AE911 Truth Fails, Again
The Troofers were all excited that they got a vote held at the Americans Institute of Architects annual meeting, unfortunately it failed by the overwhelming vote of 3,892 to 160. AE911 Truth claims over 100 of their members are in the AIA, which means that they barely managed to get votes from any other architects at all.
posted by James B. @ 4:36 PM
126 comments
126 Comments:
So James, what is your takeaway from this vote?
AE911Truth claims that they got 150 new signatures from AIA members on the petition, and that 7 of them were AIA Fellows. That brings the number of AIA Fellows who have signed to something like 18.
New computer models of the collapses of the towers and WTC7 are inevitable, as now almost every engineering school in the world has computer power exceeding that available to NIST in their investigations.
Great! Surely AE911Truth can actually get a critique or alternative theory published in any real journal on the planet. It's only been about a decade now.
The best part of this fiasco now is how all the truther pages are bending over backwards to make excuses for such a dismal failure. Nothing you couldn't easily see in advance.
The AIA is being political!
The vote was fixed!
The AIA is in on it!
Anything and everything to avoid the most likely explanation; that truthers are crackpots.
"...vote of 3,892 to 160. AE911 Truth claims over 100 of their members are in the AIA, which means that they barely managed to get votes from any other architects at all."
James, I think you have a couple of minor misconceptions about the vote and who/what the 160 "yes" votes are:
1. Vote was taken be delegates mostly representing AIA chapters (and some representing the national organization). We don't know if any AE911Truthers were delegates of any AIA chapter and thus had a chance to vote. Most, perhaps all, of Gage's >100 signers surely were not delegates and could not vote themselves. It follows that many, perhaps all, "yes" votes were likely made by non-"member" of the Gage cult.
2. "Votes" is not the same as "voters". Each Chapter has some number of votes to cast based on their relative number of AIA members. Each chapter also names or more delegates, and distributes their assigned votes to those delegates. So a Chapter that has 12 votes may send 1 delegate who casts 12 votes, or 4 delegates who cast 3 votes each, etc. I am fairly certain that the result of 160:3,892 "votes" is really votes, not persons. I read somewhere that there were 300 delegates. This would mean that 160 "yes" votes may have been cast by six or seven delegates only.
This comment has been removed by the author.
@ snug.bug
"AE911Truth claims that they got 150 new signatures from AIA members on the petition, and that 7 of them were AIA Fellows. That brings the number of AIA Fellows who have signed to something like 18."
And this (if true) is relevant - how? (currently 7 FAIA signers, by the way. + 7 = 14)
I seriously doubt this "150 new signatures" shit. That's almost 50% of the number of licensed architects that signed the petition in over 8 years. I think they claim this now for a short term PR effect and hope no one will follow up the claim - but I will! ;)
"New computer models of the collapses of the towers and WTC7 are inevitable, as now almost every engineering school in the world has computer power exceeding that available to NIST in their investigations."
AE911Truth has announced as their first order of business in their "ambitious 2015 agenda" that they will indeed do their own FEA model of WTC7. To which I say: More power to them!
Strangely, they are not calling for donations towards that project. I am fairly certain that they merely know some truthers who are doing this for free, so Gage can hop on the bandwagon. But ... whatever floats their boat.
So James, what is your takeaway from this vote?
AE911Truth claims that they got 150 new signatures from AIA members on the petition, and that 7 of them were AIA Fellows. That brings the number of AIA Fellows who have signed to something like 18.
New computer models of the collapses of the towers and WTC7 are inevitable, as now almost every engineering school in the world has computer power exceeding that available to NIST in their investigations.
Nothing like a Truther in denial. So much for "The majority of architects silently support the truth!"
You underestimate them, Joe. I've seen truthers all over the place making excuses about how the vote was rigged, or they simply did it for political reasons.
Yeah, you're probably right. Regardless I'd imagine the truther members would be more activist and be overrepresented. Pathetic representation regardless.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph, I never said that the majority of architects support the truth. This is America. The majority of architects support their pocketbook.
Still, I bet you can not name more than one architect (free of conflicts of interest)who publicly supports NIST's collapse sequence and I bet you can't name even one engineer (free of conflicts of interest)who publicly supports NIST's collapse sequence.
Oh and what ever became of Guitar Bill with his colorful and esoteric sexual vocabulary and his doubtful claims about his educational credentials? And what about Willie Rodriguez who ran away screaming and crying after I exposed his hero story as a fraud?
what ever became of Guitar Bill with his colorful and esoteric sexual vocabulary and his doubtful claims about his educational credentials?
He went on with his life..
And what about Willie Rodriguez who ran away screaming and crying after I exposed his hero story as a fraud?
He also moved on with his life.
And he is a very well respected member of society, which allows him to give speeches at memorials of 911 with (former) presidents in the audience..
I bet you can not name more than one architect (free of conflicts of interest)
Of course, you need that disclaimer in order to avoid any architect supporting the nist report from surfacing....
who publicly supports NIST's collapse sequence and I bet you can't name even one engineer (free of conflicts of interest)who publicly supports NIST's collapse sequence.
I can name one: doctor Dutch.
But like any other engineer or architect supporting the NIST report: he moved on with his life.
But that is all besides the point.
The point is that a fast majority of the AIA architects do not support the call for a new investigation.
New computer models of the collapses of the towers and WTC7 are inevitable, as now almost every engineering school in the world has computer power exceeding that available to NIST in their investigations.
So the whole call for a new investigstion is m00t, as any third party is now capable of doing their own research.
Care to explain why we have not seen a single computer model from AE911truth?
There already are several computer models of the collapses of the twin towers and wtc7 available on youtube. But all from home students using their own pc, none of AE911truth.
“We are a professional – not a political – organization. But in this case, if we vote “no” on this resolution, we are making a political decision, not a professional one. Thank you very much.” – Daniel Barnum, FAIA, AE911Truth Board of Directorsi"
An interesting statement, as it reveals that Barnum is aware of the fact that he does not have a strong case. So he tries to mark the voters that will vote against his resolution.
It is good to see that they didn't fall for that and voted against him anyway.
We can always rely on th for a goofy inference based on no information.
What exactly about Mr. Barnum's case was not strong?
What makes you think Willie R. has gone on with his life? He maintains his website and his Youtube page. I bet it's hard for him to get a janitorial job because you have to trust your janitors--you leave them alone in the place with the keys after all.
You can not name any architect free of conflicts of interest who supports NIST's collapse sequence. How does my challenge prevent them from surfacing? What's the logic of that?
Who is Dr. Dutch and when did he endorxe NIST's collapse sequence?
