1,600 verified architectural and engineering professionals

[Justin39640]

Actually the changes were almost entirely about fire safety and egress. Nothing about changing structural design to prevent "progressive collapse".

If fire safety was better and egress wasn't severely hampered or simply impossible (depending on which tower) then most of the people who died in the collapse could have gotten out.

If the building is empty and no one is around it, nobody is gonna care if it falls down. Not rescue personnel anyway. The NIST report is about how to prevent major loss of life in the future. Not to convince whackos that they're wrong (about everything). You should try harder to understand that.

 

[ergo]

These people have nothing to gain and an awful lot to lose. Aside from that it is an awfully hard thing to accept that 9/11 was not as it was presented to be. All people have trouble with. AE have trouble getting their message out, making people aware of all the evidence. Yet 1600 trained professionals, despite everything being against it, the media...etc, still found it worthy of their signature.

Look at what happens to a 20-year-old soccer player when he tweets a personal opinion about 9/11.

Personally, I don't see what a soccer club could possibly think they're going to "investigate", nor why a 9/11 truth comment would be worth an "investigation" -- is 9/11 inquiry criminal now?? Lol. -- nor what authority a soccer club would think they have to launch one. But just the language alone implies an attitude that is so contrary to what most of us regard as everyday democratic rights and freedoms. It's astonishing.

 

[ergo]

If fire safety was better and egress wasn't severely hampered or simply impossible (depending on which tower) then most of the people who died in the collapse could have gotten out.

If the building is empty and no one is around it, nobody is gonna care if it falls down. Not rescue personnel anyway. The NIST report is about how to prevent major loss of life in the future. Not to convince whackos that they're wrong (about everything). You should try harder to understand that.

We are talking about the falseness of the NIST explanations for the WTC collapses, not about the tragedy of lost lives. Grizzly was trying to suggest that building code changes resulted from investigation into why the buildings collapsed (as opposed to why so many could not get out). Ten years after, no code changes have been implemented to prevent this bogus phenomenon of "progressive collapse." Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Oystein]

I don't care what ae911t think is the best venue to convince people that the NIST WTC7 report is pseudo science. It, observed with a cold eye, simply doesn't stand, no matter what you or Myriad say. No need for alternative explanations. And that fact was outlined by several "truthers" all along. Myriads call for additional "engineering work" shows his laymanship. You defending the report shows that engineering students don't have the overview necessary to judge the validity of such a report. In itself, inside the model world, the report is sound, which doesn't make it any more meaningful.

The 1600 signed a "Petition" that asks for a "new investigation".

Which of the following are you telling us here?

• The new investigation is not supposed to find an explanation for the collapses of the towers
• The call for a new investigation by the 1600 is unnecessary, we don't need one

Curious to see your disagreement on this major point with AE911T.

 

[Marokkaan]

So you did not googled it?

Lets take an example, I also googled

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”


“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.


“I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”

Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”

http://www.opednews.com/populum/pag...070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm#startcomments

Even a former chief of NIST does agree with ae911truth

 

[Childlike Empress]

The 1600 signed a "Petition" that asks for a "new investigation".

Which of the following are you telling us here?

• The new investigation is not supposed to find an explanation for the collapses of the towers
• The call for a new investigation by the 1600 is unnecessary, we don't need one

Curious to see your disagreement on this major point with AE911T.

Don't play stupid. No need for alternative explanations to show that the report doesn't stand.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Even a former chief of NIST does agree with ae911truth

This is, quite simply, a barefaced lie. In fact, all Quintiere[1] is calling for is an independent review of the NIST report, something AE911T has never to my knowledge called for; they demand a complete new investigation ab initio. Nor does Quintiere agree with any of the conclusions they claim to draw concenring the cause of collapse of WTC7. So the only question worth asking is, why do people who claim to be interested in finding the truth tell such brazen lies as this to people like us, who know perfectly well that they're lies?

Dave

[1] As for how the former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division suddenly became a "former chief of NIST", I'm not even going to go there.

