FSJA Article, "Built to Last or Built to Fail?"

[ozeco41]

I'm seeing a resurgence in the same, old arguments,...

My point - the same old arguments, raised in apparent ignorance of the reality that they have been comprehensively rebutted and accurate explanations posted many times

I'd also like to note in passing that the photos and articles that I used to use for citations are getting more difficult to find, at least for me. I'm wondering if someone is getting them removed from the Internet.

The most comprehensive collection of video evidence records was maintained for many years by a truther side researcher 'Major_Tom'. Without doubt one one the most effective researchers of the video record. Honest with his findings despite an arrogant posting style which started as retaliation to personal attacks from a debunker claque on another forum. His site has closed but is still accessible on the "Way Back" ??? Machine. I personally made a strategic error, posted all the graphics supporting my own explanations on my own web site. Then closed the Web Site. So many of my older posts here, on JREF/ISF, The 911Forum and a couple of others, no longer have their graphics.

The two FSJA articles are the same old stuff we've seen for years. I don't remember if I'm allowed to link here or not. Oh, well, here it goes..

It worked. And thanks for the links.

Both papers are stock standard truther style, repetition of truther "memes" (Original Dawkins meaning), lies including outright false claims, lies by partial truth, omission or innuendo. Above all neither of the papers makes any new or significant input into debate of claims for CD. Both papers strongly emphasise the social wellbeing of firefighters risk aspects. But fail to identify that firefighter risk does not distinguish between "CD" and "natural" (fire driven) collapse causation. So, in context, it is emotive implied support for CD which may influence non-objective readers.

I'm not motivated to respond at comprehensive length to the Gish Gallop trap, rebutting the dozens of false claims. Unless any contemporary reader needs explanation of specific issues raised. Any member wants such issue by issue explanation, just ask. Keep it to one or two issues at a time please. Several of our members can answer - including me.

So I will simply identify a few of the obvious pro-truther biases in the papers:
"Built to last or built to fail: Could office fuel loads cause the complete collapse of WTC 7?" March 19, 2025.

This one first:

Built to last or built to fail: Could office fuel loads cause the complete collapse of WTC 7?

WTC 7, the third high-rise to collapse on 9/11, was located about 100 yards (91.4m) north of WTC 1, was a 47-story steel building, stood 610 ft. (186 m),

fireandsafetyjournalamericas.com

I'll bold, italicise and colour the bits of standard truther cut and paste cant. Plus a couple of lies by false comparison marked colour:

WTC 7, the third high-rise to collapse on 9/11, was located about 100 yards (91.4m) north of WTC 1, was a 47-story steel building, stood 610 ft. (186 m), contained 82 columns, concrete-on-steel deck composite floor assemblies, was clad in red granite masonry, and was fully sprinklered. The building was not hit by an aircraft, and no firefighters died in the collapse.

Fires burned on numerous floors for seven hours, then it completely collapsed symmetrically in freefall, within its own footprint at 5:20 pm. This event wasn’t exclusive to New York City (NYC). The effects it had on understanding fire behavior within high-rise buildings, including best- practices in strategy and tactics, have affected the international fire service as well.


In high-rise fires, civilian evacuations can be confusing and complex. The capacity for exponential fire growth, and the ease with which occupants and rescuers can become trapped, causes us to rely on the designed strength of the building to save lives, contain the fire, and extinguish it from inside. The tragic 2017 Grenfell Tower fire which killed 72 people, has been one of the most graphic examples since 9/11, and following its inquiry, high-rise firefighting has become a topic of heightened interest within the UK fire service.


It’s imperative for firefighters to understand fire behavior in high-rise buildings, and have complete trust and confidence in their high-rise operational procedures. Yet, following the Grenfell fire, it became apparent that firefighters involved in that incident feared the building would collapse like the WTC , which of course, it did not. Grenfell Tower burned vigorously throughout, for over 19 hours, yet remains standing to this day. In fact, historically, no modern Type-1 fire-protected high-rise has ever completely collapsed due to fire.

That much should be sufficient.

These next two paragraphs are examples of non-distinguishing emotive innuendo. They add nothing to reasoned objective debate of the core question "CD or not"?

So, given what we know about the performance of these buildings over decades, why were these UK firefighters in fear of total collapse, and did that additional fear and stress compromise their psychological and operational effectiveness, thereby potentially endangering them and others? This is a valid question to reinforce, or critically review the legitimacy of our current firefighting practices and our civilian rescue “protect-in-place” procedures.

