AE911Truth is not a valid reference for the controlled demolition hypothesis

[1337m4n]

I address this particularly to deep44, because he seems to tout the AE911Truth petition every chance he gets.

There are several reasons why "Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth" cannot be considered a valid representation of the true number of relevant professionals who support "911 Truth".


Padded numbers. The AE911Truth petition seems to have been specifically created to satisfy the demands of skeptics for engineers who believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis. I say this because there are quite a few names on that petition who would know nothing more than the layman about building collapses, demolitions, the effects of fire, etc. Some examples:

"Thomas Spellman, Urban Activist"

"Andrew Kittross, Computer Software/Electrical Engineer"

"Douglas M. Keenan, None" (his degree is a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering)

"Douglas E. Mackenzie, BSEE" (Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering)

"Greg Salyards" (no credentials listed; his bio says he "Worked in Systems Analysis, Computer Systems, and Data Communications")

"Marc Kuttner, Marine Engineer"

"James D. Johnson, Chemist"

"Jim G. Smith, Software Developer" (Master's in Computer Science)

I could go on for quite a while, but I think you get the point. Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth is clearly practicing intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to pad their numbers, seemingly for no other reason than to be able to rub the petition in the face of skeptics the way many Truthers here commonly do. A "Software Developer" doesn't necessarily have any more understanding of the WTC collapses than Average Joe, but AE911Truth lists them on their petition as if they did.

Truthers have often accused us of moving the goalposts, but this is not the case: from the start we have always asked for structural engineers, of which there are at most 13 (when being as generous as possible with the credentials). Hardly the "300+" that is so often claimed by Truthers.


Unverifiable names. There are quite a few names on the petition that cannot be said with certainty to be supportive of 9/11 Truth. If you go to the Petition Signers page, you will see a number of entries that look like this:

• Bio:

(please enter a short bio)

• Personal 9/11 Statement:

(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)

These entries are indicative of someone who signed the petition half-heartedly, without reading it or viewing the associated materials, or the like. Furthermore, without the Bio information, there is no way to verify the names, and without the Personal 9/11 Statement, it is impossible to say for sure that the individual supports the controlled demolition hypothesis. There is even at least one person whose Personal 9/11 Statement would indicate that he doubts the controlled demolition hypothesis:

Presentation by Richard Gage was convincing. In the future, needs to address questions relating to number of people that would have to have been involved, the fact that no one has come forward to expose their role, and how the complicated and lengthy installation of multiple precisely located explosives was carried out without detection.

It almost appears that there are more "empty" entries on this petition that filled-out ones.

There are also some entries which indicate a "neutral" position, neither for nor against the "official story". Still, it is intellectually dishonest to present such people as if they outright supported Controlled Demolition:

I am interested in further examination of the tower collapse(s).

That's the only thing he says under "Personal 9/11 Statement". To extrapolate from that that he necessarily believes in controlled demolition is intellectually dishonest.

As an engineer I was taught to design structures to avoid a catastrophic failure. The engineers that design the buildings should explain their design and why it failed.

Again, this does not indicate that he supports the controlled demolition hypothesis.

There are several more such entries, but you get the idea.


Signers indicate that they are misinformed. Several of the signers promote demonstrable falsehoods in their Personal 9/11 Statements. Not only does this undermine their credibility, but it leaves open the possibility that they would abandon the controlled demolition hypothesis if they were better informed. Examples:

I would really like to know why complete collapse of the twin towers "became inevitable" as expressed by NIST without any scientific analysis to substantiate it. Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing most of the contents into dust and ash - twice? Why would WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified - and necessary - for all three collapses.

Several of these statements are demonstrably false. The collapse times have been shown to be significantly longer than Brookman states. Furthermore, Brookman seems unaware of the fact that WTC 7 was struck by tons of falling debris from the collapsing Towers, or of the firefighter's accounts that the building was engulfed in flames.

It was apparent to me from the day of 9/11 that the buildings did not fall due to catastrophic failure initiating from the impact by jet planes. If the towers had fallen due to anything but a controlled demolition, they would have taken out several city blocks and most adjacent buildings would have also been taken down by the towers.

Stephens is ignorant of the incredible amounts of collateral damage that occurred from the collapse of the Twin Towers, including the destruction of Building 7 itself.

The buildings fell at or very near free fall speed and into their own foot prints!

Everything about this statement has been debunked numerous times. The collapses were far slower than free fall, and a significant quantity of debris fell far outside of the footprints.

Again, I could go on for quite a while, but I'd be sitting here for quite some time if I did.



Unreliable Verification System. The verification system for AE911Truth's petition is too easy to fool, as our fellow JREFers demonstrated in this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83483) Anybody with enough time on his hands could create dozens of "engineers" in order to further pad the petition's numbers. Indeed, the petition still contains several of the fake names JREFers used in their initial expose--even after Richard Gage was informed that the names were fakes! This undermines the last of the organization's credibility.


Sorry, but I simply cannot accept the AE911Truth petition as evidence of the engineering community's alleged support of the controlled demolition hypothesis.

[uk_dave]

Nice post 1337m4n


ETA: You might want to consider asking for it to be merged with Ref's AETruth watch thread and it would certainly help to get that one back on track :)

[DGM]

One thing you forgot to mention, There's no requirements for membership. Once your on the list that's it, your on for life. If you don't support their view anymore it's up to you to have your name removed. This simply means that there's no way to know if these people still support this cause. The only way a list (especially an internet) can be taken at face value would be if there was some sort of membership commitment (dues or regular participation in events).

Otherwise nice post

[DC]

"James D. Johnson, Chemist"

bah how laughable, a chemist......

[Alt+F4]

Let us assume for a second that AE911Truth is totally legitimate and that every name on the petition is a real life architect or engineer with considerable experience.

Why no new investigation? Why no front page story in The New York Times? If the "truthers" have all these brilliant people why have their combined genius accomplished absolutely nothing in over six years? If these folks have the scientific proof then why don't they do more than just sign their names to a petition and hang out on the Internet?

[peteweaver]

"James D. Johnson, Chemist"

bah how laughable, a chemist......

Chemistry does not teach people anything relevant to the events of 9/11.

Its an entirely different science. And not what is needed to understand the collapses of buildings.

Try harder A&E twoof.

[DGM]

Chemistry does not teach people anything relevant to the events of 9/11.

Its an entirely different science. And not what is needed to understand the collapses of buildings.

Try harder A&E twoof.
I think that was a dig at Dr Frank Greening (Chemist)

[Good Lt]

Great post. Wonder if the resident AEFrauds for 9-11 Troof boosters will notice.

[DC]

I think that was a dig at Dr Frank Greening (Chemist)

what Dr. Greening is Chemist?
how can he know about collapses then?

wouldnt you call the OP an Argumentum Ad Hominem?

[johnny karate]

Dr Greening's work stands on its own merits, regardless of his professional background. The same could be said of any of the supposed members of AE911Truth, if any of them actually submitted any work.

Since they haven't, what we have here is the logical fallacy know as an Appeal to Authority, thus making the credentials of these so-called "authorities" open to examination and criticism.

[DC]

but it was clained that Chemist do not learn anything usefull in regards to collapses.

but somehow Dr. Greenings is excluded.

and its not about Dr. Greenings, he has indeed provided better work than any truther. and his work is used by many truthers.

but to just point out, oh he is just a chemist, is just childish.
what did he say or write that was so wrong?
and in regards to theyr Theory, that includes Thermite, isnt it exactly the field very usefull? Chemist?

[Architect]

DC

You ignore the fact that not one member of AE911 Truth has credible tall buildings design experience, IIRC - although I'm happy to be corrected if you can show otherwise.

[DC]

no worry, i am not a AE folower.

but btw, what experiance in tall buildings has Dr. Greenings?

thats my only point here, i like Dr. Greenings, and i respect him for his work, sure i dont share his oppinion about the towers was not a CD.

but i will never say his formulas are not correct because he is just a Chemist and has no experiance in tall buildings.

if the OP would have pointed out what that AE chemist said or wrote, then we could have a debate, but just saying they are not credible cause they have EE's and chemists is laughable.

[DC]

btw, they often point out, ha that truther is just an Architect....
what do you think about such arguments? you as an Architect?

[Spud1k]

The mere existence of AE911Truth is, as you say, just to provide ammunition against critics of the truth movement, specifically to counter the "no qualified engineers agree with you" statement. Even if they can rebut that specific statement - which is still highly debatable - it still goes nowhere in proving a controlled demolition. Since its inception, AE911Truth has yet to build up a robust case. Gage has always been the only really vocal member and ever done is recycle the long-debunked material of DRG and Steven Jones.

[DC]

just because JREF provided a "debunking" or a counter theory, does not mean the case is solved or that the JREF Debunking is correct :)

[peteweaver]

DC we are not JREF, we are simply members of the JREF forums, some of us happen to debunk the bunk of conspiracy lunacy on this board. Others like you who are a JREF forum member have a different view.

Btw, the conspiracy theories board is not all there is to JREF.

[Spud1k]

In a lot of aspects, there is no case to 'solve' and there is no need to provide any counter theories. For instance, Jones has yet to provide a case for his thermite theories that stands up to any intellectual or academic scrutiny outside of his own 'journal'. One is therefore left to conclude that there is no reason to even suspect the thermite even existed.

As far as the majority are concerned, the towers fell because of impact and fire damage and studies by NIST and others showed no reason to think otherwise. This means that the onus is most definitely on anyone who disagrees to prove their case. Gage has stated that 1) evidence exists that CD was used and 2) the towers could not have fallen without CD. However, his arguments have been shown time and time again to be very questionable (disappearing mass anyone?), so as such, citing the mere existence of AE911Truth as a proof of CD, or even as a disproof of impact/fire-initiated collapse, is not valid.

[Good Lt]

just because JREF provided a "debunking" or a counter theory, does not mean the case is solved or that the JREF Debunking is correct :)

Actually, citing the evidence and comprehensively refuting the nonsense spewed from the Troof movement does mean that the case is solved in this way:

There is no "case" for 9-11 conspiracists.

Terrorists hijacked airliners, flew them into the Twin Towers, and killed just shy of 3000 people on 9-11-01. More hit the Pentagon and hijacked a fourth plane that crashed in PA. There were no explosives, Mossad agents, space beams, holograms, thermite or thermate explosives, primacord, explosions from controlled demolitions, or anything else submitted by the Troof club.

You have no "case." This isn't a Hardy Boys novel - it's real life.

[DC]

no one want to see my point, are you all in denial?

[Good Lt]

no one want to see my point, are you all in denial?

Reading through your posts here, it is evident that you had no point, other than to further "the case" of the WTC conspiracy.

Are we done?

[DC]

ok conclusion = Dr. Greenings is only a Chemist and has no experiance in Tall buildings.

thx

[MarkyX]

Anyone who cites Richard Gage is basically someone who can't think for themselves and loves to appeal to authority.

1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something positive about A,
3. therefore claim B is true.

Hence, if put Richard Gage in perspective.

- Richard Gage says 9/11 was an inside job
- Richard Gage is an architect
- Therefore 9/11 was an inside job

One thing 9/11 deniers tend to forget is not only do we have the proper experts on our side, but they get into great detail in peer reviewed papers. Richard Gage doesn't, as he merely says the same things as Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin.

[Good Lt]

Anyone who cites Richard Gage is basically someone who can't think for themselves and loves to appeal to authority.

1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something positive about A,
3. therefore claim B is true.

Hence, if put Richard Gage in perspective.

- Richard Gage says 9/11 was an inside job
- Richard Gage is an architect
- Therefore 9/11 was an inside job

One thing 9/11 deniers tend to forget is not only do we have the proper experts on our side, but they get into great detail in peer reviewed papers. Richard Gage doesn't, as he merely says the same things as Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin.

It's also good that DRG, a theologian, has many peer-reviewed scientific papers and technical articles published on the WTC and its surrounding phenomena.

Where can we find all of these vaunted yet inexplicably inaccessible peer-reviewed papers from the Troof movement? Linky?

[Evilgiraffe]

ok conclusion = Dr. Greenings is only a Chemist and has no experiance in Tall buildings.

DC, you know how to play the game. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

It matters not one jot whether Dr Greening is a chemist, an engineer, an architect or a milkman. If you have a problem with what he's published, point out the flaws and argue your case.

Admittedly people have a tendency to pay more attention to claims from those with experience in a particular field but that doesn't mean experts have a monopoly on making claims.

Our understanding of space and time was overturned last century by a patent examiner from Ulm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein). The vast majority of physicists agree with Einstein and I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of architects and engineers agree with the conclusions of Greening et al.

Once again, if you have misgiving about Dr Greening's work, try actually refuting it. Bring some calculations to the table. I'm certain that there are people posting here who can judge their merit.

[DC]

Actually, citing the evidence and comprehensively refuting the nonsense spewed from the Troof movement does mean that the case is solved in this way:

There is no "case" for 9-11 conspiracists.

Terrorists hijacked airliners, flew them into the Twin Towers, and killed just shy of 3000 people on 9-11-01. More hit the Pentagon and hijacked a fourth plane that crashed in PA. There were no explosives, Mossad agents, space beams, holograms, thermite or thermate explosives, primacord, explosions from controlled demolitions, or anything else submitted by the Troof club.

You have no "case." This isn't a Hardy Boys novel - it's real life.

i thaught Thermite is not an Explosive :boggled:

[DC]

DC, you know how to play the game. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

It matters not one jot whether Dr Greening is a chemist, an engineer, an architect or a milkman. If you have a problem with what he's published, point out the flaws and argue your case.

Admittedly people have a tendency to pay more attention to claims from those with experience in a particular field but that doesn't mean experts have a monopoly on making claims.

Our understanding of space and time was overturned last century by a patent examiner from Ulm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein). The vast majority of physicists agree with Einstein and I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of architects and engineers agree with the conclusions of Greening et al.

Once again, if you have misgiving about Dr Greening's work, try actually refuting it. Bring some calculations to the table. I'm certain that there are people posting here who can judge their merit.

It matters not one jot whether Dr Greening is a chemist, an engineer, an architect or a milkman. If you have a problem with what he's published, point out the flaws and argue your case.

that was my point, finally you got it, congratulations.

It matters not one jot whether James D. Johnson is a chemist, an engineer, an architect or a milkman. If you have a problem with what hesaid or wrote, point out the flaws and argue your case.

[Evilgiraffe]

And James D Johnson has published what in relation to the WTC collapses?

[Nick Terry]

And James D Johnson has published what in relation to the WTC collapses?

which is the point that our friend Dictator Cheney doesn't get. A list of names is not a scientific argument.

[DC]

And James D Johnson has published what in relation to the WTC collapses?

ah i see. you dont even know what he said or wrote.
he is just under atack because his name is listed on AE and cause he is a Chemist.

a bunch of hypocrits :)

[DC]

which is the point that our friend Dictator Cheney doesn't get. A list of names is not a scientific argument.

hey, i never linked to them, nor did i ever say, but the AE experts are on our side etc.

but this topic is just laughable.

if you had a list of AE claims and would try to debunk them, i would find it ok.
but nothing. only showing that they have Chemists and EE's etc.

so what do JREFers know?
they have greenings a chemist and beachnut an EE.
mmhh, the only one that is an expert here would be Newtons Bit. or are there more?

see what i mean, this is a very very weak OP.

but about experiance, JREF compared to AE911, JREF wins do to Newtons Bit ;)

[Nick Terry]

ah i see. you dont even know what he said or wrote.
he is just under atack because his name is listed on AE and cause he is a Chemist.

a bunch of hypocrits :)

No, you're the one making a fuss about him. What has 'James D Johnson, Chemist', written about the WTC?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22james+d+johnson%22+wtc&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

63 hits for the name, nothing leaping out like a white-paper or peer-reviewed article, some look like a totally different guy, or maybe the name is one of the fakes planted by mischievous JREFers.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22frank+greening%22+wtc&btnG=Search&meta=

"frank greening" wtc = 2,490 hits, because he's actually written something about the WTC and his argument is discussed.

[uk_dave]

hey, i never linked to them, nor did i ever say, but the AE experts are on our side etc.

but this topic is just laughable.

if you had a list of AE claims and would try to debunk them, i would find it ok.
but nothing. only showing that they have Chemists and EE's etc.



No, you miss the point.

Architects & Engineers for truth is supposed to be representative of professionals in the relevant disciplines. They can't do much about the 'architect' part, which is why so few architects are actually listed, but the 'engineer' part gives them a nice degree of leeway with the 'truther' faithful to be able to pad the numbers with people who do not have an engineering discipline in any way connected to structural design (the very matter the site purports to speak on with a degree of authority) but simply have an engineering qualification in another discipline.

THAT is dishonest.

Why not have a "Chemists for 911 truth" or "Plumbers for 911 truth"? If indeed such sites were created don't you think it would be a valid to criticise if it turned out that some of those plumbers were actually macdonalds duty managers?

And my comments in no way should be taken to imply that a macdonalds duty manager could not provide a detailed structural analysis on a building which could pass review by professional structural engineers. But it does mean that said duty manager should keep his trap shut if all he can do is make sweeping comments along the lines of "Steel don't melt so you don't need to provide fireproofing, not no never".

Get it?

