chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Ziggi, a couple brief comments:
1) In answer to your question, "You refer to the [CTBUH] critique as "relatively minor" without explaining how you came to that conclusion. I already explained how it tore apart the report to the point that it debunked NISTs story." My conclusion was to simply repeat their conclusion: when Chris Sarns attacked the NIST "fairytale" on one of their blog threads, they came back and clearly stated that they support the NIST Report. I take that to mean that their critiques were relatively minor, certainly relative to the critiques of Chris Sarns. And to be clear: CTBUH considers the CD theory to be a "distraction" and in no way endorses your theories. They made a robust critique of NIST's details while agreeing with the "big picture": seven hours of unfought fires brought down Building 7, and CD played no role whatsoever. Same conclusion at Purdue, Hawaii, Cardiff, FBI, FEMA. I know that AE911 Truth is trying to find a major engineering firm or foreign government institution to support the CD theory. Maybe Richard Gage will find this on his European trip. But until a major accredited institution does a top-to-bottom analysis of the NIST Report with equal thoroughness that has a fully-developed theory of exactly what evidence exists for CD and how its mechanisms were necessary for the collapses, how all evidence of CD was hidden from the hundreds of Controlled Demolition workers who combed through the debris piles for months after 9/11 and never found a single piece of evidence for CD (I believe they were hired for their expertise in navigating debris piles), conclusive proof of tons of unignited (or ignited) thermite residue in the dust (and why Jim Millette did not find it), an explanation of the CD triggers/what they were/how they survived the fires/how they vanished utterly in the debris, for that matter why every other major institution that has ever studied this has supported the principal findings of the NIST Report... until a full-scale new investigation happens anywhere in the world (because I agree there is no interest in doing it in the U.S., but not for the reasons you say), I am going along with the experts: 7,000+ FBI Agents who conducted a three-year 911 investigation; 1,500 people who worked the flight 93 crash scene; 40,000 people who worked the piles at Ground Zero; 55 FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills in New York; 8,000+ people who worked the scene at the Pentagon. There are at least five peer-reviewed journal articles in ASCE publications that conclude the buildings came down by fire and those Journal articles have been cited in other articles and used to redesign fire codes in tall buildings (meaning that the articles have peer respect). NIST was peer-reviewed by four independent civil engineering firms and concluded fire brought the buildings down. "What Did and Did Not Cause the Collapse of the WTC Towers in NY" is another. That was produced by the Department of Civil Engineering at Northwest University (Structural Engineering Report No 07-05 / C605c). You've probably also seen this list of experts and what they've said (all of them assume or provide evidence for fire-based collapse scenario): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8380815&postcount=5543
Secondly, sometimes you make an assertion with me and then complain that we've gone over this before and that somehow I now agree with you. That has been true on some occasions. For example, I now agree with you that there is a difference between iron oxide cenospheres and iron-rich microspheres, both in how they are created and the chemical composition of each. But I still think that other forces came into play during the ~freefall collapse of the perimeter wall of Building 7, or >g descent would not be possible. I believe we are looking at an average net-zero resistance with all forces in play including gravity, resistance, torquing and leveraging. The fact that we went over something does not mean I now agree with you.
I'm not saying you're wrong when you accuse NIST of fraud. I doubt it in the extreme. But you must get a major scientific institution to thoroughly prove them wrong. But yes, in answer to your question, IF a major scientific institution proves CD and destroys every major conclusion of the NIST Report, and then if an investigation is launched into why NIST got it so wrong, and if that investigation leads to charges of fraud by the higher-ups at NIST, and if a jury convicts them and they are sent packing to jail... well, whatever your favorite drink is, I will fly to your hometown and buy you one! Or two or three! And I will publicly say I was utterly and totally wrong.
And yes, I have said that I am disturbed by Shyam Sunder's statement that freefall is impossible because it would mean zero resistance, followed by freefall appearing in the final report and the simple statement that this new data is consistent with their model. I wondered if maybe Sunder was speaking outside his area of expertise or that perhaps he is trained as an administrator not a scientist or engineer, but he has extensive training in structural engineering and has a very strong scientific background. My attempts top get NIST to clarify this issue were met with a simple restating of their assertion that freefall is consistent with their model.
I think NIST just doesn't take 9/11 Truth seriously. As they said repeatedly to me, there's nothing to debate with them. I don't think they put much effort or care into rebutting your claims. This is one example. Another example is their little computer simulation of what an explosion would do in Building 7, even though the kind of explosion they modeled is not thermitic. The benign assumption would be that a cash-strapped government agency that does everything from suggesting safety standards to maintaining the world's atomic clock is not going to expend very much of their limited resources defending themselves against AE911 Truth people. That's basically what they told me in one of my later conversations. I think you're just being ignored,to be blunt. If I turn out to be wrong and it turns out there is major malfeasance going on here, neither you nor I will be the ones to really discover and fully validate this. It will be those accredited scientists and institutions with the specialized knowledge to really go over the NIST Reports with a fine-toothed comb.