How do you know the vast majority of architects do not support a new investigation? Where are your data on that? If Oystein can be believed, the voting at the AIA convention was done by delegates and not by individual members. 150 individual members signed the petition at the convention.
What makes you think Willie R. has gone on with his life?
He maintains his website and his Youtube page.
And what is wrong with that?
I bet...
You can bet all you want, brian. Fact is that you don't have a janitor job at the moment, while Willy can be seen in the precense of (former) presidents...
I don't think it is very hard to figure out who is more likely a candidate for a job, you or him.
You can not name any architect free of conflicts of interest who supports NIST's collapse sequence.
I know, which is why you put in that safe guard. Any architect i mention will be waved away by you, you will make up any conflict of interest in order to do so.
How does my challenge prevent them from surfacing? What's the logic of that?
I know that logic is not something you can grasp, Brian..
Who is Dr. Dutch and when did he endorxe NIST's collapse sequence?
He endorsed the collapse sequence in his rebuttal of Judy Woods her hypothesis. He had written several papers on it.
But of course, he moved on, the site is no longer available.
How do you know the vast majority of architects do not support a new investigation?
See the article.
Where are your data on that?
See the article.
If Oystein can be believed, the voting at the AIA convention was done by delegates and not by individual members.
if this, if that...
why don't you stick to the facts in stead?
150 individual members signed the petition at the convention.
only 150, which proves that the fast majority does not support a new investigation.
Face it Brian, you cannot twist this one.
AE took a gamble and lost: it now written in black and white that the majority of architects don't endorse a new investigation.
D. Allan Firmage
Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU
publicly supported the NIST findings..
Go ahead, Brian.
Demean him as quickly as possible.
What exactly about Mr. Barnum's case was not strong?
Everything, as we all very well know that AE911truth does not have a case at all and are distorting facts to make it look like they have a case.
But AIA cannot be fooled that easy, and voted against it.
Forman Williams, professor of engineering, University of California, San Diego
Publicly endorsed the NIST findings..
Hurry brian, demean him before the word gets out...
Funny, I wonder why Gage was not aware that most architects are more concerned with their pockets, and instead believed the vote was a viable option. But surely Brian knows all too well the inner workings of most architects.
Like I said, truthers are just busy making excuses. Nothing new.
th, when did Dr. Forman Williams and Dr. Firmage endorse NIST's collapse sequence?
Who is Dr. Dutch and when did he endorse NIST's collapse sequence? You did not answer the question.
Where in the article does it say that the vast majority of architects do not support a new investigation?
What exactly about Mr. Barnum's case was not strong? You didn't answer the question. You don't even know what Mr. Barnum's case was.
GMS, architects' bread and butter depends on their affiliations with powerful institutions. There's not a lot of money in designing shacks for homeless people.
So, basically, Brian wants failed architects who have accomplished nothing in his list of people who accept the NIST report. Anyone who has designed more than "shacks for homeless people" is rejected.
The problem, of course, is that Brian is a worthless sex stalker and liar who was banned from the truth movement, and thus, nobody cares what he wants.
And you'll all notice that he's not asking about independent engineers, since I've humiliated him so many times by citing Uncle Steve.
Hey Brian, since it's been a while since we've been able to post here, I haven't told you about the poetry slam contest I won. I wrote a poem about you, and it was a big hit with the audience after I explained that you are a racist, sexist liar who stalks people on the internet.
This is the poem:
There are no widows, there are no questions
There are no widows, there are no questions
There are no widows, there are no questions
Brian Good wears women's underwear
There are no widows, there are no questions
There are no widows, there are no questions
There are no widows, there are no questions
Brian Good sniffs glue
There are no widows, there are no questions
There are no widows, there are no questions
There are no widows, there are no questions
Brian Good has no job and lives with his parents
There are no widows, there are no questions
There are no widows, there are no questions
There are no widows, there are no questions
Brian Good steals his clothes from the Goodwill dumpster
th, when did Dr. Forman Williams and Dr. Firmage endorse NIST's collapse sequence?
Why is that relevant?
You said no one could name even one, i named three.
Who is Dr. Dutch and when did he endorse NIST's collapse sequence? You did not answer the question.
Yes i did, he is an engineer who endorsed NIST findings in his rebuttal of Judy Woods hypothesis.
You know when Woods came with those hypotheses so you can figure out easily when dr Dutch published his rebuttal.
Where in the article does it say that the vast majority of architects do not support a new investigation?
3,892 to 160 as you can read yourself.
Sorry Brian: you loose.
What exactly about Mr. Barnum's case was not strong?
Everything.
You don't even know what Mr. Barnum's case was.
Yes i do.
There's not a lot of money in designing shacks for homeless people.
You should know, as you live in one.
While Willy.....
But lets not rub that in...
He maintains his website and his Youtube page.
last uploaded video on his youtube is 4 years old :o)
Yeah, Rodriguez is still stuck in the truther movement :o)
Face it Brian: he moved on, you did not.
We are a professional – not a political – organization.
That is laughable, 9/11 twoof has always and only been political from the git-go. Their ideology is anti-Americanism which they attempt to dress up with pseudoscience.
Offtopic: bin Laden was reading David Ray Griffin.
I wonder if Brian's related to Forrest Gump.
@ snug.bug "If Oystein can be believed, the voting at the AIA convention was done by delegates and not by individual members."
You don't have to trust me, just go to the AIA webbsite, find your way to the 2015 Convention, there to the Business Meeting, and eventually the official delegates' handbook which explains voting procedures,for example that AIA chapters have a number of votes, and these votes are distributed among the delegates representing the chapter:
http://convention.aia.org/Assets/Content/doc/Yellow%20Book%20rev%204.23.2015.pdf
"150 individual members signed the petition at the convention."
I would bet serious money against this claim. Perhaps they put 150 names down, perhaps 150 email addresses for the newsletter. As far as petition signers are concerned: They currently have 2354 signers total, of these, 338 are "licensed architects". To be a full member of the AIA you need to be a licensed architect. 150 new signers would mean that within the next weeks, while Gage's team is verifying credentials, the number of licensed architicts should increase by (almost) 150, right? I monitor this, and I swear it's not gonna happen.
GMS, architects' bread and butter depends on their affiliations with powerful institutions. There's not a lot of money in designing shacks for homeless people.
Then I wonder why Gage would even bother. Seems you know his own field better than he does. Can't imagine another explanation.
GMS, Mr. Gage has managed to gather signatures from 2500 architects and engineers who have at sacrifice to themselves placed a greater value on truth than on their economic position.
Given that nobody here can name even one engineer free of conflicts of interest who will endorse NIST's collapse sequence, Mr. Gage's roster of supporters is quite impressive.