 

[Marokkaan]

This is, quite simply, a barefaced lie. In fact, all Quintiere[1] is calling for is an independent review of the NIST report, something AE911T has never to my knowledge called for; they demand a complete new investigation ab initio. Nor does Quintiere agree with any of the conclusions they claim to draw concenring the cause of collapse of WTC7. So the only question worth asking is, why do people who claim to be interested in finding the truth tell such brazen lies as this to people like us, who know perfectly well that they're lies?

Dave

[1] As for how the former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division suddenly became a "former chief of NIST", I'm not even going to go there.

lol so you think ae911truth does not want to have at least an official independent review of the nist reports.

You are really talking gibberish. Ow my...

Lets see the points they both agree.


1. Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

2. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives],

3. I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation.I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”


4. In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions.

5. I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer.

6.Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses;
comment: Its not about the content of the contradiction, but about the contradiction.

7. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this?
I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

8. In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This is, quite simply, a barefaced lie. In fact, all Quintiere[1] is calling for is an independent review of the NIST report, something AE911T has never to my knowledge called for; they demand a complete new investigation ab initio. Nor does Quintiere agree with any of the conclusions they claim to draw concenring the cause of collapse of WTC7. So the only question worth asking is, why do people who claim to be interested in finding the truth tell such brazen lies as this to people like us, who know perfectly well that they're lies?

Dave

[1] As for how the former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division suddenly became a "former chief of NIST", I'm not even going to go there.

Dave is correct, this is a total, shameless lie. I pointed out back in 2008 and reiterated in this very thread exactly what Quintiere's argument was, and it stands in opposition to AE911T's stance on explosives demolition. As a reiteration:

• "... the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and their fire durations are consequently too short...". So in his view NIST made mistakes regarding the length of time the fires had affected the structure.
• "An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause (bolding mine) appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures corresponding to failure based on structural analyses...". So, in his view, even trusses that did not lose their spray on fire resistant material were susceptible to the effects of the fire.

What is he criticizing? Obviously, it's the conclusion that NIST drew about the conditions that caused the steel to fail. As can be seen in his own statements, Quintiere believes that the steel would have still been vulnerable even with the fireproofing still intact. He comes out and says this ("... with the insulated trussses at the root cause...", "... This hypothesis puts the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says was not an issue.").

But what does this mean? It means he accepts that the fires were indeed at the heart of what caused the towers to fall. He not only doesn't challenge that, he treats that as a given. What he does consider wrong are the conditions under which it all failed. And he wants NIST to submit their findings to other fire researchers and reevaluate whether the fireproofing was indeed sufficient. Read what he calls for:

I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.

... and look at what he's saying. Even if we take his conclusions all the way, what we and he would end up supporting is a re-evaluation of the evidence and working assumptions used to evaluate the evidence. Which is indeed a rather big deal - others here can go into more detail as to what that would entail - but the point is that such a re-evaluation does not call into question the fundamental narrative of impacts plus fires equal collapse. The fundamentals, the "givens" would still be that the collapse is due to the result of the fires on the damaged segments of the towers, and nothing else.

Repeat: If you accept Dr. Quintiere's criticisms as legitimate, then you also accept the NIST conclusions of a fire and impact damage induced collapse. They are inseparable. That also means that an explosives demolition is ruled out. That is incompatible with Quintiere's criticisms. As was pointed out well before I even mentioned it in '08, let alone the repeat post just yesterday.

Time was that truthers at least went weeks to months between needing information repeated to him. But now... this was not even a full day. That's ignorance. Sheer, deliberate ignorance. This information was reiterated just yesterday, and yet the truther lie that's contradicted by it continues. Is there any wonder why we tell truthers they're dishonest?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Even a former chief of NIST does agree with ae911truth

No he doesn't.

Dr. Quintiere believes that aircraft impacts and fire brought the twin towers down.

 

[twinstead]

lol so you think ae911truth does not want to have at least an official independent review of the nist reports.

