1. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    AE911T has a new site layout. Under "What you can do" - "Membership", I found the following:
    www.ae911truth.org/membership-2015/^



    Summary Info and links from the thread
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 11, 2017
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    In one sense AE may be correct in this statement. If... as I believe and as do several engineers in their 2010 affidavits, the failure initiated from the load transfer structures on floors 5 - 7... and this would produce a collapse very similar to what would be done in a typical CD... take out the key structural elements at the base of the tower... which in 7wtc would be the load transfer trusses and girders. Of course there was no CD down there... there was failure of connections which failed the trusses... But the result would look very much like a CD!
     
  3. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Are you sure taking out TT1 and TT2 first would result in a kink down the middle of the EPH, knowing that down the middle of the EPH you have columns 79, 80, 81, all of which went all the way to the ground - TT1 supported 76, TT2 supported 77?
    Roof layout: [​IMG]
    Transfer Truss layout: [​IMG]

    A CD simulation could cut the 13th-floor 44-79 girder just where NIST thinks it walked off, then cut the floors below 13 all the way down to the 8th as NIST says they fell, then cut column 79, 80, 81, then ... some more in the core, along with floor connections, and then perimeter columns along the 8th floor or so - and wonder upon wonder, it would look just like the real thing! :D
    I wonder if they also simulate the demo charges themselves - either explosives, or incendiary steel-melting stuff ;D They'd have to offer numbers for the size of the charges, which could be used to estimate sound levels etc. Or, if they truly want to melt columns in a rapid and controlled manner, simulate heat transfer within the columns...
     
  4. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member


    No I am not sure, but the east end of TT1 is close to the middle of the EPH at col 76. I can't tell what accounts for the "kink" in the EPH other than a failure of the structure approximately mid way between the east and west sides of the EPH.. If anything it would be a N-S member to explain the kink.
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Rather telling wording. They basically are saying they are already convinced of these things, and they just want to convince other people. This is not the way science works. They should be trying to determine if the NIST hypothesis is plausible or not, and not setting out with the assumption that it is not.

    Still, it would be interesting to see if they actually come up with anything.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
  6. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Agreed - all five points you make Mick.

    From numerous observations of T Szamboti's reasoning - and several direct interactions with him - I suggest the situation is:
    1) AE911 is using T Szamboti's expertise as the technical foundation for their claims;
    2) T Sz's reasoning is flawed at several levels including technical and "bigger picture" logical;
    3) His technical focus is on the girder walk-off hypothesis for "initiation". He claims it couldn't happen - then claims that since the single detail is wrong the whole of NIST's explanation is wrong;
    4) His arguments have been countered and arguably falsified at detail level on other forums. By engineers (mostly) working within the limited context T Sz assumes. viz - Temperature affects only the girder and directly involved beams and assumes that thee remainder of the structure remains in pristine condition - specifically that the gap between columns does not alter due to heat effects. IMO a "bold" assumption in a fire ravaged building. Whether that context is legit or not engineers have allegedly falsified his claims within his own context. (Too far back in memory for me to be more certain - I was confident they were right at the time but cannot be so assured at this time - hence my professional conservatism.)
    5) I and a few supporters have challenged the assumption of "pristine" conditions - I took the purist path of arguing that, since he has not proved his assumption, his claim is not made out.
    6) I have made T Sz aware of that criticism and he resorted to PA insults. But has not addressed the criticism.
    7) If we move to the "bigger picture" issues the Szamboti claim - and the same claim echoed by the Pepper letter and presumably underpinning this latest AE911 initiative - he assumes wrongly that all of the NIST explanation fails if the detail of the initiation by "girder walk-off" fails. Not so. Even if "girder walk-off" is wrong the remainder - most - of the NIST explanation holds. There can be little doubt that EPH fell>>so col 79 an surrounding structures fell. The "girder walk-off" suggestion is plausible. As also is Jeffrey Orling's Transfer Truss Failing hypothesis. I do not assert TTF as strongly as Jeffrey but his concept is plausible.

    Bottom line is that most of NIST's explanation is robust AND does not depend on the specific detail of initiation.

    So what does this mean for the AE911 initiative to do more modelling?

