WTC7: Compilation of Scientific Literature that supports the NIST report and methods

[Oystein]

This, in my opnion, is a slam dunk.

Someone posting as "benthamitemetric" on several forums compiled a massive list of scientific writings (refereed papers, sworn affidavits, reports, ...) that all cite the NIST reports about the WTC7 collapse, and support NIST's conclusions or/and methodology. Some are, of course, critical of some details, such as recommendations, but the point is: There exists a very strong body of scientific literature, written by a large number of eminent experts, that basically says "Yes, NIST validly showed that fires most likely brought Building 7 down"; whereas the published works supporting CD are ... few.

Here is the link:

http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/

Scan it, enjoy, bookmark it, and use it often!

 

[DGM]

<"truther"mode> The list is all shills that are afraid of loosinglosing their jobs, dismissed as propaganda.......</ "truther" mode>

It's really easy to be a "truther".

 

[jaydeehess]

Sorry, I could not resist DGM:

I would really hate losing a loose job.

 

[DGM]

Sorry, I could not resist DGM:

I would really hate losing a loose job.

 

[Oystein]

An idea: Could we compile a list of professional engineers and engineering PhDs that author such papers?
A table, basically, AE911T-style, with columns listing...
Last name, first name
Academic title
Degree (B/M/PhD), academic field
Country
State
City
PE license, if applicable
URL(s) to document endorsing NIST
Some flags to check who suppors NISTs conclusions/methods, ... in whole/part, ... other


I am particularly impressed by that AEGIS insurance company case, with sworn affidavits by several professors of structural and fire protection engineering. The insurance had to pay a nine-digit US$ amount as a result if the WTC7. Had they been able to show that it fell due to excessive negligence, or even due to criminal deliberation, they could have avoided paying that huge sum. So they were VERY much interested in hiring experts that would destroy the NIST findings and come up with a different story. One of the experts was also the leader of an expert group of the Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat which critiqued the NIST WTC7 report in 2008, and also expressedly and in the clearest words possible condemned "the 9/11 truth movement" of not having a whiff of evidence and being a bothersome distraction.

 

[Miragememories]

The No.1 problem with "the official narrative" is its failure to reasonably explain the collapse of 7WTC.

 

[JayUtah]

Failure by whose judgment?
Reasonable by whose standard?

The thread asks whether there's a legitimate reason to question the official narrative. You therefore have to make a case that your stated problem meets that standard.

 

[John Jones]

The No.1 problem with "the official narrative" is its failure to reasonably explain the collapse of 7WTC.

HAHAHAHAHA!

 

[NoahFence]

The No.1 problem with "the official narrative" is its failure to reasonably explain the collapse of 7WTC.

That's been done many times, by experts and laypeople alike.

To my untrained eyes, the sight of WTC 7 collapsing was not a surprise in the least, after finding out that the fires started on multiple floors, and burned unchecked for as long as it did.

I've said it once and I'll say it a thousand times. I knew what took the buildings down practically before they even hit the ground. And I've YET to be proven wrong.

You people need a new hobby. Preferably one that doesn't mock the murder of thousands.

 

[Jango]

That's been done many times, by experts and laypeople alike.

To my untrained eyes, the sight of WTC 7 collapsing was not a surprise in the least, after finding out that the fires started on multiple floors, and burned unchecked for as long as it did.

I've said it once and I'll say it a thousand times. I knew what took the buildings down practically before they even hit the ground. And I've YET to be proven wrong.

You people need a new hobby. Preferably one that doesn't mock the murder of thousands.

Which would be relevant if anyone was saying that there were no victims like Let's Roll and the Clues forums put forward, but that isn't happenin' here, so this line of "criticism" is invalid and irrelevant.

 

[jaydeehess]

The No.1 problem with "the official narrative" is its failure to reasonably explain the collapse of 7WTC.

It has!
By and large the collapse of WTC7 was not unexpected by anyone on scene. By and large its collapse primarily due to fire and the specific construction of the building is accepted by the professional engineering community.

In addition there is no evidence whatsoever for any alternative to the obvious proximate cause, fire.

However, even if one questions specifics of the NIST most probable collapse hypothesis, that by itself is very far from sufficient reason to reinvestigate the events of 9/11. At best its reason to reinvestigate the specifics of how fire led to the beginning of a progressive global collapse of this specific design.

 

[JayUtah]

Which would be relevant if anyone was saying that there were no victims like Let's Roll and the Clues forums put forward, but that isn't happenin' here, so this line of "criticism" is invalid and irrelevant.

I'm not sure how it is necessarily invalid. Yes, it's an appeal to emotion and therefore not valid as a logical argument, but the goal of it is not to try to establish fact, but to lay out how important the standard of proof is. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and suggesting that thousands were murdered (no, I don't acknowledge Vic-Sim claims) by a let-it-happen scenario or an inside job perpetrated by people whose job it was to protect them demands a high standard.

But yes, when 13 years elapse with no more than suppositional lines of reasoning for heinous allegations, it's time to call a spade a spade even if it does seem like an emotional argument. That's what makes it relevant. Conspiracy theorists need some way to understand how people view those unfounded accusations who aren't steeped in conspiratorial rhetoric and who have a more balanced understanding of what kind of proof would normally be required for such accusations. And lacking that proof for so long, well there we are.