I see Lyin Ian has decided to gift us with more of his lying iananity.
Cons Demo, the laws of thermodynamics are not pseudo-science.
GMS, Mr. Gage has managed to gather signatures from 2500 architects and engineers who have at sacrifice to themselves placed a greater value on truth than on their economic position.
Which proves even more that AE has no case according to AIA.
Given that nobody here can name even one engineer free of conflicts of interest who will endorse NIST's collapse sequence
I named a few, but of course you decide to ignore that.
Which is why in 2015, 14 years after the event, the truther movement hasn't made any progress at all.
You are to blame, Brian...
the laws of thermodynamics are not pseudo-science.
True, but besides the point.
The point is that you are using pseudo-science.
And you try to hide that...
th, your ideas about proof are quite childish.
Hint: opinions are justified or supported, not proven. Facts are proven.
You named some engineers, but you did not cite any statements on their part endorsing NIST's collapse sequence.
Hint: Saying that conspiracy theories are stupid is not endorsing NIST's collapse sequence.
I am not using any pseudo-science, th. You are very confuwed.
It's amusing that AE911truth watered down the language in their resolution in an attempt to broaden their support -- no mention of controlled demolition, explosives, thermite, -- and still only got a measly 4% of the vote.
BTW, the votes were not public, were they? How would voting for the resolution affect the architects' pocketbooks?
It is extremely rare that architects and engineers have either reason or occasion to make a public statement defending a report, but...
"I support the general conclusions of the NIST report."
--Leslie Robertson, structural engineer, Twin Towers.
And before anyone whines about "conflict of interest"... It would certainly be AGAINST Robertson's interest to cover up the sabotage of the building he helped design. He would not want saboteurs to get away with making his buildings look less safe, less robust, less fire-resistant than they actually were.
"We believe that the NIST investigation and the resulting NIST report are valid and credible."
—Marvin J. Malecha, FAIA, President, American Institute of Architects (AIA).
Engineers Gian-Luca F. Porcari, Ehab Zalok, and Waleed Mekky wrote that the WTC7 collapse happened the way NIST said it happened:
Porcari G-LF et al. Fire induced progressive collapse of steel building structures: A review of the mechanisms. Engineering Structures (2014)
"Similarly, the collapse of the World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) was initiated by the buckling of a critical column which resulted in the global collapse of the building [1,2]. The buckling of the critical column was precipitated by a series of smaller failures within the floor structure in the areas around the critical column [1,2]. These failures left the critical column unsupported for many floors and consequently buckling failure occurred [1,2]. The failures occurred at critical structural temperatures around 400°C [1,2]. A significant cause of the structural system failure was determined to be the large thermal expansion of the long-span floor systems causing significant forces at the structural joints as well as sagging of main members [1,2]. Buckling of a column during a fire scenario leads to transferring of the load to the adjacent structure through the floor framing structure to the surrounding columns. If the columns are compromised due to fire exposure or if the ambient load ratio is too high such that there is insufficient reserve capacity, then a progressive collapse is likely to occur due the dynamic process of load-shedding from failed columns [42]."
You named some engineers, but you did not cite any statements on their part endorsing NIST's collapse sequence.
Uncle Steve endorses the collapse sequence, Brian.
You fail again. Just like you've failed at everything for 4 decades. That's why you have no job, no friends, no life, no decent haircut, and spend all your time posting hysterical spam about long-dead conspiracy nonsense everywhere.
Take it from a smart, successful professional like me. Seek professional help.
Pes, according to the Convention Yellow Book, the resolution voting was normally done by roll call vote.
Leslie Robertson's firm had a contract with NIST. He thus has a major conflict of interest. It would be highly unprofessional of him to criticize the NIST report.
The point is that only about 20 engineers in the word can be found who express confidence in NIST's collapse sequence, and every single one of them has professional ties to NIST.
Individual members of the AIA work with and cooperate with NIST all the time. Thus a president of the AIA can hardly be expected to criticize NIST. If Martin Malecha is the only architect you can find who overtly endorses the NIST report you're proving my point.
Since Mr. Porcari's paper is hidden behind a pay wall there is no way for me to verify that he said what you say he said and no way to check the context. I'm looking for a public endorsement of NIST's theories, and your need to cite such an obscure statement is once again proving my point.
Ianinny, there is no reason to give your anecdote about your "Uncle Steve" any more credence than any of your other lies deserve.
Without a full name there is no way I can confirm that your Uncle Steve exists, that he is an engineer, and that he is free of conflicts of interest with NIST.
The fact that you must resort to citing unverifiable experts proves my point that you can not name an engineer, free of conflicts of interest, who will publicly endorse NIST's collapse sequence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pest, the authors of your paper have some interesting connections.
Emad Zalok participated in a NIST-funded study entititled
"Structural Fire Resistance Experimental Research -
Priority Needs of U.S. Industry
"Final Report Prepared for the Engineering Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Grant #60NANB10D181"
The credits note "input and guidance" from John Gross, one of the lead authors of the NIST report.
At the conference, Dr. Zalok participated in a breakout session attended also by Dr. Terry McAllister, a close associate of Dr. Gross and another author of the NIST reports.
Another author of your paper, Dr. Waleed Mekky, had been employed by an outfit called AMEC. Preliminary research indicates that AMEC did the wiring in WTC7 and was a named defendant in a lawsuit alleging defective design and construction throughout most of WTC7, and they also handled the most sensitive part of the WTC7 cleanup (the NE corner) and hired known mob associates to do the work. AMEC also seems to have been associated with the construction work on the wing of the Pentagon that was attacked on 9/11.
So you're free to debunk this AMEC stuff if you can--it's all news to me, and no skin off my nose if you do--but I think I have provided enough material to destroy your claim that your Porcari paper is free of conflicts of interest.
You are of course welcome to try again to name a statement endorsing the NIST collapse sequence made by someone free of conflicts of interest with NIST.
Thanks for the research leads, by the way.
You named some engineers, but you did not cite any statements on their part endorsing NIST's collapse sequence.
You asked for engineers, i named them.
You did not ask for statements.
you loose.
Hint: Saying that conspiracy theories are stupid is not endorsing NIST's collapse sequence.
A bogus hint, as you already acknowledged that i did not post statements of those engineers.
I am not using any pseudo-science
Yes you do, as has been noticed by several other people on this blog.
@pestarzt:
as expected, Brian ignores the engineers that he cannot demean and tries to demean the ones he thinks he can...
This comment has been removed by the author.
I "loose" again. 'Nuf said.
Ianinny, there is no reason to give your anecdote about your "Uncle Steve" any more credence than any of your other lies deserve.