    If they intend physical models of girder walk-off - modelling only the girder and adjacent structures to support the T Sz hypothesis:
    A) The technical context is wrong; AND
    B) If they correct the false context assumed by Szamboti it will not be practical to physically model more of WTC7 - IMO not even plausible to build a physical model

    Much the same for computer models. If they replicate the Szamboti limited context model - their results and method can be easily falsified.

    If they attempt to computer model the whole scenario they will face the massive resourcing challenges that NIST faced. And leaving aside any malicious/mendacious intent - it is one very big job. I doubt they can do it. Even if they could how could it "prove" NIST was wrong? Other than in a detail of dubious significance?

    Agreed. Especially if they come up with something a grade or two better than recycling T Szamboti's tired hypothesis.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Tony Sz. was a Board of Directors member for AE911T in 2013 according to their IRS form 990, but is currently no longer listed as such on the AE911T website.
    If Tony were the "lead engineer" for one of their lead projects for 2015, I wonder why he'd relinquish the Director's post and give up voting rights.
     
  8. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    Why don't you ask him? I used to have his telephone number and have met with him a few times and spoken with him as well. He really does believe his own swill. He might have been asked to leave because he wouldn't support something... Their board is like cats in a box... or it was. Departures are usually engineered to get rid of someone to replace them with someone more friendly to their mission... or maybe a new donor?
     
  9. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    I don't have any direct contact to him. Just visited his FB page - he doesn't appear very active there since 2012. Perhaps someone who Tony already knows and has communicated with before would be more likely to get a reply. Got an email address?
     
  10. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    I wouldn't know - just that their three (?) recent WTC7 based claims have had the same core technical material which is Szamboti's.
     
  11. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Had it - I'll search my email archives.

    I've forwarded the email by PM

    I see Sander beat me to it. My contact was May 2012.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2015
  12. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    Tony Szamboti: tonyszamboti@comcast.net

    I had an exchange with him in '13 and he completely rejected people who don't use their real names from the internet. So I suppose he is OK with Chandler, Harrit, Griffin and Cole...
     
  13. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Thanks
     
  14. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    @Oystein
    my email and PM records show that you and I were discussing a topic of one of Tony's papers by JREF PMs in early May 2012. Including explanations of my then - May 2012 - recent email contacts with Tony.

    Two parties certainly Szamboti and Johns. May have been the Szuladzinsky, Szamboti and Johns paper.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2015
  15. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Gotta love the sophistry there. They are setting out not for any truth, but to demonstrate the impossibility of the NIST most probable hypothesis.

    Anyway, given their track record on their plans to sue NIST, I feel confident that this "sophisticated computer modelling" will not take place but will require sufficient funding to do so.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    I suppose they will run some sort of FEA at col 79 and show that the girder doesn't slip and then the floor doesn't fall and the column doesn't lose bracing and buckle. If they can do that ... I'd like to see it..
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Then cry "VICTORY IS OURS".
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    The following SITREP based on my memory - I haven't checked details but the broad outline is as follows:
    The original Szamboti claim was based on demonstrating that the expansion due to heating of either the Girder or the connected beams was not sufficient to walk the girder off its support. IIRC they tried both versions - girder length changes due to heating and attached beam heating pushing the girder sideways. Initially NIST claimed 5.5" walk-off - half the width of an 11" support. THEN someone found a drawing error - the support was wider than 11". So victory - NIST had claimed 5.5" walk-off and more was needed. Conveniently ignoring that the NIST claim was based on the necessary (In NIST opinion) half the seat walk-off - whatever width the seat.

    The Szamboti calculations were precise to the fraction of an inch assuming the columns did not move. Leaving the gap width and other features in the pristine state. A courageous assumption in a fire ravaged building. THEN more NIST approximations were revealed. They omitted some web and flange bracing components.

    I don't know current status of detail level rebuttals. AFAIK T Szamboti has never recognised my criticism that his assumption of "pristine not heat affected" conditions was unproven.

    The whole scenario has been extensively debated elsewhere. Much discussion on JREF on I think - three episodes of discussion when interest was re-awakened e.g. when the Pepper Letter was published.