[Nick Terry]

hey, i never linked to them, nor did i ever say, but the AE experts are on our side etc.

but this topic is just laughable.

if you had a list of AE claims and would try to debunk them, i would find it ok.
but nothing. only showing that they have Chemists and EE's etc.

so what do JREFers know?
they have greenings a chemist and beachnut an EE.
mmhh, the only one that is an expert here would be Newtons Bit. or are there more?

see what i mean, this is a very very weak OP.

but about experiance, JREF compared to AE911, JREF wins do to Newtons Bit ;)


No, the topic is actually a good one. Anyone can set up a website or start a petition and claim by virtue of the alleged expertise of the signatories that they have access to a Higher Truth. It happens all the time. A good example is Project Steve.

However, a petition or list of names is not a scientific argument. It's just a list of names. Richard Gage makes some arguments, and these have to be dealt with on their own merits.

The fact that 299 other bozos are listed as 'agreeing' with him doesn't mean that much, especially when
1) many of the names are Mickey Mouse fakes
2) a very large number of the names are of unqualified persons
3) some of those who are qualified in more appropriate fields, don't appear to "agree" with Richard Gage.

Endorsements, blurbs and reviews don't necessarily count for much either. They might help sell a product but they don't count in science.

Citations in academic journals do count, though. That's the accepted metric in science. Unless, of course, the citations are all saying 'this guy is an idiot'. Then it would be bad.

I'm looking forward to the first pseudo-scientific twoofer who claims negative citations in some social science journal analysing CT discourse as a "scientific citation".

[X]

I'm going to quote this for you, Dictator Cheney, because plainly you did not read it:

Dr Greening's work stands on its own merits, regardless of his professional background. The same could be said of any of the supposed members of AE911Truth, if any of them actually submitted any work.

Since they haven't, what we have here is the logical fallacy know as an Appeal to Authority, thus making the credentials of these so-called "authorities" open to examination and criticism.



Please read and understand this post.
It explains what you've been harping on about for most of this thread.

[DGM]

Dr Greening's work stands on its own merits, regardless of his professional background. The same could be said of any of the supposed members of AE911Truth, if any of them actually submitted any work.

Since they haven't, what we have here is the logical fallacy know as an Appeal to Authority, thus making the credentials of these so-called "authorities" open to examination and criticism.
I'm quoting this one too.

I personally wouldn't care if the argument came from toiletscubbersfortruth.org as long as the article could stand on it's own. I'm a building professional (builder not engineer) and even I can easily blow large holes in Gage's arguments.

AE truth has never put up yet they fail to shut up.

[d13bgs]

Hi - I'm the Andrew Kittross you mention in your post. When I tried to sign the peition as an engineer, the ae911truth people were very strict about how they judged my qualifications. I had to speak to them on the phone personally. They didn't care how many mechanical engineering courses I took. Since I wasn't a structural engineer or architect, they rejected me from the main signers pool. My name, and I assume the others you mention, are clearly relegated to an "associate" category of supporters, not the main architects and engineers.

You must be really desperate to discredit ae911truth to blatently misrepresent their claims like that.

[jhunter1163]

AE911truth discredits themselves. You ought to look at poster Boloboffin's wiki on it. It would be a real eye-opener for you.

[beachnut]

Hi - I'm the Andrew Kittross you mention in your post. When I tried to sign the peition as an engineer, the ae911truth people were very strict about how they judged my qualifications. I had to speak to them on the phone personally. They didn't care how many mechanical engineering courses I took. Since I wasn't a structural engineer or architect, they rejected me from the main signers pool. My name, and I assume the others you mention, are clearly relegated to an "associate" category of supporters, not the main architects and engineers.

You must be really desperate to discredit ae911truth to blatently misrepresent their claims like that.
It is easy to see AE911Truth has no evidence to support their lies, false information and fantasy ideas. Gage regurgitates standard failed ideas of 9/11 truth, any engineer can see as bogus.

They discredit themselves! After the flaw in their petition and membership list was exposed; then they took the time to check on these who lack knowledge and fall for their lies.

It is pathetic that anyone falls for their failed ideas. Welcome to JREF.

Gage pushes stupid ideas, you are more qualified than him on 9/11. AE ideas are pure fantasy.

[chillzero]

Hi - I'm the Andrew Kittross you mention in your post. When I tried to sign the peition as an engineer, the ae911truth people were very strict about how they judged my qualifications. I had to speak to them on the phone personally. They didn't care how many mechanical engineering courses I took. Since I wasn't a structural engineer or architect, they rejected me from the main signers pool. My name, and I assume the others you mention, are clearly relegated to an "associate" category of supporters, not the main architects and engineers.

You must be really desperate to discredit ae911truth to blatently misrepresent their claims like that.

Hi, Welcome to the forum.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

Can you tell me -what do you think of the claims that other people have been able to sign up, and had their names published without a query?

[1337m4n]

Hi - I'm the Andrew Kittross you mention in your post. When I tried to sign the peition as an engineer, the ae911truth people were very strict about how they judged my qualifications. I had to speak to them on the phone personally. They didn't care how many mechanical engineering courses I took. Since I wasn't a structural engineer or architect, they rejected me from the main signers pool. My name, and I assume the others you mention, are clearly relegated to an "associate" category of supporters, not the main architects and engineers.


Then why even appear on a petition titled "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" at all?

My point was that AE911Truth was deliberately padding its numbers in a (failed) attempt to impress skeptics like myself. Surely you must be able to see that.

We have proven that AE911Truth has lax verification methods. We have fake names on that petition that are STILL THERE, even AFTER Richard Gage was informed that they were faked!

Furthermore, your claim that all the people I listed are placed into the "associate category" is both false and irrelevant. You and the others I mentioned are listed as Engineering Professionals AND are counted in the proud, boastful display of "445 architectural and engineering professionals!" that they have plastered over the front page. Other Electical and Mechanical Engineers are listed as Licensed Engineers.

Gage has fooled you, as he has fooled many.

Let me ask you this: How did you hear about the petition, and why did you decide to sign it?

You must be really desperate to discredit ae911truth to blatently misrepresent their claims like that.

Why would I be "desperate"? The 9/11 Truth Movement has not accomplished one single thing in 7 years. There's no reason to believe they'll accomplish anything in the next 7 years, either. Especially not with the likes of Gage at the helm.

Maybe you should take over the leadership of AE911; you are a lot more honest and dedicated than Gage. Maybe you'd get something done. Who knows.

[eromitlab]

Actually, I had it out with a truthist recently about ae911twoof, before it devolved into threatening me with spurious prosecution for non-belief when truthists take over the world. Anywho, I think they may have tightened their standards recently and pruned the fakes like M. Kay Mackey off the list, as I went looking for fakes. However, I might not be entirely up on who's real or not on the list... and of course, they still have the concerned citizens, software engineers, telecom managers, electrical engineers, "9/11 Truth Seeker" and such on there.

[deep]

Stephens is ignorant of the incredible amounts of collateral damage that occurred from the collapse of the Twin Towers, including the destruction of Building 7 itself.


No, he's not ignorant - his professional opinion differs from your unprofessional opinion (shocker).

Look, I'm not wasting my time in arguments like this anymore - you've (collectively) demonstrated that you will never accept any expert opinion, or even any evidence, that is contrary to what you perceive as "mainstream scientific belief". You will take a thread well beyond 1,000 comments for the sole purpose of manufacturing a reason to ignore something, driving away anyone who might object in the process (e.g., jay howard).

Here's what it all comes down to: you believe NIST, but the NIST hypothesis cannot be falsified. You've all put your faith into an unscientific belief, just like all of the people you love to hate in other subsections of this forum. That being said, when it comes to 9/11, the tables have turned - you are the "woo"; you are the believers.

The only logical course of action is a new investigation, but there's little hope that any of you will ever acknowledge that, because there's no reasoning with the "woo"..

..right? (rhetorical)

[kookbreaker]

No, he's not ignorant - his professional opinion differs from your unprofessional opinion (shocker).

Look, I'm not wasting my time in arguments like this anymore - you've (collectively) demonstrated that you will never accept any expert opinion, or even any evidence, that is contrary to what you perceive as "mainstream scientific belief". You will take a thread well beyond 1,000 comments for the sole purpose of manufacturing a reason to ignore something, driving away anyone who might object in the process (e.g., jay howard).

Here's what it all comes down to: you believe NIST, but the NIST hypothesis cannot be falsified. You've all put your faith into an unscientific belief, just like all of the people you love to hate in other subsections of this forum. That being said, when it comes to 9/11, the tables have turned - you are the "woo"; you are the believers.

The only logical course of action is a new investigation, but there's little hope that any of you will ever acknowledge that, because there's no reasoning with the "woo"..

..right? (rhetorical)

This is utter, utter nonsense, and one of the worst cases of projection I have seen.

Imagine, for a moment, that there was no NIST report, nor any FEMA report. Just assume that after the towers collapsed that engineers were to draw their own conclusions.

My opinion? Same as 99.999%+ of all the engineers in the world: The fire weakened the steel structure and it collapsed. Plain and simple. The engineers in as close to unanimous consent as could be expected in any profession assumed as much even before the NIST report was even conceived.

Take the example of the Comcast tower in Philadelphia. Built after 9/11 but before NIST was released. The tower was built to survive an attack similar to the WTC towers. As a result it has a concrete core that added hideous expense to the design and made concrete damn near a rarity in Philadelphia during its construction. They did this without the benefit of the report you claim we need to 'believe'.

This is not an article of faith, any more than expecting gravity cause a ball to fall to the ground is an 'article of faith'. It is simply a known fact of science and engineering: Fire and structural steel are not friends.

Claiming some kind of 'NIST faith' and babbling insanely about it being 'non-falsifiable' is ludicrous. Because NIST merely gives the more impressive details to an overall mechanism that is already known. If it were shown to be drastically incorrect tomorrow it would not change a thing regarding the laughable claims about explosives, thermite, and other fantasies.

Give it a rest.

[deep]

Claiming some kind of 'NIST faith' and babbling insanely about it being 'non-falsifiable' is ludicrous. Because NIST merely gives the more impressive details to an overall mechanism that is already known. If it were shown to be drastically incorrect tomorrow it would not change a thing regarding the laughable claims about explosives, thermite, and other fantasies.


It's clear that you don't understand the concept of 'falsifiability'. You say, "if it were shown to be drastically incorrect tomorrow", but that's just it - that's impossible, because there's nothing to test! There's no way to show that it's incorrect - it's not science.

Feel free to explain how the NIST hypothesis could be proven false through observation or experiment. For example, "if X, then Y cannot be true".

Until then, I stand by my original comments. There's nothing about thermite, or anything else - I've clearly stated that a new, scientific investigation is the only logical way to proceed. Period.

PS - it wasn't my intention to derail this thread; the OP specifically mentioned my name, so I just wanted to explain why I'm through playing these games.

[deep]

My opinion? Same as 99.999%+ of all the engineers in the world: (...)


Almost forgot- do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Hopefully you're not making the fallacious assumption that silence = agreement.

[kookbreaker]

It's clear that you don't understand the concept of 'falsifiability'. You say, "if it were shown to be drastically incorrect tomorrow", but that's just it - that's impossible, because there's nothing to test! There's no way to show that it's incorrect - it's not science.


This is utter nonsense from someone who doesn't really understand the scientific method, just read enough to try and bluster his way through an arguement.

There are dozens of tests, plenty of computer simulations, and much more. All of which could be duplicated to check the hypothesis.


Feel free to explain how the NIST hypothesis could be proven false through observation or experiment. For example, "if X, then Y cannot be true".


Not my point. But its already been done. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88816)

[kookbreaker]

Almost forgot- do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Hopefully you're not making the fallacious assumption that silence = agreement.

Its not a fallacious assumptions when there is no alternative hypothesis.

Engineers study failure, if there were problems with the hypothesis you would hear about it. Hoo-boy would you hear about it. The idea that even 1-2% of engineers would keep quiet if there were massive flaws in the hypothesis is laughable just from a cursory knowledge of the profession.

The ill-informed might try to desperately claim that silence does not equal agreement, but that is just another indication that they are ill-informed about the engineering profession.

[deep]

Its not a fallacious assumptions when there is no alternative hypothesis.


No, because you have no idea what they believe -- all you know is that they haven't made their belief known to you through direct contact, the media, etc.

You also don't know if 100% of the engineers around the world have even read the NIST report - how can they form an opinion if they haven't read it?

Also, in order to calculate the percentage, you must know how many total engineers there are around the world. Please, share the number with us so we at least know you're not just making up a percentage that is convenient to your argument.

[Grizzly Bear]

No, because you have no idea what they believe -- all you know is that they haven't made their belief known to you through direct contact, the media, etc.

It's true that arguing based on the silence of other engineers is a logical fallacy in of itself, however the same goes for trying to use appeals to popularity through poll figures to prove your assertions are true. The engineers and architects of AE911truth however make very incompetent claims and any rational person should be able to see them. Whether you still believe the inside job crap or not after wards isn't really my concern, but I would certainly be watching out for idiot claims coming from professionals because it's incompetent ones like them who demonstrate that appeals to authority don't mean jack

[deep]

This is utter nonsense from someone who doesn't really understand the scientific method, just read enough to try and bluster his way through an arguement.

There are dozens of tests, plenty of computer simulations, and much more. All of which could be duplicated to check the hypothesis.


Tests and computer simulations? The input parameters (i.e., initial conditions) for the computer simulations you're referring to were not static; instead, they varied based on whether or not the results matched their hypothesis.

If they were truly using the simulations to test their hypothesis, the input parameters would all be constants (based on evidence), and the test result would be used to evaluate the hypothesis. Instead, they used the test result to evaluate their input parameters.

That is not falsifiability.

Your assertion that I "don't really understand the scientific method" is humorous, considering most students learn about it in second or third grade. It's not an advanced topic.

[TheRedWorm]

Ok, Deep. Lets see AE's simulations based on their assumptions. Lets see their math.

[deep]

It's true that arguing based on the silence of other engineers is a logical fallacy in of itself, however the same goes for trying to use appeals to popularity through poll figures to prove your assertions are true. The engineers and architects of AE911truth however make very incompetent claims and any rational person should be able to see them. Whether you still believe the inside job crap or not after wards isn't really my concern, but I would certainly be watching out for idiot claims coming from professionals because it's incompetent ones like them who demonstrate that appeals to authority don't mean jack


Whoa there, hold on. I've never (fallaciously) presented poll results as proof that my assertions are true; although, I have presented poll results as evidence that someone else's assertions are false (assuming the assertion is related to widespread public opinion).

Regarding your opinion of ae911truth - you currently put your faith into a theory that is not falsifiable. Much like the existence of God, or the supernatural, there's no possibility that your theory can be proven false. So I'm not sure if you're in the best position to be talking about what rational people should be able to see, or not see.

[TheRedWorm]

I'm sure you've seen my question, deep. So, if you don't mind.

[Grizzly Bear]

Whoa there, hold on. I've never (fallaciously) presented poll results as proof that my assertions are true; although, I have presented poll results as evidence that someone else's assertions are false (assuming the assertion is related to widespread public opinion).

Poll results have been used in the past to justify the the validity of the truth movement position, and generally appeals to popularity such as that do not in itself make the case for something to be truthful. Whether it's been used by you or anyone else for that matter.

Regarding your opinion of ae911truth - you currently put your faith into a theory that is not falsifiable. Much like the existence of God, or the supernatural, there's no possibility that your theory can be proven false. So I'm not sure if you're in the best position to be talking about what rational people should be able to see, or not see.
Unfortunately the NIST report wasn't initially my reason for holding my position as it is now. When I see architects trying to demonstrate a scenario using card boxes to compare to the real thing (Richard Gage). If he feels his hypothesis bears weight then he could have sought commission for one of the many institutions to model the event based on his figures, these days software is more than powerful enough to generally assist in getting a reasonable representation. I can go through the claims one by one but this isn't really the thread to do that.

And the same for people pointing out other building fires, people making those comparisons should at least read case studies on their examples to make sure what they're comparing isn't concrete vs steel... in general when people and professional alike can't make those considerations, it places their credibility with me in question

While I haven't read through all of the WTC NIST report, many of the images showing the column failures confirm many of the things I've been studying so far, so what I've seen of the report already makes relative sense to me. I'll decide how much my opinion should be swayed by it once I've seren the entire report

[deep]

Ok, Deep. Lets see AE's simulations based on their assumptions. Lets see their math.


What simulations? I never claimed they ran any simulations - they've presented a hypothesis, which may or may not be correct. That's why they are pushing for a new investigation.

Don't forget- right now, there's nothing. No scientifically-valid hypothesis has been tested, and a new investigation is the only logical solution to that problem. If they follow the scientific method, they will explore multiple hypotheses - not just the CD hypothesis, or just a valid thermal expansion hypothesis, etc.

[TheRedWorm]

Ok, so what valid scientific hypothesis have AE put forth? Mind you, it must be supported by observation.

[Arus808]

Ok, so what valid scientific hypothesis have AE put forth? Mind you, it must be supported by observation.

and evidence

[deep]

Poll results have been used in the past to justify the the validity of the truth movement position, and generally appeals to popularity such as that do not in itself make the case for something to be truthful. Whether it's been used by you or anyone else for that matter.


