1. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    Being a member means nothing. Understanding the issues is all that matters. There is nothing to show that AE911T members are informed... or any more informed on the issues than non members.

    AE911T has been trying to "petition" for "redress" for more than 10 years and none of those petitions go anywhere.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Paradigm_shift

    Paradigm_shift New Member

    Page 31

    "The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings. NIST neglected the high-temperature and fragmentation evidence presented here: it appears nowhere in their final report [reference omitted].6869"

    All the quotes from eye-witnesses are listed clearly in the petition. As well as NISTs findings, their omissions and what other independent researchers have found that contradict their narrative.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2019
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. Paradigm_shift

    Paradigm_shift New Member

    That's besides the point. Mick claims their point is invalid because there are are only 3000 members. By that logic, it invalidates NISTs findings as well.

    Do not claim something like millions of engineers support NISTs investigation without providing evidence to back it up, just like Mick has done.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  4. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    AE9/11 is a group anyone is free to join. NIST is a workplace. If architects and engineers wanted to make a statement in support of AE9/11 theories the best and easiest thing to do is join. The vast majority have chosen not to.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  5. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    This comparison might be valid if NIST ran a petition and had spent 12 years promoting that petition through ads, speaking tours etc.

    They have not.

    AE911Truth often claims to be reaching out to very substantial proportions of the entire professional communities of architects and engineers, and all it takes to "join" them is to fill out an online form that purports to support a rather weak claim and demand.

    Nothing at NIST is comparable to that situation. They are not actively reaching out to engineers, nor asking for anyone's explicit endorsement.

    I agree that counting everybody, or the majority of those, who have not agreed explicitly with AE911Truth yet as disagreeing is invalid and reaching. But fact is that only a tiny minorities of these professionals have at one point in the last 12 years saw it fit to undersign a weak demand. That does not speak for much support among the professions.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    But that (hot-corroded steel examined by metallurgists for FEMA report) is not the issue that Mick was asking about (NFPA guide allegedly demanding that explosives and arson be tested for):
     
  7. Paradigm_shift

    Paradigm_shift New Member

    Free to join? I believe you still have to be qualified as someone in the relevant field of building collapses such as architecture, engineering etc. And also have reviewed the official study by NIST and came to find inconsistencies. I doubt they accept signatories without a background check and credential verification.
    Your comment is another attempt to invalidate their position without actually addressing any of their arguments.
    Also 'the vast majority have chosen not to' is a complete lie. The vast majority simply just haven't looked at it. Can't make a choice you don't know exists.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2019
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Paradigm_shift

    Paradigm_shift New Member

    I'm afraid that the oxidation and corrosion is one of the evidence of explosive residues as highlighted by the NFPA 921 fire and explosive investigations and pointed out by this petition that are not being addressed by NIST.
    How have you missed that?
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  9. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    How so?
    The result of that study was that these pieces of steel suffered corrosion. Explosives do not corrode the steel they attack, or do they?
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  10. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    No. You merely need to have a degree in architecture or some branch of engineering, including many that would not in any way make you "qualified as someone in the relevant field of building collapses such". Landru listed the architects and engineers, and indeed that is the criterion: "If architects and engineers wanted to make a statement in support of AE9/11 theories the best and easiest thing to do is join. "

    AE911Truth has a Verification Team that checks with their signatories whether they have at least a Bachelor's degree, or international equivalent, in architecture or some branch of engineering (that would, for example, include software engineers, landscape engineers, electrical engineers...).
    That is all.
    There is no requirement whatsoever to even know about the NIST report. You can bet that practically none of their signatories actually ever read as much as the executive summaries of the NIST reports, let alone "reviewed"review the studies.

    I have read the personal statements by hundreds of the A&E signatories. By and large, they reveal absolutely NO own arguments, only repetitions of the (usually invalid, often outright FALSE, talking points presented to them by AE911Truth).

    This ("vast majority simply just haven't looked at it") is true both for the signatories and the non-signatories. The signatories generally have only looked at Truther YouTubes and similar unscientific nonsense and propaganda.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Paradigm_shift

    Paradigm_shift New Member

    This is literally just repeating what I said. You have to have a background in architecture or engineering, but they also have demolition experts, electrical engineers etc. so this is mostly irrelevant. I don't get how this contradicts at all what I said. I said just that - they don't just let anyone in, except for people in the related field.

    Really? It's kind of hard to critique and point out specific instances in the report that were inconsistent. It's rather childish to assume they haven't looked at NISTs report. You can't claim they haven't studied the thing they're contradicting.. let's just say they hadn't read anything by NIST, how would they deny their claims? You have no valid point here other than speculation and your own personal incredulity fallacy.

    Really? That seems like an exaggeration "Hundreds" I've only gotten through a few dozen myself. I mostly look at the evidence anyway rather than a bunch of testimonials in any case. They reveal absolutely NO own arguments? That's a bit of a stretch and complete denial.
    Guess these two people have nothing unique to say:

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg&t=1s


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc

    One a chemical engineer and another a demolitions loader. Neither is a mechnical engineer nor architect, yet they already break your false belief of 'only architect or engineer with a bacherlors. If you can still me they have nothing original or different to say after watching this, for everyone to see, I hope you can hang on to your dishonesty.

    [off-topic material removed]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2019
    • Funny Funny x 2
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That's a non-sequitur. NIST has a limited budget, they can only hire so many people, people who join get paid tens of thousands of dollars. To join NIST you have to committ to working there many hours a week. If you stop working, they stop paying you.