    Szamboti had an FEA of the affected girder/beams. Enik did a more realistic FEA taking the context broader - allowing for heat effects on the columns and nearby other structure. I think enik's work cast doubt on Szamboti's version - and enik is committed truther. All from memory as I said so we should check before relying on my 73yo memory.
     
  19. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    That is the crude version I identified in the earlier post. Already falsified IIRC. Even easier to show that they rely on unproven assumptions.

    HOWEVER given their almost certain intention to play it in the court of public opinion - showing that their assumptions are unproven is not a good counter in that arena. It has to be "prove them wrong" NOT "show that they have not proved their point"
     
  20. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    I had a short mail exchange with him today. I asked about project set-up, leaders, members. Tony says he has nothing specific at the moment.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There's a bit more about the AE911 modeling in their newsletter:

    http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=340cf2655f&e=[UNIQID
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  22. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Thanks Mick - that is enough to show that their technical stuff is down the well worn track established by T Szamboti.

    FIRST - A focus on a micro detail - "The initial results of our analysis: “No girder flange failure” at Column 79" They will probably include a couple more in the same vicinity -web bracing IIRC??

    They will be either right or wrong on that/those bit/s BUT:
    A) If they are wrong they are wrong - end of their venture - so you can bet they will claim they are right;
    B) If that are right on that detail - so what? 3/4ths of the number of their sub claims and at least 90% of the significance do not follow that starting premise.

    (BTW My first technical counter would be- "Take it up one technical system level and prove that the Girder would not fail from the other aspects of the relevant mechanism independent of the alleged error".)

    SECOND - A claimed intention to do FEA "One of our highest priorities for 2015 is to conduct a “finite element analysis” of WTC 7."

    PREDICTION - it will repeat the limited scope FEA already done by T Sz. Which has a fatal assumption (I.E. a not proven assumption AFAIK my last interactions with T Sz) THEREFORE conclusions based on it are not proven.)(Not necessarily false BTW - just "not proven".)

    THIRD "Working with a structural engineering professor from a major university and a committee of peer reviewers composed of renowned leaders in the engineering field,..." WOW Actually I wish them well because I don’t see any credible engineers of that level agreeing to work with them AND getting the results they want.

    FOURTH "the goal of our computer modeling will be to demonstrate conclusively that NIST’s collapse initiation mechanism for WTC 7 could never have occurred,..." Note it is vaguely defined as to what part of the initiation mechanism they mean. And history says they are nit-picking a detail which has no proven significance. If they mean just the one or two details see "1)" If they are going broader - good luck - I won’t waste energy thinking it through unless and until they actually do attempt a valid FEA. And attempting won’t make it valid. It has to be valid.

    INSERT ABOUT FIVE QUANTUM LEAPS HERE

    X'TH "and, secondly, that the destruction we actually saw can be more easily and accurately replicated by simulating a controlled demolition." I doubt we will get that far. Conserve energy - wait and see what eventuates.
     
  23. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Momma should have named me Thomas as I doubt that this will go any further, any faster, than the threatened lawsuit vs. NIST or bringing to bear the weight of the European engineering community.

    As aolways though, I personally invite being proved wrong in my doubt.

    I certainly do not expect to see an FEA of full structure collapse.
    Perhaps an expert can produce a series of .BMP images showing the explosive cut locations and subsequent assumed structure reactions.
    :cool:;)
     
  24. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Neither do I for reasons stated several times.

    However let's not fall for the built in trap of seeing FEA as the only tool of understanding . Remember that T Sz comes from that school of "engineering" which only accepts "math" and "FEA" as legitimate argument. (i.e. "calculations" - FEA is only a complicated calculator.) Tony's standard response to reasoned argument is derision in the form "mere words" or "blah, blah, blah, blah..." IMO strongly suggestive that he does not comprehend reasoning other than calculated math or FEA. In fact on several occasions when I have criticised his logic he has asked me for calculations or FEA to support my claim that his logic was wrong. So, if that mindset dominates the AE911 thinking, the initiative will be easy to rebut as already predicted.

