancaking (or ROOSD) are just one specific kind of progressive collapse mechanism, there are others, and the differences are interesting and may be enlightning.

Look at WTC7: It's progressive collapse went through at least three distinct phases once collapse initiated with some connection failures between floor beams and columns:

1. Pancaking of east bay floor slabs from 13th floor down to 5th or so - prior to EMP moving visibly
2. Column buckling of east core columns - EMP comes down
3. Horizontal progression of instability to West core columns, then perimeter columns low in the building

You could perhaps say that there were two distinct ways for horizontal progression:

• active pushing or pulling of horizontal members against neighboring columns that moves them out of plumb (East to West, core to perimeter?)
• Classic load redistribution followed by Euler buckling

And you might say that episodes of horizontal progression were followed by new phases of vertical collapse by buckling.

My point is that, to understand how WTC7 progressed from local failure to completely collapsed, you cannot equate "progressive collapse" with "pancaking", for you would miss most of the actual progression.

The Twin Towers had also at least three phases, only one of which was "ROOSD" or "pancaking", after the initiation event which was the inward pull of perimeter columns:

1. Progressive column buckling through load distribution
2. Pancaking
3. Euler buckling of what remained of the cores

See, WTC7 was not a "pancaking" collapse in the global view, but it started progression via pancaking. Twin towers on the other hand were, by and large pancaking collapses, but their progression did not start as pancaking.

That's why a term is needed for the progression stage that is characterized by sequential failure of overloaded horizontal elements: Pancaking.

-----

My problem with the neologism "ROOSD" is not so much that it already has a word ("pancaking"), but that it implies a claim that this collapse progression would not have occurred had there not been "Open Office Spaces" ("OOS") in the design. I believe that, once the top 12+ floors of a highrise have started to come down, have a significant downward momentum / KE, it doesn't matter much if internal columns are widely or densely spaced: Columns are already bypassing columns, much of the descending mass therefore will hit floor, and floors and their connections are not sized to resist such loads -> they will pancake.

Now, as I explained above, there does not seem to exist a formal classification and terminology for different mechanisms of collapse progression - "pancaking" has been used various times, but has no textbook definition as far as we are aware. Thus, people are free to come up with their own terms, as long as they define them well enough.

 

[Oystein]

To harp on - I continued wondering after my last post while I put away dishes and foods from my breakfast table...

The difference between the way the twin towers ("OOS" or "tube-in-tube" design) collapsed and the way a more standard designed highrise would like collapse from the top down is not so much the pancaking part - that would happen in all designs. Rather, it's the "banana peel" part: The tube-in-tube design has, conceptually, moved many internal columns to the perimeter, where they are now very closely spaced and also very tightly knit together by deep spandrels, moment frames, or what have you.
Whereas in a conventional design, an internal column might be surrounded by floor slab sections pancaking all around it (perhaps at different rates) and thus each column may end up failing on its lonesome own, the perimeter of the "OOS" design hold on to each other as floor slabs on the inside shear off. And so the walls will fall in large, connected sheets (inward or outward, depending on circumstances). If they peel outward, they may pull away from floors further below ahead of the progression of the pancaking front and thus aggravate the "runaway destruction".

So that, IMO, is the specific failure mode implied in ROOSD: That perimeter columns have a life and role of their own different from columns in a classic grid.

 

[ozeco41]

Indeed as ozeco explained, pancaking (or ROOSD) are just one specific kind of progressive collapse mechanism, there are others, and the differences are interesting and may be enlightening.

Definitely - it must be 8 or 10 years since we've seen serious discussion at that level.

My point is that, to understand how WTC7 progressed from local failure to completely collapsed, you cannot equate "progressive collapse" with "pancaking", for you would miss most of the actual progression.

Twin towers on the other hand were, by and large pancaking collapses, but their progression did not start as pancaking.

Agreed for WTC 7

Also agreed for Twin Towers - in fact, understanding why the "initiation" stage of necessity started "column ends missing or by-passing" is more important than why it resulted in the Twin Towers specific form of "pancaking" and all the polarising of arguments around the origins of "ROOSD" as the descriptive acronym. Failing to understand why column ends "bypassed" was in large part a consequence of misunderstanding the B&Z "drop to impact" (legitimate for a "limit case") assumption. And that error promulgated into most debates from 2006 thru 2009 even later.

That's why a term is needed for the progression stage that is characterized by sequential failure of overloaded horizontal elements: Pancaking.

Agreed.

My problem with the neologism "ROOSD" is not so much that it already has a word ("pancaking"), but that it implies a claim that this collapse progression would not have occurred had there not been "Open Office Spaces" ("OOS") in the design. I believe that, once the top 12+ floors of a highrise have started to come down, have a significant downward momentum / KE, it doesn't matter much if internal columns are widely or densely spaced: Columns are already bypassing columns, much of the descending mass therefore will hit floor, and floors and their connections are not sized to resist such loads -> they will pancake.

Fully agreed. That is the point where my last attempt to discuss the issue broke down. Circa 2013 from vague memories. I was suggesting that the energy formula underpinning the Bazant & Verdure "Crush Down/Crush Up" hypothesis could be changed to a factor that addressed the "spread of columns" (With the benefit of several years hindsight I now don't think it will work but that was the thesis at the time.) The discussion broke down as soon as my couple of discussion partners realised that I was showing that Bazant - specifically CD/CU - was wrong. They were true Bazantophiles and that was the end of the discussion.

Now, as I explained above, there does not seem to exist a formal classification and terminology for different mechanisms of collapse progression - "pancaking" has been used various times, but has no textbook definition as far as we are aware. Thus, people are free to come up with their own terms, as long as they define them well enough.

Agreed. Sadly, given the history, ROOSD is still contentious here tho' itis generally accepted in most other forums or groups where there is still active discussion. And, given the parlous state of current discussion, the is probably little chance of a new term becoming accepted even if we could invent one.