Without a full name there is no way I can confirm that your Uncle Steve exists, that he is an engineer, and that he is free of conflicts of interest with NIST.
The fact that you must resort to citing unverifiable experts proves my point that you can not name an engineer, free of conflicts of interest, who will publicly endorse NIST's collapse sequence.
Brian, Uncle Steve has endorsed the collapse sequence. Squealing hysterically about it doesn't change the fact that I've pwn3d you again.
Pest, the authors of your paper have some interesting connections.
Emad Zalok participated in a NIST-funded study entititled
"Structural Fire Resistance Experimental Research -
Priority Needs of U.S. Industry
"Final Report Prepared for the Engineering Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Grant #60NANB10D181"
The credits note "input and guidance" from John Gross, one of the lead authors of the NIST report.
At the conference, Dr. Zalok participated in a breakout session attended also by Dr. Terry McAllister, a close associate of Dr. Gross and another author of the NIST reports.
Another author of your paper, Dr. Waleed Mekky, had been employed by an outfit called AMEC. Preliminary research indicates that AMEC did the wiring in WTC7 and was a named defendant in a lawsuit alleging defective design and construction throughout most of WTC7, and they also handled the most sensitive part of the WTC7 cleanup (the NE corner) and hired known mob associates to do the work. AMEC also seems to have been associated with the construction work on the wing of the Pentagon that was attacked on 9/11.
So you're free to debunk this AMEC stuff if you can--it's all news to me, and no skin off my nose if you do--but I think I have provided enough material to destroy your claim that your Porcari paper is free of conflicts of interest.
You are of course welcome to try again to name a statement endorsing the NIST collapse sequence made by someone free of conflicts of interest with NIST.
Thanks for the research leads, by the way.
Wow, Brian, all this effort and you're still a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and has a hideous homeless mullet!
I "loose" again. 'Nuf said.
Yes, brian, you lose again. You've been losing for 40 years. That's why you have no job, no friends, no family, can't afford a decent haircut, can't get a single question from the widows answered, can't get a new investigation, and can't get "meatball on a fork" published in a journal.
And of course, you were banned from the truth movement.
If I were as much of a pathetic failure at life as you are, I guess I'd desperately cling to typos as some sort of victory. But I'm a success in life. Now I'm off to work. I'll let the others here humiliate you more while I'm busy doing important things from my office down by Wall St.
He is confuwed. Nuff said
Ianinny, your persistent interest in fantasizing about my underwear is noted.
Shamrock, literate people can read typos because they make a lot of them. Illiterates get confused by "confuwed".
In any case none of you here can name even one engineer demonstrably free of conflicts of interest who is willing to stick his neck out and endorse NIST's collapse sequence. Contrast that with 2500 architects and engineers calling for new investigations of 9/11.
Glass house JACKWAD.
And why would any engineer need stick hi neck out. Nist is not the Black and Tans you fool.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Has your professional reputation been sullied as a result of your questioning what can only be described is as the gestapo of the engineering community?
Brian, according to the AIA 2015 Convention website, "All voting is conducted by electronic keypad, except for voting on resolutions of appreciation or as otherwise permitted by the Institute's Bylaws."
The individual votes are not public. If you believe otherwise, please show me the list of who voted "yes" and "no" on that resolution. You can't. So your notion that the delegates voted 96% to 4% to "support their pocketbook" is nonsense.
To a normal-thinking person, Malecha's position as president of the AIA would lend more, not less, weight to his statement -- but Brian creatively turns Malecha's top rank into a liability. Not that Brian would accept a statement from any other architect: he's already said that the majority of them (presumably 96%) harbor a conflict of interest in the form of their pocketbooks.
To a normal-thinking person, the fact that outside firms and experts worked closely with NIST on the investigations would dispel notions of a NIST conspiracy. But to Brian, these outsiders are not to be trusted, because... they worked with NIST! Gotta love the circularity of his reasoning.
So how many studies has Zalok "participated" in? Hundreds? Oh, boy, one of them was funded by NIST -- Obviously, he's in on it.
"Dr. Zalok participated in a breakout session attended also by Dr. Terry McAllister" -- Wow. Two experts in the same field once attended the same conference. Stinks to high heaven!
Why would Mekky's employment at AMEC give him a conflict of interest regarding the NIST report?
You came up with nothing regarding Porcari. Hey, maybe he ordered a reference book from NIST once...
More statements below, to be followed by more excuses from Brian...
The World Trade Center 9/11 Disaster and Progressive Collapse of Tall Buildings
Fire Technology, 49, 741–765, 2013
Panagiotis Kotsovinos and Asif Usmani, School of Engineering, The University of Edinburgh
The FEMA report and Quintiere et al. studied the large deflections that were developed in the composite floor during the fire but did not present a clearly defined collapse mechanism. Usmani et al. and the NIST report identified that the instability that triggered the collapse was not from the aircraft damage or connection failure but from the interactions between the fire and the structure. NIST focused on reproducing the specific sequence of events and attempted to carry out a coupled analysis as far as possible, as advocated recently by Baum [14]. In contrast to this, Usmani et al. concentrated on the vulnerabilities of the particular structural form, not including the aircraft damage but concentrating on the fire-structure interactions for a large range of parameterised temperature evolutions, in terms of growth rate, magnitude and spread. In both sets of studies a consistent global collapse mechanism where the perimeter columns were pulled in was found. NIST demonstrated that this sequence of events was in accordance with the photographic evidence.
Colin G. Bailey
"I have been a practicing structural engineer for 22 years and I am presently a Professor of Structural Engineering at Manchester University in Manchester, England."
"The computer modeling completed to date supports the conclusion that 7WTC would have collapsed as a result of typical office contents fires because of several design/construction failures, including the failure to adequately fireproof the flutes of the metal floor decking for 7WTC and the failure to ensure that a restrained floor system was constructed."
"Because of the building’s lack of structural integrity, an initial localized failure at column 79 precipitated a global collapse of the building."
Guy Nordenson
"I am a professor of architecture and structural engineering at Princeton University and a practicing structural engineer in New York City. I am a licensed Civil and Structural Engineer in California and a licensed Professional Engineer in New York State as well as other states. Among my specialties are tall building structural design, earthquake engineering and the analysis and design of special structures."
"Based upon the work performed by Colin G. Bailey, which I have reviewed, the failure to adequately fireproof the flutes of the metal decking of WTC7, and the failure to ensure that a restrained floor system was constructed, would have initiated the collapse sequence of WTC7 from an ordinary office contents fire, along the column line of Columns 79, 80, and 81, likely at Column 79, between the ninth and thirteenth floors.