While I do agree that what you're describing is a fallacy, I'm not the truth movement. I was under the impression that you were referring specifically to me, since I have referenced poll results quite a number of times recently, in response to certain claims.

If you have an example where I'm fallaciously citing poll results, by all means, share it - I'm certainly not immune to making mistakes.


Unfortunately the NIST report wasn't initially my reason for holding my position as it is now. When I see architects trying to demonstrate a scenario using card boxes to compare to the real thing (Richard Gage). If he feels his hypothesis bears weight then he could have sought commission for one of the many institutions to model the event based on his figures, these days software is more than powerful enough to generally assist in getting a reasonable representation. I can go through the claims one by one but this isn't really the thread to do that.


You're right - software is more than powerful enough to model such things, if you know the all of the (relevant) initial conditions. In this case, I don't see how that is possible, or at the very least, practical. I would imagine that there are far more economical ways to test the CD hypothesis - testing certain steel samples for incendiaries/explosives (assuming that's still possible), etc.

Maybe using a computer model is the right thing to do - I'm not sure. That would be decided during the course of a new investigation.


While I haven't read through all of the WTC NIST report, many of the images showing the column failures confirm many of the things I've been studying so far, so what I've seen of the report already makes relative sense to me. I'll decide how much my opinion should be swayed by it once I've seren the entire report


Just because the hypothesis is not falsifiable, or unscientific, does not mean that their general conclusion is incorrect. It's certainly possible that a proper, scientific investigation would yield the same result. Until such time, we're all just speculating.

[deep]

Ok, so what valid scientific hypothesis have AE put forth? Mind you, it must be supported by observation.


No thanks - these are the games I refuse to play. You know what the hypothesis is, and you know what evidence supports it (notice I didn't say 'proves' it). As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread - their hypothesis is falsifiable, because a therm*te reaction possesses certain characteristics that are either present, or not.

Either way - if it makes you feel better, completely disregard their hypothesis, because that doesn't change the fact that NIST's hypothesis is not falsifiable. The only logical solution to that problem is a new investigation that follows the scientific method.

[CHF]

You also don't know if 100% of the engineers around the world have even read the NIST report - how can they form an opinion if they haven't read it?

I'm pretty sure every structural engineer in the world knows the basic NIST/"official story" conclusion, even if they're not aware of its specifics. The WTC collapses were, after all, the most famous building collapses in history.

So you'll be hard-pressed to find a structural engineer unaware of the airliner + fire = collapse explanation. Yet very few structural engineers have come out publicly against it.

Now there are only so many reasons for why this would be the case:

1) structural engineers know the NIST explanation is impossible and violates the laws of physics but they're afraid to say so publicly because it would cost them their jobs and/or lives (even though all of AE911s members are mysteriously alive and well)

2) they know the NIST explanation is impossible and violates the laws of physics but they simply don't care about it enough to say anything (yes, not even the SEs in Russia, France or Iran give a crap!), or

3) the world's SEs are OK with the NIST explanation and see no reason to challenge it.

Which do you think is more likely, Deep?

Also, in order to calculate the percentage, you must know how many total engineers there are around the world. Please, share the number with us so we at least know you're not just making up a percentage that is convenient to your argument.

The ASCE alone is 120,000+ strong.

Kinda puts Gage's inflated list of 400+ in perspective, dunnit?

[deep]

Which do you think is more likely, Deep?


What I think is irrelevant - it's a question of what is known. If you want to assume that 99.999% of the world's engineers have no problem with the NIST report, that's fine by me. Just don't cite it as fact, because it's not.

I also think you're missing a few choices, but I don't see much value coming out of an argument like that. The biggest addition I would make are those who know what the explanation is, but never examined the evidence with an "analytical eye". In other words, they know about 9/11, they've read about the NIST report in the newspaper, but they haven't examined anything professionally.

If you disagree, that's fine. That sort of list is pure speculation, so I'll concede it. :D

[CHF]

Very well, Deep. Let's start with what we KNOW.

We know there are tens of thousands of structural engineers in the world.

We know that most, if not all of them, would be aware of the basics of the NIST explanation.

We know that the number of SEs who have gone public against NIST is pretty much limited to Gage's clowns.

So if you're a twoofer this begs the question of WHY.

Why are the SEs of the world so silent on such a huge issue? Why, as you propose, are so few of them bothering to examine the details, especially since the TM claims the "truth" is so obvious and irrefutable?

Keep in mind, Deep, that structural engineers come in all races, nationalities and political beliefs. They work for a wide variety of private, government or academic employers in a wide range of countries (some hostile to the US). Also remember that we're talking about the most famous collapses in history.

The notion that the world's engineers have not passed judgment on 9/11 is such a silly one that it can only be defended by accusing engineers of gross negelgence, laziness, collaboration with the real perps, being "paid off," or being too scared to talk even if they're on the other side of the world.

The only other option staring you in the face is the possibility that the world's SEs simply do not object to NISTs conclusions.

But it'll be a cold day in hell when the devout followers of the twoof subject their beliefs to such a crushing blow. Instead they're going to throw their lot in with Richard "pyroclastic flow" Gage in the hope that he'll one day have the world's engineers behind him.

[deep]

Very well, Deep. Let's start with what we KNOW.

We know there are tens of thousands of structural engineers in the world.

We know that most, if not all of them, would be aware of the basics of the NIST explanation.

We know that the number of SEs who have gone public against NIST is pretty much limited to Gage's clowns.

So if you're a twoofer this begs the question of WHY.


If you want to hash this out - fine.

Let me start by restating that you cannot "reason" your way into facts. I don't care how you dress it up, facts are supported by concrete evidence. Silence is not concrete evidence of anything, except for silence.

That being said, I still disagree with your reasoning here. Consider the members of AE911Truth - just the SEs, if you like - have they all had their doubts since day #1? Or, at the very least, did they start doubting as soon as the NIST report was released? No, and no.

The vast majority of them didn't see anything wrong until someone suggested that they reexamine the evidence - and that is what I'm referring to: engineers who have just digested everything, and not really stopped to think about it. It's a very real state of mind - just ask any member of AE911Truth.

I can't imagine that you can relate, because you haven't experienced the "ah ha" moment that I'm referring to. That's why I didn't really feel like having this discussion - I know you're still going to disagree, and there's really no better way for me to describe it.

We can just agree to disagree. Like I said - this is irrelevant. You have no evidence that 99.99% of the world's SEs agree with NIST, and that's what we're really talking about here. It's silly to waste time debating obvious fallacies.

[johnny karate]

We can just agree to disagree. Like I said - this is irrelevant. You have no evidence that 99.99% of the world's SEs agree with NIST, and that's what we're really talking about here. It's silly to waste time debating obvious fallacies.

Of course it's relevant, and the existence of a site like AE911Truth demonstrates just exactly how relevant the Truth Movement thinks it is, too. It also happens to be inconvenient to your ideology which why Truthers always want to sweep this particular issue under the carpet.

Truthers like you are constantly making claims regarding the obvious and damning nature of the evidence that supports an inside job theory. Many of these claims fall squarely in the wheelhouse of structural engineering. And yet the Truth Movement has failed miserably to marshal significant support within the structural engineering community, even with Richard Gage actively trying to do so.

No amount of sophistry on your part changes this irrefutable fact.

[TheRedWorm]

Ok, so what valid scientific hypothesis have AE put forth? Mind you, it must be supported by observation.

No thanks - these are the games I refuse to play. You know what the hypothesis is, and you know what evidence supports it (notice I didn't say 'proves' it). As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread - their hypothesis is falsifiable, because a therm*te reaction possesses certain characteristics that are either present, or not.

Either way - if it makes you feel better, completely disregard their hypothesis, because that doesn't change the fact that NIST's hypothesis is not falsifiable. The only logical solution to that problem is a new investigation that follows the scientific method.


No, I don't know what their hypothesis is. The very fact that you wrote therm*te suggests that those at AE don't know what their hypothesis is either. Also, I would think that if they had physical evidence (positive evidence i.e. evidence that points twords their "hypothesis") to suggest an inside job, they would have presented it already.

[CHF]

Consider the members of AE911Truth - just the SEs, if you like - have they all had their doubts since day #1? Or, at the very least, did they start doubting as soon as the NIST report was released? No, and no.

Deep, AE911 has 13 SEs! Out of tens of thousands worldwide. After several years of the TM trying to recruit them.

The notion that there are thousands more twoofer engineers just waiting for DR Griffin to give them their "ah ha!" moment is beyond absurd.

[GregoryUrich]

Deep, AE911 has 13 SEs! Out of tens of thousands worldwide. After several years of the TM trying to recruit them.

The notion that there are thousands more twoofer engineers just waiting for DR Griffin to give them their "ah ha!" moment is beyond absurd.

If anything, NIST has demonstrated that it was a close call by the necessity of tweaking their input parameters to get the model to become unstable. To evaluate this requires detailed knowledge of the NIST reports. It would take remarkable effort to even try to validate NIST's explanation logically, let alone analytically. Thus, it is unlikely that most of the 10,000's of structural engineers know the details well enough to form a rational opinion and it would make more sense that most engineers simply trust NIST (not an unreasonable thing to do) and leave it at that.

Nonetheless most structural engineers will be able to quickly disprove most truth movement claims regarding controlled demolition, once they get past the superficially appealing claims and actually work the numbers. It's a shame that Richard Gage and crew is relying on how things look and conclusions by Ross and Legge which have been reliably disproven. The only thing the truth movement really has is evidence of a thermate type reaction and high temperatures, which are inconclusive relating to assisted collapse.

[Dave Rogers]

The only thing the truth movement really has is evidence of a thermate type reaction and high temperatures, which are inconclusive relating to assisted collapse.

The evidence of high temperatures - assuming you're referring to the microspheres - is particularly inconclusive in that it contains no evidence about when, where and over how large a volume those temperatures were sustained, and hence doesn't contradict anything in the conventionally accepted narrative. As for evidence of a thermite type reaction, could you refresh my memory as to what evidence actually exists?

Dave

[deep]

Of course it's relevant, and the existence of a site like AE911Truth demonstrates just exactly how relevant the Truth Movement thinks it is, too. It also happens to be inconvenient to your ideology which why Truthers always want to sweep this particular issue under the carpet.

Truthers like you are constantly making claims regarding the obvious and damning nature of the evidence that supports an inside job theory. Many of these claims fall squarely in the wheelhouse of structural engineering. And yet the Truth Movement has failed miserably to marshal significant support within the structural engineering community, even with Richard Gage actively trying to do so.

No amount of sophistry on your part changes this irrefutable fact.


Nice diversion.

You have presented no proof that 99.999% of the world's engineers agree with NIST.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

[deep]

No, I don't know what their hypothesis is. The very fact that you wrote therm*te suggests that those at AE don't know what their hypothesis is either. Also, I would think that if they had physical evidence (positive evidence i.e. evidence that points twords their "hypothesis") to suggest an inside job, they would have presented it already.


Like I said- right now, there's nothing. There is no "official" falsifiable hypothesis from NIST. That's true whether or not the members of AE911Truth have presented a hypothesis that you "approve of".

A new investigation is the only logical way to proceed.

[deep]

Deep, AE911 has 13 SEs! Out of tens of thousands worldwide. After several years of the TM trying to recruit them.

The notion that there are thousands more twoofer engineers just waiting for DR Griffin to give them their "ah ha!" moment is beyond absurd.


That's fine - like I said, this means nothing. If you have evidence that those tens of thousands of other SEs support the unscientific NIST hypothesis, please, present your evidence.

If you have no evidence, please don't make the fallacious claim that their silence is indicative of anything at all.

[R.Mackey]

Like I said- right now, there's nothing. There is no "official" falsifiable hypothesis from NIST. That's true whether or not the members of AE911Truth have presented a hypothesis that you "approve of".

Yes, there is.

I dare you to name one thing in the NIST hypothesis that isn't falsifiable.

[1337m4n]

No, he's not ignorant - his professional opinion differs from your unprofessional opinion (shocker).

Sorry, but you need to understand the difference between "opinion" and "fact". The collapse of the Towers destroyed all adjacent buildings. This is FACT, not "opinion". He denies this FACT, showing that he is ignorant. You are ignorant as well, of the difference between fact and opinion.

Here, let me help you understand the difference:

Opinion: Pizza is delicious.

Fact: Pizza is a type of food.


Look, I'm not wasting my time in arguments like this anymore - you've (collectively) demonstrated that you will never accept any expert opinion, or even any evidence, that is contrary to what you perceive as "mainstream scientific belief".

And I'm not wasting my time with your pathetic attempt at derailing this thread. To refresh your memory: the title of this thread is "AE911Truth is not a valid reference for the controlled demolition hypothesis", NOT "NIST is unfalsifiable". Either stay on topic, or take this to its own thread.


Mods, please split the off-topic posts.

[deep]

I dare you to name one thing in the NIST hypothesis that isn't falsifiable.


Why? So you can argue with me over the exact wording I use to define their hypothesis, or attempt to pass off some arbitrary definition of 'falsifiability'? Like I said earlier in this thread, I'm through playing those games.

If it's as straight forward as you claim, name one testable proposition for why WTC1/2 fell. Have you ever stopped and thought about why you can't name one?

[X]

If it's as straight forward as you claim, name one testable proposition for why WTC1/2 fell. Have you ever stopped and thought about why you can't name one?


Testable Proposition: Steel loses strength when heated.

Results: The yeild strength of steel is indeed reduced with increasing temperature. Further, the steel is more vulnerable to plastic deformation and creep.
I'll leave it to you to find the scientific data, so that you can use sources that are in tune with your personal preferences.

edit: I agree with 1337m4n on the off-topic nature of the recent posts, and apologize for continuing a derail.

[johnny karate]

You have presented no proof that 99.999% of the world's engineers agree with NIST.

Nor do I need to. It is your movement that struggles to rally support from the scientific community, and thus it is your movement that needs to establish a consensus. And so far the number you have rallied is pitifully small and not even remotely close to being considered a consensus.

If you want to pretend that perhaps the "silent masses" are on your side, you go right ahead. It has absolutely no bearing on reality.

[deep]

Sorry, but you need to understand the difference between "opinion" and "fact". The collapse of the Towers destroyed all adjacent buildings. This is FACT, not "opinion". He denies this FACT, showing that he is ignorant. You are ignorant as well, of the difference between fact and opinion.


That is not a fact. WTC3 & WTC6 were heavily damaged, but they were not "taken down" (i.e., collapsed), which the wording used in the quote. Also, please, share your evidence that WTC7 was brought down by collateral damage - I'm sure NIST will be anxious to update their thermal expansion hypothesis.

As originally stated, I'm not surprised that his professional opinion differs from your unprofessional opinion. There's a reason why he's an engineer and you're... not.

[deep]

Nor do I need to. It is your movement that struggles to rally support from the scientific community, and thus it is your movement that needs to establish a consensus. And so far the number you have rallied is pitifully small and not even remotely close to being considered a consensus.

If you want to pretend that perhaps the "silent masses" are on your side, you go right ahead. It has absolutely no bearing on reality.


I've made no such claim. I was responding to someone who claimed that 99.999% of the world's engineers support the NIST hypothesis.

Go back and read the actual thread if you're still confused.

[Grizzly Bear]

That is not a fact. WTC3 & WTC6 were heavily damaged, but they were not "taken down" (i.e., collapsed), which the wording used in the quote.

WTC 3 nor 6, nor 5, nor 4 can be used to compare with WTC 7 anyway, as I've asked many people, consider the differences in construction, and size before wrestling with comparing them to much taller structures. To be nit picky WTC 3 & 4 were virtually destroyed, as only a portion of the structures remained standing. Unlike WTC 7 the major collapse damage done to 3 & 4 was crushing from direct debris impact from above, not fire or secondary effects of structural damage.

It issues like these that I'm concerned with Gage on... If he intends to make claims regarding the other buildings he should have as well considered the differences rather than the cosmetics...

[beachnut]

I've made no such claim. I was responding to someone who claimed that 99.999% of the world's engineers support the NIST hypothesis.

Go back and read the actual thread if you're still confused.
The fact is your fantasy ideas are only supported by 0.00087 percent of all world engineers.
Your ideas are supported by a tiny fringe group of failed engineers, they let their biases control their thoughts. Why have these few fringe engineers failed to use evidence? This confirms their ideas are false.

[deep]

And I'm not wasting my time with your pathetic attempt at derailing this thread. To refresh your memory: the title of this thread is "AE911Truth is not a valid reference for the controlled demolition hypothesis", NOT "NIST is unfalsifiable". Either stay on topic, or take this to its own thread.


I don't see how it's entirely off-topic - it's rather ironic that you would spend so much time manufacturing reasons to ignore AE911Truth's support for the CD hypothesis, when the hypothesis you do support isn't even scientific.

Tell me - if you were running an organization like AE911Truth (not necessarily related to 9/11), how would you confirm that applicants are telling the truth about their background, credentials, etc? What's the "right" way to do it?

[deep]

WTC 3 nor 6, nor 5, nor 4 can be used to compare with WTC 7 anyway, as I've asked many people, consider the differences in construction, and size before wrestling with comparing them to much taller structures. To be nit picky WTC 3 & 4 were virtually destroyed, as only a portion of the structures remained standing. Unlike WTC 7 the major collapse damage done to 3 & 4 was crushing from direct debris impact from above, not fire or secondary effects of structural damage.