 

[JSanderO]

All WTC collapses occurred over several seconds... not an instant "explosion" destroying each tower. Time implies progression... start to finish. In the twins we know that the "progression" began with planes hitting the towers, destroying some structural steel and delivering fuel which igniting and started massive fires. The planes only began a progression of events which led to the tops dropping and their mass destroying the floors below in a runaway (unstoppable) destruction of the floors from from the plane strike zones to the ground. Columns were basically bypassed by the collapsing floor mass and the facade panels left without lateral bracing peeled and fell away. Core columns toppled from the absence of lateral bracing, vibration and exceeding the slenderness ratio for self supporting. The floor destruction phase was about a 10 second event and one could say the destruction progressed downward in that time interval. So in the initiating period we see a progression of failures of lateral steel and columns... which ended in inadequate axial capacity and collapse of the top blocks.

In 7WTC the collapse progressed from a fire which started apparently in the NE section around col 79 (and perhaps 80 & 81) which seems to have weakened and warped beams and girders framed into those columns supporting the local floor loads. One or more of these columns failed as a result of buckling after losing lateral support which led to the collapse of the EPH, local floor collapse around these columns, undermining of the transfer structures on floors 5-7 which led to failures throughout the structure which including floor collapsing along with the moment frame which collapsed when the 27 columns which supported it were undermined by the massive spreading collapsed floor debris.

In all three collapses one thing led to another and the progression was unstoppable... because the structure was not designed for these excessive (redistributed) loads.

 

[pgimeno]

Yes, we don't need the word "apple" because we already have "fruit" and (reversing the burden of proof) I cannot prove that apple is not fruit.

Bad analogy. We already have the world "apple". You may want to name your apples each with its own name, but again the people who know apples will frown because the established name of the variety of all the apples you have individually named does not match the one you gave to your apples.

It has a generic class label. It warrants a specific label or acronym because the WTC Twin Towers collapses were a distinct form of progressive collapse.

What's distinct about it apart from being the vertical ("pancake") kind?

Gaussian elimination through subtraction is still Gaussian elimination. An apple of the Golden Delicious kind with a specific pattern of spots is still an apple of the Golden Delicious variety. You may call it Spotty, but that does not help technical discussion with people familiar with apples; in the best case it will make you look like an uneducated person who wants to look clever.

 

[JSanderO]

So we don't have many total building collapses out there.... certainly of tall high rises. We have examples of CDs.. many of which had placed explosives to coax the building to fall a "certain way" which often is away from other buildings onto unoccupied land.
I don't recall any collapses resembling the twin tower events which essentially had athe top section of towers destroyed the bottom (falling as a dynamic load shattering every floor in sequence top to bottom). So they are "unique" but not inexplicable.
The WTC buildings were built fast, light and inexpensive... but the designs were sound within the design parameters. Fire/heat did what is expected when mitigation measures fail.
There are lessons learned such as runaway floor collapses can lead to collapse of axial structures... and that structural failures can progress or propagate through the structure laterally, that tall buildings don't have a design that can arrest a floor collapse. This seems to be a conundrum...make the floors stronger (heavier) won't arrest X number of floors. Floor connections to columns would need to be enormously strong.

 

[Myriad]

Not enough attention has been given to my Monster Mouth Model, which has been overlooked for 13 years but explains everything. NIST, Bazant, AE911T, ISF, they're all clueless.

 

[ozeco41]

Bad analogy.

Not so. It is a valid example of a straightforward issue of taxonomy. The distinction between "set" and "sub-set", between "system" and "sub-system", "Class" and "member of class". Choose your preference, I will use "class" and "member" in this post.

"Fruit" is a class of edible plant products. "apple" is one member of the class. "Banana" is another.

You seem to understand the "class" <> "member" distinction but your example does not apply it and seems to reflect the main contention that this topic (and this specific acronym) raised in discussions in this forum some years ago:

What's distinct about it apart from being the vertical ("pancake") kind?

The first question stands alone "What's distinct about it..." You, I and any members who have been members here for more than about 10 or 12 years should be well aware that the mechanism of the progression stage of Twin Towers collapse was the distinctive feature of the collapse. It was the feature that attracted "Truth Movement" attention and which was subject of - let's call it "misunderstanding". It was a form of progressive collapse. And a distinctive form. And arguing that "it was just another form of progressive collapse" (or pancaking) hindered discussion over several years. And the recognition that it was distinctive is actually admitted in the words "another form". Yes, it was another form. An acronym "ROOSD" was put forward and has been used to identify that distinct form of progressive collapse. It labels the specific to WTC member of the class of progressive collapses.

We already have the word "apple".

To describe a member of the class "fruit". We did not have a brief, single word to describe the "type of pancaking progressive collapse that characterised the progression stage of the WTC Twin Towers collapses" that were two distinctive examples of members of the class "progressive collapse".

And a single word acronym is certainly easier to type than the 16 words itr took for me to say it without the acronym.

You may want to name your apples each with its own name, but again the people who know apples will frown because the established name of the variety of all the apples you have individually named does not match the one you gave to your apples.

That is very confused and not a true argument. The reality was that "the people who thought they knew "apples" and did not resented the person who did correctly identify and label this previously unnamed "apple". And we shouldn't need to drag up all the garbage associated with that prolonged futile "debate"

Gaussian elimination through subtraction is still Gaussian elimination. An apple of the Golden Delicious kind with a specific pattern of spots is still an apple of the Golden Delicious variety. You may call it Spotty, but that does not help technical discussion with people familiar with apples; in the best case it will make you look like an uneducated person who wants to look clever.

The bold section is a false analogy. Those who sought to disparage the use of ROOSD and the person who introduced it were in effect claiming the "apples" were only "fruit" and did not need distinguishing from "bananas" or "oranges" when in reality the difference between "apples" and other fruit was the key issue in contention.

The WTC collapses were very fast. The distinct mechanism of those collapses was the reason.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

GRAVITATIONAL Kenetic energy driven Distruction of weak Trussed supported Lightweight Concrete Floor systems, do to damage and Thermal Action from fires.
That is about as descriptive as you can go.

