AE911Truth pressures NIST for decision on WTC 7 report

[Oystein]

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.

Thank you for surrendering unconditionally by not even trying to defend any of the 9 randomly picked, then destroyed items.

And so you try to throw a huge bucked of old (12 years!) stinking **** at me as if any of that decomposing crap hadn't been destroyed and killed years ago

Let's see if I can find any fault with that stack of not-fit-for-use as-toilet-paper "paper".

Oh - right there, page 1:

THE MYSTERIOUS COLLAPSE OF
WORLD TRADE CENTER 7

It's not mysterious. Here, I'll solve the mystery for the as yet unmentioned author of this crap:

1. Building caught fire
2. Sprinklers had insufficient water
3. Fire department had insufficient water and decided to let it burn
4. Building burned for many hours, well past its fire rating of 2 / 3 hours
5. As expected by all the professionals at the scene, building collapsed, because that is what fire will eventually do to many steel-frame buildings if you let them burn.

See? That was easy - no mystery at all!

I'll skip the byline, and go right to line 5 of the title page:

by David Ray Griffin

LOL
An old and weird professor of theology against a massive accumulation of the best scholars at one of the most revered technological institutions world-wide, talking about an engineering topic? What could possibly go wrong

Page 2:

Advance Praise

LOL Nuff said!

Page 5:

To Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, and Kevin Ryan,
three scientists who have done so much to help us understand
what happened in New York City on September 11, 2001.

DRG relying on an idiot, a fraud and the most despicable assfucker of all of 9/11 "Truth"? What could possibly go wrong

Page 8:

The most help was received from Elizabeth Woodworth

Say, what is Mr. Woodworth's field of expertise, again?


--



Ok. I had fun with these dumbos too long already.
Thanks, again, for your clear signal that you wish to lose this debate by default, and for sub,itting your unconditional surrender, by not even trying to argue.

 

[beachnut]

Finally, a summation of the 9/11 truth movement (aka nuts & dolts who lie)uts)

V __Professor Stupenagle
...

what a great example of projection WTR to the 9/11 truth "experts" in woo.

Projection (classic stuff)?... , Stupenagle, perfect for the "experts" in the movement of lies, 9/11 Truth (Winner of the 1984 Like Best Title for a failed movement based on insurmountable ignorance and fraud)

David Ray Griffin, aka Professor Stupenagle... (over 20 years of reruns, 9/11 truth)

Is David Ray Griffin a structural engineer? No, the poor guy is a theologian who believes in delusional conspiracy theories, dumbed down for gullible followers in 9/11 truth.

David Ray Griffin has no clue the quotes he uses to support his conclusion are from other failed conspiracy theorists pertaining to the topic of 9/11. Big failure...

David Ray Griffin spread more lies based on the lies of others... https://www.krusch.com/books/911/Mysterious_Collapse_World_Trade_Center_7.pdf

David Ray Griffin believes that no plane hit the Pentagon, and you post his nonsense on WTC7, he has no clue what fire is... must of failed Fire Science in Theology class... WWJD

David Ray Griffin thinks World Trade Centre was brought down by a controlled demolition... so much for thinking, he makes claims without evidence, using quotes from other 9/11 truth nuts and dolts.

Zero, as in No, Evidence for David Ray Griffin's crazy theories... all of his theories have been shutdown.

David Ray Griffin has no clue fires not fought can cause buildings to be totaled... in fact, fires fought sometimes result in buildings being totaled, near collapse, never to be used again - torn down.

Big clue for the clueless 9/11 truth fire deniers - Steel fails in fire...

 

[ozeco41]

David Ray Griffin has no clue fires not fought can cause buildings to be totaled... in fact, fires fought sometimes result in buildings being totaled, near collapse, never to be used again - torn down.

Big clue for the clueless 9/11 truth fire deniers - Steel fails in fire...

Change the DRG reference to "most truthers" and you have explained WTC 9/11 in 3 sentences.

THEN see Oystein's equally brief "technical explanation":

Here, I'll solve the mystery for the as yet unmentioned author of this crap:

1. Building caught fire
2. Sprinklers had insufficient water
3. Fire department had insufficient water and decided to let it burn
4. Building burned for many hours, well past its fire rating of 2 / 3 hours
5. As expected by all the professionals at the scene, building collapsed, because that is what fire will eventually do to many steel-frame buildings if you let them burn.