    In my experience such narrow focus is far from unknown among practising engineers. It is a limitation evident in several prominent 9/11 forum posters who are engineers - including some from the "debunker" side. A technically narrow focussed "forest v trees" problem.

    So wait and see if AE911 can attract anyone who is able to break out of the "limited scope" traps - currently in both technical and logical domains - and present a valid claim.
     
  25. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Yes, a calculator is only as useful in garnering a good result as the operator is in understanding the concepts behind the math. GIGO is the order of the day.
    We have seen varying degrees of math illiteracy in the truth movement. The venerable killtown had a doozy , pft has their "11 g" calculations, I once corrected a supposed pilot on pft who divided change of altitude in feet by the number of minutes it took and proclaimed the result a stupendously high feet per second.(oddy enough my results showed something exactly 1/60th of his, not nearly as stupendous)

    Then there are the starting assumptions and thus TSz and the missing jolt in the towers.

    What will we see come from the braoin trust this time one does wonder. Who will be their structural engineering professor and what will be the credible journal they submit the paper, should I be wrong and one does come about?
    AE911T holds out the tantalizing morsel of a promise to do what has been asked of it for years now.
     
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    They have a site up now,
    http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/





    Superficially looks promising. Obviously tinged with AE911 bias, but promises to be open, and with many eyes.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Although AE911's site still says:
    [​IMG]

    Did they inform Hulsey that they want a demonstration, not an investigation?
     
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  29. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    About two hours back I watched most of the video of his presentation to the students of the UFA ASCE chapter. I"m downloading it now.

    He makes a lot of assertions about maintaining his scientific neutrality THEN:

    Introduces - gives a broad outline - of the WTC 9/11 collapses - framed in parroted versions of all the AE911 points. Without stating the opposites engineering professional views which he must be aware of.

    He makes a point that "steel is a very fire-resistant material" - ignoring that one of the primary engineering design factors for steel buildings is the vulnerability to fire and the need to design for it - usually by provision of active fire fighting.

    He repeats the "only high rise steel building to collapse from fire" with all the truth movement implications.

    However there is a lot of evidence of intention to allow transparency and input. If that eventuates it could become a new battlefield. And I doubt that the university could afford to allow the censorship much favoured by truther sites.

    So I'm in "wait and see mode" - no point getting excited till things develop a bit more.

    I don't want to prejudge but the good professor will need to somehow explain away his opening bias and a means of backing off or he will get marginalised as a CT "Nut"
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I've applied to "become an approved participant in the study so you can provide technical input or feedback that can help the researchers.", and signed up for their newsletter.

    20151128-075457-xwdj1.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  31. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    There has already been some debate over this over at International Skeptics...
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=300664

    Reading between the lines of AE-911Truths statement in the opening post there, it appears that AE-911 truth have already decided what the outcome will be...


    Whilst I can find nothing (admittedly after only a quick search) to doubt Dr. Hulsey's credibility or neutrality, I am still suspicious due to the fact that this study is funded by AE-911 truth, and he who pays the piper calls the tune as they say (or as the CT crowd so often tell us... 'follow the money')

    However apparently the study will be peer reviewed, interesting to see by whom, and I await the result with interest, if we ever see them, because I cant see AE-911 truth being too chuffed if the report fails to back their CD or other 'suspicious' theories. Will they admit defeat? try to hush up the whole thing and withdraw funding the moment it appears not to confirm their theories? Will they claim that Dr. Hulsey had been 'got at'? Only time will tell,
     
  32. Engineer

    Engineer Active Member

    @econ41 You make some very good points about the presentation I watched and I agree with them. Good intentions with a lot of AE911 phrasing when describing the collapse. He say he refuses to read any existing studies and conclusions about WTC7 but you get the feeling he may already have delved deeper than he lets's on. Hard to believe as a SE Professor and forensics guy that he hasn't already read at least portions of the NIST report.

    Particularly concerning is your point about this becoming another battlefield and the University's willingness to let that happen. We can only hope the politics and the emotionally driven feedback and prejudice take a backseat and allow some objective and unbiased science to take place.

    I'm not sure who is funding the research but if it is indeed AE911 I'm both happy that they are doing something besides paying Richard Gage to go around spouting his tired story and concerned that the academic research will have funding bias. Hard to imagine any government grants being approved for this for the obvious reasons.