 

[Jango]

I'm not sure how it is necessarily invalid. Yes, it's an appeal to emotion and therefore not valid as a logical argument, but the goal of it is not to try to establish fact, but to lay out how important the standard of proof is. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and suggesting that thousands were murdered (no, I don't acknowledge Vic-Sim claims) by a let-it-happen scenario or an inside job perpetrated by people whose job it was to protect them demands a high standard.

But yes, when 13 years elapse with no more than suppositional lines of reasoning for heinous allegations, it's time to call a spade a spade even if it does seem like an emotional argument. That's what makes it relevant. Conspiracy theorists need some way to understand how people view those unfounded accusations who aren't steeped in conspiratorial rhetoric and who have a more balanced understanding of what kind of proof would normally be required for such accusations. And lacking that proof for so long, well there we are.

It's invalid 'cause no one here is mocking the deaths of thousands of innocent people on 9/11. Suggesting LIHOP or MIHOP is not making a mockery out of the victims whereas saying they were gelatin filled dummies and the figments of people's imaginations/digital creating abilities most certainly is.

 

[JayUtah]

It's invalid 'cause no one here is mocking the deaths of thousands of innocent people on 9/11. Suggesting LIHOP or MIHOP is not making a mockery out of the victims...

Read his statement carefully. He said making a mockery out of the "murder of thousands." (emphasis added) Not the victims themselves necessarily, but the act and motives.

The accused terrorists weren't sworn to protect and defend those victims. They were malicious and expectedly so. However most of the conspiracy theories require that American officials who had a duty of care over us either abrogated it or flat-out broke it. And for that you need extraordinary evidence, which you don't have. It's the qualitative difference between an accusation that makes sense even if it's unpleasant, and an accusation that is considerably more heinous and has failed to gain a toehold outside the lunatic fringe for its sheer audacity and lack of evidence. When such serious accusations are made largely for the apparent purpose of seeking attention, then it becomes a mockery.

But by all means, if you think inventing fanciful stories for how American authorities callously murdered or allowed to be murdered thousands of their citizens is just a bit of innocent fun that doesn't reflect badly on you, keep at it. No skin off my nose.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

The No.1 problem with "the official narrative" is its failure to reasonably explain the collapse of 7WTC.

Blue and bolded!


MM, you spoil us.

 

[NoahFence]

Which would be relevant if anyone was saying that there were no victims like Let's Roll and the Clues forums put forward, but that isn't happenin' here, so this line of "criticism" is invalid and irrelevant.

It certainly is not.

 

[jaydeehess]

The No.1 problem with "the official narrative" is its failure to reasonably explain the collapse of 7WTC.

Oystein addressed this in another recent thread you may have missed
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=287245

 

[Miragememories]

The No.1 problem with "the official narrative" is its failure to reasonably explain the collapse of 7WTC.

Oystein addressed this in another recent thread you may have missed
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=287245

This, in my opnion, is a slam dunk.

Someone posting as "benthamitemetric" on several forums compiled a massive list of scientific writings (refereed papers, sworn affidavits, reports, ...) that all cite the NIST reports about the WTC7 collapse, and support NIST's conclusions or/and methodology. ..Here is the link:

http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/

Scan it, enjoy, bookmark it, and use it often!

"So I was just over in /r/911truth and, during the course of a conversation, I took it upon myself to, once and for all, create a master list of the peer reviewed literature that supports NIST's WTC 7 methodologies and conclusions.

Since it'll likely just get buried and ignored over there, I thought I'd spiff it up a bit and post it here for posterity as well.

First, many are not aware of this, but NIST's WTC 7 report has itself been *independently peer reviewed by and published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, the ASCE's flagship publication and one of the oldest and most prestigious peer reviewed engineering journals in the world: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

Well this sounded worth investigating, so I thought I would start by looking at the peer-reviewed report that lead the pack.

Analysis of Structural Response of WTC7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse

The first problem; the report is not free.

The second problem, and for me this is a deal breaker, is the only structural engineers listed as authors, are Therese McAllister and John Gross.

What is the problem you might ask?

*They both are employees of NIST.

John Gross in particular is also a well known spokesperson for NIST, most notable for this public statement about what he claims was not observed at 9/11 Ground Zero;

“Let’s go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel, uh, I know of no absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses said so nobody has produced it.”

I can produce a substantial list of first hand observers who readily dispute John Gross's ignorance.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So you can't dispute the facts in the paper. You can only complain it has a production cost and was created by those who are both qualified and in the employ of a pertinent organisation.

Oh dear.

 

[DGM]

The first problem; the report is not free.

The second problem, and for me this is a deal breaker,is the only structural engineers listed as authors, are Therese McAllister and John Gross

What is the problem you might ask?

They both are employees of NIST.

Good excuse. You now must agree that everything Richard Gage says is ineligible because he is an employee of AE 9/11.

You have no bias, right? Imagine if you could (or knew someone) that could argue against the content, then the world would know the truth. Maybe you could get the Europeans to listen, or maybe speak for you?

I can produce a substantial list of first hand observers who readily dispute John Gross's ignorance.

Start a new thread with this ground breaking proof. I'll bet it's all the same cherry picking you've been using for years.

I'm sorry but, you really need to step it up. This is even lame by your standards.