1) In answer to your question, "You refer to the [CTBUH] critique as "relatively minor" without explaining how you came to that conclusion. I already explained how it tore apart the report to the point that it debunked NISTs story." My conclusion was to simply repeat their conclusion: when Chris Sarns attacked the NIST "fairytale" on one of their blog threads, they came back and clearly stated that they support the NIST Report. I take that to mean that their critiques were relatively minor, certainly relative to the critiques of Chris Sarns. And to be clear: CTBUH considers the CD theory to be a "distraction" and in no way endorses your theories. They made a robust critique of NIST's details while agreeing with the "big picture": seven hours of unfought fires brought down Building 7, and CD played no role whatsoever. Same conclusion at Purdue, Hawaii, Cardiff, FBI, FEMA. I know that AE911 Truth is trying to find a major engineering firm or foreign government institution to support the CD theory. Maybe Richard Gage will find this on his European trip. But until a major accredited institution does a top-to-bottom analysis of the NIST Report with equal thoroughness that has a fully-developed theory of exactly what evidence exists for CD and how its mechanisms were necessary for the collapses, how all evidence of CD was hidden from the hundreds of Controlled Demolition workers who combed through the debris piles for months after 9/11 and never found a single piece of evidence for CD (I believe they were hired for their expertise in navigating debris piles), conclusive proof of tons of unignited (or ignited) thermite residue in the dust (and why Jim Millette did not find it), an explanation of the CD triggers/what they were/how they survived the fires/how they vanished utterly in the debris, for that matter why every other major institution that has ever studied this has supported the principal findings of the NIST Report... until a full-scale new investigation happens anywhere in the world (because I agree there is no interest in doing it in the U.S., but not for the reasons you say), I am going along with the experts: 7,000+ FBI Agents who conducted a three-year 911 investigation; 1,500 people who worked the flight 93 crash scene; 40,000 people who worked the piles at Ground Zero; 55 FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills in New York; 8,000+ people who worked the scene at the Pentagon. There are at least five peer-reviewed journal articles in ASCE publications that conclude the buildings came down by fire and those Journal articles have been cited in other articles and used to redesign fire codes in tall buildings (meaning that the articles have peer respect). NIST was peer-reviewed by four independent civil engineering firms and concluded fire brought the buildings down. "What Did and Did Not Cause the Collapse of the WTC Towers in NY" is another. That was produced by the Department of Civil Engineering at Northwest University (Structural Engineering Report No 07-05 / C605c). You've probably also seen this list of experts and what they've said (all of them assume or provide evidence for fire-based collapse scenario): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8380815&postcount=5543
Secondly, sometimes you make an assertion with me and then complain that we've gone over this before and that somehow I now agree with you. That has been true on some occasions. For example, I now agree with you that there is a difference between iron oxide cenospheres and iron-rich microspheres, both in how they are created and the chemical composition of each. But I still think that other forces came into play during the ~freefall collapse of the perimeter wall of Building 7, or >g descent would not be possible. I believe we are looking at an average net-zero resistance with all forces in play including gravity, resistance, torquing and leveraging. The fact that we went over something does not mean I now agree with you.
I'm not saying you're wrong when you accuse NIST of fraud. I doubt it in the extreme. But you must get a major scientific institution to thoroughly prove them wrong. But yes, in answer to your question, IF a major scientific institution proves CD and destroys every major conclusion of the NIST Report, and then if an investigation is launched into why NIST got it so wrong, and if that investigation leads to charges of fraud by the higher-ups at NIST, and if a jury convicts them and they are sent packing to jail... well, whatever your favorite drink is, I will fly to your hometown and buy you one! Or two or three! And I will publicly say I was utterly and totally wrong.
And yes, I have said that I am disturbed by Shyam Sunder's statement that freefall is impossible because it would mean zero resistance, followed by freefall appearing in the final report and the simple statement that this new data is consistent with their model. I wondered if maybe Sunder was speaking outside his area of expertise or that perhaps he is trained as an administrator not a scientist or engineer, but he has extensive training in structural engineering and has a very strong scientific background. My attempts top get NIST to clarify this issue were met with a simple restating of their assertion that freefall is consistent with their model.
I think NIST just doesn't take 9/11 Truth seriously. As they said repeatedly to me, there's nothing to debate with them. I don't think they put much effort or care into rebutting your claims. This is one example. Another example is their little computer simulation of what an explosion would do in Building 7, even though the kind of explosion they modeled is not thermitic. The benign assumption would be that a cash-strapped government agency that does everything from suggesting safety standards to maintaining the world's atomic clock is not going to expend very much of their limited resources defending themselves against AE911 Truth people. That's basically what they told me in one of my later conversations. I think you're just being ignored,to be blunt. If I turn out to be wrong and it turns out there is major malfeasance going on here, neither you nor I will be the ones to really discover and fully validate this. It will be those accredited scientists and institutions with the specialized knowledge to really go over the NIST Reports with a fine-toothed comb.
Hmmmm ... what was going on in the PO building ... ??