Because of the very large open floor bays supported by Column 79, a local floor failure near Column 79 between the ninth and thirteen floors would lead to a collapse of the floors adjacent Column 79, at least to the fifth floor, if not all the way to the ground. That collapse would destabilize Column 79 and then Column 80 as a result of their inadequate lateral bracing. This behavior was evident by the sinking of the east penthouse below the roofline along the column line of Columns 79, 80 and 81."
The question isn't why would any engineer need to stick his neck out. The question is why WON'T they stick their necks out. Some people here have claimed that no one bothers to defend the NIST report because the truth needs no defense. That claim is ridiculous because people defend the laws of physics in high schools and college classrooms all over the world every day.
2500 architects and engineers have stuck their necks out and called for new investigations of 9/11. You can't name any engineers free of conflicts of interest who will endorse NIST's collapse sequence, and you can only name one architect who will do so--an architect who arguably had an enormous conflict of interest.
My professional reputation has certainly been sullied by liars like Guitar Bill and Ian and Willie Rodriguez and Kevin Barrett who have made repeated and even obsessive libelous claims on the internet about me.
What exactly is your professional reputation?
How are those 2500 professionals necks doing? Are they suffering as you claimed anyone's would be? If they aren't then the minuscule number can be explained by a more reasonable, common sense approach. One you clearly have no ability to see.
Pest, according to the Yellow Book the voting on resolutions is most often done by roll call. Electronic voting would not change that. If the voting was done by roll call, it would be public to the people who were in the room.
I never said that 90% of architects have a conflict of interest (such as professional ties to NIST). We could argue about whether Mr. Malecha's status as a former president of an organization that has clear professional ties to NIST presents a conflict of interest or not. I don't see why we should bother.
Your inability to provide a statement supportive of NIST's collapse sequence from any architect other than Mr. Malecha speaks for itself. Instead of acknowledging that fact and its implications, you seek to confuse the issue with irrelevancies.
Where do you get the idea that the participation of outsiders dispels concerns about NIST's unscientific, dishonest, and incomplete report? Why then has not one of these participants spoken out about the inadequacy of NIST's report?
Dr. Zalok's pareticipation in a NIST conference (very likely he was paid by NIST) in which two authors of the NIST reports participated is a conflict of interest. Your need to cite experts who have conflicts shows your inability to find experts who have no conflicts. Why is that?
Dr. Mekky's employment by a company so intimately associated with WTC7's construction, its rubble clean-up, and the construction work at the Pentagon represents a clear conflict of interest. Instead of quibbling about it, why don't you find another expert? Because you can't.
I don't need to come up with anything for Mr. Porcari. Two of your three experts have conflicts of interest. Your expert paper is thus tainted. Try again.
The question isn't a neck sticking out dilemma. That's your fantasy.
When the engineers from ACEC bestowed upon weidlinger their greatest achievement awArd, that seems like a whole lot of neck sticking out, if we are to believe that's what it took. Can't find any dismissing the gesture.
Pest, with respect to The World Trade Center 9/11 Disaster and Progressive Collapse of Tall Buildings, y9our paper is once again hidden behind a pay wall and I can not verify your quotation or check its context.
Perhaps you can explain the somewhat ambiguous language in the abstract that says "The simulations carried out are validated by comparisons with previous work and against the findings from the NIST investigation, albeit not in the forensic sense." It sounds like they are expressing disagreement with NIST.
Where does Dr. Colin Bailey endorse NIST's collapse sequence? He blames design and construction failures for the collapse of WTC7. NIST doesn't. Bailey claims the floors were inadequatelty fireproofed. How does he know? NIST doesn't claim that.
So Dr Bailey is sticking his neck out and disagreeing with nist? boy he sure is brave. Did he sign Gage's petition?
Pest, where does Mr. Guy Nordenson endorse NIST's collapse sequence? He seems to think faulty fireproofing caused the collapse. NIST does not say that.
Mr. Nordenson's criticism of the NIST investigation is quoted in a Scientific American article of August 31, 2011 called "Twin Towers Forensic Investigation Helps Revise Building Codes, Despite Critics"
"'The problem many have with the World Trade Center investigation is that it wasn't as open and not adequately peer reviewed, due in part to the veil of security concerns, so lots of people can disagree with the conclusions,'" Nordenson says. For instance, Nordenson himself is part of litigation suggesting the collapse of WTC 7 was not inevitable, but was due to design flaws in both the fire protection and some aspects of the structure."
So Mr. Nordenson not only disgrees with NIST, he criticizes them.
Pest, I hope you're not being paid for your very sloppy work.
So are you going to share what your professional reputation is? If it's been sullied then tell me what your professional reputation used to be.
So nordenson is putting his rep on the line and questioning the findings of the nist. Did he sign Gage's petition?
Seems like plenty of professionals can correctly and competently stick their necks out, something you claimed only 2500 brave A&E guys have done. Thanks for contradicting your entire premise. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
The question isn't why would any engineer need to stick his neck out.
Yes it is.
But since you cannot answer that question, you refuse to accept the question.
The question is why WON'T they stick their necks out.
The thread already mentioned several engineers that did support the nist report publicly.
so your claim that no one did is bogus.
Why then has not one of these participants spoken out about the inadequacy of NIST's report?
You have never been able to mention even one inadequacy of the nist report, so what is there to speak out about?
You also fail to mention why the report needs public support of others.
I don't see how voting by electronic keypad would be visible to others in the room. "Even though electronic voting is not specified as secret in the Bylaws, the confidentiality of electronic voting records has been observed by custom ever since its implementation several years ago." Electronic voting records = confidential. No more excuses for the 96% to 4% beatdown.
Nordenson and Bailey and others agree with NIST in the sense that they say local failures around Column 79 precipitated a global collapse of WTC7. I never said there wasn't some diversity of opinion about the details. Why shouldn't there be? But they clearly don't agree with you and your cult that a fire-induced collapse is against the laws of physics or other such nonsense.
TH, this is the evidence of an confused mind. I asked the question why would any engineer need stick his neck out. It was MY question. Brian changes the question to suit his lunacy because he can't answer it. Instead asking why haven't any stuck their neck out, not realizing that my question needs to be answered 1st. If he can't give any credible reason why millions of professionals would feel threatened critiquing a "dishonest" report his premise falls apart. The hilarious thing is he provides a couple of examples of PhD's who were critical of certain aspects of the report. He has no clue that if these guys have indeed criticized the report it dismisses the notion that engineers are afraid to "stick their neck out". The mentioned engineers aren't on Gages petition either. I guess in his diluted world of logic only those 2500 A&E guys are actually risking their reps.