I would agree - I'm not making that comparison. I'm just pointing out how important it is to read & comprehend entire quotes before calling various people "ignorant" (referring to the OP; not you).

[deep]

The fact is your fantasy ideas are only supported by 0.00087 percent of all world engineers.
Your ideas are supported by a tiny fringe group of failed engineers, they let their biases control their thoughts. Why have these few fringe engineers failed to use evidence? This confirms their ideas are false.


How many engineers are there in the world?

(I'm guessing that you lack the skill and knowledge to debate that fact, but we'll wait and see.)

[beachnut]

How many engineers are there in the world?

(I'm guessing that you lack the skill and knowledge to debate that fact, but we'll wait and see.)
I can relax. 9/11 truth lacks skills in science, math, physics, and engineering. I expect your movement can't deny my numbers, your group lacks the ability to do math. If your group had skills in engineering, math, physics and science, there would be no members in 9/11 truth.
Got math? Got real research skills?

Kind of knew you could argue with numbers. You got no evidence for your ideas, you got no math or research to argue with real numbers. Look it up! If you do as well as you do on 9/11 issues, you may not be able to answer your own questions.


Don't worry, you fantasy has 0.00087 percent of all world engineers behind you! Wowzer! My number could be off, but I don't have to worry about you checking it!
You never do use evidence for your own ideas and conclusions, why should you change that?

If you had evidence you would have posted it by now. Go ahead list all your evidence; line by line. I reviewed all your posts, there was zero evidence.

[deep]

You never do use evidence for your own ideas and conclusions, why should you change that? [/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]


Really? Could you please provide an example of a claim I've made without providing any supporting evidence?

..or do you refuse to provide evidence for your claim that someone else never provides evidence for their claims?

[Arus808]

Really? Could you please provide an example of a claim I've made without providing any supporting evidence?

eveyr post you made in this thread.

not hard to do. your history here has been evidence free

[TheRedWorm]

What simulations? I never claimed they ran any simulations - they've presented a hypothesis, which may or may not be correct. That's why they are pushing for a new investigation.

Don't forget- right now, there's nothing. No scientifically-valid hypothesis has been tested, and a new investigation is the only logical solution to that problem. If they follow the scientific method, they will explore multiple hypotheses - not just the CD hypothesis, or just a valid thermal expansion hypothesis, etc.

No thanks - these are the games I refuse to play. You know what the hypothesis is, and you know what evidence supports it (notice I didn't say 'proves' it). As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread - their hypothesis is falsifiable, because a therm*te reaction possesses certain characteristics that are either present, or not.

Either way - if it makes you feel better, completely disregard their hypothesis, because that doesn't change the fact that NIST's hypothesis is not falsifiable. The only logical solution to that problem is a new investigation that follows the scientific method.

Like I said- right now, there's nothing. There is no "official" falsifiable hypothesis from NIST. That's true whether or not the members of AE911Truth have presented a hypothesis that you "approve of".

A new investigation is the only logical way to proceed.

Really? Could you please provide an example of a claim I've made without providing any supporting evidence?

..or do you refuse to provide evidence for your claim that someone else never provides evidence for their claims?


You provided no evidence of a hypothesis. You also claimed the NIST hypothesis was unfalsifiable, yet you neither posted the NIST hypothesis, nor provided any way that it was unfalsifiable.

[R.Mackey]

Like I said- right now, there's nothing. There is no "official" falsifiable hypothesis from NIST. That's true whether or not the members of AE911Truth have presented a hypothesis that you "approve of".

A new investigation is the only logical way to proceed.

Yes, there is.

I dare you to name one thing in the NIST hypothesis that isn't falsifiable.

Why? So you can argue with me over the exact wording I use to define their hypothesis, or attempt to pass off some arbitrary definition of 'falsifiability'? Like I said earlier in this thread, I'm through playing those games.

Ah yes, you're through playing the "game" of being able to back up what you say.

You've moved on to lying, outright, with nearly every post.

If it's as straight forward as you claim, name one testable proposition for why WTC1/2 fell. Have you ever stopped and thought about why you can't name one?

It's actually very simple, as I've explained here in hundreds of posts. But if you want my help, you need to come clean. A liar like yourself doesn't get to make such demands of others. Admit your lie above, or begone.

[johnny karate]

I've made no such claim.

Sure you did. If you're arguing that the world's population of engineers does not support NIST, then by implication you must be arguing that they support your point of view. (Unless of course you are arguing that there are a notable number of engineers in the world that don't have an opinion about the most significant engineering-related event in modern history. Which would be utterly retarded.) Just because you get lost in a maze of your own sophistry doesn't mean others who are smarter aren't paying attention to where you're going.

I was responding to someone who claimed that 99.999% of the world's engineers support the NIST hypothesis.

Go back and read the actual thread if you're still confused.

And I wasn't the one who made that claim even though you defied me to prove it. If anyone is confused, it's you.

[kookbreaker]

And I wasn't the one who made that claim even though you defied me to prove it. If anyone is confused, it's you.

He is indeed. Presumably he is referring to my comments, but if he were to follow his own advice and go back and read the thread he would see that I did not say that '99.99% of engineers support NIST', it was that 99.99%+ were of the professional opinion that the fire weakened the steel of the tower, and that they were of this opinion well prior to NIST.

[deep]

Sure you did. If you're arguing that the world's population of engineers does not support NIST, then by implication you must be arguing that they support your point of view. (Unless of course you are arguing that there are a notable number of engineers in the world that don't have an opinion about the most significant engineering-related event in modern history. Which would be utterly retarded.) Just because you get lost in a maze of your own sophistry doesn't mean others who are smarter aren't paying attention to where you're going.


Now this is funny. The point of view you're apparently unable to comprehend is that of a skeptic. I'm not making any claim - I'm skeptical of the fallacious claim that 99.999% of the world's SEs support the unscientific NIST hypothesis.

I understand that you didn't make the claim, but you challenged my response to that claim.

See how that works? Real skeptics don't make negative counter-claims without offering any proof.

[deep]

He is indeed. Presumably he is referring to my comments, but if he were to follow his own advice and go back and read the thread he would see that I did not say that '99.99% of engineers support NIST', it was that 99.99%+ were of the professional opinion that the fire weakened the steel of the tower, and that they were of this opinion well prior to NIST.


Oh, I see. Where's your evidence? You don't have any?

It's still a fallacy.

[CHF]

Deep, I don't know how many engineers there are in the world but the ASCE is 120,000+ strong.

And the number that support your fantasy is....?

[kookbreaker]

Oh, I see. Where's your evidence?


Comcast building.


You don't have any?


Assume much?


It's still a fallacy.

Nope.

[CHF]

Perhaps the situation can be summed up this way.

So far we know that 13 structural engineers support the TM (most, if not ALL, of whom have never worked on skyscrapers and including at least one who thinks the WTC was nuked).

In other words, a tiny fraction of 1% of the worlds SEs support the twoof.

So where does that leave the other 99%+?

Well I suppose they either believe that jet + fire = collapse (which would explain why they feel no need to complain about it), or they just can't be bothered examining the most famous building collapses in history long enough to realize the obvious truth about what really happened.

You must feel pretty special being able to spot things that engineers are too lazy and stupid to see, Deep. :rolleyes:

[deep]

It's actually very simple, as I've explained here in hundreds of posts. But if you want my help, you need to come clean. A liar like yourself doesn't get to make such demands of others. Admit your lie above, or begone.


No, sorry, I don't need any "help" from you. All I need is for you to justify your accusation that I'm lying. Please, pretty please- demonstrate that I'm lying, and I will gladly leave this forum and never come back.

If you cannot justify your accusation, I will report your posts to the moderators for 'attacking the arguer' instead of 'attacking the argument'. I will not tolerate your baseless accusations any longer.

If you believe I'm lying when I say the NIST hypothesis is not falsifiable - there's only one way to justify that accusation: name one testable proposition from the NIST hypothesis for why WTC1/2 fell (something you were unable to do in an entire 1,000+ comment thread on the same subject).

Note: the proposition provided earlier in the thread is certainly testable, but it's not specific to the WTC1/2 collapse.

[A W Smith]

just about every construction engineer in the united states typically has free access to the trade publication Engineering News Record, My ex father in law who was a staff engineer for the port authority used to bring me copies to read from his office in the towers 25 years ago. It is a weekly that I used to read at the public library before i met his daughter in the seventies.


http://enr.ecnext.com/coms2/article_nebuar020415


so even if an engineer was living under a rock and was completely unaware of WTC building seven. There is no doubt that this trade publication would have drawn their attention to it and they would have formed an opinion.

[deep]

In other words, a tiny fraction of 1% of the worlds SEs support the twoof.


Umm.. that statement is just as illogical as the other one. Now you're assuming that silence equates to not supporting a specific argument.

Silence is nothing more than silence. If you want to make some claim about a % of the world's engineers, your only practical option is to look for professional poll results (e.g., Gallop, Scripps, etc).

[A W Smith]

Umm.. that statement is just as illogical as the other one. Now you're assuming that silence equates to not supporting a specific argument.

Silence is nothing more than silence. If you want to make some claim about a % of the world's engineers, your only practical option is to look for professional poll results (e.g., Gallop, Scripps, etc).

as you already know. polls are BS

http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/139015

[X]

Note: the proposition provided earlier in the thread is certainly testable, but it's not specific to the WTC1/2 collapse.

Bolding mine.


"Hello? Police? I'd like to file a missing goal post report. Yes, that's right. Goal posts. They were there only a few posts ago, now they're gone. I suspect foul play. You'll look into it? Thank you, officer."

[johnny karate]

Now this is funny. The point of view you're apparently unable to comprehend is that of a skeptic. I'm not making any claim - I'm skeptical of the fallacious claim that 99.999% of the world's SEs support the unscientific NIST hypothesis.

Of course you're not making a claim. That would require intellectual honesty on your part. But when you express doubt about one claim, it's tacit support of it's counter.

Perhaps you'll say it's the specific "99.999%" figure you take issue with, I don't know. I don't care to argue semantics with someone who lacks the integrity and backbone to actually state a position and defend it. The point is, you want to argue that the majority of the world's structural engineers don't support the NIST collapse theory. And in doing so, you imply that they must therefore support an alternative theory.

What every single structural engineer on the planet actually thinks, none of us know. What we do know is that out of the thousands there are, your movement has only rallied maybe a dozen, even while Richard Gage actively lobbies the engineering community for support.

You can argue semantics and parse language all you want, but the opinions you and your movement have regarding a highly technical structural engineering document are not at all supported by the structural engineering community.

[R.Mackey]

No, sorry, I don't need any "help" from you. All I need is for you to justify your accusation that I'm lying. Please, pretty please- demonstrate that I'm lying, and I will gladly leave this forum and never come back.

I already did in my previous post -- you claimed NIST was unfalsifiable; I demonstrated this was false and challenged you to respond, and you refused to back it up. You are a liar.

If you've been here for any length of time, you should realize that I don't make such proclamations groundlessly. Feel free to involve the moderators if you feel you've been slighted -- I am confident in the outcome.

And if you don't need my "help," why are you asking me questions? Like the following:

If it's as straight forward as you claim, name one testable proposition for why WTC1/2 fell. Have you ever stopped and thought about why you can't name one?

Sounds to me like you do, since I've named dozens in the past, and you can't seem to find them.

If you cannot justify your accusation, I will report your posts to the moderators for 'attacking the arguer' instead of 'attacking the argument'. I will not tolerate your baseless accusations any longer.

Argumentum ad baculum. I justified my accusations already. Bluster away.


If you believe I'm lying when I say the NIST hypothesis is not falsifiable - there's only one way to justify that accusation: name one testable proposition from the NIST hypothesis for why WTC1/2 fell (something you were unable to do in an entire 1,000+ comment thread on the same subject).

So if you've read that thread, then you read this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2881852#post2881852) from it. In that post, I demonstrate beyond any doubt that the NIST hypothesis is not only falsifiable, but that it was tested. This is one of many that does so, it is merely the best.

I also, in that same thread, define falsifiability in the context of the NIST Report.

And yet you still feign ignorance, lie about NIST, lie about my words, and whine for the moderators to save you from yourself. Please knock it off.

[CHF]

What we do know is that out of the thousands there are, your movement has only rallied maybe a dozen, even while Richard Gage actively lobbies the engineering community for support.

I get the impression that Deep is holding out hope that the rest of the worlds engineers will join the twoofers in fantasy land if only they could be persuaded to hear a DR Griffin lecture or watch a Richard Gage presentation.

Because surely that's why the TM has 13 SEs instead of hundreds or thousands...

[TheLoneBedouin]

The only thing the truth movement really has is evidence of a thermate type reaction and high temperatures, which are inconclusive relating to assisted collapse.
Hi Gregory,
Could you elaborate on why the evidence for high-tempertures is inconclusive?

[beachnut]

... If you want to make some claim about a % of the world's engineers, ...
No poll is needed, the few engineers from AE are less than 0.00087 percent of all world engineers.

Fact; your ideas on 9/11 are backed a pathetically small number of engineers.

You need math and some real research to figure this out. What number did you come up with? Got math? Got research?

AE continue to attack those who lack logic and knowledge on 9/11, , physics, math, science and engineering. Gee, not a good showing for those who claim to be engineers.

[eromitlab]

I get the impression that Deep is holding out hope that the rest of the worlds engineers will join the twoofers in fantasy land if only they could be persuaded to hear a DR Griffin lecture or watch a Richard Gage presentation.

Because surely that's why the TM has 13 SEs instead of hundreds or thousands...

That's the prevailing attitude I've seen from truthists... that their "impressive" number of professionals would be really "impressive" if those who haven't bothered with it (i.e. everyone who hasn't explicitly come out with a position, which would cover the vast majority of the engineering community) objectively looked at the issue, and of course they would determine that Gage, Griffin, Ryan & Jones et al are totally right. Also, it would help if everyone from local news to website owners to scientific journals stopped censoring teh twoof.
Hilarious optimism on their part... or delusion, I'm not sure which. I'm sure they think that if enough people give Gage enough lunch money, he'll convince every engineer in the world to sign on.

[GregoryUrich]

The evidence of high temperatures - assuming you're referring to the microspheres - is particularly inconclusive in that it contains no evidence about when, where and over how large a volume those temperatures were sustained, and hence doesn't contradict anything in the conventionally accepted narrative. As for evidence of a thermite type reaction, could you refresh my memory as to what evidence actually exists?

Dave

The evidence of a thermite type reaction is being discussed here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/microspheres-and-red-chips-in-the-wtc-dust-t19.html) with a number of suggested alternatives to actual thermite.

[Dave Rogers]

The evidence of a thermite type reaction is being discussed here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/microspheres-and-red-chips-in-the-wtc-dust-t19.html) with a number of suggested alternatives to actual thermite.

Ah, the chips. Since Steven Jones, as I said in that thread, hasn't justified his assertions about the nature of the chips, I don't see that evidence as worthy of particularly serious consideration. All his arguments based on chemical composition are simply affirming the consequent. Also, even if his arguments were logically correct, none of this is evidence for a thermite reaction having taken place.

Dave

[GregoryUrich]

Hi Gregory,
Could you elaborate on why the evidence for high-tempertures is inconclusive?

I believe I said "inconclusive relating to assisted collapse". It's not clear that the high temperatures (as deduced from iron-rich microspherules) were a factor contributing to the collapse. I have not studied this issue in depth and it may vey well be worthy of further investigation.

[deep]

;3997784']Bolding mine.


"Hello? Police? I'd like to file a missing goal post report. Yes, that's right. Goal posts. They were there only a few posts ago, now they're gone. I suspect foul play. You'll look into it? Thank you, officer."


It sounds like you're unfamiliar with the NIST hypothesis, the scientific method, or both.

Please quote NIST directly (re: steel weakening) if you still insist that I'm moving the goalposts.

[deep]

I already did in my previous post -- you claimed NIST was unfalsifiable; I demonstrated this was false and challenged you to respond, and you refused to back it up. You are a liar..


You demonstrated no such thing. Like I said, I don't accept your alternate definition of 'falsifiable', or any of your other irrational attempts to justify your belief.

The NIST hypothesis is not falsifiable; it is not 'science'.

[deep]

I get the impression that Deep is holding out hope that the rest of the worlds engineers will join the twoofers in fantasy land if only they could be persuaded to hear a DR Griffin lecture or watch a Richard Gage presentation.

Because surely that's why the TM has 13 SEs instead of hundreds or thousands...


How ironic that you refer to the TM position as "fantasy land", when you're the one who believes the result of an unscientific investigation.

The only logical next step is a new investigation - a scientific investigation.

[Slayhamlet]

You demonstrated no such thing. Like I said, I don't accept your alternate definition of 'falsifiable', or any of your other irrational attempts to justify your belief.

The NIST hypothesis is not falsifiable; it is not 'science'.

Your uninformed pronouncements about what is and is not science mean absolutely nothing outside of the sad little world in your head. All you have is bluster. Name one part of the NIST hypothesis that is unfalsifiable, liar.