See? That was easy - no mystery at all!

 

[JSanderO]

AE was so disingenuous claiming they wanted to explain the collapse of the three towers. There was no interest in any manner of research... none... not even reviewing, debating. discussing and so on the research that was not done by NIST but by scores of independent engineers, physicists, pilots and so on who DID provide credible explanations.
Truth became their enemy. Oh the irony.

 

[Allen773]

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...

9/11 Truth movement being a US-Saudi-Pakistani disinformation operation to deflect blame and responsibility from those who were supposed to protect us (the US government) and those of our allies (possibly dubious description) who might have been complicit at some level, is a more plausible conspiracy theory than anything the Truthers themselves have ever come up with. And I’m not saying that this is even a plausible conspiracy theory.

 

[ozeco41]

9/11 Truth movement being a US-Saudi-Pakistani disinformation operation to deflect blame and responsibility from those who were supposed to protect us (the US government) and those of our allies (possibly dubious description) who might have been complicit at some level, is a more plausible conspiracy theory than anything the Truthers themselves have ever come up with. And I’m not saying that this is even a plausible conspiracy theory.

I agree. Your suggestion aligns closely with my own long espoused assessment of the relative importance of the two main parts of 9/11 conspiracy concern.

9/11 issues of concern can legitimately be separated into two classes viz "Technicalevents or happenings" and "political, behavioural decisions". The four main technical claims are known to be false but it took some tie for that reality to be both understood and explained in layperson language. For the biggest technical issue - claims for cD at WTC - even tho the truth was known viz "No CD" the actual details of the mechanisms were contentious for many years.

But the truth movement, especially AE911, persisted with "CD at WTC" as the main premise and driving thrust of their activity. Long after they must have known they were down the wrong path.

BUT - the real issues of concern - starting with "Why did the US let it happen?" and reviewing the whole causal buildup going back decades were given little more than trivial debate. Mostly focussed on "MIHOP" and "LIHOP" binary simplifications - the presumption that 9/11 was one single homogeneous event under single control. Therefore it either was 100% inside job OR it was 1oo%"outside job". Blatantly ridiculous but there has been very little debate of those "political side issues" which separates the who did what or didn't do what parts.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The craziest 9/11 "truther" claim is that a missile, not a jetliner, struck the Pentagon on 9/11. When I worked for DHS, I had a friend who had been a Pentagon security officer on 9/11. When I asked him what he thought of the missile-not-jetliner theory, at first he thought I was joking. When I told him that some people were really pushing this theory, he became animated and explained that he had been on duty at the Pentagon that day and saw the fuselage of the jetliner in the building. He added, "Whoever is peddling that theory should come talk to me!"

Plus, many people who were driving in DC that day saw the jetliner flying super low and heading toward the Pentagon.

There are some seemingly "suspicious" aspects of 9/11, but all of them involve failures of this or that agency/office to pass along indications of the attack. This is hardly evidence of the wild 9/11 truther theory that 9/11 was an inside job carried out by the Bush administration, that WTC 7 was felled by planted explosives, that a missile hit the Pentagon, etc.

 

[Oystein]

...he became animated and explained that he had been on duty at the Pentagon that day and saw the fuselage of the jetliner in the building. ...

I am actually pretty convinced that he did NOT see "the fuselage" there, as that surely got ripped and squeezed and torn and shred and scorched far beyond recognition as a fuselage.
He may remember having seen "a fuselage", or a section of "the fuselage", but that would almost certainly be a false memory. He may have seen bits that, once you know what you are looking at, can be construed as once having belonged to a fuselage - perhaps a window frame, perhaps a bit of curvy alu skin with shiny and blue paint. Memory is perfectly able to connect such bits plus an expectation of what it might have looked like to make a man "remember" having "seen" a fuselage, when he never actually did.