You are really talking gibberish. Ow my...

Lets see the points they both agree.


1. Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

2. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives],

3. I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation.I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”


4. In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions.

5. I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer.

6.Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses;
comment: Its not about the content of the contradiction, but about the contradiction.

7. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this?
I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

8. In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

BUT HE BELIEVES THAT FIRE AND AIRPLANE DAMAGE BROUGHT THE BUILDINGS DOWN!. You MUST believe that if you agree with Quintiere.

What part of that don't you understand? How would fixing all the issues Quintiere has with the NIST report change that undeniable fact? You and Quintiere DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER. I'll bet he thinks you are NUTS!

 

[Marokkaan]

Dave is correct, this is a total, shameless lie. I pointed out back in 2008 and reiterated in this very thread exactly what Quintiere's argument was, and it stands in opposition to AE911T's stance on explosives demolition. As a reiteration:

​

Repeat: If you accept Dr. Quintiere's criticisms as legitimate, then you also accept the NIST conclusions of a fire and impact damage induced collapse. They are inseparable. That also means that an explosives demolition is ruled out. That is incompatible with Quintiere's criticisms. As was pointed out well before I even mentioned it in '08, let alone the repeat post just yesterday.

Time was that truthers at least went weeks to months between needing information repeated to him. But now... this was not even a full day. That's ignorance. Sheer, deliberate ignorance. This information was reiterated just yesterday, and yet the truther lie that's contradicted by it continues. Is there any wonder why we tell truthers they're dishonest?

No he doesn't.

Dr. Quintiere believes that aircraft impacts and fire brought the twin towers down.

Evolutionist: Hmmmm that chocolate cake is delicious.

Creationist: wouw that chocolate cake is delicious.


Marokkaan: The evolutionist does agree with the creationist.

Debunker: No you are not right marokkaan, evolutionist believes in evolution, and the creationist believes in creationism

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't care what ae911t think is the best venue to convince people that the NIST WTC7 report is pseudo science. It, observed with a cold eye, simply doesn't stand, no matter what you or Myriad say. No need for alternative explanations.

Yes alternative explanations are needed, because you are advocating a theory that involves either a crime or severe incompetence.

For the former; if you find enough evidence to indicate that the reports are a fraud, then all of the adopted building codes and practices need to be revised, and proper reason needs to be given for reversing them, or any other tangible consequences of the report. In court you will need to establish a narrative so that your independent jury can determine the case against NIST.

For the latter, it's essentially the same thing, you need to show that the models were done either wrong or misused, and then you need to determine what reaching consequences need to be addressed that came from the reports.

And that fact was outlined by several "truthers" all along. Myriads call for additional "engineering work" shows his laymanship. You defending the report shows that engineering students don't have the overview necessary to judge the validity of such a report.

I think you demonstrated best the idea of not having the overview necessary to judge the validity of the evidence when you said, and I quote:

i don't think that the physical evidence would override the eyewitness testimony in a court of law

Lacking the competence to understand evidence, you and AE911truth, looking with that cold eye, haven't accomplished much, but I'm open to being corrected - that is; should you, Marrokan, or tmd be able to give us some examples of real action... All I've observed so far is the three of you trying to play psychologists in an effort to avoid the issue.

 

[timhau]

Evolutionist: Hmmmm that chocolate cake is delicious.

Creationist: wouw that chocolate cake is delicious.


Marokkaan: The evolutionist does agree with the creationist.

Debunker: No you are not right marokkaan, evolutionist believes in evolution, and the creationist believes in creationism

Ah, so you're just trolling and the creationist flashbacks I was getting were part of the plan.

 

[twinstead]

Evolutionist: Hmmmm that chocolate cake is delicious.

Creationist: wouw that chocolate cake is delicious.


Marokkaan: The evolutionist does agree with the creationist.