[beachnut]

How ironic that you refer to the TM position as "fantasy land", when you're the one who believes the result of an unscientific investigation.

The only logical next step is a new investigation - a scientific investigation.

Already done. You have missed all the investigations? Too bad, 7 years in a few days and you can't get anything right about 9/11. That is a long time. You could have had a PhD by now.

[Slayhamlet]

How ironic that you refer to the TM position as "fantasy land", when you're the one who believes the result of an unscientific investigation.

The only logical next step is a new investigation - a scientific investigation.

More pointless bluster? You know nothing about science.

[CHF]

How ironic that you refer to the TM position as "fantasy land", when you're the one who believes the result of an unscientific investigation.

The only logical next step is a new investigation - a scientific investigation.

Youtube videos, crackpot architects parroting theology professors, peer-reviewing eachother's work, starting up fraudulent "expert" sites with tons of non-experts....

Yes, you folks are all about science aren't you?

[Grizzly Bear]

How ironic that you refer to the TM position as "fantasy land", when you're the one who believes the result of an unscientific investigation.

The only logical next step is a new investigation - a scientific investigation.

*Face Palm* (http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/facepalm.jpg)
Going by your consistent ludicrous claims that is the only way I can express my dismay...

I guess they did all those calculations and structural analysis for nothing, yet they did so well in other area that it's actually credible for trutherTM use

[Sunstealer]

How ironic that you refer to the TM position as "fantasy land", when you're the one who believes the result of an unscientific investigation.

The only logical next step is a new investigation - a scientific investigation.

Already done. You have missed all the investigations? Too bad, 7 years in a few days and you can't get anything right about 9/11. That is a long time. You could have had a PhD by now. Are you serious or do you wish to add a smilie to that bolded sentence? ;)

I only ask because this could be seen as Stundie seeing as I recall TheLoneBedouin was looking for them from debunkers.

[X]

It sounds like you're unfamiliar with the NIST hypothesis, the scientific method, or both.

Please quote NIST directly (re: steel weakening) if you still insist that I'm moving the goalposts.


You asked for one testable proposition from the NIST hypothesis.

The fact the heat weakens steel is a testable proposition from the NIST hypothesis.

You then stated that heat weakening did not qualify because it was not specific to the WTC 1/2 collapse.

That is moving the goalposts.

[1337m4n]

I address this particularly to deep44, because he seems to tout the AE911Truth petition every chance he gets.

There are several reasons why "Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth" cannot be considered a valid representation of the true number of relevant professionals who support "911 Truth".


Padded numbers. The AE911Truth petition seems to have been specifically created to satisfy the demands of skeptics for engineers who believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis. I say this because there are quite a few names on that petition who would know nothing more than the layman about building collapses, demolitions, the effects of fire, etc. Some examples:

"Thomas Spellman, Urban Activist"

"Andrew Kittross, Computer Software/Electrical Engineer"

"Douglas M. Keenan, None" (his degree is a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering)

"Douglas E. Mackenzie, BSEE" (Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering)

"Greg Salyards" (no credentials listed; his bio says he "Worked in Systems Analysis, Computer Systems, and Data Communications")

"Marc Kuttner, Marine Engineer"

"James D. Johnson, Chemist"

"Jim G. Smith, Software Developer" (Master's in Computer Science)

I could go on for quite a while, but I think you get the point. Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth is clearly practicing intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to pad their numbers, seemingly for no other reason than to be able to rub the petition in the face of skeptics the way many Truthers here commonly do. A "Software Developer" doesn't necessarily have any more understanding of the WTC collapses than Average Joe, but AE911Truth lists them on their petition as if they did.

Truthers have often accused us of moving the goalposts, but this is not the case: from the start we have always asked for structural engineers, of which there are at most 13 (when being as generous as possible with the credentials). Hardly the "300+" that is so often claimed by Truthers.


Unverifiable names. There are quite a few names on the petition that cannot be said with certainty to be supportive of 9/11 Truth. If you go to the Petition Signers page, you will see a number of entries that look like this:



These entries are indicative of someone who signed the petition half-heartedly, without reading it or viewing the associated materials, or the like. Furthermore, without the Bio information, there is no way to verify the names, and without the Personal 9/11 Statement, it is impossible to say for sure that the individual supports the controlled demolition hypothesis. There is even at least one person whose Personal 9/11 Statement would indicate that he doubts the controlled demolition hypothesis:



It almost appears that there are more "empty" entries on this petition that filled-out ones.

There are also some entries which indicate a "neutral" position, neither for nor against the "official story". Still, it is intellectually dishonest to present such people as if they outright supported Controlled Demolition:



That's the only thing he says under "Personal 9/11 Statement". To extrapolate from that that he necessarily believes in controlled demolition is intellectually dishonest.



Again, this does not indicate that he supports the controlled demolition hypothesis.

There are several more such entries, but you get the idea.


Signers indicate that they are misinformed. Several of the signers promote demonstrable falsehoods in their Personal 9/11 Statements. Not only does this undermine their credibility, but it leaves open the possibility that they would abandon the controlled demolition hypothesis if they were better informed. Examples:



Several of these statements are demonstrably false. The collapse times have been shown to be significantly longer than Brookman states. Furthermore, Brookman seems unaware of the fact that WTC 7 was struck by tons of falling debris from the collapsing Towers, or of the firefighter's accounts that the building was engulfed in flames.



Stephens is ignorant of the incredible amounts of collateral damage that occurred from the collapse of the Twin Towers, including the destruction of Building 7 itself.



Everything about this statement has been debunked numerous times. The collapses were far slower than free fall, and a significant quantity of debris fell far outside of the footprints.

Again, I could go on for quite a while, but I'd be sitting here for quite some time if I did.



Unreliable Verification System. The verification system for AE911Truth's petition is too easy to fool, as our fellow JREFers demonstrated in this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83483) Anybody with enough time on his hands could create dozens of "engineers" in order to further pad the petition's numbers. Indeed, the petition still contains several of the fake names JREFers used in their initial expose--even after Richard Gage was informed that the names were fakes! This undermines the last of the organization's credibility.


Sorry, but I simply cannot accept the AE911Truth petition as evidence of the engineering community's alleged support of the controlled demolition hypothesis.

Bumping because deep44 has returned once again to essentially spam the forum with AE911Truth brown-nosing and I would like everyone to be reminded that he is full of crap.

It should be noted that he never actually refuted this post.

[deep]

These entries are indicative of someone who signed the petition half-heartedly, without reading it or viewing the associated materials, or the like.


You're right - after reading what's quoted above, I decided not to waste my time. You're not arguing with facts - you make assumptions based on nothing more than your own feelings.

[Dog Town]

you make assumptions based on nothing more than your own feelings.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1092346be7f1c63099.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7632)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1092346be7f1c63099.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7632)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)

[Justin39640]

You're right - after reading what's quoted above, I decided not to waste my time. You're not arguing with facts - you make assumptions based on nothing more than your own feelings.

lol thats rich lol

[The Platypus]

You're right - after reading what's quoted above, I decided not to waste my time. You're not arguing with facts - you make assumptions based on nothing more than your own feelings.

Classic self projection tactic.

[deep]

Classic self projection tactic.


Sure. Feel free to provide an example.

[FineWine]

Sure. Feel free to provide an example.


Well, let's see. You're a "truther." You believe in all sorts of incredible nonsense because you really, really want it to be true.

[The Platypus]

Sure. Feel free to provide an example.

WOW, You actually need a walk through on this :eye-poppi



What you just said, was an example, duh.

You're not arguing with facts - you make assumptions based on nothing more than your own feelings.

Hence the statement from me, "Classic self projection tactic."

[1337m4n]

The AE911 petition continues to be touted by some newer posters as if it were relevant to society. This (still unrefuted to this day!) thread of mine therefore deserves a bump.

[Crazy J]

Let us assume for a second that AE911Truth is totally legitimate and that every name on the petition is a real life architect or engineer with considerable experience.

Why no new investigation? Why no front page story in The New York Times? If the "truthers" have all these brilliant people why have their combined genius accomplished absolutely nothing in over six years? If these folks have the scientific proof then why don't they do more than just sign their names to a petition and hang out on the Internet?

Not to mention that between all of them there is still nothing peer reviewed to this very day. its nothing more than a fan club.

[d13bgs]

Your attacks on the organization are as irrelevant as they are misinformed. How about watching the new video and talking about the facts contained therein?

The forum won't let me post the url. Search YouTube for "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res"

If you're not willing to watch the video, then keep your mouth shut.

[AJM8125]

If you're not willing to watch the video, then keep your mouth shut.

No.

[Pantaz]

... The forum won't let me post the url. ...
Only because new members are required to make 15 posts before allowing links within posts.

... talking about the facts contained therein?
Any "facts" in the video have already been covered extensively on this forum.

[Oystein]

Your attacks on the organization are as irrelevant as they are misinformed. How about watching the new video and talking about the facts contained therein?

The forum won't let me post the url. Search YouTube for "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res"

If you're not willing to watch the video, then keep your mouth shut.

Video is not format well-suited for conveying science and engineering facts. Papers are the proper and tested venue for that.

I am 100% convinced that this new video does not contain one single grain of new claims, facts or arguments that we haven't thoroughly stomped into the ground on this forum long ago.

I tell you what: I'll watch that video. Am I allowed to stop watching when I encounter the first lie? I'll let you know when that is. Someone here coined the acronym "TTFL" (Time To First Lie) to measure the despicability of trurther videos. Very few make it beyond one minute beyond opening credits.

[Oystein]

Wow. TTFL is 7:22 minutes. (This is after ignoring some of the many false conclusions and distorted statements about AE911's mission, which I file as "opinion" and thus exempt from scutiniy viz. "lies"). Richard Gage repeats the old nonsense statement that WTC7 collapsed "symmetrically".

Conincidentally, that was also the very first technical claim that did not fully match the comminly accepted narrative.

So 7 minutes have passed without viewers why are at least casually informed about 9/11 learning a single interesting fact or argument.

[ozeco41]

....So 7 minutes have passed without viewers why are at least casually informed about 9/11 learning a single interesting fact or argument.
Much of it taken up with propagandist emotively loaded innuendo. No outright lies - all
'lies by innuendo/inference" so it is the listeners fault if they accept the innuendo.

For my money it is the most despicable cowardly way of lying.

If you believe in what you are saying Mr Gage then at least have the courage to tell your lies explicitly and openly. Lying by inference is the cowards way out.

[Grizzly Bear]

Your attacks on the organization are as irrelevant as they are misinformed. How about watching the new video and talking about the facts contained therein?
I think you'll find that anything asserting explosives and/or thermite has been repeated for about 6 years by this organization now. They've left a poor impression on their audience with their first set of "facts" which proved to be less qualified than laymen (in other words when speaking specifically relative to their professional reputation, it means they look really stupid). New videos with the same claims aren't newsworthy.

The forum won't let me post the url. Search YouTube for "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res"
You need 15 posts to be able to use the URL BBcode. Besides, if you browse the subforum you will find a recent thread on that video.

If you're not willing to watch the video, then keep your mouth shut.
Unfortunately, this isn't for you to dictate. If you don't like reading comments there's an ignore function.

[RCory]

this article refers to AE911Truth...

http://news.yahoo.com/twin-tower-collapse-model-could-squash-9-11-201204097.html

"But not everyone in the industry agrees with the simpler, official explanation. Roughly 1,600 architects and structural engineers across the country, who have banded together in a group called "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth," say it does not fully account for the buildings' collapses. With so many people looking for answers, Simensen's alternative theory is likely to receive further attention and study."

Besides citing the membership incorrectly, the author assumes whoever she spoke with (if she even bothered) speaks for each signatory on all matters.

[leftysergeant]

Your attacks on the organization are as irrelevant as they are misinformed.

Your support for the useless drongos at AE911 is irrelevant and misinformed. Those turds are not experts, for the most part. Any hose dragger knows they are full of crap.

If you're not willing to watch the video, then keep your mouth shut.

Bad attitude, coming in here not knowing anybody else's credentials to mock little Dickie and his nursery school chums.

What training do you have that qualifies you to say that the AE911 whackadoodles have a clue?

[Amelius Brown]

I had been commenting on that video for about day before I got banned. They deleted some of my earlier comments. None of them were unsportsmanlike. Most of them are still there, but alas, I can no longer participate.

It was mostly shots of people in business casual attire at their office desks saying it was a controlled demolition. I was kind of hoping to hear some ball breaking analysis that structural engineers would be uniquely qualified to deliver, but it was just rote recitation of their opinion, and some griping that the ruins of the building weren't left lying around lower Manhattan until everyone North America no longer "had questions".

[d13bgs]

Whatever. You guys have fun in your little world.

[DGM]

Whatever. You guys have fun in your little world.
You're talking to "truthers" , right?


My world's really, really big.

[NoahFence]

Whatever. You guys have fun in your little world.

1st post, 2008.

No post for 3 years.

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/3/30/MrSockpuppet.jpg

[d13bgs]

I apologize for my snippy posts. I think my attitude is understandable, given the hostility I've received in this forum from day 1, but that doesn't excuse it. If I try to engage in civil debate, will you do the same?

The civil version of my "keep your mouth shut" post is something like: "If you continue to attack the organization instead of its arguments, then I'll consider your opinion irrelevant and stop listening." Dismissing facts because you don't like the speaker, or even dismissing facts because the speaker has at other times spoken untruths is not skepticism, it's closed-mindedness. By definition, closed-mindedness is an unwillingness to let new facts affect ones world view.

So no, you may not stop watching at the first lie. First of all, the word "lie" implies intent to deceive, and unless you have a mind-reading machine the rest of us don't know about, you can't know the intent of the people in the AE911 Truth video. If you want to talk about "falsehoods", I'm OK with that, but the word "lies" is not appropriate. Since humans are imperfect, I expect any non-trivial book or documentary contains at least one falsehood. That is not a practical or valid reason for dismissing the whole work, or the other valid facts it may contain.

The civil version of my "have fun in your little world" post is: "this forum appears to be a closed-minded echo chamber that is very hostile to outsiders with differing viewpoints, and I don't want to sign up to be on the receiving end of irrational abuse." If I'm wrong about this, please demonstrate.

In the spirit of "discussing skepticism and science in a friendly and lively way", can someone please tell me what are the one or two best and most comprehensive web sites which debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories? I'm interested only in science-based conspiracy theories, not politically-based ones. I'll check them out and get back to you. If I find the sites convincing, I'll say so. If not, I'll try to debunk the debunkers, if that kind of skepticism is actually welcome here.

[NoahFence]

I apologize for my snippy posts. I think my attitude is understandable, given the hostility I've received in this forum from day 1, but that doesn't excuse it. If I try to engage in civil debate, will you do the same?

Day one was 3 years ago. Your second post was 3 years later. What exactly do you expect?

Listen. AE911 is a fraud. It was started as a fraud, and it continues to this day, fraudulent. Gage preys on idiots. He knows this. This is why he flat-out refuses to get into anything beyond his narrow views. He will not talk about the Pentagon and Shanksville, as if they're somehow separate from NYC. They're not.

He won't retract "6.5 Seconds" - even though it is painfully clear that the collapse of WTC 7 was far longer (3 times) than that.

He won't retract "pyroclastic clouds" - even though thousands of people survived being inside of it.

Richard Gage is a liar. Plain and simple. He saw dollar signs due to 9/11 and due to moral bankruptcy, chose to make a living off of it.

By definition, closed-mindedness is an unwillingness to let new facts affect ones world view.

Fair enough - but those new facts have to actually be real to affect ones world view, wouldn't you think?

So no, you may not stop watching at the first lie. First of all, the word "lie" implies intent to deceive, and unless you have a mind-reading machine the rest of us don't know about, you can't know the intent of the people in the AE911 Truth video.

After this long, after all the facts (the real ones) have been shown, he still clings to this stupidity. That is lying. And he's pulling the wool over your eyes, touring the world on your dime.

In the spirit of "discussing skepticism and science in a friendly and lively way", can someone please tell me what are the one or two best and most comprehensive web sites which debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories? I'm interested only in science-based conspiracy theories, not politically-based ones. I'll check them out and get back to you. If I find the sites convincing, I'll say so. If not, I'll try to debunk the debunkers, if that kind of skepticism is actually welcome here.

Sounds fine to me, but please understand, the 9/11 truth movement is based on lies, heresay, quote mining and ignoring facts that don't fit the viewpoint. If you want to be skeptical, fine. But be skeptical of things you can actually prove. There is not one single 9/11 conspiracy theory that hasn't been debunked. Scientific or political in nature. Not a single one.

Speaking of "one" - if truthers want to be taken seriously, they're going to need ONE single theory that fits better than what you people call the "Official Story". So far, you got nothing. And it's been TEN YEARS. What more do you expect?

[uke2se]

I apologize for my snippy posts. I think my attitude is understandable, given the hostility I've received in this forum from day 1, but that doesn't excuse it. If I try to engage in civil debate, will you do the same?

How much hostility have you really encountered with four posts in three years, two of them being in this thread? Methinks you need thicker skin if you aim to keep peddling woo.


The civil version of my "keep your mouth shut" post is something like: "If you continue to attack the organization instead of its arguments, then I'll consider your opinion irrelevant and stop listening."