GMS, Mr. Gage has managed to gather signatures from 2500 architects and engineers who have at sacrifice to themselves placed a greater value on truth than on their economic position.
Which in no way answers the question. You have a minute fraction of the people in the fields related to what is relevant to 9/11. There are similar lists for all kinds of crackpots. It wasn't impressive when it was less than a 1,000, it's not impressive now.
Given that nobody here can name even one engineer free of conflicts of interest who will endorse NIST's collapse sequence, Mr. Gage's roster of supporters is quite impressive.
Given that science is not done by making lists of people who agree with you, your point as usual is irrelevant. About 10 years and still not a single study showing their errors or an alternative explanation in a real journal anywhere on the planet. You would understand the importance of that if you had some literacy in science.
As usual, same excuses creationists give. Get over it Brian, your clown car failed spectacularly again.
GMS, compared to the fraction in the field who are willing to endorse the government reports, the 2500 architects and engineers for truth are a massive number. You can't name ONE engineer, free of conflicts of interest, who is willing to endorse NIST's collapse sequence. Pest tried, with extremely comical results.
There is no need for a scientific study to show that NIST's report is inadequate. NIST stated that they did not analyze the towers' collapses.
so there is no point in doing a new investigation, Brian..
Case closed, you loose...
"Pest tried, with extremely comical results."
...the comical results being your desperate excuses, most of all your awkwardly strained attempts at inventing "conflicts of interest."
So are you going to share what your professional reputation is? If it's been sullied then tell me what your professional reputation used to be.
He has no professional reputation. He failed out of San Jose State after sniffing too much glue back in the early 70s, and he's spent the last 40+ years unable to hold down a job as a janitor, security guard, construction worker because of severe mental illness.
GMS, compared to the fraction in the field who are willing to endorse the government reports, the 2500 architects and engineers for truth are a massive number.
Nobody cares about your tiny group of crackpots.
You can't name ONE engineer, free of conflicts of interest, who is willing to endorse NIST's collapse sequence.
False.
Pest tried, with extremely comical results.
False.
BTW, Brian, there was a teleconference meeting of all the leading truthers the other day in which they decided to officially declare you cointelpro (you, of course, were officially banned from the truth movement years ago). Among those voting "aye" on the "Brian Good is cointelpro" resolution were David Icke, Jim Marrs, Jeff Rense, Bill Deagle, Kevin Barrett, Judy Wood, Craig Ranke, Karl Schwarz, and Jim Fetzer.
So basically, every prominent truther considers you a liar who works for the government to discredit the truth movement. It's easy to understand why. If I were to try to discredit the truth movement, I'd portray all of their members as unemployed lunatic perverts. Plus, of the hundreds of thousands of pages of stoopid spam you've posted over the years, much of it was spent attacking the researchers above. Pretty convenient for the government to have a "truther" like you attacking the movement.
The logic thread
Brian Goode- no engineer is wiling to risk their reputation by questioning nist except for 2500 petition signers
Pest- here are two highly qualified engineers who ostensibly agree with nist
Brian Goode- no they don't. Here's where they differ.............
Shamrock- I thought you said no engineer is willing to stick their neck out and disagree with nist.
Brian Goode- "pest is comical"
Whole new depths of stupid.
And of course the cowardice
Brian Goode- no engineer is willing to risk their professional reputations by questioning nist
Shamrock- what is your professional reputation?
Playing in the background. "Hello darkness my old friend......."
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nordenson himself is part of litigation suggesting the collapse of WTC 7 was not inevitable, but was due to design flaws in both the fire protection and some aspects of the structure."
Brian is quoting a guy who thinks the bldg failed due to design flaws in fire protection and structure. Too feckin funny.
That and the fact he was willing to question certain aspects of nists study once again shows Brians ability to debunked his own previously stated beliefs.
That is what usually happens when you let a truther speak openly: he eventually starts debunking himself...
Pest, I don't need any desperate excuses. I can simply point out that you can not name one engineer free of professional conflicts of interest who is willing to endorse NIST's collapse sequence.
Your efforts to present experts who dispute NIST's collapse sequence and who consult for NIST are comical because they show your desperation and the extremely small pool you can draw from. Thanks for proving my point.
It was actually like a trap and he took the bait. I was debating some dope one time who claimed bldg 7 was a perfect implosion. I pointed out it did 6 billion in damage to nearby bldg, purposely exaggerating. They came back and said it only caused 2 billion in damage. He took the bait and defeated his own argument, just like Brian routinely does.
Shamrock, I never said no engineer is willing to stick his neck out and disagree with NIST. I said 2500 architects and engineers are willing to do so. Learn to read.
I said no engineer (free of professonal conflicts of interest) was willing to stick his neck out and AGREE with NIST. Learn to read.
You are the one who brought up Nordenson. He was YOUR expert. And when I checked him (which obviously you did not) I found that he disagreed with NIST's collapse sequence and had very serious criticism of NIST's investigation. So he proves my point, not yours.
You guys are so incompetent, you refute yourselves. All somebody has to do it point it out.
Shamrock, WTC7 did not do 6 billion in damage to adjacent buildings. Verizon chose to undertake a major infrastructure upgrade in conjunction with their repair to minor damage to the VZ building.
You guys labor to create an impression that the facts do not support.
I can read jackwad. Are the engineers pointed out to you on gages petition? If not, then your point about engineers afraid to stick their neck out is FALSE. now answer the question.
Nordenson proves you are wrong that no engineer is willing to stick his neck out save the 2500. Comprehension ain't your bag. He's further proof that there is ZERO risk to questioning NIST, something you continue to babble about.
Read the sentence about the damage bldg 7 did to nearby bldgs dopey. Learn to comprehend. You fell into the same trap I was referring too. Exaggerate the facts and watch a truther refute his previous held delusion. You fell into it perfectly with nordenson who question certain aspects of the report with no reprisals and no fear. That you babble about my learning to read is proof what a dolt you are.
So Brian, you refused to answer my question about what your professional reputation was before the guys on this forums destroyed it. Please tell me what it used to be. I'd love to know.
Also, has nordenson and the other engineers who were brought up to you on Gages petition or not. Simple yes or no question. Now answer it you coward!!
So the premise is everyone even remotely tied to the study would have a conflict with being truthful. Got it.
@brian:
which part of the word exaggerating did you not understand?
I said no engineer (free of professonal conflicts of interest) was willing to stick his neck out and AGREE with NIST
Several have been pointed out in the discussion, but you decided to ignore those in order to maintain your proposition and the disclaimer..
He thinks nordenson and the others who clearly don't think it was an inside job are with him because they disagree with certain aspects of the report. They have no clear ties to nist (not that that matters to anyone) and the HAVENT signed the petition. So while they don't agree with certain details of the exact conditions at initiation, they don't in any way suggest it was anything but fire.