    My best hope is that they identify several probably scenarios for the global collapse, actually end up with model which shows exactly how the global collapse could occur from any one of the initiation events and stay far away from investigating how explosives could have worked here.

    Glad to see Mick make an effort to get involved as a study participant as that would give us some great perspective on both the details of the ongoing study and just how the feedback and review process works. Fingers crossed that he is accepted!
     
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's AE911, they say:
    http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/


    And:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/membership-2015/
     
  34. Engineer

    Engineer Active Member

    Hmmm. With those research goals
    I've got no problem with them trying to debunk the NIST conclusions but I would sure feel better if they stated some goals more along the lines of "determine what alternative fire induced mechanisms could have caused the collapse" instead of a demonstration that CD would more readily replicate the observations.

    Words like impossibility and controlled demolition seem to be premature at this stage of the game if unbiased neutrality is indeed the intention here. It makes you think that as soon as they find a problem with the NIST initiation sequence they will move immediately to the CD demonstration. This smells fishy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  35. Engineer

    Engineer Active Member

    Just wondering what the implications with respect to the NIST data secrecy are if the University of Alaska study is reportedly willing to share and release all of it's data and calculations. If there truly is a public safety element to NIST's decision will not the U of A be subject to this same standard? Hard to imagine this might not come up at some time.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2015
  36. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    One part of the AE911 introductory brief says:
    ...that is reminiscent of the nonsense that Gage, Szamboti et all put out.

    The best they can do by that method is "crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring [that they AGREE WITH EACH OTHER]." Comparison of two methods cannot "[ensure] that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7".

    ....and if the good Doctor agrees with that statement he has already damaged any credibility he may have possessed.

    IMO the big problem with WTC forensic investigation is and will remain doubt about all the details hidden inside the building - both structural loading issues AND temperatures/heating aspects. And both of those in a dynamic progression.

    IMO those are the strategic reasons why AE911 and other truth movement representatives switched focus to WTC7. Essentially ALL their Twin Towers claims called for acceptance of reversed burden of disproof from opponents - "debunkers". And "DISproof" was reasonably straight forward at the "Twins" - more than sufficient evidence visually accessible. Not so WTC7 so harder for opponents to DISprove CD - which the truth movement still cannot prove. So the basis of strategy shifted to WTC7 because it was harder for 'us' to prove 'them' wrong.

    I doubt that they can get a sufficiently valid definition of scenario for the FEA to process - not one that is more valid than NIST. I'm even more doubtful that there is sufficient accuracy of define the problem which would allow support FEA giving better results than could be reasoned without the calculations. But that is my bias having seen so much misuse of FEA applied to the wrong problem or a wrongly defined problem.

    And I recall that the T Szamboti explanations of why NIST was allegedly wrong with WTC initiation were based on an unproven starting assumption. He allowed the girder subject to "walk off" to be heated whilst the supporting structures were in pristine state - not moved from "as built" positions despite the raging fires.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    I like the replies so far. Nothing to add - wait and see due to nothing substantial to see yet.

    Yes, obvious bias is obvious. Now bias does not necessarily disqualify. Every human is biased about most things they care for. The goal is not to be unbiased, but to recognize one's bias and deal with it appropriately and honestly.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  38. trevor

    trevor Active Member

    exactly. nist probably has some stuff wrong, along with journal of engineering mechanics, ASCE and even popular mechanics, but this CD stuff has gotta stop. it's so stupid....im sorry.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  39. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    ooops - wrote this a few hours back - seems I didn't post it then.
    If - through the project - he identifies his initial biases AND resolves them in balanced objectivity he could gain a lot of credibility. Depending on how he manages it but it would impress me if he did.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  40. Engineer

    Engineer Active Member

    I'm hoping it's just a marketing move to get more $ through the crowd funding attempt. That's understandable actually. Perhaps once funded, Dr. Hulsey will distance himself somewhat from the CT rhetoric and get down to some real useful unbiased scientific research. Hard to say at this point.

    Did anybody catch how long he expected the project to take?