 

[pgimeno]

The first question stands alone "What's distinct about it..." You, I and any members who have been members here for more than about 10 or 12 years should be well aware that the mechanism of the progression stage of Twin Towers collapse was the distinctive feature of the collapse. It was the feature that attracted "Truth Movement" attention and which was subject of - let's call it "misunderstanding". It was a form of progressive collapse. And a distinctive form. And arguing that "it was just another form of progressive collapse" (or pancaking) hindered discussion over several years. And the recognition that it was distinctive is actually admitted in the words "another form". Yes, it was another form. An acronym "ROOSD" was put forward and has been used to identify that distinct form of progressive collapse. It labels the specific to WTC member of the class of progressive collapses.

I notice you haven't given an answer to the question "what's distinct about it apart from being the vertical (pancake) kind". When you say "it was the distinctive feature of the collapse of the TT", the word "distinctive" here does not necessarily mean "distinct from other pancake-type progressive collapses"; it may simply mean "distinct from other kinds of collapses" - well duh, there are several kinds of collapses. That's an ambiguous use of the word "distinctive" in this case. Using that ambiguity may have led you to think that it could favour your argument, but if so you were wrong, it just bogs the discussion.

You've already admitted that there's nothing about "open office space" that singles it out as unique to the kind of collapse that happened in the WTC; therefore the "open office space" part can be simply replaced by "floor". Now, as it turns out, "runaway floor destruction" is just a synonym for "pancake collapse". It's not a different subclass, it's not a member; it's just the same class, "the class of progressive collapses of the pancake kind".

And a single word acronym is certainly easier to type than the 16 words itr took for me to say it without the acronym.

You could simply have said pancake collapse, no need to type 16 words. You could even have abbreviated it using the acronym "PC" to save even more typing.

The bold section is a false analogy. Those who sought to disparage the use of ROOSD and the person who introduced it were in effect claiming the "apples" were only "fruit" and did not need distinguishing from "bananas" or "oranges" when in reality the difference between "apples" and other fruit was the key issue in contention.

"ROOSD" was a made up word to describe the kind of progressive collapse where the floors are overloaded by the floors above. The fact that it was a pancake collapse became accepted thanks to the evidence provided, not in the least because of the term or the distinction of terms.

The WTC collapses were very fast. The distinct mechanism of those collapses was the reason.

Very fast as compared to what? Certainly not to other pancake collapses. See the Plasco building collapse. See the São Paulo building collapse.

So, all those were "distinct" as in "distinct from other kinds of collapses", not "distinct" as in "distinct from other pancake collapses". You've fallen into the same ambiguity again.

 

[JSanderO]

Pgimeno wrote;
"You've already admitted that there's nothing about "open office space" that singles it out as unique to the kind of collapse that happened in the WTC; therefore the "open office space" part can be simply replaced by "floor". Now, as it turns out, "runaway floor destruction" is just a synonym for "pancake collapse". It's not a different subclass, it's not a member; it's just the same class, "the class of progressive collapses of the pancake kind".

I think at least in the early stages of the floor destruction and column free open plan would lateral steel bracing the columns would tend to quickly evolve from a local to a floor wide phenomena. The typical grid frame would more likely isolate a local collapse to one bay.

 

[Axxman300]

Taking a moment to point out to Petra and Funbone that the last two pages have been a quality, serious discussion and debate over the application of a technical term, and the conditions surrounding the collapses, and the appropriateness of apply the term to these conditions.

This is what you're up against; folks who know their stuff.

 

[ozeco41]

Taking a moment to point out to Petra and Funbone that the last two pages have been a quality, serious discussion and debate over the application of a technical term, and the conditions surrounding the collapses, and the appropriateness of apply the term to these conditions.

And the range of opinions about terminology are secondary to the need to comprehend the key aspect of understanding how the WTC Twin Towers collapsed. The way that the Twin Towers collapsed was the way those towers collapsed. There were some differences between WTC1 and WTC2. But the main features of the two collapses were near enough the same. And distinctly different to other high rise collapses each of which collapsed "in its own way".

The real reason these issues of terminology arose (circa 2010 - 2012 - I haven't checked) was that early analysis and debates of WTC Twin Towers collapses went down a couple of related false trails. In the era before about 2009 debate was focused on macro assessments of motions, explaining the near FFA progression of the Twin Towers collapses. Academic explanation dominated by 1D Approximations. With the early paper by Bazant & Zhou defining a "limit case" model. The model was correct. But it was misunderstood by many. And it was a "1D approximation".

The need was to explain what really happened and put debate onto a better path of explanation. That better explanation was to recognise that the speed of WTC Twins collapses resulted from debris falling onto floors, shearing floors off columns. And not by buckling columns. That is what happened. And, disputes over terminology aside, I think all those experienced "folk who know their stuff" involved in recent discussions would agree that is what happened. So the debate about terminology is secondary though it has roots in the past group dynamics of this forum which should no longer be significant.

We all (I think) agree with the key feature - debris fell down the spaces between the columns, and landed on floors causing floors to shear off so that the perimeter columns "peeled away". The falling debris missed the columns and that reality falsifies 1D Approximations

This is what you're up against; folks who know their stuff.

Yes. And a few of us have been discussing the technical issues - explaining the collapse physics - for over 10 years. We mostly agree on technical stuff despite some differences in details or how far we have gone with our explanations.

The argument about terminology, specifically the objections to "ROOSD", goes back to the era circa 2010-2012. At that time understanding was changing from the earlier explanations falsely based on 1D Approximations onto explanations based on "What Really Happened".

But we are way off the topic of this thread. And the different opinions about terminology arose more out of group dynamics than legitimate technical differences. The technical issues are I think resolved. And I see little benefit in responding in this thread to pgimeno's most recent post in which he seeks to justify his preference for terminology.