None of us can force you to listen whatever we say. It has become clear in my experience with twoofers that they will rarely listen to anything or anyone that doesn't support their preconceived world view.


Dismissing facts because you don't like the speaker, or even dismissing facts because the speaker has at other times spoken untruths is not skepticism, it's closed-mindedness.

Good thing nobody's doing that, then. We dismiss the many outright lies peddled by Gage and his merry band of morons.


By definition, closed-mindedness is an unwillingness to let new facts affect ones world view.

Yes. You should think long and hard about this.


So no, you may not stop watching at the first lie.

I opt to not watch at all, because I know it's all bull-dung. What are you going to do about it?


First of all, the word "lie" implies intent to deceive, and unless you have a mind-reading machine the rest of us don't know about, you can't know the intent of the people in the AE911 Truth video.

Gage intends to decieve. That's why he keeps repeating untruths that he was first corrected on several years ago.


If you want to talk about "falsehoods", I'm OK with that, but the word "lies" is not appropriate.

It's very appropriate.


Since humans are imperfect, I expect any non-trivial book or documentary contains at least one falsehood.

Twoofer videos normally contain more falsehoods than facts.


That is not a practical or valid reason for dismissing the whole work, or the other valid facts it may contain.

I have yet to find a valid fact in a twoofer video.


The civil version of my "have fun in your little world" post is: "this forum appears to be a closed-minded echo chamber that is very hostile to outsiders with differing viewpoints,

We are hostile to woo-peddlers who can't think for themselves. Especially when they are attempting to recruit others into Box-Boy's little cargo cult of self promotion.


and I don't want to sign up to be on the receiving end of irrational abuse." If I'm wrong about this, please demonstrate.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out.


In the spirit of "discussing skepticism and science in a friendly and lively way", can someone please tell me what are the one or two best and most comprehensive web sites which debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Check the links at the top of this forum.


I'm interested only in science-based conspiracy theories, not politically-based ones. I'll check them out and get back to you. If I find the sites convincing, I'll say so. If not, I'll try to debunk the debunkers, if that kind of skepticism is actually welcome here.

You may try, but you won't succeed. Many have tried and failed before you.

[George152]

I apologize for my snippy posts. I think my attitude is understandable, given the hostility I've received in this forum from day 1, but that doesn't excuse it. If I try to engage in civil debate, will you do the same?

The civil version of my "keep your mouth shut" post is something like: "If you continue to attack the organization instead of its arguments, then I'll consider your opinion irrelevant and stop listening." Dismissing facts because you don't like the speaker, or even dismissing facts because the speaker has at other times spoken untruths is not skepticism, it's closed-mindedness. By definition, closed-mindedness is an unwillingness to let new facts affect ones world view.

So no, you may not stop watching at the first lie. First of all, the word "lie" implies intent to deceive, and unless you have a mind-reading machine the rest of us don't know about, you can't know the intent of the people in the AE911 Truth video. If you want to talk about "falsehoods", I'm OK with that, but the word "lies" is not appropriate. Since humans are imperfect, I expect any non-trivial book or documentary contains at least one falsehood. That is not a practical or valid reason for dismissing the whole work, or the other valid facts it may contain.

The civil version of my "have fun in your little world" post is: "this forum appears to be a closed-minded echo chamber that is very hostile to outsiders with differing viewpoints, and I don't want to sign up to be on the receiving end of irrational abuse." If I'm wrong about this, please demonstrate.

In the spirit of "discussing skepticism and science in a friendly and lively way", can someone please tell me what are the one or two best and most comprehensive web sites which debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories? I'm interested only in science-based conspiracy theories, not politically-based ones. I'll check them out and get back to you. If I find the sites convincing, I'll say so. If not, I'll try to debunk the debunkers, if that kind of skepticism is actually welcome here.

Making posts containing stupid and long ago refuted nonsense in here is going to be confronted.

As if you didn't know!

[Grizzly Bear]

The short and civil version of all this is:

Gage's basic arguments have been known since he started pushing them in 2006 with the founding of his AE911truth organization

Regardless of his professional status he's made claims that run contrary to reality and the education he recieved while studying for his profession.

Other members whom themselves are either professionals, educated in, or familiar with architecture and engineering topics have pointed out his errors in detail already. Gage has demonstrated he is not credible, and unless his position radically changes there's little to discuss about the merits of what he continues to push

It's hard to be objective when the merits of his arguments - now several years old - have already been shown to contain either egregious falsehoods, or errors. Every conspiracy supporter that posts here for the first time seems to assume that nobody here has seen Gage's arguments before. Some people have understandably gotten tired of hearing the same old, same old. The hostility isn't always right, but it is understandable when you consider the circumstances.

[/list]

[minnemouse]

I am just wondering.... If there was another investigation, and the results are the same, would the "truthers" believe it then? If not - how many investigations and by whom, would make them come to terms with the facts? I doubt that this will ever stop, no matter how many investigations are started. And this goes for any other CT too, I think. Its like fighting wind mills. In the mean time it DOES make for good entertainment though ;-P

[Oystein]

I apologize for my snippy posts. I think my attitude is understandable, given the hostility I've received in this forum from day 1, but that doesn't excuse it. If I try to engage in civil debate, will you do the same?
I'll try ;)

The civil version of my "keep your mouth shut" post is something like: "If you continue to attack the organization instead of its arguments, then I'll consider your opinion irrelevant and stop listening."
I think AE911T is not about arguments. In fact, if you want to find original, interesting, novel and sound arguments, AE911T is not the place to go to; they mostly only parrot arguments that others have made before. I am not aware of a single contribution by Gage to the pool of arguments.
Instead, AE911T is all about organisation, impact, activism, or, in short: politics. This is evidenced quite obviously by the fact that the centerpiece of their website is a Petition to Congress. The only relevance AE911T has is derived from the number of people who have signed to that petition.
And this is where criticism of the organization is inevitable: They show no intention of ever actually submitting the Petition to Congress. This means that AE911T consciously refuses to generate the real-world impact that they purport to aim at. That's the main criticism we must subject Gage and his organisation to, quite apart from the quality of their arguments.

I should add that I have been using the word "organization" loosely. AE911T is not actually an organization beyond a handful of people who run the website and do a little paperwork. Certainly, the 1600 "A&E professionals" and >10,000 supporters are not organized in any way, shape or fashion: They don't elect leaders and officials; they hold no meetings; there are no publications distributed to these signers. AE911T does not organize its members. It is basically only a travel club for Richard Gage.

Do you still maintain that "[continuing] to attack the organization instead of its arguments" is an improper endeavour worthy of your loathing?

Dismissing facts because you don't like the speaker, or even dismissing facts because the speaker has at other times spoken untruths is not skepticism, it's closed-mindedness. By definition, closed-mindedness is an unwillingness to let new facts affect ones world view.
You are ptting things on their head: It's not true that we dismiss Gage's "facts" because we don't like Gage, it's the other way round: We don't like gage because he continues to push falsehoods as "facts" that have been dismissed a very long time ago.

So no, you may not stop watching at the first lie. First of all, the word "lie" implies intent to deceive, and unless you have a mind-reading machine the rest of us don't know about, you can't know the intent of the people in the AE911 Truth video. If you want to talk about "falsehoods", I'm OK with that, but the word "lies" is not appropriate. Since humans are imperfect, I expect any non-trivial book or documentary contains at least one falsehood. That is not a practical or valid reason for dismissing the whole work, or the other valid facts it may contain.
This is true and wise initially: Sure, everybody makes mistakes. But if someone continues to present the same falsehoods year after year after year, every month of each year, after he has been made aware of these falsohoods many many many times, as if he has never been corrected, at some point this can only be construed as a conscious decision to promote falsehoods despite better knowledge. This is a lie in my book. I'll grant you that it could be a serious, clinically relevant case of lunacy, too. You choose which of the two judgements you find more benign.

The civil version of my "have fun in your little world" post is: "this forum appears to be a closed-minded echo chamber that is very hostile to outsiders with differing viewpoints, and I don't want to sign up to be on the receiving end of irrational abuse." If I'm wrong about this, please demonstrate.
Unfortunately, I can't disagree strongly with you here. There are certainly a number of posters in this subforum who generate more hostile noise than substance.

In the spirit of "discussing skepticism and science in a friendly and lively way", can someone please tell me what are the one or two best and most comprehensive web sites which debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories? I'm interested only in science-based conspiracy theories, not politically-based ones. I'll check them out and get back to you. If I find the sites convincing, I'll say so. If not, I'll try to debunk the debunkers, if that kind of skepticism is actually welcome here.
But I still think that JREF has generated more valid and sound debunking than any other site. Use the Advanced Search function!

If you look at the top of the subforum, there is a link to Resources for debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. That list isn't exactly up-to-date, but of course since 2006, not much new has arisen that needed novel debunking.

[R.Mackey]

I am just wondering.... If there was another investigation, and the results are the same, would the "truthers" believe it then? If not - how many investigations and by whom, would make them come to terms with the facts? I doubt that this will ever stop, no matter how many investigations are started. And this goes for any other CT too, I think. Its like fighting wind mills. In the mean time it DOES make for good entertainment though ;-P

Seeing as how there have been five, all with the same conclusion apart from a few scientific details, I think we already have our answer.

[Marokkaan]

Seeing as how there have been five, all with the same conclusion apart from a few scientific details, I think we already have our answer.

Which five, why do you lie?

[uke2se]

Which five, why do you lie?

He doesn't lie. Not everyone is as loose with the truth as you normally are.

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7657474#post7657474)
Seeing as how there have been five, all with the same conclusion apart from a few scientific details, I think we already have our answer. Which five, why do you lie?

To say it is you that is the liar would flatter you by presuming you know more than you actually do. Ignorance is one common attribute of truthers , and a compulsive psychological need to believe against the evidence another.

Your ilk don't know what you are talking about, you just know what you wish to believe.

How many structural analyses of the WTC collapses can you name.

[R.Mackey]

For reference, the five I have in mind are the following: NIST, Weidlinger Associates, Exponent, Arup, and Purdue University. Only one of these is an official US Government project, only two used any Government money. One is from overseas. And one was actually a non-advocate study, commissioned by the insurance companies, who stood to win billions of dollars if it could be blamed on anyone other than the hijackers.

One could also consider the work from MIT, Cal, FEMA, University of Sheffield, University of Edinburgh, the CTBUH, Northwestern, and University of Maryland as full investigations of the collapses, but I do not as they were either more limited in scope or hindered by access to data.

If anyone is lying, it certainly isn't me.

[ergo]

For reference, the five I have in mind are the following: NIST, Weidlinger Associates, Exponent, Arup, and Purdue University. Only one of these is an official US Government project, only two used any Government money. One is from overseas. And one was actually a non-advocate study, commissioned by the insurance companies, who stood to win billions of dollars if it could be blamed on anyone other than the hijackers.



Weidlinger Associates: hired by Silverstein's attorneys.

Exponent: "Exponent's research has come under fire (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-parker/house-subpoenas-toyota-do_b_468129.html) from critics, including engineers, attorneys and academics who say the company tends to deliver to clients the reports they need to mount a public defense."

Arup: "Arup's review of NIST's f (http://m.csemag.com/index.php?id=2832&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=24940&cHash=0f411f2439)indings and its own analysis led it to conclude that NIST has not satisfactorily demonstrated its main conclusion but that the impact-induced loss of fireproofing was the deciding factor in the collapse."

On Purdue (http://stj911.org/ryan/PurdueLetter.html): "In one important way this new animation does reflect reality, although in doing so it negates the official stance taken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In their September 2005 report, NIST presented their "collapse initiation sequence", and explained how they felt the loss of fireproofing was the key to the destruction of the towers. NIST suggested that the fireproofing loss occurred as a result of aircraft debris, in the form of shotgun-like blasts, scraping the fireproofing off of thousands of square meters of surface area. [2] But from Purdue's new animation, we can clearly see that the aircraft that impacted the WTC tower could not have been instantly transformed into thousands of tiny pellets in the form of shotgun blasts. The animation more realistically displays the large fragments of debris from the fuselage clattering around in the skeletal framework of the tower. For this reason we must thank Purdue for this visualization that negates NIST's primary explanation....."

But I'm curious: Did Purdue mention anything about concrete encasement of core beams (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7600285#post7600285) in the towers?

Steven Jones provides a good review of these "investigations" and the ever-changing collapse hypotheses here. (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_24d.htm)

[BasqueArch]

Weidlinger Associates: hired by Silverstein's attorneys.

Exponent: "Exponent's research has come under fire (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-parker/house-subpoenas-toyota-do_b_468129.html) from critics, including engineers, attorneys and academics who say the company tends to deliver to clients the reports they need to mount a public defense."

Arup: "Arup's review of NIST's f (http://m.csemag.com/index.php?id=2832&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=24940&cHash=0f411f2439)indings and its own analysis led it to conclude that NIST has not satisfactorily demonstrated its main conclusion but that the impact-induced loss of fireproofing was the deciding factor in the collapse."

On Purdue (http://stj911.org/ryan/PurdueLetter.html): "In one important way this new animation does reflect reality, although in doing so it negates the official stance taken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In their September 2005 report, NIST presented their "collapse initiation sequence", and explained how they felt the loss of fireproofing was the key to the destruction of the towers. NIST suggested that the fireproofing loss occurred as a result of aircraft debris, in the form of shotgun-like blasts, scraping the fireproofing off of thousands of square meters of surface area. [2] But from Purdue's new animation, we can clearly see that the aircraft that impacted the WTC tower could not have been instantly transformed into thousands of tiny pellets in the form of shotgun blasts. The animation more realistically displays the large fragments of debris from the fuselage clattering around in the skeletal framework of the tower. For this reason we must thank Purdue for this visualization that negates NIST's primary explanation....."

But I'm curious: Did Purdue mention anything about concrete encasement of core beams (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7600285#post7600285) in the towers?

Steven Jones provides a good review of these "investigations" and the ever-changing collapse hypotheses here. (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_24d.htm)

The studies all agree that damage and fires were responsible for the collapses. Not one claims the buildings were CD'd.
Steven Jones left many other inconvenient studies unexamined. They all agree fire was the major cause of the collapses.

The fires had various ways that they could have damaged different parts of the structure. Permutations of different temperatures and different stresses on different parts of the structure produced different probable scenarios for the failure of the structures. That's why NIST called their collapse sequence "Probable Collapse Sequence." What is certain is that all the studies agree fire collapsed the structures.

CD was unnecessary to explain the collapses, no evidence of CD was found. Not one turther engineer has proven that fire and damage could not have collapsed the towers.

Because the collapses were a singular event, they cannot be retested. One proportions one's belief to the evidence.
The proportion of the evidence is on the side of the commonly accepted evidence based narrative.

[000063]

Weidlinger Associates: hired by Silverstein's attorneys.That's the same guy who "made out like a bandit"?

No, wait, that was RedIbis' incorrect claim. Yours was scoffing at the sun position being used to tell time.

That said, I fail to see anything suspicious about a guy wanting to investigate the collapse of his multi-billion dollar complex he was still paying on.

Exponent: "Exponent's research has come under fire (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-parker/house-subpoenas-toyota-do_b_468129.html) from critics, including engineers, attorneys and academics who say the company tends to deliver to clients the reports they need to mount a public defense."You mean Exponent was allegedly slow with the documents in...a matter having nothing to do with 9/11? You're trying to shoot the messenger again.

Arup: "Arup's review of NIST's f (http://m.csemag.com/index.php?id=2832&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=24940&cHash=0f411f2439)indings and its own analysis led it to conclude that NIST has not satisfactorily demonstrated its main conclusion but that the impact-induced loss of fireproofing was the deciding factor in the collapse."

Hang on...

Arup’s analysis concluded that the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns of the towers—even without the airplane impact—could have led to collapse due to the severity of fire occurring on multiple floors and the resulting thermal expansion of structural elements, particularly the floor systems. The Arup analysis conclusively illustrates that even with code-approved fire protection, a severe fire—without aircraft impact—could still lead to collapse.In other words, Arup thinks the building would've collapsed with or without fireproofing.

You've talked yourself into a catch 22, Ergo. Either Arup was wrong about the fireproofing, and NIST was right, or Arup was wrong, and NIST was right. Both are agreed that that sucker was coming down, one way or another. Unless you're saying they're both wrong, in which case what Arup thought about NIST was irrelevant.

On Purdue (http://stj911.org/ryan/PurdueLetter.html): "In one important way this new animation does reflect reality, although in doing so it negates the official stance taken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In their September 2005 report, NIST presented their "collapse initiation sequence", and explained how they felt the loss of fireproofing was the key to the destruction of the towers. NIST suggested that the fireproofing loss occurred as a result of aircraft debris, in the form of shotgun-like blasts, scraping the fireproofing off of thousands of square meters of surface area. [2] But from Purdue's new animation, we can clearly see that the aircraft that impacted the WTC tower could not have been instantly transformed into thousands of tiny pellets in the form of shotgun blasts. The animation more realistically displays the large fragments of debris from the fuselage clattering around in the skeletal framework of the tower. For this reason we must thank Purdue for this visualization that negates NIST's primary explanation....."

But I'm curious: Did Purdue mention anything about concrete encasement of core beams (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7600285#post7600285) in the towers?