The idiot aligned himself with nordenson who is part of a litigation team that claims the collapse was due to design flaws in fire protection and structure. You just can't make this stuff up.
Bad news, Brian. I spoke to my friend from college Carlos, who is an architect who has no ties to the NIST, given that he's not from the US. He designs highrises in cities like Guayaquil and Lima and Medellin. He endorses the NIST report.
You fail again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
GMS, compared to the fraction in the field who are willing to endorse the government reports, the 2500 architects and engineers for truth are a massive number.
Again, the studies are what matter, anyone literate in science knows this. There are dozens either confirming or supporting collapse by fire. That's how science works. The fact that you parade around your canard only illustrates not only your ignorance, but your desire to remains as such.
Again, doesn't matter. Repeating the same thing only proves your ignorance. Lists do not matter. Studies do. Hence why truthers hide from them.
There is no need for a scientific study to show that NIST's report is inadequate.
I guess that's why Jones, and the other so called scholars try mimic the behavior of actual scientists by making and publishing in fake journals; which Dickie Gage regularly refers to. Seems important enough to them.
Rambling on the internet and making lists of names is not science. The fact that you keep rambling like it does only proves how little you know about the academic world, as well as shows you're no better than creationists.
Shamrock, if you would check you would see that I said that no engineers are willing to stick their necks out and endorse NIST's collapse sequence for thew towers--except a very few who have obvious professional conflicts of interest with NIST.
The issue is not the parsing of the severity of the conflicts of the experts you cite. The issue is that you can't find an expert with no conflicts--which shows the shallow nature of the talent pool from which you must draw.
Ianinny, your belief that "my friend Carlos" can qualify as an expert only shows your lack of real-world expertise. Unless Carlos has a full name and a degree, your hearsay claims are meaningless.
Even if he gave a full name and degree, you would still not accept him, Brian.
As you have repeatedly shown in this discussion.
For whatever reason, your delusion has to stay alive...
GMS, dozens of studies confirming collapse by fire do not confirm NIST's collapse mechanism when they don't overtly do so.
If you had a case of an independent engineer overtly endorsing NIST's collapse sequence, I would expect you to cite it. You don't.
Dr. Jones published papers in an effort to show that the presence of 1,3 diphenylpropane was significant and in an effort to support his belief that red-gray chips found in the WTC rubble were evidence of the use of a highly-engineered nanotech incendiary product.
That has nothing to do with the fact that NIST's claim that they did not analyze the towers' collapses shows that their report is incomplete and inadequate.
th, your self-serving fortune-telling about what I am going to do only defeats your credibility.
Ianinny, your belief that "my friend Carlos" can qualify as an expert only shows your lack of real-world expertise. Unless Carlos has a full name and a degree, your hearsay claims are meaningless.
Carlos does have a full name and a degree. He endorses the NIST report.
You fail again.
Brian, at least I still have credibility to loose.
You have none, all you can do is post nonsense on a blog that is hostile towards you.
There is no other place for you to go.
GMS, dozens of studies confirming collapse by fire do not confirm NIST's collapse mechanism when they don't overtly do so.
They confirm collapse by fire, as does NIST. Sorry, these are facts. Your beliefs are nothing but fringe nonsense.
If you had a case of an independent engineer overtly endorsing NIST's collapse sequence, I would expect you to cite it. You don't.
Nor does it matter. Science is done in studies, not lists. Keep proving your illiteracy.
Dr. Jones published papers in an effort to show that the presence of 1,3 diphenylpropane was significant and in an effort to support his belief that red-gray chips found in the WTC rubble were evidence of the use of a highly-engineered nanotech incendiary product.
His nanotech studies were never published in real journals. He and Harrit's study reeks of academic fraud. But you know this.
That has nothing to do with the fact that NIST's claim that they did not analyze the towers' collapses shows that their report is incomplete and inadequate.
According to you and a fringe cult. No one cares.
Fact is Brian , truthers who actually know something about the academic world value peer review, hence why they try to emulate the process by duping illiterates like yourself.
Similarly Gage knows the AIA holds some weight and was reputable enough to put forward the resolution.
But I guess the opinion of a nobody is more important.
And I asked why would any need stick their neck out. A question you have yet to answer. I know why you won't answer but the funny thing is I don't think you know why you won't answer. Nordenson is proof of just how contorted you are trying to maintain a consistent, albeit dumb premise that only 2500 engineers have the balls to question the study. Nordenson proves it on every level. 1. He has no ties to nist and yet doesn't question what doomed the building. You asserted what his problem was with the study, which dismantles the premise of an inside job from a guy with no ties to nist. (He isn't the only one. And 2- there is no drama in questioning nist. No fear of job security or reputation. Just scientists doing what they do.
So your idiotic notion that only those with a conflict of interest is trumped by your own vetting about what the guy said and he proves it wouldn't be that big a deal to question nist.
Let me break it down for you. Nordenson doesn't think anything but fire brought down the bldg. He has no ties to nist and he isn't afraid to point out issues he has with the report.
Still won't share what your professional reputation was? Gee I wonder why.
Still won't share what your professional reputation was? Gee I wonder why.
He has no professional reputation. He's a failed janitor who lives with his parents because he was too incompetent to mop floors.
GMS, an assertion of collapse by fire that does not overtly endorse NIST's collapse sequence is not an overt endorsement of NIST's collapse sequence.
Your inability to find an overt endorsement of NIST's collapse sequence is the point. 2350 architects and engineers overtly state that NIST's collapse sequence has not been adequately demonstrated. There are no defenders of NIST, except about 20--and every single one of them has professionbal ties to NIST.
The studies show, for anyone who cares to look, that Dr. Bazant's collapse theory is contradicted by the video evidence, that WTC7 fell for a period of pure freefall for 2.25 seconds, and that melted steel unexplained by the authorities was found at Ground Zero.
Are you going to claim that a report that claims it did not analyze the collapses of the towers is adequate to explain the collapses of the towers? If so, what is wrong with your mind?
Galileo was famously a "nobody". Your arguments-from-authority do not impress rational people.
Shamr, why would anybody need to stick his neck out? While I'm reluctant to comment on the motivations of people I don't know, I'd guess that those who stick their necks out are driven by a sense of the value of truth and justice that you and others on this board do not share.
Mr. Nordenson quite obviously has major disagreements with NIST. He does not endorse NIST's collapse sequence--in fact his theory injects elements in the system that NIST does not include.