Had he back then persisted in a belief for some time that the Pentagon was attacked with a cruise missile, he might have "remembered" having seen one inside, if the pieces he saw could be construed as having once belonged to a c.m.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I am actually pretty convinced that he did NOT see "the fuselage" there, as that surely got ripped and squeezed and torn and shred and scorched far beyond recognition as a fuselage.
He may remember having seen "a fuselage", or a section of "the fuselage", but that would almost certainly be a false memory. He may have seen bits that, once you know what you are looking at, can be construed as once having belonged to a fuselage - perhaps a window frame, perhaps a bit of curvy alu skin with shiny and blue paint. Memory is perfectly able to connect such bits plus an expectation of what it might have looked like to make a man "remember" having "seen" a fuselage, when he never actually did.

Had he back then persisted in a belief for some time that the Pentagon was attacked with a cruise missile, he might have "remembered" having seen one inside, if the pieces he saw could be construed as having once belonged to a c.m.

He would have seen the main bulk head with the Burned bodies still straped in their sets. GRAVY had Pictures of that once,
The Movie that started the whole Pentagon Missle Conspiracy Theory thing Was Titled in Plane Site. EVEN Steven E. JONES DIDN'T BELIEVE THE cruise misdle Theory.
On a Side note do you think I should send Judy Woods the second Part of the Ronald Reagon Star Wars Gama Ray Laser Article from popular Science?
You know the Part that says the Giant Laser in Space is bull Crap?

 

[Brainster]

He would have seen the main bulk head with the Burned bodies still straped in their sets. GRAVY had Pictures of that once,

I've seen those pix as well; they were quite disturbing. IIRC they were included as exhibits in the Moussaoui trial.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I've seen those pix as well; they were quite disturbing. IIRC they were included as exhibits in the Moussaoui trial.

Yes I know, the main bulkhead of the plane survived entry because it was tough Aluminum Steel construction. Those pictures were horrible but the crazies still called them fakes.

 

[bknight]

I've seen those pix as well; they were quite disturbing. IIRC they were included as exhibits in the Moussaoui trial.

I have seen those images, but I think they have been taken down as I can't google them anymore.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I have seen those images, but I think they have been taken down as I can't google them anymore.

Yes they were taken down after complaints by Family members.

 

[Oystein]

Yes I know, the main bulkhead of the plane survived entry because it was tough Aluminum Steel construction. ...

No.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No.

I will tell the DOJ, then that the Prosecutor Commited Purgery, that's what he said in Court.

 

[bknight]

I will tell the DOJ, then that the Prosecutor Commited Purgery, that's what he said in Court.

Perhaps you could share a link to the full comment? He is a lawyer, not a engineer.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Perhaps you could share a link to the full comment? He is a lawyer, not a engineer.

I would research it but basically he described the Burned bodies still buckled into their seats attached to the main Bulkhead of the Plane that survived pentration into the Pentagon.

 

[MBDK]

I would research it but basically he described the Burned bodies still buckled into their seats attached to the main Bulkhead of the Plane that survived pentration into the Pentagon.

The highlighted section comes straight from the CTist's playbook. Just sayin'.

 

[Oystein]

I would research it but basically he described the Burned bodies still buckled into their seats attached to the main Bulkhead of the Plane that survived pentration into the Pentagon.

If you remember his statement correctly (not a low probability that YOU misremember), then very certainly HIS recollection is faulty. Such is the nature of witness statements.

 

[kookbreaker]

I have seen those images, but I think they have been taken down as I can't google them anymore.

Still around:

https://coop.vaed.uscourts.gov/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

 

[bknight]

Still around:

https://coop.vaed.uscourts.gov/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

Yes, those are the ones I saw. I didn't search for the documents of the trial, and thus didn't find them. Thanks.

For those wo may wish to see the evidence instead of searching through all the documents.
P200042--P200048, viewer discretion advisory.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yes, those are the ones I saw. I didn't search for the documents of the trial, and thus didn't find them. Thanks.

For those wo may wish to see the evidence instead of searching through all the documents.
P200042--P200048, viewer discretion advisory.

Yes that's the ones GRAVY had posted on his site way back when he was here, and those are the ones the prosecutor made the comment about, I knew If I was Lazy enough someone would find them for me.

 

[Oystein]

And which of these photos shows the main bulkhead of the plane, the fuselage?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

And which of these photos shows the main bulkhead of the plane, the fuselage?