Steven Jones provides a good review of these "investigations" and the ever-changing collapse hypotheses here. (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_24d.htm)Why do Jones and others harp on the lack of visualizations? Do they lack enough raw data to make a simulation? Or do they want NIST to make cartoons for them so they can nitpick all the ways that it differs from the actual collapse sequence, ignoring the fact that such an accurate sequence would likely be impossible to model? Appeal to Impossible Perfection, like you habitually do, Ergo?

I mean, if you're going to say Purdue and Arup are right in their contradicting NIST, then you have to accept their conclusions; that the loss of fireproofing makes no-nevermind to the ultimate result; towers fall down go boom.

[leftysergeant]

On Purdue[/URL]: "In one important way this new animation does reflect reality, although in doing so it negates the official stance taken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In their September 2005 report, NIST presented their "collapse initiation sequence", and explained how they felt the loss of fireproofing was the key to the destruction of the towers. NIST suggested that the fireproofing loss occurred as a result of aircraft debris, in the form of shotgun-like blasts, scraping the fireproofing off of thousands of square meters of surface area. [2] But from Purdue's new animation, we can clearly see that the aircraft that impacted the WTC tower could not have been instantly transformed into thousands of tiny pellets in the form of shotgun blasts. The animation more realistically displays the large fragments of debris from the fuselage clattering around in the skeletal framework of the tower. For this reason we must thank Purdue for this visualization that negates NIST's primary explanation....."

Horse feathers. The frag didn't have to be "transformed into thousands of tiny pellets in the form of shotgun blasts. Thousands of pieces of shet metal flying through the air and the speeds they would have achieved from the velocity at imppact and from the deflagration of the fuel were more than adequate to remove large quantities of a substance that was already starting to flake off in places anyway. The argument the stj911 jerks raise in this regard is crap, as anybody who knows a thing about artillery or aircraft crashes knows.

But I'm curious: Did Purdue mention anything about concrete encasement of core beams (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7600285#post7600285) in the towers?

Of course not. They were not encased in concrete on the impacted floors.

Steven Jones provides a good review of these "investigations" and the ever-changing collapse hypotheses here. (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_24d.htm)Given that the giggling twit has previously based an astounding theory about the visit of Jesus Christ to North America on a misinterpretation of Mayan iconography and a total lack of knowledge of the proper methods of crucifiction, it is quite natural to look more closely at what the moron is doing this time.

That the charlatan either does not know or blithely ingnores the fact that his "thermite" chips contain a lot of stuff that are required in red primer paint but would interfere with the operation of any thermitic compound suggests to any rational person that Jones lost his marbles some time before 2001.

[R.Mackey]

I believe I've made my point.

No matter who investigates, Truthers have a ready-made list of excuses a hundred kilometers long. Even though just a few minutes ago, the Truthers in this thread had never even heard of some of these investigations, and most assuredly haven't read the results for themselves.

Fortunately, nobody cares about their opinions.

[A W Smith]

Exponent: "Exponent's research has come under fire (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-parker/house-subpoenas-toyota-do_b_468129.html) from critics, including engineers, attorneys and academics who say the company tends to deliver to clients the reports they need to mount a public defense."
Toyota has hired Exponent Inc., a California company which the newspaper reports regularly provides research for corporations under fire including Exxon (the Valdez oil leak disaster), NASA (the Challenger explosion), Swiss Re (insurer of the World Trade Center) tell me Ergo, What scenario was Swiss Re hoping that exponent would uncover that would help reduce payment for this event?


On Purdue (http://stj911.org/ryan/PurdueLetter.html): "In one important way this new animation does reflect reality, although in doing so it negates the official stance taken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In their September 2005 report, NIST presented their "collapse initiation sequence", and explained how they felt the loss of fireproofing was the key to the destruction of the towers. NIST suggested that the fireproofing loss occurred as a result of aircraft debris, in the form of shotgun-like blasts, scraping the fireproofing off of thousands of square meters of surface area. [2] But from Purdue's new animation, we can clearly see that the aircraft that impacted the WTC tower could not have been instantly transformed into thousands of tiny pellets in the form of shotgun blasts. The animation more realistically displays the large fragments of debris from the fuselage clattering around in the skeletal framework of the tower. For this reason we must thank Purdue for this visualization that negates NIST's primary explanation....."

But I'm curious: Did Purdue mention anything about concrete encasement of core beams (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7567122#post7567122) in the towers?

Steven Jones provides a good review of these "investigations" and the ever-changing collapse hypotheses here. (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_24d.htm)And what effect would the encasement of a few beams under the thresholds of some elevators have on the fire and collapse of the towers?

[ergo]

What is certain is that all the studies agree fire collapsed the structures.

Incorrect. The studies were conducted to find a failure scenario that fits the assumption of fire-induced collapse. Nothing else.

[d13bgs]

Thank you Bear, for your civil response and explanation of the attitudes in the forum.

[000063]

Can you prove this, ergo? With citations? Or are you just looking for a single sentence to quote mine? I don't think it's especially relevant, however. As I've already pointed out, even your own link (http://m.csemag.com/index.php?id=2832&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=24940&cHash=0f411f2439) says

Arup’s analysis concluded that the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns of the towers—even without the airplane impact—could have led to collapse due to the severity of fire occurring on multiple floors and the resulting thermal expansion of structural elements, particularly the floor systems. The Arup analysis conclusively illustrates that even with code-approved fire protection, a severe fire—without aircraft impact—could still lead to collapse.

I can't seem to find the paper itself, buuut...

www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download353.pdf

We therefore commenced a major program of numerical
analysis of the response of tall building structural forms to
multiple floor fires.
+
It is our view that the National Institute of Standards and
Technology’s (NIST) report into the events of 9-11 is a critically
important document for tall building design worldwide.
Its conclusions will have a major influence on the Regulatory
environment, and on clients’ expectations for tall building
design. We believe it will provide invaluable data for future
design validation.Wait, what am I doing? You've got me on ignore because I kept asking you for definitive statements about things you don't want to be pinned down on, and correcting you.

[d13bgs]

And just to explain to people why my involvement in this forum is sparse. I did not seek out this discussion. Through Google, I found my name being used in this forum, and the usage of it was to discredit AE911Truth by using me as an example of how the organization is fraudulent or worthless because the people in it are non-architects. As I explained at the time, the organization has a clearly demarcated two-tier system of the architects and engineers who sign the petition, and the "supporters" who also believe a new investigation is warranted, but who are not qualified to sign the petition. I was clearly in the "supporter" category, so it was dishonest to use my profession (Software Engineer) to discredit the organization which is built on the professional opinions of the architects and engineers who form its core. I was greeted with hostility at the time, even through I was not making any arguments for or against controlled demolition hypothesis, but merely trying to point out unfair character attacks on the organization. For this reason, I bowed out quickly from the discussion. I guess I was subscribed to this thread, however, so I received a notification of a new post, right about the time the newest AE911Truth video came out. So I thought it would be reasonable to assume nobody here had yet seen the new video, and that it might be worth renewing discussion. Since I have not been heavily involved, I am unaware of how frequently you have debunked the points that appear in the video. So sorry if I'm treading on well-worn ground. Again, if I you told me of a web site you consider reliable for debunking the controlled demolition hypothesis, I will try to catch up on the arguments before attempting to engage in debate again.

My skepticism about this forum continues, since most of the recent responses continue to be fact-free, containing only character attacks, "everybody knows that" assertions, and unfounded speculation on Gage's motives. I find it unlikely he would be doing what he's doing unless he sincerely and strongly believed in what he's saying. He's being widely ridiculed and hated, which I think would put a damper on his enjoyment of his "world tour". I have no evidence that he's sincere, I just think it's the more likely explanation. Thus, I would expect you to provide evidence if you are promoting an alternative explanation of his motivation. However, as I've repeatedly suggested, character attacks are not appropriate when debating issues of fact.

[Grizzly Bear]

Thank you Bear, for your civil response and explanation of the attitudes in the forum.
Whether you agree with the points or not may be another thing, of course but I have no problem giving some explanation on things. The problem with hearing the same material is it becomes overly predictable and many in my same position can usually name Gage's main talking points out memory or familiarity. It's often a reason why - for better or worse - people here including myself get impatient with them. If you've seen enough of his videos or those of his organization members you'll notice that they mostly follow the same talking points of the free fall acceleration, the ejections, no steel framed skyscraper in history collapsing prior to 9/11, firefighter testimony of explosions, thermite, molten steel, etc. Do these sound familiar with his more recent videos? They're points that also get repeated by other members of the forum as well and they've all been discussed at length.

If you're not too interested in getting the wall-o-posts from people you may be interested in looking at past threads for some explanations. The 9/11 conspiracies have been a hot topic on this site for several years, and people have outlined the errors of the most common claims over that time. Usually they can explain the faults of the claims without the need to ask for a repetition of the explanations.

Or if you want more current opinions from individuals look for someone you can ask when dealing a specific topic. I'm pretty sure if you ask someone will at least be willing to link you to a previous thread if not write a more current explanation.

[ergo]

Arup’s analysis concluded that the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns of the towers


This is not NIST's model of collapse initiation. You know that, right?

Maybe post something worth responding to once in a while and you might get a little more action.

[d13bgs]

Thank you, I found the links.

A couple more points about the organization, with the goal of trying to put aside some of the attacks without necessarily refuting them. Yes, AE911Truth is a political organization, regardless of their effectiveness as such. The are clearly trying to influence public opinion, which may result in a new investigation even if they don't submit their petition directly.

While it is a political organization, they are making their political argument with scientific facts (true or false, that is their strategy). Peer-reviewed scientific journals have their place, but they are not the appropriate mechanism for the argument AE911T are making. Journals seek to establish new scientific facts by describing reproducible experiments. AE911Truth make their arguments using already-established facts, such as high-school physics and publicly available fire investigation standards documents.

Again, I'm just trying to frame the argument. I need to read the resources before weighing in on the validity of the facts they present.

[R.Mackey]

While it is a political organization, they are making their political argument with scientific facts (true or false, that is their strategy). Peer-reviewed scientific journals have their place, but they are not the appropriate mechanism for the argument AE911T are making. Journals seek to establish new scientific facts by describing reproducible experiments. AE911Truth make their arguments using already-established facts, such as high-school physics and publicly available fire investigation standards documents.

Given that the entire scientific establishment disagrees with this -- there have been literally hundreds of 9/11 related papers in scientific journals, including portions of the NIST Report, and not one in support of your organization -- you may want to revisit this assumption. It's completely wrong.

[ergo]

Given that the entire scientific establishment disagrees with this --

As you can see, d13bgs, no matter how civil you want to be, this is the kind of argument you will get here. And this is from one of their "best".


Grizzly's so-called "civil" statement merely repeats assertions that have never been substantiated, a common "debunker" strategy:

* Regardless of his professional status he's made claims that run contrary to reality and the education he recieved while studying for his profession.
* Other members whom themselves are either professionals, educated in, or familiar with architecture and engineering topics have pointed out his errors in detail already.
* It's hard to be objective when the merits of his arguments - now several years old - have already been shown to contain either egregious falsehoods, or errors.

There are no architecture and engineering professionals* speaking out against the position of AE911Truth or Gage's main claims. Not ones using their real names, anyway.

(*besides the handful we already know about.)

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch ..... What is certain is that all the studies agree fire collapsed the structures.....Incorrect. The studies were conducted to find a failure scenario that fits the assumption of fire-induced collapse. Nothing else.

No, you don’t read too good .
What I said was that “What is certain is that all the studies agree fire collapsed the structures.”
And this is true - all the studies agree fire collapsed the structures.

What you said is that 115 ton airplanes hitting the buildings at 500 miles per hour and hundreds of thousands square feet of simultaneous jet fuel multifloor fires are proof that explosives demolished the towers.

This is where top experienced engineers and bottom amateury wishful spidery speculation differ.

[BasqueArch]

.....
There are no architecture and engineering professionals* speaking out against the position of AE911Truth or Gage's main claims. Not ones using their real names, anyway.

(*besides the handful we already know about.)

ergo ... that's your real one word name, no?. Sounds Sephardic, from Lapland. Like Cher.

Besides all the crazies are on your side of the fence.

[ergo]

No, you don’t read too good .
What I said was that “What is certain is that all the studies agree fire collapsed the structures.”
And this is true - all the studies agree fire collapsed the structures.

No. The studies were conducted to find a failure scenario that fits the assumption of fire-induced collapse. No other potential causes or mechanisms were studied, despite unanswered questions from the FEMA investigation, wide reports on the day itself of explosions in the buildings, speculation that secondary devices had been planted, and later public criticism from fire engineers of a fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Among many others.

[ergo]

ergo ... that's your real one word name, no?. Sounds Sephardic, from Lapland. Like Cher.

Yes, those Sephardic Laplanders, like Cher (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080104194750AAhXgbg). That's the effect I was going for. ;)


Besides all the crazies are on your side of the fence.

What about the Sephardic Laplanders? What side are they on?

[triforcharity]

AE911Truth make their arguments using already-established facts, such as high-school physics and publicly available fire investigation standards documents.


No they don't.

BTW, which fire investigation standard are you speaking of......

*snicker.....this 'aught to be fun.....

[beachnut]

Hi - I'm the Andrew Kittross you mention in your post. When I tried to sign the peition as an engineer, the ae911truth people were very strict about how they judged my qualifications. I had to speak to them on the phone personally. They didn't care how many mechanical engineering courses I took. Since I wasn't a structural engineer or architect, they rejected me from the main signers pool. My name, and I assume the others you mention, are clearly relegated to an "associate" category of supporters, not the main architects and engineers.

You must be really desperate to discredit ae911truth to blatently misrepresent their claims like that.
That is funny, but you got it backwards, signing up for Gage's travel club discredits you. There is no need to discredit Gage's failed organization, Gage discredits himself by spreading lies based on hearsay and fantasy.

The big picture for understanding 911, the education level required, grade school, being an engineer is overkill. Gage spreads lies, you failed to use your education to expose Gage.

If you had something, you and Gage would have a Pulitzer. Where is your Pulitzer?

"The evidence of controlled demolition is certainly substantial enough to warrant thorough investigation by the government. Why hasn't this possibility been investigated?"Andrew Kittross, BS EE, MS – Computer Software Engineer and Electrical Engineer with over 20 years experience (http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html) Is this a lie from you? Where is the evidence? Why have you and Gage failed to make a difference? Because you can't answer your own questions, and you have NO evidence; and you don't know you don't have evidence (the sad part).

[A W Smith]

No. The studies were conducted to find a failure scenario that fits the assumption of fire-induced collapse. No other potential causes or mechanisms were studied, despite unanswered questions from the FEMA investigation, wide reports on the day itself of explosions in the buildings, speculation that secondary devices had been planted, and later public criticism from fire engineers of a fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Among many others.
citation?

[ElMondoHummus]

I believe I've made my point.

No matter who investigates, Truthers have a ready-made list of excuses a hundred kilometers long. Even though just a few minutes ago, the Truthers in this thread had never even heard of some of these investigations, and most assuredly haven't read the results for themselves.

Fortunately, nobody cares about their opinions.

What Ryan said. The fact remains that there were multiple investigations which were independent of NIST, and they all drew the same broad conclusions about fire and impact damage dooming the towers. Truthers pointing out Arup's disagreement with NIST as a criticism only highlights the fact that they disagree about the specifics of the fires effects; it's certainly not an invalidation of NIST's findings. On the contrary, it's demonstrating another way the collapse description can be valid (i.e. trusses can deform even with fireproofing intact, therefore NIST can be wrong about the SFRM dislodgement and still be correct about the truss sag and consequent effects).

The problem is, too many truthers don't care about subtleties like that. They only care that they can quote something that sounds vaguely oppositional, and then make the unwarranted leap that such a statement invalidates "The Official Story". Arup's criticism does nothing of the sort; on the contrary, what it disposes of is the conspiratorial version in that it demonstrates the range of possible effects would still lead to a collapse. But conspiracy peddlers don't let simple things like contradiction stop them, do they? :rolleyes:

[beachnut]

Your attacks on the organization are as irrelevant as they are misinformed. How about watching the new video and talking about the facts contained therein?

The forum won't let me post the url. Search YouTube for "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res"

If you're not willing to watch the video, then keep your mouth shut.
There are no facts from 911 truth, and Gage is a subset of 911 truth.

Gage's only purpose is to make money off from people who refuse to think for themselves and say thing like this.
"The evidence of controlled demolition is certainly substantial enough to warrant thorough investigation by the government. Why hasn't this possibility been investigated?"
If you had the evidence you would have the Pulitzer. Do you understand your dilemma as you want people to watch moronic videos based on delusions? No

You failed to present the evidence. You need to debug Gage.
We can't comment on the videos because 911 truth are the "truth-NAZIs", they ban the truth and push lies. Why do dissenter get banned on 911 truth, and AE videos? Your leaders can't have the truth show up, it might wake you up.

Whatever. You guys have fun in your little world. Welcome to reality, our world is reality, Gage's world is a delusional, a fantasy-land where he spends 23,000 a year on travel, by fooling people into donating money to support him and his travel.

[ergo]

On the contrary, it's demonstrating another way the collapse description can be valid

Not really "another way", since Arup's opinion was that NIST had not adequately supported its main conclusion.