Debunker: No you are not right marokkaan, evolutionist believes in evolution, and the creationist believes in creationism

So in a forum about evolution and creation, if you are trying to prove that evolution is right, why talk about cake? marokkaan should focus on evidence of evolution to show the creationist is wrong. And, in a forum about 9-11 being or not being an inside job, why focus on Quintiere's objections to the NIST report, even if you agree with them, when you don't agree with Quintiere's ultimate conclusion philosophically?

Quintiere's issue with the NIST is not evidence of inside job. It's evidence that Quintiere has issues with the NIST that have nothing to do with whether the NIST got the cause of the collapses right; Quintiere has no objection to that part.

 

[leftysergeant]

8. In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

NIST is not a criminal investigations agency. Their concern is with design of products and structures and their possible defects and modes of failure and how to better-design structures and products to prevent avoidable losses in the future. The statements I have seen from Quintierre suggest that the investigators did not fully resolve many details as to what sorts of damage the building sustained and how they might have been made stronger and whether other buildings might also be subject to similar collapse in other types of catastrophic damage.

This is to say that he does not question how the chain of events was set in motion, but rather objects to NIST's not having looked deeply enough into how the damage could have been mitigated.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Evolutionist: Hmmmm that chocolate cake is delicious.

Creationist: wouw that chocolate cake is delicious.


Marokkaan: The evolutionist does agree with the creationist.

Debunker: No you are not right marokkaan, evolutionist believes in evolution, and the creationist believes in creationism

Truther: That cake has too much icing on it. We should throw it away and bake a new one.

Sane person: That cake doesn't have enough icing on it. We should keep the cake, but put some more icing on it.

Truther: See, the sane person agrees with me.

Dave

 

[Marokkaan]

Truther: That cake has too much icing on it. We should throw it away and bake a new one.

Sane person: That cake doesn't have enough icing on it. We should keep the cake, but put some more icing on it.

Truther: See, the sane person agrees with me.

Dave

What a bad example lol. Try again. with another example.


next one for fun

Truther: But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives],

Debunker: But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives],

Marokkaan: the debunker does agree with the truther.

Jrefdebunker: no its not, the debunker believes in natural collapse and the truther believes in cd.

 

[tmd2_1]

Which brings us back to the thrust of what I just said; ae911truth's best way to "fight" the conclusions reached by NIST is to tackle it through the venues directly impacted by the code changes their report influenced. The professional world apparently doesn't take as much offence as you or AE911 do with the NIST's findings, therefore Gage needs to work on pointing out the practical impacts of the supposed fraud before he forces his effort elsewhere. Why he hasn't done any of this is beyond me, however his experiments were less than professional to begin with, so that may not be surprising.


Please refer to my response to CE. It's relevant to both his, and yours. It shouldn't need repeating



Making or losing big with a biased media has nothing to do with it. Both the architecture and engineering professions deal with matters that affect public safety, and as such they both have their own codes of ethics. If for example code changes are not necessary, or they're incompetent, or they endanger public safety Gage and his crew would be well within their bounds to bring it up. On the flip side, should Gage display his incompetence in the spotlight, and directly involve his insane theories in his professional practices, he would also be violation of the ethical standards for architects. I suspect he's already run into such problems because of his use of the AIA logo on his website some years ago, which explicitly without their consent implied that his organization represented their views. He had to remove it.

In short NIST released a report, without their numbers. I contend that is like not releasing a report at all. I also contend that 1600 professionals signing up, is very remarkable with the climate and stigma against. 1600 that have nothing to gain and an awful lot to lose. You choose to sit it differently, so be it, it's evident I can not change your mind. Maybe someday you will see things for what they are.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Truther: But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives],

But AE911T has not asked for a review of the NIST report with input from ATF. They have asked for "a new, truly independent investigation with subpoena power" which will "include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives". The ATF is a government agency, and therefore must be considered to be specifically excluded from AE911T's requested "truly independent" investigation.

So, would you like to fail to defend your next lie, or do you want to go on pretending you can defend this one?

Dave