Addressing this fear starts by understanding what really caused the global, freefall collapse of WTC 7. Over recent years, a growing body of evidence regarding WTC 7 has become available, calling into question the beliefs which were responsible for the misapprehensions of those UK firefighters at Grenfell. For many of us, this is still a visceral and emotional subject, but it’s been 24 years since 9/11. Strong sentiments have died down enough to ask the hard questions and objectively consider more reasonable, scientific, and physical explanations.

Now the second paper:

"Built to Last or Built to Fail? The contested causes of WTC 7’s collapse and implications for structural firefighting strategies" April 30, 2025

I'll only comment on this pair of related issues

To this day, its data has been withheld from peer review and public scrutiny, in the interests of “public safety.”

Issue #1 "withheld from peer review" is a deliberate lie by partial truth. The lie by implication is that the paper was not subjected to the quality assurance process of 'peer review'. Reality is that it was subjected to a much broader, more open and more rigorous examination. The paper was "put out for public comment" in draft form. Extensive comments were received, including one from truther David Chandler which led to extensive debate of a sideline false claim led by Chandler.

Most of the comments or criticisms could not have occurred if the confidential process of 'peer review' had been undertaken without open public comment. BTW "out for public comment" is the approach favoured by many governments, including AU, for reports on matters of statutory and political significance.

Issue #2. It is true that NIST did withhold some data for the reasons stated. "Public safety". Whether that was necessary or good PR is a matter for separate discussion. BUT there has been no proof that lack of the specific data had any more than limited effects on the scope of analysis of the collapse.

So, bottom line, both papers are SOP 'Truther' can't. Much cut and paste of truther "memes"**

I see no obvious value in attempting rebuttal - they are both in "Gish Gallop" form.

If anyone has any specific issues needing clarification, just ask.
.
.

** Original R Dawkins meaning.

 

[Opcode]

My point - the same old arguments, raised in apparent ignorance of the reality that they have been comprehensively rebutted and accurate explanations posted many times

The most comprehensive collection of video evidence records was maintained for many years by a truther side researcher 'Major_Tom'. Without doubt one one the most effective researchers of the video record. Honest with his findings despite an arrogant posting style which started as retaliation to personal attacks from a debunker claque on another forum. His site has closed but is still accessible on the "Way Back" ??? Machine. I personally made a strategic error, posted all the graphics supporting my own explanations on my own web site. Then closed the Web Site. So many of my older posts here, on JREF/ISF, The 911Forum and a couple of others, no longer have their graphics.

It worked. And thanks for the links.

Both papers are stock standard truther style, repetition of truther "memes" (Original Dawkins meaning), lies including outright false claims, lies by partial truth, omission or innuendo. Above all neither of the papers makes any new or significant input into debate of claims for CD. Both papers strongly emphasise the social wellbeing of firefighters risk aspects. But fail to identify that firefighter risk does not distinguish between "CD" and "natural" (fire driven) collapse causation. So, in context, it is emotive implied support for CD which may influence non-objective readers.

I'm not motivated to respond at comprehensive length to the Gish Gallop trap, rebutting the dozens of false claims. Unless any contemporary reader needs explanation of specific issues raised. Any member wants such issue by issue explanation, just ask. Keep it to one or two issues at a time please. Several of our members can answer - including me.

So I will simply identify a few of the obvious pro-truther biases in the papers:
"Built to last or built to fail: Could office fuel loads cause the complete collapse of WTC 7?" March 19, 2025.

This one first:


I'll bold, italicise and colour the bits of standard truther cut and paste cant. Plus a couple of lies by false comparison marked colour:

That much should be sufficient.

These next two paragraphs are examples of non-distinguishing emotive innuendo. They add nothing to reasoned objective debate of the core question "CD or not"?


Now the second paper:


I'll only comment on this pair of related issues

Issue #1 "withheld from peer review" is a deliberate lie by partial truth. The lie by implication is that the paper was not subjected to the quality assurance process of 'peer review'. Reality is that it was subjected to a much broader, more open and more rigorous examination. The paper was "put out for public comment" in draft form. Extensive comments were received, including one from truther David Chandler which led to extensive debate of a sideline false claim led by Chandler.

Most of the comments or criticisms could not have occurred if the confidential process of 'peer review' had been undertaken without open public comment. BTW "out for public comment" is the approach favoured by many governments, including AU, for reports on matters of statutory and political significance.

Issue #2. It is true that NIST did withhold some data for the reasons stated. "Public safety". Whether that was necessary or good PR is a matter for separate discussion. BUT there has been no proof that lack of the specific data had any more than limited effects on the scope of analysis of the collapse.