[beachnut]

Not really "another way", since Arup's opinion was that NIST had not adequately supported its main conclusion.
You are arguing that 911 truth is wrong. You are debunking 911 truth. No CD, no thermite.

[Oystein]

For reference, the five I have in mind are the following: NIST, Weidlinger Associates, Exponent, Arup, and Purdue University. Only one of these is an official US Government project, only two used any Government money. One is from overseas. And one was actually a non-advocate study, commissioned by the insurance companies, who stood to win billions of dollars if it could be blamed on anyone other than the hijackers.
...

Could you point out the insurance-commissioned study?
I am not aware of Exponent - do we have a link somewhere so I can learn more?
Thx

[R.Mackey]

Could you point out the insurance-commissioned study?
I am not aware of Exponent - do we have a link somewhere so I can learn more?
Thx

I don't think their full study is on-line anymore. (It has been ten years, after all.) Their cover page (http://www.exponent.com/world_trade_center/) lists a couple of related papers that came out later. NIST also references their work in its comparison to other efforts, I think that's in NCSTAR1-6, but it's been years. You may have to contact Exponent directly.

For those who don't know, Exponent used to be called Failure Analysis back in the day, and they were one of the hottest shops around for this kind of work.

[Oystein]

And just to explain to people why my involvement in this forum is sparse. I did not seek out this discussion. Through Google, I found my name being used in this forum, and the usage of it was to discredit AE911Truth by using me as an example of how the organization is fraudulent or worthless because the people in it are non-architects. As I explained at the time, the organization has a clearly demarcated two-tier system of the architects and engineers who sign the petition, and the "supporters" who also believe a new investigation is warranted, but who are not qualified to sign the petition. I was clearly in the "supporter" category, so it was dishonest to use my profession (Software Engineer) to discredit the organization which is built on the professional opinions of the architects and engineers who form its core. I was greeted with hostility at the time, even through I was not making any arguments for or against controlled demolition hypothesis, but merely trying to point out unfair character attacks on the organization. For this reason, I bowed out quickly from the discussion. I guess I was subscribed to this thread, however, so I received a notification of a new post, right about the time the newest AE911Truth video came out. So I thought it would be reasonable to assume nobody here had yet seen the new video, and that it might be worth renewing discussion. Since I have not been heavily involved, I am unaware of how frequently you have debunked the points that appear in the video. So sorry if I'm treading on well-worn ground. Again, if I you told me of a web site you consider reliable for debunking the controlled demolition hypothesis, I will try to catch up on the arguments before attempting to engage in debate again.

My skepticism about this forum continues, since most of the recent responses continue to be fact-free, containing only character attacks, "everybody knows that" assertions, and unfounded speculation on Gage's motives. I find it unlikely he would be doing what he's doing unless he sincerely and strongly believed in what he's saying. He's being widely ridiculed and hated, which I think would put a damper on his enjoyment of his "world tour". I have no evidence that he's sincere, I just think it's the more likely explanation. Thus, I would expect you to provide evidence if you are promoting an alternative explanation of his motivation. However, as I've repeatedly suggested, character attacks are not appropriate when debating issues of fact.
Thank you, I found the links.

A couple more points about the organization, with the goal of trying to put aside some of the attacks without necessarily refuting them. Yes, AE911Truth is a political organization, regardless of their effectiveness as such. The are clearly trying to influence public opinion, which may result in a new investigation even if they don't submit their petition directly.

While it is a political organization, they are making their political argument with scientific facts (true or false, that is their strategy). Peer-reviewed scientific journals have their place, but they are not the appropriate mechanism for the argument AE911T are making. Journals seek to establish new scientific facts by describing reproducible experiments. AE911Truth make their arguments using already-established facts, such as high-school physics and publicly available fire investigation standards documents.

Again, I'm just trying to frame the argument. I need to read the resources before weighing in on the validity of the facts they present.

Can we talk about this "organisation" for a bit? I am a bit unsure as to what you mean by that word here. Who is actually a part of this organisation? My impression is that it's only Gage, a few secretaries, and a handful of people like Bowman or Ryan who contribute actively. From what you write, it could be construed that the organisation consists of all the people who filled out that form on the internet - well, I would strongly contest such a view. Question would be: How are these 1,600 + 1x,000 organised, to call them an "organisation"? Do you have meetings? Elections? Regional chapters? Fees? Can people leave the organisation, and how?

[000063]

This is not NIST's model of collapse initiation. You know that, right?Yes, I do, on account of the article in question referring to Arup.

Maybe post something worth responding to once in a while and you might get a little more action.Please stop quote-mining, Ergo. It's really transparent.

Arup’s analysis concluded that the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns of the towers—even without the airplane impact—could have led to collapse due to the severity of fire occurring on multiple floors and the resulting thermal expansion of structural elements, particularly the floor systems.In other words, Arup thinks that fire alone (if such a fire as we saw on 911 had occurred without a terrorist attack) could've bought down the towers, even if the planes hadn't hit them. This is rather damaging to your beloved "fire couldn't have done it!" straw man.

I like how I mock you for quote-mining sentences, and you switch QMing to sentence fragments. You can't help yourself, can you? Sad.

Either way, you clearly dodged my request to support your claim, with citations, as to the purpose of the reports. I think your post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7658103&postcount=162) about the reports all seeking a failure scenario from the assumption of a fire collapse was spitballing. You had not actually read the reports in question, and were spouting what you hoped they were and hoping no one called you on it.

Of course, if you did read the reports, all you have to do is post a link to them so we can verify your claim. Or even add them to your post as an attachment. It's not hard. Since I believe you're lying, you've caught yourself in the second Catch-22 in two pages (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7657908&postcount=158).

[000063]

citation?I asked him the same thing. He cut down my entire post down to a single sentence fragment and ignored the question. I'm guessing he'll do the same with you.

See, with a lot of truthers, there's no difference between what they hope is true and what they believe is true. In fact, they won't even acknowledge requests for evidence, sometimes, because of all the Truthiness in their hearts. Ergo does this sort of thing all the time.

You are arguing that 911 truth is wrong. You are debunking 911 truth. No CD, no thermite.

It's kind of fun to watch him try to have his cake and some pie too, but his plate isn't big enough for the both of them. So stuff keeps falling on the table, and he just scoops it up and plops it back on the table, and more stuff keeps plopping, and he keeps scooping, and eventually he can get it to stay on the plate, but in a gloppy, mixed-up mass that is far from what the people who baked both slices intended and neither would recognize as what they took out of the oven.

I could use a Frankenstein metaphor, but I think I'll save that one.

[MetalPig]

There are no architecture and engineering professionals* speaking out against the position of AE911Truth or Gage's main claims. Not ones using their real names, anyway.

(*besides the handful we already know about.)
How many are even *aware* that AE911Truth exists?

[minnemouse]

Seeing as how there have been five, all with the same conclusion apart from a few scientific details, I think we already have our answer.


I guess we do. And to point them in the right direction to these other investigations, don´t seem to do much good either. And when they DO discover that its been many other investigations, I am pretty sure we all know what they´ll say about the investigators:D

[uke2se]

All we need to do to discredit AE911T is to point out their nonexistent scientific output. Nothing else matters.

[NoahFence]

Incorrect. The studies were conducted to find a failure scenario that fits the assumption of fire-induced collapse. Nothing else.

Geeze....why would they assume that?


How it's possible a truther's brain can think the way you people do is amazing.

You totally ignore the fact that no explosive currently in existence can even survive the impact and fireball, and subsequent fire for +/- one hour. It simply is not possible. Controlled demolition was ruled out 1 second into the event.

[beachnut]

Your attacks on the organization are as irrelevant as they are misinformed. How about watching the new video and talking about the facts contained therein?

The forum won't let me post the url. Search YouTube for "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res"

If you're not willing to watch the video, then keep your mouth shut.
You are keeping your mind shut to the truth, you let in lies and delusions, you have no intention of investigating 911 past what you are feed by Gage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

lw-jzCfa4eQ
It makes me sick to watch Gage lie and fool people too challenged to be skeptical and see through his lies. What does it take to be weak and not check out Gage's claims? Gage's has done zero research. Gage cherry-picked existing 911 truth claims and formed a presentation with the goal of nothing. He has no goal. When you supposedly have 1600 experts, you can do your own investigation. Gage is only able to get 300,000 dollar by fooling people not much money to more than pay yourself, make up silly presentation to fool more people all over the world, and travel all over the world, something that costs AE 23,000 dollars. What would you do to survive in these times? If you could set up a web site, give presentations, make 70k, and travel on funds from AE to the tune of 23,000 dollars, would you be willing to spread delusions about 911? You can't get work in your field, would you lie to make money? Gage is either a liar, or dirt dumb stupid. Take your pick, they both have the same outcome, Gage is spreading crazy claims he cherry picked from 911 truth.

In the video people fail to understand simile. Gage's video talks of explosions, and many of those explosions were bodies hitting the ground. Your research is so shallow and failed, you have no clue Gage is using dead bodies hitting the ground as evidence for explosives. You failed big time signing up for Gage's fraud. Why is your name removed?

If I thought 911 was an inside job like you do, I would have solved it in the first years after 911. And if I had all the evidence you claim to have, I would be famous with a Pulitzer Prize. This is murder we are talking about and you are doing what for 10 years? Right, nothing, save signing a petition put up by a fraud on 911 issues, someone who found a fringe group and makes money from people too lazy to research 911.

Gage's scam survives due to ignorace.

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
How much research have you done? What is your take on Flight 93? On 77?
What does Gage's failed group say about 93 and 77? Why are they unable to tie 911 into a reality based story? Do you care that gravity is the primary energy source in controlled demolitions, E=mgh is the primary source of energy used to destroy buildings, so 911 gravity collapses don't look like CD, CDs look like gravity collapses. There are zero experts on demolition in 911 truth because all reality based experts understand 911 given the real evidence. Gage's vapor evidence does not work in the real world.

Please take the time to watch your super video, and list all the evidence you have. Your list will be zero. Start a thread and list your evidence, it will be empty. Why are you doing nothing when you have all this super evidence? What is holding you back from taking action? Where did you go?

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
"If you're not willing to do the research into 911, then keep your mouth shut"
Right back at you. Read all the references, come back next year when you are finished reading NIST and all the references here.
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18 (http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18)
I try to not sign anything until I research it. Don't sign sidewalk petitions unless you are up to speed. Have you read NIST? How can you sign Gage's petition if you have not read the hundreds of investigation papers already done?

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18 (http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18)
"If you're not willing to do the research into 911, then keep your mouth shut"
You said it first; have you read all you can read on 911? If you have and you comprehend what you read, then you can't support Gage.

[Minadin]

How many are even *aware* that AE911Truth exists?

In the last 3 years, Bigfoot discussions outnumber 9/11 discussions, by about 12 to 0, at least in my office.

[ElMondoHummus]

In the last 3 years, Bigfoot discussions outnumber 9/11 discussions, by about 12 to 0, at least in my office.
Man, your office has got a lot of woo believers, talkin' about bigfoot all the time! :D;):p

:boxedin:

[BasqueArch]

You are keeping your mind shut to the truth, you let in lies and delusions, you have no intention of investigating 911 past what you are feed by Gage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

lw-jzCfa4eQ
It makes me sick to watch Gage lie and fool people too challenged to be skeptical and see through his lies. What does it take to be weak and not check out Gage's claims? Gage's has done zero research. Gage cherry-picked existing 911 truth claims and formed a presentation with the goal of nothing. He has no goal. When you supposedly have 1600 experts, you can do your own investigation. Gage is only able to get 300,000 dollar by fooling people not much money to more than pay yourself, make up silly presentation to fool more people all over the world, and travel all over the world, something that costs AE 23,000 dollars. What would you do to survive in these times? If you could set up a web site, give presentations, make 70k, and travel on funds from AE to the tune of 23,000 dollars, would you be willing to spread delusions about 911? You can't get work in your field, would you lie to make money? Gage is either a liar, or dirt dumb stupid. Take your pick, they both have the same outcome, Gage is spreading crazy claims he cherry picked from 911 truth.

In the video people fail to understand simile. Gage's video talks of explosions, and many of those explosions were bodies hitting the ground. Your research is so shallow and failed, you have no clue Gage is using dead bodies hitting the ground as evidence for explosives. You failed big time signing up for Gage's fraud. Why is your name removed?

If I thought 911 was an inside job like you do, I would have solved it in the first years after 911. And if I had all the evidence you claim to have, I would be famous with a Pulitzer Prize. This is murder we are talking about and you are doing what for 10 years? Right, nothing, save signing a petition put up by a fraud on 911 issues, someone who found a fringe group and makes money from people too lazy to research 911.

Gage's scam survives due to ignorace.

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
How much research have you done? What is your take on Flight 93? On 77?
What does Gage's failed group say about 93 and 77? Why are they unable to tie 911 into a reality based story? Do you care that gravity is the primary energy source in controlled demolitions, E=mgh is the primary source of energy used to destroy buildings, so 911 gravity collapses don't look like CD, CDs look like gravity collapses. There are zero experts on demolition in 911 truth because all reality based experts understand 911 given the real evidence. Gage's vapor evidence does not work in the real world.

Please take the time to watch your super video, and list all the evidence you have. Your list will be zero. Start a thread and list your evidence, it will be empty. Why are you doing nothing when you have all this super evidence? What is holding you back from taking action? Where did you go?

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
"If you're not willing to do the research into 911, then keep your mouth shut"
Right back at you. Read all the references, come back next year when you are finished reading NIST and all the references here.
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18 (http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18)
I try to not sign anything until I research it. Don't sign sidewalk petitions unless you are up to speed. Have you read NIST? How can you sign Gage's petition if you have not read the hundreds of investigation papers already done?

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18 (http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18)
"If you're not willing to do the research into 911, then keep your mouth shut"
You said it first; have you read all you can read on 911? If you have and you comprehend what you read, then you can't support Gage.
.
Pretty good post as usual, nothing but facts. Beachnut posts facts which knock Believers down but they zombie-up and shake themselves off as if nothing had happened. Can't argue with facts, though.

Delusions vs facts, facts always come out on top. Can't fool nature.

Will we lose our nerve to the barbarians at the gate, or not. The delusional can lemming off the cliffs, no pity from me or nature. I just hope they don't drag my society, family, friends down with them.

[Demo Expert]

No. The studies were conducted to find a failure scenario that fits the assumption of fire-induced collapse. No other potential causes or mechanisms were studied, despite unanswered questions from the FEMA investigation, wide reports on the day itself of explosions in the buildings, speculation that secondary devices had been planted, and later public criticism from fire engineers of a fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Among many others.

While I think you are right, I do not know of any studies, outside ae911truth, that looked at nuclear weapons, energy beams, missiles, fire proof explosives.

The widespread reports of explosions are bogus as you know, and exist in any large fire. And alos things falling from height make noise like explosives.

However what was interesting in all the fire studies was that the experts new of this criticism and of the crazy theories yet none of them found any need to explain the collapse except by fire.

You are nuts to assume that these experts had no integrity and were paid off to come to their conclusions. Grow up

[NoahFence]

Grow up

That'll happen... :rolleyes:

[Demo Expert]

Hi - I'm the Andrew Kittross you mention in your post. When I tried to sign the peition as an engineer, the ae911truth people were very strict about how they judged my qualifications. I had to speak to them on the phone personally. They didn't care how many mechanical engineering courses I took. Since I wasn't a structural engineer or architect, they rejected me from the main signers pool. My name, and I assume the others you mention, are clearly relegated to an "associate" category of supporters, not the main architects and engineers.

You must be really desperate to discredit ae911truth to blatently misrepresent their claims like that.

Ha Ha that's hillarious,

When people hear that 1600 "architect and engineering professionals" have signed the ae911truth petition; don't you think that people expect these people to have some expertiese in tall buildings or structural engineering. So don't you think that being a Computer and Electrical Engineer, like you is an attempt by ae911truth, to deliberately mislead the public and pretend that more qualified people and experts have signed their petition than actually have?

[NoahFence]

Ha Ha that's hillarious,

When people hear that 1600 "architect and engineering professionals" have signed the ae911truth petition; don't you think that people expect these people to have some expertiese in tall buildings or structural engineering. So don't you think that being a Computer and Electrical Engineer, like you is an attempt by ae911truth, to deliberately mislead the public and pretend that more qualified people and experts have signed their petition than actually have?

I know you're new here, so I'll let it pass for now. If there's one iron-clad fact of life, it's that AE911 truth would never mislead, lie, exaggerate, omit important facts, or steal from the (mentally) poor.

;)

[ProBonoShill]

While I think you are right, I do not know of any studies, outside ae911truth, that looked at nuclear weapons, energy beams, missiles, fire proof explosives.

The widespread reports of explosions are bogus as you know, and exist in any large fire. And alos things falling from height make noise like explosives.

However what was interesting in all the fire studies was that the experts new of this criticism and of the crazy theories yet none of them found any need to explain the collapse except by fire.

You are nuts to assume that these experts had no integrity and were paid off to come to their conclusions. Grow up

Ergo hasn't come to terms with his delusions yet, so that might take awhile.


Amyway, welcome aboard Demo Expert, glad to have you.