Implicitly, his theory says that NIST is wrong because the collapse-by-fire theory can only work if the fireproofing is defective. Of course he has no actual evidence that the fireproofing was defective, so his theory is pure conjecture--and it appears that the judge in his court case rejected his theory (on screwy grounds that you might find very interesting).
Shamr, why would anybody need to stick his neck out?
Indeed, why would they?
While I'm reluctant to comment on the motivations of people I don't know
Which is not the case, as you have demonstrated multiple times in this thread alone.
, I'd guess that those who stick their necks out are driven by a sense of the value of truth and justice that you and others on this board do not share.
A fun statement.
Mr. Nordenson quite obviously has major disagreements with NIST. He does not endorse NIST's collapse sequence--in fact his theory injects elements in the system that NIST does not include.
And his theory does involve an inside job?
Implicitly, his theory says that NIST is wrong because the collapse-by-fire theory can only work if the fireproofing is defective.
Which it is by nature.
Fireproofing does not work 100%. If you take a look at other fires: they suffered severe structural damage and sometimes even local collapses due to fire.
Brian, I will say it again. Nordenson proves you are wrong about engineers feeling they need stick their neck out. He disagrees with certain aspects of the study and he competently asserts his differences without feR of sullying his reputation. He also isn't associated with nist and he thinks fire did it. So he knocks another Assertion of yours as wrong.
that Dr. Bazant's collapse theory is contradicted by the video evidence
Not the case.
that WTC7 fell for a period of pure freefall for 2.25 seconds,
which is included in the nist report.
and that melted steel unexplained by the authorities was found at Ground Zero.
Also not the case.
There is zero evidence for molten steel found at ground zero.
You as usual miss the point. appealing to "I seek truth whilst you guys don't"!is beyond stupid and self serving. That and your idiotic point that only 2500 are brave enough to question the report is proven wrong by nordenson. You quoted him as proof of something supporting your views and he isn't associated with nist and thinks fire did it. Comprendè?
GMS, an assertion of collapse by fire that does not overtly endorse NIST's collapse sequence is not an overt endorsement of NIST's collapse sequence.
Collapse by fire is the consensus in the relevant fields, aside from their version of creationists (aka- truthers). Many of the articles reference NIST. Being referenced in other journals is a sign of impact in the field. Truther articles have nothing remotely comparable. Not to mention the peer review conducted by the National Research Council and the ASCE. So your empty claims are as baseless as always.
Your inability to find an overt endorsement of NIST's collapse sequence is the point. 2350 architects and engineers overtly state that NIST's collapse sequence has not been adequately demonstrated.
And not a one has demonstrated such in the way scientists prove their claims. Sadly, you can't understand this concept, Brian. Can't imagine why.
There are no defenders of NIST, except about 20--and every single one of them has professionbal ties to NIST.
NIST needs no defenders. The peer review and scientific process is enough for anyone remotely familiar with academia.
The studies show...
Name a single one published in a reputable journal.
Are you going to claim that a report that claims it did not analyze the collapses of the towers is adequate to explain the collapses of the towers? If so, what is wrong with your mind?
Ask the same of the National Research Council and the ASCE. I don't pretend to be an engineer. Perhaps you should stop. I'll be taking their opinions, the National Fire Protection Association, and the International Code Council over an illiterates like yourself any day.
Galileo was famously a "nobody". Your arguments-from-authority do not impress rational people.
It's not an argument from authority. I am just pointing out your say so, and an uninformed one at that, is not evidence.
It's ok, Brian. Keep making excuses why none of your so called experts can demonstrate their claims in real journals.
Just like you can't demonstrate your claims about the AIA, hence why you constantly make excuses.
Has Brian explained yet why Gage would bother with such a vote when the AIA is filled with people more concerned with their financial well-being?
Oh I forgot, Brian just made that up on the spot after the vote results came in.
Shamr, in what way did Mr. Nordenson stick his neck out?
Did Mr. Nordenson endorse NIST's collapse sequence for the towers? Not that I know of. His beliefs about WTC7 have nothing to do with the towers.
You guys really need to stop misusing the word "proof" all the time. It makes you look childish.
GMS, Mr. Nordenson says that NIST's investigation was "not adequately peer reviewed".
NIST needs defenders. Mr. Nordenson says "there was a lack of consensus over the results of the investigation" and "it wasn't as open and not adequately peer reviewed".
NIST's reports are demonstrably incomplete, unscientic, and dishonest. Dr. Bazant's own studies show that his collapse theory is inconsistent with the video evidence. NIST's own report says that WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds. Its report on the towers says that they fell "essentially in free fall" in less than 12 seconds.
When did the National Research Council and ASCE and the National Fire Protection Association, and the International Code Council endorse NIST's collapse sequence?
NIST needs defenders.
Nope, they don't.
As this discussion shows, there is hardly any debate surrounding the reports.
NIST's reports are demonstrably incomplete, unscientic, and dishonest.
You are saying that for years now, but you haven't provided even a single shred of evidence for that claim.
Even more, you are using the reports and findings constantly in your arguments.
Dr. Bazant's own studies show that his collapse theory is inconsistent with the video evidence.
No, it does not.
NIST's own report says that WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds.
You mean the report that you called dishonest..
Its report on the towers says that they fell "essentially in free fall" in less than 12 seconds.
And your point is?
th, I'd recommend that you get yourself a practice manual for the ACT reading test. You have a tendency to reach very goofy conclusions from zero evidence.
This discussion showed that Pestarzt's alleged expert on NIST not only did not endorse NIST's collapse sequence for the towers, but even said widespread and serious reservations about the validity of NIST's findings existed.
I have demonstrated the dishonesty, unscientific and incomplete nature of the NIST' reports many times.
The point of free fall is that it can only happen when all support has been removed. Practical people understand that if you fall off a roof onto a hay wagon the hay cushions your fall--dissipating your kinetic energy in scattering and compressing the hay. Have you ever had a practical job?
I found a video of the vote that Brian wants us to believe was done by "roll call" and was "public to the people who were in the room"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH1268AXhmE#t=20m57s
The electronic vote was not public: no names were called; no names were shown on the screen. So much for Brian's idea that the voters feared getting stuck designing homeless shacks if they voted yes.
Oh, and by the way, the video also shows prominent architects "sticking their necks out" in support of the official reports:
1:55
John Padilla, AIA Secretary, speaking for the AIA Board:
"A panel commissioned by AIA's president in 2014 found every reason to rely on the credibility and findings of the 9/11 Commission and on those expressed in the SEI/ASCE and NIST studies, and saw no reason for further investigation. The Board agrees with that view."
7:24
Frank Pitts, AIA Vice President, representing the AIA Eastern New York chapter:
"We support the current official conclusions"
Post a Comment
<< Home