The main Bulkhead is not part of the Fuselage, it's the structural part of the plane the seats and wings attached too, The Aluminum steel separation of. the passenger compartment and Mechanical compartment.
It had structural reinforcement to help it survive crashes and better protect the passengers in less severe crashes.
The Purdue simulation actually shows it surviving and allowing the wings to fold inward.
I will look though the photos when I have time and find the photo for you, I just don't have time right now.

 

[Oystein]

The Fools (AE911Lies) are reporting in their latest news clip that "US District Court Rules Against Exposing Truth About Building 7":

Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuit that AE911Truth and eight 9/11 family members brought against NIST over its response to our request for correction of its fraudulent Building 7 report.

And they follow this up with a very suprising move (watch out! sarcasm!):

This decision must be appealed, so I am asking you to donate to this effort before next Friday.

These shmucks even have the audacity to link to the actual Court Decision, which in sometimes juice words deliver a smack-down to the grifters. Short version is: Court finds that plaintiffs (AE plus eight family members of victims) lack standing to sue the NIST, as they were found to lack standing in quite exactly the same way in two previous cases, which were dismissed. In other words, the "Lawyers for 9/11 blah blah" did not learn a thing and keep making the same mistakes over again.

Excerpts from the decision:

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Eighteen individuals and one organization claim that a government agency has incorrectly reported why a World Trade Center (WTC) building collapsed on 9/11. These claims echo their similar allegations that this Court dismissed two years ago for lack of standing. And one year ago, the Southern District of New York likewise dismissed similar claims from some of these Plaintiffs for lack of standing.
Not much changes here. Although Plaintiffs’ claims look different, they suffer from the same infirmities as before. The Court will dismiss their claims for lack of standing.

[...]

As the parties seeking federal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs bear the burden to show standing. [...] They “must show (1) [they have] suffered a concrete and particularized injury (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and (3) that is likely” redressable by a favorable decision from the Court.

[...]

Suffice it to say, Plaintiffs are familiar with dismissals for lack of standing.In Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry v. Wray, a provision in an appropriations bill directed the FBI to review recommendations proposed by the 9/11 Commission. [...]. Represented by the same attorneys as here, the plaintiffs there included Architects and one of this case’s individual Plaintiffs. [...]
This Court held that the plaintiffs lacked informational standing because the appropriations provision did not “mandate the disclosure of any information.” [...] They therefore failed the first requirement for an informational injury.[...]
Plaintiffs appealed and the D.C. Circuit affirmed.
[...]

Finally, Architects and two of this case’s individual Plaintiffs sued in Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry v. Barr, [...], objecting to the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s inaction to a petition they filed about alleged federal crimes on 9/11. [...]. The plaintiffs asked the court to order the Office to present the evidence in the petition to a grand jury. [...]. Of relevance here, the court dismissed three claims because the relevant statute did not grant a private right sufficient for standing nor did the other asserted injuries—including a reward from the State Department and efforts to combat alleged defamation—meet the requirements for standing.

B.

Plaintiffs’ arguments fare no better here and indeed repackage unsuccessful arguments from those earlier cases.For starters, they again rely on assertions of informational injury. [...]
So Plaintiffs come again to this Court with informational injuries. And yet again, they identify no statute that requires the proposed disclosures.
[...]

Plaintiffs counter that the Court must “adopt Plaintiffs’ interpretation” of the relevant statutes. [...]. True enough, the Circuit says that a plaintiff must merely allege that “it has been deprived of information that, on its interpretation, a statute requires the government” to disclose. [...]. But Plaintiffs disregard their prior appeal where the Circuit clarified that a “plaintiff’s reading of a statute for informational standing purposes must at least be plausible.” [...]. Plaintiffs cannot avoid the first step by merely “asserting that a statute creates a cognizable interest in information.” [...]. And as the Court has described, the text of the NCST Act makes Plaintiffs’ reading here implausible.
In sum, Plaintiffs have not shown an informational injury. NIST issued the report required by the NCST Act, and any other disclosure requirement in that Act runs through FOIA, which does not meet the first step for an informational injury.

[...]