I have on two (??) previous occasions suggested a return to the thread topic - by making this claim:

"Meanwhile, the thread topic is still " AE911Truth pressures NIST for decision on WTC 7 report." And AE911 is playing the game that a cynical politician would want them to play. It isn't going anywhere."

Does anyone want to disagree? Does anyone want me to more fully explain why I think AE911 is doing just what the politicians would want? i.e. AE911 is unintentionally playing "Government Shill"?

 

[ozeco41]

I notice you haven't given an answer to the question "what's distinct about it apart from being the vertical (pancake) kind". When you say "it was the distinctive feature of the collapse of the TT", the word "distinctive" here does not necessarily mean "distinct from other pancake-type progressive collapses"; ........

[Lots Edited.}

So, all those were "distinct" as in "distinct from other kinds of collapses", not "distinct" as in "distinct from other pancake collapses". You've fallen into the same ambiguity again.

I'm sorry that you need to aggressively attempt to prove me wrong. I'm certainly up for the challenge but we are way off topic already.

If you really do see a need to recycle these contentious issues from an earlier time - why not use an appropriate thread or OP a new one?

 

[JSanderO]

AE's perspective looks at the event as a crime, but not perpetrated by OBL and his people (because they were incapable) but by "insiders", the deep state, etc. Their position is that the gov was incompetent or complicit (perhaps infiltrated) and the aftermath was a "cover up" by US gov shills.
As the evidence for Arab hijackers is pretty sound, they dance around and claim that the plane crashes could not lead to the towers destruction.... because fire can lead to a steel building collapse... so the real perps knew of the attacks which AE claim is cover for them... scapegoated. 7WTC to them is a touch stone because a plane did not hit the building and so that "excuse" does not apply, fire can't destroy a steel building and that leaves "explosives"/CD. While there was no audible evidence to support the use of explosions... nor "squibs" often seen in CDs... the collapse they claim is identical in form to a CD.
AE's arguments are simply means to justify their predetermined conclusion... the towers were taken down by CD. To the naive they sound OK... but to the engineering community or people with a physics background they don'e wash. AE is big on means, motive and opportunity which they claim make the USG insiders "obviously" guilty. It a series of flimsy smoke and mirror arguments and they rely on people to "trust" them because they have a petition signed by architects and engineers (likely none of which have studied the event). AE ignores all the official and independent research related to the event. Ignorance is bliss and a sucker is born every minute who will send then money.

 

[Fonebone]

Seems that AE911 want to sue NIST

Here is the request in PDF

Not sure what they are talking about here.

Where is the proof of explosives? Just saying it, does not make it so
So we can scratch their report also, talking about being bias.

I'm sorry that you need to aggressively attempt to prove me wrong. I'm certainly up for the challenge but we are way off topic already.

If you really do see a need to recycle these contentious issues from an earlier time - why not use an appropriate thread or OP a new one?

Why are you attempting to derail or scuttle this thread?
The OP cited above outlines the scope of this discussion and includes a link
to the PDF stating the A&E911truth complaint in full.

 

[Fonebone]

Taking a moment to point out to Petra and Funbone that the last two pages have been a quality, serious discussion and debate over the application of a technical term, and the conditions surrounding the collapses, and the appropriateness of apply the term to these conditions.

This is what you're up against; folks who know their stuff.

Au contraire Caspar - I'm fully schooled in the techniques the "folks who know their stuff" utilize to conduct
a "quality, serious discussion and debate over the application of a technical terms" from this thread--
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7372146#post7372146


I entered their discussion at the halfway point, post #115
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7378798#post7378798


So- Mr. Milquetoast... YES!
I know exactly what genuine "truth-seekers" are "up against". Bic?

 

[Axxman300]

Au contraire Caspar - I'm fully schooled in the techniques the "folks who know their stuff" utilize to conduct
a "quality, serious discussion and debate over the application of a technical terms" from this thread--
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7372146#post7372146


I entered their discussion at the halfway point, post #115
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7378798#post7378798


So- Mr. Milquetoast... YES!
I know exactly what genuine "truth-seekers" are "up against". Bic?

And yet you choose to believe and spread lies about 911. A&ETruth is run by con artists, bad con artists at that. Every point in that silly PDF you posted is either a lie, an out-of-context misstatement, and or has long been explained or debunked.

The thing that stands out is your lack of response to those who take the time to directly answer your posts. Why is that? We just had two pages debating "Pancaking", why didn't you jump in to educate us? What is your "expert" and "informed" view of the collapse? Wait, don't answer that, we know you don't have one. Anyone who is qualified wouldn't waste time with A&ETruth.

See, I don't have anything to add to the pancaking discussion because I am in no way qualified. So I just sit back and learn. Does this mean I can't call BS on A&ETruth? Nope, because 911 happened just the way it did: 19 Al Qaeda hijackers flew planes into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and crashed while being overpowered in Shanksville. That's it, that's the truth. All the things which happened as a result of the attacks are open to debate.

I don't need to understand the physics of the collapses. The fact is that the towers would still be standing today had they not been struck by 767s. A&ETruth, and the other CTists cannot dispute this. A&ETruth has taken a lot of money, and put it in their pockets. They did zero investigative work of any kind. Where is their report? Why do they resort to a frivolous lawsuit? Where is their evidence? I'm a ghost hunter, I can spot a con a thousand miles away.

You've been had.

 

[Axxman300]

Why are you attempting to derail or scuttle this thread?
The OP cited above outlines the scope of this discussion and includes a link
to the PDF stating the A&E911truth complaint in full.

Which was promptly taken apart and debunked.

Here is S. Shyam Sunder's post on the NIST blog for the 20 anniversary:

https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-m...rld-trade-center-investigation-and-its-legacy

At the bottom of the page there are links to other aspects of their investigation. Worth reading, but I know know you won't.

 

[Oystein]

Why are you attempting to derail or scuttle this thread?....

What a sublimely rich complaint!

YOU never were interested in staying on topic and pursuing your own line of on-topic argument.
Before today, you had posted twice in this thread.