So, bottom line, both papers are SOP 'Truther' can't. Much cut and paste of truther "memes"**

I see no obvious value in attempting rebuttal - they are both in "Gish Gallop" form.

If anyone has any specific issues needing clarification, just ask.
.
.

** Original R Dawkins meaning.

Wow, thanks for giving this a work-over!

In the 24 years since the 9/11 attacks, a new generation has reached adulthood. What is old hat to us is new to millions of young people. I believe that in addition to misleading the general public that lived through this event, Truthers are attempting to mislead the next generation, too. I am extremely concerned that the light of truth is being smothered for nefarious purposes. Although the motivations for this attempt are many, one that I'm concerned about in particular is the rise in neo-Nazism, associated with the rise in anti-intellectualism and anti-science. For this reason, I'm compelled to rebut such claims, no matter how often and redundant the claims are made. Remaining silent risks losing the truth.

I assume that you've seen Tucker Carlson's recent position on 9/11. He is an example of people who know better, but are playing dumb, pretending this is new while presenting it to the audience. Why is he doing this? I've seen clues that he is stacking the deck against Israel. I've said for years that nobody advocates for Trutherism based on the arguments it makes. They all do it for ulterior motives. A major ulterior motive is to justify hatred and rejection of Jews or Israel. I'm not necessarily pro-Jew or pro-Israel, but I cannot sit idly by while people outright lie to implicate them.

 

[ozeco41]

Wow, thanks for giving this a work-over!

No problem. Given few current active posters with historic comprehension, the thread needed a summary.

In the 24 years since the 9/11 attacks, a new generation has reached adulthood. What is old hat to us is new to millions of young people.

I doubt that 9/11 CT is a major issue for any 'reasoning moderns'. For US Americans, the fascist takeover and deliberate destruction of US governance and values is #1. And US cultural polarisation is so deeply entrenched that influencing 9/11 CT either way will not be significant in impact.

Hence my own withdrawal from what remains of 9/11 debate. The facts of the technical "What happened" issues are there for anyone who wants to understand. Sure the "who did what" aspects including US Government mal, mis or non-feasance have not been adequately addressed but
9/11 failures are insignificant compared with the current evils being imposed by Trump et al, following and possibly exceeding the 'Project 2025' roadmap.

I believe that in addition to misleading the general public that lived through this event, Truthers are attempting to mislead the next generation, too. I am extremely concerned that the light of truth is being smothered for nefarious purposes. Although the motivations for this attempt are many, one that I'm concerned about in particular is the rise in neo-Nazism, associated with the rise in anti-intellectualism and anti-science. For this reason, I'm compelled to rebut such claims, no matter how often and redundant the claims are made. Remaining silent risks losing the truth.

I've been focused on direct discussion of the problems caused by the US Constitution - both the inherent flaws and the long history of manipulative misinterpretation to support political goals.

I assume that you've seen Tucker Carlson's recent position on 9/11. He is an example of people who know better, but are playing dumb, pretending this is new while presenting it to the audience. Why is he doing this? I've seen clues that he is stacking the deck against Israel. I've said for years that nobody advocates for Trutherism based on the arguments it makes. They all do it for ulterior motives. A major ulterior motive is to justify hatred and rejection of Jews or Israel. I'm not necessarily pro-Jew or pro-Israel, but I cannot sit idly by while people outright lie to implicate them.

I understand the point you make. Personally I think few are deliberately malicious. e.g. The bulk numbers of MAGA supporters are simply low intelligence, selfish, and those who, typically American, see resort to violence as the way to resolve conflict. Truthers also have a few leaders but a mass of gullible followers. Don't ask my opinion of anti-vaxers. They are, IMNSHO, the only conspiracy theory bloc who have a de-facto goal of ensuring more illnesses and deaths.

 

[Brainster]

I note that their "hook" is that firefighters need to know whether there is risk of collapse:

It’s imperative for firefighters to understand fire behavior in high-rise buildings, and have complete trust and confidence in their high-rise operational procedures. Yet, following the Grenfell fire, it became apparent that firefighters involved in that incident feared the building would collapse like the WTC , which of course, it did not. Grenfell Tower burned vigorously throughout, for over 19 hours, yet remains standing to this day. In fact, historically, no modern Type-1 fire-protected high-rise has ever completely collapsed due to fire.

As usual, they completely ignore the damage to the building due to the collapse of the twin towers and ignore that there were no firefighting attempts on WTC-7 (the focus was on attempting to rescue survivors from WTC-1 and WTC-2).