The engineering study [i.e. Hulsey's; Oy] theory is likewise recycled. Architects made the same argument before this Court in Lawyers’ Comm. I. [...]. The response there holds here. Use of resources for “advocacy is not sufficient to give rise to an Article III injury.” [...]. The point of the study here “seems to be advocacy—shedding light on what [Architects] believe were the true causes of the September 11 attacks.” [...]. Indeed, the CEO of Architects affirms that the study intended to “publicly critique” NIST’s report, Decl. of Ronald Angle [...], and to “educate the public regarding the errors in NIST’s findings,” [...]. Those are classic descriptions of advocacy activities.The Court need not rely, however, on its own reasoning. The D.C. Circuit also rejected this argument on appeal, saying the study expenses “cannot plausibly be said to flow from the claimed unlawful conduct; they were instead a self-inflicted budgetary choice that cannot qualify as an injury in fact.” [...]. So too here.

[...]

Architects fares no better when it says that this case [...] involves “withholding information vital to a non-profit organization’s mission.” [...]. At bottom, then, Architects says only that it could not pursue its mission thanks to the Secretary’s conduct. That is not enough for injury in fact. [...].
More, the Court sees no conflict or impairment. The mission of Architects is “to establish the full truth surrounding the events of [9/11],” [...], by presenting evidence that “pre-placed explosives” destroyed the buildings on that day, [...]. Architects has pursued that mission since its founding in 2006, before the WTC 7 Report. [...]. Any attempt to re-examine or critique that report—which does not blame explosives—thus falls into what Architects must do to promote its self-proclaimed mission. Indeed, if education of the public about 9/11 includes technical evidence that explosives caused the collapses, Architects would flout that mission if it let the WTC 7 Report pass without critique. So, based on Architects’ own admission, its challenge of the Report advances the organization’s mission rather than hinders it.

IV.

Plaintiffs have shown no reason for this Court to contradict the three decisions that have come before. As in those cases, Plaintiffs lack standing for their claims. The Court will therefore grant the Secretary’s motion to dismiss. A separate order will issue.

[signed]
TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J
Dated: August 2, 2022

I highlighted bits that amused me.

And now. after having failed before several times, including upon appeal to the D.C. Circuit, propose to appeal to the D.C. Circuit, with the same flawed arguments.

It's almost as if the goal here is to lose as often as possible, so long as donations keep coming in to line the pockets of the "Lawyers".

 

[bknight]

You omitted the best part of the grifting:

Dear Friends,

It wasn’t the decision you and I were hoping for, but we knew our best shot at winning would be on appeal — and that is why I need your help today.

Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuit that AE911Truth and eight 9/11 family members brought against NIST over its response to our request for correction of its fraudulent Building 7 report.

This decision must be appealed, so I am asking you to donate to this effort before next Friday. The goal, as it has been all along, is to force NIST to correct the obvious falsehoods in its report and acknowledge that Building 7 was brought down with explosives.

ETA: It must be payroll/invoice time.

 

[Oystein]

You omitted the best part of the grifting:...

No.

 

[ozeco41]

It's almost as if the goal here is to lose as often as possible, so long as donations keep coming in to line the pockets of the "Lawyers".

And recall my cynical opinion about the political context. Whilstever AE911 pursues these bound-to-lose tactics it keeps them busy. No time to get up to any real mischief even if they had sufficient intelligence to realise where the politically embarrassing 9/11 issues are.

It's far too late to cause trouble over the political issues AND all their supporters have been trained to focus on CD at WTC.

 

[DGM]

I'm shocked to see AE911 is still a thing. I stopped keeping track....

 

[Fonebone]

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.

Another towering inferno fully involved in smoke and flames with no collapse
into it's footprint. Not even a partial collapse. Compare this building fire with all three WTC buildings that collapsed on 9-11-2001
More evidence buildings do not collapse from fire.
https://www.rt.com/news/562942-china-skyscraper-fire-changsha/


Be sure to browse the comment section.

 

[Axxman300]

Another towering inferno fully involved in smoke and flames with no collapse
into it's footprint. Not even a partial collapse. Compare this building fire with all three WTC buildings that collapsed on 9-11-2001
More evidence buildings do not collapse from fire.
https://www.rt.com/news/562942-china-skyscraper-fire-changsha/


Be sure to browse the comment section.

Please explain, in detail, how this building in China shared most of the structural characteristics of WTC-7. Be specific.