Your first post was perfectly on topic and asked for members to identify and list specific lies and misrepresentations found within an AE911T court document pertaining to the case alluded to in the opening post:

This link leads to a PDF that delineates the amended suit filed against the NIST...
AE911Truth filing https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/AE_FAC_Court_file_date_stamped_and_redacted.pdf


The complaint , filed 31 January 2022 list 370 items, Numbered 1-thru 370, for you to peruse in order for you
to substantiate the claims highlighted in your post above.
Please cite the complaint item number of every lie and/or misinformation you identify for cross reference.

Lie #1
Lie #2
Lie #3
...etc.

AE911 Truth filing

Misrepresentations #1
Misrepresentations #2
Misrepresentations #3
...etc.

Great post! It was post #406, by the way.

Then what?

#407 challenged you to say something true about a particular filing - on topic - you IGNORED it.
#408 presented a specific LIE in a particular item (219) in that filing filing - on topic - you IGNORED it.
#409 presented a specific LIE in a particular item (14) in that filing filing - on topic - you IGNORED it.
#410-417 are a bit unspecific, but still on topic (challenging the AE filing, and follow-ups)
#418 then does exactly what you asked for - listed 10 specific items that are Lies, Misleading, Nonsense, Dishonest, Irrelevant, Speculations, Bare Assertions, Wishful Thinking, Plain Idiocy. Or several of those.
Etc:

These 370 items - upon a first quick glance, many contain prose without relevance, void of any claim about the events of 9/11 (such as claims about "standing", or how proud young Bobby McI. made his father).

Here is what I'll do:
I will create a little spreadsheet that gives me 10 random numbers between 1 and 370, and I shall list the 10 items such numbered and assess them. Deal? I am doing this because right now a mild evening sun is shining through the window directly on me as I sit at my desk at home with nothing better to do. I am feeling generous and kind

Here are the ten random item numbers:
12
23
70
120
148
160
197
288
332
336


Misleading: The 9/11 Commission Report and the year of its publication are of zero relevance to the case, NIST's work, any alleged "technical evidence".
Misleading: The paragraph makes it sound as if AE911Truth has been making public presentations since 2004, when in fact it wasn't even founded until 2006.
Misleading: The paragraph makes it sound as if "technical evidence" had been presented regarding "nano-thermite or nano-thermate" in or before 2004, when in fact the fraudulent, paid-for-to-publish paper by Steven Jones under the false lead author name "Harrit" had only been published in 2009.
Lie: The claim that there is any technical evidence for the presence, let alone use, of nano-therm*te, let alone its use to "destroy" anything. Everybody at AE911Truth must be painfully aware that Jones has presented a fraud, a very elaborate lie.


Obvious nonsense: No one ever forced AE's hand. AE has at all times since its existence been able to provide to the public anything they wanted to, limited only by their own resources. In particular, there was no need whatsoever to rebut and refute the NIST report on WTC7 before coming up with an own theory. Science does not advance by refuting extant hypotheses, it advances by proposing new, better hypotheses which end up replacing the old one, provided they are found to explain reality better.
Blatant Dishonesty: AE complains about a government agency issuing a report - but they would also complain if NO government agency had issued a report.


Irrelevant. The public law is what it is, regardless of what it may or may not be "commonly known as".


Misleading: There is no such thing in US law as a "Petition to Congress". What AE has submitted is individual stacks of paper or perhaps electronic mailings to members of Congress. There are to date, after more than 14 years of such "petitioning", exactly ZERO Members of Congress who have indicated they would support the kind of legislation that AE, presumably, seeks.
Irrelevant: A US government agency's work cannot be expected to adhere to the wishes of a plaintiff in a foreign country who pushes a vexious claim there in foreign court.
Speculation: There is no way that AE can know that a change of report by NIST would have any effect on the already failed and dead "Grand Jury Petition" by LC911I, submitted and filed in the round cabinet three years ago already.


I do not know or understand enough about the issue being talked about here to have a solidly informed judgement on whether the underlying claim, that NIST left out some structural element (a stiffener) - could be there really was no stiffener. I'll assume, in the spirit of generosity, I'll accept that NIST did leave out a stiffener.
Bare assertion: I am pretty sure AE cannot and does not know that NIST omitted "a known structural feature" "intentional[ly]"
Bare assertion: How on earth would AE know what difference inclusion of those stiffeners would have made in the NIST collapse sequence? They never actually did sufficient modeling.
Speculation: AE cannot possibly know what other "independent investigators, scientists, researchers, or another government agency" who "attempted to reproduce NIST's WTC 7 study results with the information provided in the NIST WTC 7 Report" would come to "significantly different conclusions". As a matter of fact, other, independent investigators HAVE done modelling and found that collapse would ensue that would NOT be prevented by inclusion of that particular stiffener.


This is true.


Projection: The "irrational" claims are AE's, not NIST's
FALSE: The problem with the erosion of this one steel specimen is not so much that it's source cannot be 100% determined to be WTC7, the problem is that there is no way know where in WTC7 this would have been, and so further analysis would not help with the rational analysis of how fires caused the collapse and where collapse initiated.
Implied Bare Assertion/Speculation: AE assumes that hot corrosion of steel is relevant as a sign of some form of exotic "controlled demolition" - we all know they want to inject the (truly irrational) idea that somehow "thermate" (thermite spiked with sulfur) is the source of the sulfidation of that bit of steel - that's science fiction, made-up ********


Wishful Thinking. I see neither a technical not legal argument being served here.


Plain Idiocy: After more than 13 years, the "engineers" at AE have STILL not understood NIST's modelling approach and their consecutive modelling steps: The preliminary model is ... *drumroll* ... a ... (are you getting what I am getting at yet) ... preliminary model, not meant to capture everything that goes on around column 79 - it could not possibly have, for it was far too limited in scope. The purpose of this preliminary LS-DYNA model was "to confirm which failure modes needed to be accounted for in the 16-story ANSYS model" (NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Chapter 8.8, p. 349). In that model of just a corner of a single floor, columns were absolutely fixed, girders and beams heated uniformly to a single temperature, concrete slabs were not heated at all. This is a model far simpler than the 16-story ANSYS model, which in addition to capturing differential heating and structural response between floors also ran through complex heating (and cooling) histories of the structural frame.
To pretend that a difference in outcome between a simple preliminary model and a complex "real" model is in need of an "[explanation] to [some] acceptable degree of scientific precision" is astoundingly stupid, revealing stunning ineptness - or hardened, cynical dishonesty.