 

[GlennB]

Another towering inferno fully involved in smoke and flames with no collapse
into it's footprint. Not even a partial collapse. Compare this building fire with all three WTC buildings that collapsed on 9-11-2001
More evidence buildings do not collapse from fire.

Some do, some don't. Depends on the structure (etc)

 

[pgimeno]

"Preliminary data indicates that it was the outer wall of the building that caught fire."

 

[Dave Rogers]

Another towering inferno fully involved in smoke and flames with no collapse
into it's footprint. Not even a partial collapse. Compare this building fire with all three WTC buildings that collapsed on 9-11-2001
More evidence buildings do not collapse from fire.

This logical fallacy is called Denying the Antecedent.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

Another towering inferno fully involved in smoke and flames with no collapse
into it's footprint. Not even a partial collapse. Compare this building fire with all three WTC buildings that collapsed on 9-11-2001
More evidence buildings do not collapse from fire.
https://www.rt.com/news/562942-china-skyscraper-fire-changsha/


Be sure to browse the comment section.

I can't open the link to Ruscism Today.

But I did see reports yesterday on Chinese, British and American media. The fire went like this:

• Smoke was detected on a lower floor, fire department alerted, at time ... 0.
• Ten minutes later, fire fighters appear, fire has ignited the outer cladding and is travelling upward on one side of the building.
• At time 0 plus 30 or 35 minutes: Fire fighters have COMPLETELY PUT OUT THE FIRE.

It was a short fire limited essentially to the skin of the building, from whence most of the heat immediately goes to the environment without affecting the building at all. Nowhere does any floor appear to have had serious fires for more than a few minutes.
The structural framing was essentially NOT exposed to significant heat AT ALL.

Does RT give you those facts?


ETA:
You lose again, Fonebone, just like you lost the last time you ran away from facts and a debate in this thread, which was three and a half months ago. Just like AE911Lies lost very badly in court (that court case being the actual topic of this thread, not some random building somewhere in China experiencing a brief, minor fire) one and a half months ago.

Why don't offer some commentary on the utter shredding the US District Court for DC gave the liars and imbeciles of AE? Afraid? Ashamed? Stunned?

 

[Robin]

I've just been told that engineers can earn continuing professional development points for attending truther webinars.

They get these if they email ae911truth after and tell them the "biggest takeaway" from the event. Needless to say the webinar consists of the same old crap.

But are these "CPD" points an official thing that can raise the standing of an engineer? Surely not!

 

[Austinlegro]

But are these "CPD" points an official thing that can raise the standing of an engineer? Surely not!

I effectively get CPD credits for simply debating truthers on various platforms.
The need to read and digest reports that are often slightly outside my field come under the title of, "horizon broadening activities."

I always pop a few hours down to it every year and every year those hours are spent on the engineering of 9/11.

In the UK we have to demonstrate our CPD in order to continue our membership. It doesn't raise our standing, merely maintains the status quo.

I can't deny I'm sorely tempted to also get further CPD from AE911Truth.
It has a delightful ring about it...

 

[Oystein]

Who decides which uhhmm "horizon broadening activities" are worth CPD credits and which are not?
If some organization teaches that trains should run on rails made of paper machee because steel is magnetic and confuses migratory birds - where can that organization apply for the right to award CPD points just for watching silly YouTubes and answering a one question quiz with "Because REASONS!"

Somebody in the US engineering establishment must be responsible for allowing this farce. Is there not a way to complain and intervene?

 

[Fonebone]

Hello Austin , welcome to the forum.

I effectively get CPD credits for simply debating truthers on various platforms.
The need to read and digest reports that are often slightly outside my field come under the title of, "horizon broadening activities.

I always pop a few hours down to it every year and every year those hours are spent on the engineering of 9/11.

In the UK we have to demonstrate our CPD in order to continue our membership. It doesn't raise our standing, merely maintains the status quo.

I can't deny I'm sorely tempted to also get further CPD from AE911Truth.
It has a delightful ring about it...

[/quote]


Maybe some of the forum's other members would enjoy reading further information about the program
https://www.ae911truth.org/news/860...ent-credits-for-attending-ae911truth-webinars

 

[Robin]

So, in other words, CPD points are completely and utterly meaningless and worthless.

Nice to know