Four items and one and a half pages later, they are still belaboring the stupendous ignorance and incompetence shown in item 332.
FALSE: NIST does in fact explain to more than sufficient detail the substantial modelling differences between the limited and preliminary Chapter 8.8 LS-DYNA model and the later (Chapter 11!!) ANSYS model, that has input from the fire history models and structural heating analysis, and which also allows all of the structure to move realistically (i.e. for columns to move laterally in response to expanding, contracting or sagging girders framing into them).
Again, to pretend that it is somehow not obvious and clear as the sun on a bright blue sky that a LIMITED AND PRELIMINARY model would have some results different from a realistic and comprehensive model reveals either bottomless stupidity or a fiendish level of evil fraudulence.

-------------

TLDR;

12: Misleading, Misleading, Misleading and Lie
23: Obvious nonsense, Blatant Dishonesty
70: Irrelevant
120: Misleading, Irrelevant, Speculation
148: Bare assertion, Bare assertion, Speculation
160: true
197: Projection, FALSE, Implied Bare Assertion/Speculation
288: Wishful Thinking
332: Plain Idiocy
336: FALSE, either bottomless stupidity or a fiendish level of evil fraudulence

9 out of 10 items have been shown to be worthless crap, anything from misleading to the worst of lies and imbecility.
The one "true" claim is merely a paraphrase of a single sentence in the Errata document to the NIST report, which shows that at least one person at AE has both the reading skills and the strength of character and honesty to correctly parse a single sentence written by NIST. Congratulations!

Note that these 10 items were not picked because I found the most fault in them - I picked them randomly! Only one of the ten items happened to be (trivially) true. The other 9 - garbage, the work of professional, cynical liars.

Your reaction to this ON TOPIC post that answered yours thoroughly:

*Crickets*​

Instead, you waited 3 days, hoping we would forget that you had asked to list you Lies and Misdirections in the AE filing and that we did list Lies and Misdirections in the AE filing, as you requested, and posted this:

What is symmetry of a collapse?
Do you mean the entire building collapsing at once... straight down?

Part of the problem here is that Petra has consistently refused to define symmetry with any degree of precision or measurability.

If one picture is worth a thousand words,
one demonstration is worth a thousand pictures.


This animation of the WCT1 North tower collapse initiation demonstrates
a symmetrical collapse of the Hat-truss antenna structure and the supporting
vertical columns all collapsing in unison around the north and east perimeter
vertical wall columns . The fact of the vertical antenna falling straight down
proves the entire south and east vertical columns failed at the exact moment as well.
An absolutely near perfect definition of a symmetrical building collapse.
In order to create a symmetrical tower collapse the entire interior steel structure also
was neutralized at the exact same instant allowing the entire roof structure and floor slabs
to travel straight down towards the center of gravity as one unit
with out resistance.

The WTC 7 structure collapse was near identical symmetry after the penthouse
preamble failure. The north and west roofline falls with any hint of tipping supplying evidence that,
like the WTC1 tower, every vertical interior and external WTC7 columns were likewise neutralized
at the exact same instant to allow this symmetry.
The graphic in this post below shows what every interior and exterior columns
would have to act for this collapse symmetry.


-- link -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12819617#post12819617

The thing here is that your post is off-topic - it is about the collapse mechanisms of WTC1.

You quoted #358 and #359, in your #429 - pretending posts #406 (yours!) to 421 never happened - and you, Fonebone, you took it off-topic!!

---------------------------

Please return to #418 - NOW! - and acknowledge that it answers your post #406 and identifies, as you wanted us to, points that are Lies, points that are Misleasding, item by item.

If your very next post FAILS to quote all the Lies, Misleading statements, Irrelevant or Speculative items I gave to you and address them with specificity, I shall conclude that you admit that 9 out of 10 items in the AE911Truth filing are the pure, unadulterated ******** of professional, cynical liars.

 

[ozeco41]

I don't need to understand the physics of the collapses. The fact is that the towers would still be standing today had they not been struck by 767s. A&ETruth, and the other CTists cannot dispute this. A&ETruth has taken a lot of money, and put it in their pockets. They did zero investigative work of any kind. Where is their report? Why do they resort to a frivolous lawsuit? Where is their evidence? I'm a ghost hunter, I can spot a con a thousand miles away.

You've been had.

And the reality is that claims for CD are false and have been shown false in physics that satisfies experts and explained in language understandable by laypersons.

Which is a large part of the reason that I claim AE911 is doing exactly what a cynical, pragmatic politician would want.

Discussing the political aspects of 9/11 could still be embarrassing to politicians of both sides - it attacks the machine of Government including all politicians. There will ALWAYS be persons and organisations lobbying for action on contentious issues. AE911 won't go away anytime soon. So it is better for the politicians if they are making noise on a dead certain loser...claims for CD at WTC... RATHER than pursuing potentially embarrassing political failures.

AE911 will eventually fade away. And it is far too late for them to try to change track. Their support base is dominated by CD "nuts"... even if they tried to switch the agenda to political misfeasances it would be too challenging a topic for their supporters. And at least 10 years too late!

 

[JSanderO]

People with an interest in the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 know there have been many independent (not related to the US gov) people contributing to explaining how those buildings came down. The work is rigorous and sound.... credible and makes sense.

The destruction of each tower involved stages.. all leading to the loss of axial support and perfectly "normal"/predictable gravity driven collapses. Many people were confused about the twin tower collapses because for one the expected a "singular" explanation. Truthers clung to CD as their simple to understand explanation. But it lacked any evidence.

Perhaps the "lesson" which was a key take away was that of "progressive failure" and "runaway progressive failure". There were stages... not a single explanation. The stages had distinctive characteristics. So the collapse stage of the twin towers was the "runaway" floor destruction which rapidly destroyed each floor from the plane strike zones to the ground. NIST called it global collapse... some call it pancaking... others call it runaway open office space destruction - ROOSD. This process was simple physics or structural engineering - floors could not sustain the dynamic loads which were super-imposed.. and collapse rapidly one after the other. 7WTC's collapse stage occurred when there were column failures low in the building leading to the entire upper section dropping and self destructing as it hit the ground.

The processes leading up to these mechanical collapses involved progressions of failures driven by heat for the most part. Heat warped and weakened the steel frame...rendering it unable to sustain the loads of the building. As elements failed the loads they carried were "transferred" to intact parts of the structure which then became overloaded and failed... and as this failure>load transfer rapidly progressed... in very short order there was insufficient axial capacity. When that happens collapse occurs... locally and or globally.

NIST suggested that the floor trusses were victims of heat and lead the tops to lose support and drop. Others suggested (likely correct) that the core columns failed from the effects of overheated beams and girders leading to core columns buckling in a rapid progression. When the core columns buckled the upper blocks lost support and dropped on the lower blocks causing the runaway floor collapse inside the shell of the perimeter panels/facade. Columns were not crushed but toppled from instability after losing the bracing which was a function of the floor system. Inadequate fire suppression failed to cool the steel and all hell broke loose. Engineers understand when fires rage inside of steel frames. Engineers understand that any floor can only support the designed load plus a margin of safety. Engineering and physics explain every aspect of the stages of destruction.

++++

AE wants a new investigation. Yet there have been so many studies and AE ignores them and focuses on NIST which they assert is covering up government malfeasance and incompetence. NIST may have gotten some details wrong... but they nailed all the mechanisms that destroyed the 3 towers.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

What a sublimely rich complaint!

YOU never were interested in staying on topic and pursuing your own line of on-topic argument.
Before today, you had posted twice in this thread.

Your first post was perfectly on topic and asked for members to identify and list specific lies and misrepresentations found within an AE911T court document pertaining to the case alluded to in the opening post:



Great post! It was post #406, by the way.

Then what?

#407 challenged you to say something true about a particular filing - on topic - you IGNORED it.
#408 presented a specific LIE in a particular item (219) in that filing filing - on topic - you IGNORED it.
#409 presented a specific LIE in a particular item (14) in that filing filing - on topic - you IGNORED it.
#410-417 are a bit unspecific, but still on topic (challenging the AE filing, and follow-ups)
#418 then does exactly what you asked for - listed 10 specific items that are Lies, Misleading, Nonsense, Dishonest, Irrelevant, Speculations, Bare Assertions, Wishful Thinking, Plain Idiocy. Or several of those.
Etc:


Note that these 10 items were not picked because I found the most fault in them - I picked them randomly! Only one of the ten items happened to be (trivially) true. The other 9 - garbage, the work of professional, cynical liars.

Your reaction to this ON TOPIC post that answered yours thoroughly:

*Crickets*​

Instead, you waited 3 days, hoping we would forget that you had asked to list you Lies and Misdirections in the AE filing and that we did list Lies and Misdirections in the AE filing, as you requested, and posted this:


The thing here is that your post is off-topic - it is about the collapse mechanisms of WTC1.

You quoted #358 and #359, in your #429 - pretending posts #406 (yours!) to 421 never happened - and you, Fonebone, you took it off-topic!!

---------------------------

Please return to #418 - NOW! - and acknowledge that it answers your post #406 and identifies, as you wanted us to, points that are Lies, points that are Misleasding, item by item.

If your very next post FAILS to quote all the Lies, Misleading statements, Irrelevant or Speculative items I gave to you and address them with specificity, I shall conclude that you admit that 9 out of 10 items in the AE911Truth filing are the pure, unadulterated ******** of professional, cynical liars.

You know Oystein, one would think from reading that PDF that AE/9/11BS, has no concept of what a Fulcrum is or does. To move the top of the building in a way other than straight down, would require a Weight Supporting Fulcrum and the application of Levedage upon that Fulcrum.
As DBB showed in his math long ago, that's physically Impossible in a Building Like the Twin Towers.
What after 4000 years of Humands Understand Fulcrums is AE/9/11BS, not understanding?

 

[Axxman300]

Discussing the political aspects of 9/11 could still be embarrassing to politicians of both sides - it attacks the machine of Government including all politicians. There will ALWAYS be persons and organisations lobbying for action on contentious issues. AE911 won't go away anytime soon. So it is better for the politicians if they are making noise on a dead certain loser...claims for CD at WTC... RATHER than pursuing potentially embarrassing political failures.

And this is the root of all 911-Truth's evil.

By wasting time chasing phantom demo teams, holographic jets, smoke machines, micro-nukes, and nanothermite the true failures which led to the success of the attacks has largely gone unchallenged. We've had hearings, and recommendations, and created DHS and ODNI, but nobody lost their jobs over their poor judgement. If 911-Truth and A&E Truth aren't Psy-Ops then they should be. I certain they've been studied by those who work in that field. The manipulation of people using the internet evolved around 911 Truth, since it's obvious that the web can churn enough people into believing any concept, no matter how stupid. Qanon is 911 Truth's bastard child.

Meanwhile, the US has suffered the Boston Marathon Bombing, wherein the Russians had warned the FBI that one of the suspects had spent time with a Chechen terrorist, and he was radicalized. But the FBI did a soft interview, and nothing else. And then we had the January 6, 2021 Attack on the Capitol, where the FBI, and Capitol Police, and the Pentagon/National Guard were somehow caught off guard by an event everyone knew was coming. And while we've put a lot of the attackers in prison, those who incited the attacks remain unchallenged...just like the Saudis (and others).

And then, after 21 years of war, there has never been any indication that the USSOCOM and CIA could ever pull off something like the 911-Truth version of the WTC attacks. Even when we killed bin Laden we crashed a helicopter in the process.

Then there's the Wiki Leaks issue. Where's the smoking gun(s)? Not just about 911 and how it was staged, but how we knew Iraq had no WMDs. Where are those memos? All of our sensitive military, intelligence, and diplomatic communications laid bare for the world to see, and yet no proof of anything other than Al Qaeda did 911, and much of Europe and the Middle East was just as scared of them as the US was.

Since I have friends who work in US intelligence, I'll just say, "Thanks, A&E Truth, for keeping the heat off by distracting people with your BS".

Oh, and leave this right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA4e0NqyYMw

This is the official recruiting video for the US Army's 4th PSYOP Group, and I'm glad they're on our side...but this video is creepy...

 

[dudalb]

Truthers are living in the past;longing for the first decade of this century wnen they actually were the cutting edge of the conspriacy world. Now they are fossils.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

AE wants a new investigation. Yet there have been so many studies and AE ignores them and focuses on NIST which they assert is covering up government malfeasance and incompetence. NIST may have gotten some details wrong... but they nailed all the mechanisms that destroyed the 3 towers.

No, they don't. That's the last thing they want. Any new investigation would inevitably lead to the same conclusions as all the previous ones- i.e. that there is no evidence for CD, and no evidence of any 'inside job'. This would cause the flow of money to AE911T to dry up. Their empty claims of 'new evidence' would be exposed as lies before a whole new audience.
Instead, what they actually want to do is to prolong the "controversy" as long as possible, without ever reaching any kind of resolution, so they can keep profiting from the gullible conspiratards who are bankrolling them.

 

[Oystein]

...
Any new investigation would inevitably lead to the same conclusions as all the previous ones...

The mindset is once again revealed in their latest homepage article - and as so often, the sheer irony flies totally over their heads:

Hundreds of articles dismissing ‘conspiracy theories’ read like they follow a single script

It’s not so much shooting the messenger as it is making everyone think the messenger is crazy and his or her message is automatically false. And crazy. And dangerous.

That’s the apparent goal of hundreds of mainstream articles, produced year after year, that denounce “conspiracy theories” and go to extreme lengths to discredit anyone who dares challenge the official narrative of any event. ...

Translate: "The only ones not part of this Vast Conspiracy is poor few us" - for McKee openly admits that virtually ALL of the media, ALL of academia, ALL of the engineering community "read [from] the same script", and he fails to find the simplest explanation for this: That this script is reality itself.

AE911Truth is determined to reject reality, no matter who repeats it to them: No study, no report, no new investigation that tells then Reality will be accepted, ever. Rejecting reality is literally their mission.

 

[Robin]

The mindset is once again revealed in their latest homepage article - and as so often, the sheer irony flies totally over their heads:

Hundreds of articles dismissing ‘conspiracy theories’ read like they follow a single script



Translate: "The only ones not part of this Vast Conspiracy is poor few us" - for McKee openly admits that virtually ALL of the media, ALL of academia, ALL of the engineering community "read [from] the same script", and he fails to find the simplest explanation for this: That this script is reality itself.

AE911Truth is determined to reject reality, no matter who repeats it to them: No study, no report, no new investigation that tells then Reality will be accepted, ever. Rejecting reality is literally their mission.

And a few weeks back it was "They can't get their story straight"

 

[Fonebone]

Very good Herr Oystein - Many words-Many pages __Professor Stupenagle

What a sublimely rich complaint!

The thing here is that your post is off-topic - it is about the collapse mechanisms of WTC1.

You quoted #358 and #359, in your #429 - pretending posts #406 (yours!) to 421 never happened - and you, Fonebone, you took it off-topic!!

POST 358 JSANDERo

What is symmetry of a collapse?
Do you mean the entire building collapsing at once... straight down?

POST 359

COSMIC YAK Part of the problem here is that Petra has consistently refused to define symmetry with any degree of precision or measurability.

I addressed both posts 358 & 359 in my post 429. Symmetrical collapse is now defined with precision including an example (WTC1 collapse).I further stated, in order for the WTC1 to collapse in the manner recorded, every single interior and exterior vertical column had to be neutralized at the exact same instant in time.

Please return to #418 - NOW! - and acknowledge that it answers your post #406 and identifies, as you wanted us to, points that are Lies, points that are Misleasding, item by item.

If your very next post FAILS to quote all the Lies, Misleading statements, Irrelevant or Speculative items I gave to you and address them with specificity, I shall conclude that you admit that 9 out of 10 items in the AE911Truth filing are the pure, unadulterated ******** of professional, cynical liars.

NO ! This link will outline and address every one of your 10 items you were
mislead by and address every single item listed in the A&E court filing with documented evidence. Something you failed to do in your diatribe of flapdoodle.
https://www.krusch.com/books/911/Mysterious_Collapse_World_Trade_Center_7.pdf


Now Oystein Item by Item, without your innuendos, supply evidence
to refute the evidence offered in this link. Just because you are easily flummoxed by the A&E court complaint does not negate the documented
evidence against the NIST that the A&E will supply the court.

 

[bknight]

Very good Herr Oystein - Many words-Many pages __Professor Stupenagle

NO ! This link will outline and address every one of your 10 items you were
mislead by and address every single item listed in the A&E court filing with documented evidence. Something you failed to do in your diatribe of flapdoodle.
https://www.krusch.com/books/911/Mysterious_Collapse_World_Trade_Center_7.pdf

Now Oystein Item by Item, without your innuendos, supply evidence
to refute the evidence offered in this link. Just because you are easily flummoxed by the A&E court complaint does not negate the documented
evidence against the NIST that the A&E will supply the court.

No this link doesn't answer any questions, but merely restates the unscientific approaches that AE uses to submit the totally debunked theories.

ETA:
Continually posting and linking this nonsense won't make these theories correct, so get over it and learn from your mistakes.