    AE911Truth, on the other hand, gets more money as more people join, there's no limit. It's free to join, but giving money is encouraged, all you have to do is fill in a web form. Once you've joined you don't have to do anything, and you're a member forever.

    So it's not the same logic at all.

    A fundamental problem underlying many conspiracy theories, this one included, is that believers in the theory think it's a serious issue. Non-believers think it's a frivolous issue. So believers are likely to join organizations, non-believers are not.

    Kind of like why Christians join churches, but non-religious people (mostly) do not.

    Bringing it back to the lawsuit, this asymmetry in perception is evident in Truthers being excited that legal progress is being made, but the U.S. Attorney in NY is probably just thinking it's all a waste of time, bordering on vexatious litigation.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And let's try to keep this thread focussed on the grand-jury related issues.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. DannyBoy2k

    DannyBoy2k New Member

    Very, VERY briefly, I'm going to note that, A&E911Truth does not have the commonly reported number of members.

    They have petition signers. Essentially, someone stuck a paper under peoples nose that said, "I think there's something hinky about 9/11, if you do to, sign your name here."


    If you go to, for example, change.org, you can find similar petitions by the dozens, including one from the Lawyers Committee.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Thanks DannyBoy2k. I think you wil find that many of us are aware of the realities that you identify.. tho we may get less than rigorous referring to "AE911 members" when we mean "petition signers".

    And, as you correctly identify, the petition was - still is - easy to sign - with a very low threshold. "believe there is sufficient doubt". Even that was probably a more plausible assertion when first formulated that it is now.

    Certainly AE911 make mendacious mileage by reference to petition signers as being "members" and persistent implications that they strongly support the AE911 firm commitment to CD based explanations.
     
  16. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    It should be emphasized and noted that AE911T does no research and only markets it's petition for the purposes of obtaining signatures. It cobbled together a few presentations which are intended to convince people to doubt the so called "official narrative".... and motivate them to sign the petition. The petition itself is then part of the marketing pitch underpinning what they believe is legitimacy... See how many people don't believe NIST and are willing to sign on the dotted line.

    Back in 2009 I had close contact with Gage who wanted me as an NY architect to be on board. I asked him why he didn't have some of the professionals who signed the petition conduct building performance studies, FEA etc. He flat out rejected the idea. I believe because he probably thought their research would demolish his CD theories and with it his organization.

    AE911T is a marketing operation to raise money to sustain itself and pay Gage to make presentations and be the face of trutherism. Periodically some "independent" person or group attempts to produce "content" in support of CD. All have failed to make the case. None have been repudiated by Gage. The old dog will not learn any new tricks.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. cptn_fantastic

    cptn_fantastic New Member

    Perhaps not, though eye-witness accounts supported with physical and graphic evidence probably would.
    Not to mention Dr. Husley's building 7 study which forms part of the petitions body of evidence.
     
  18. cptn_fantastic

    cptn_fantastic New Member

    One imagines "frivolous" would not make it to a Grand Jury.
    Put it to the test- petition them on a flat earth investigation- see how you go?
     
  19. cptn_fantastic

    cptn_fantastic New Member

    Well, Dr. Husley's building 7 study plainly demonstrates fire could not have induced the collapse of building 7.
    Granted, we await peer review.
    If not fire- then what? It's enough to require a re- investigation into building 7 at least, and certainly an investigation into NIST.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  20. cptn_fantastic

    cptn_fantastic New Member

    And yet here we have Dr. Husley's rigorous study into building 7.
    A study opened up to peer review.
    How rigorous were NIST? We don't know- we're not allowed to rigorously review.
    Rigor in secret is no rigor at all.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  21. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Hulsey's study is NOT rigorous and will not withstand professional scrutiny. It has been written to meet AE911 requirements and certainly will serve as a basis for continuing truth movement hoopla and rejoicing.

    Hulsey's main claim is that he has shown that fire could not cause the collapse. That is a global negative claim which CANNOT be proved in the context of this study. So his claim is falsified even before we examine his errant engineering assesments.

    The study is not being peer reviewed which is not proof of accuracy even if it happend. AE911 has announced that it will take public comments which support the findings.

    NIST was rigorous and your reference to "not allowed" is false based on a common truther misinterpretation of one issue of fact. So your concluding bit of innuendo is irrelevant.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  22. cptn_fantastic

    cptn_fantastic New Member

    Does anyone have any examples of "frivolous" being brought before a Grand Jury?
    Have Grand Juries convened to address unsupported claims? Any examples?
    I know naught of the US legal system, or any country's system for that matter, however I find it hard to imagine the US Attorney creating a Grand Jury without careful consideration and a jolly good reason for doing so.

    I could be wrong. Examples demonstrating my error?
     
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Why is your question relevant? Has this case made it to a grand jury?
     
  24. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    hmmm. I thought I did a search for the name Hulsey and it didn't appear at all in the petition. i'll have to look again tomorrow.
     
  25. cptn_fantastic

    cptn_fantastic New Member

    I don't know if it has made it or not- not sure anyone does. However;
    "We have received and reviewed The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.'s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions. Very truly yours, GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney"

    You have suggested many folks view controlled demolition as being in the same vein as flat earth- nonsensical.
    Would GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney likely present to a Grand Jury frivolous, unsubstantiated claims?
    I don't know- do you? If you think Grand Jury's deal in frivolous, unsubstantiated claims perhaps you could provide an example?

    Seems to me that if you cannot present examples of frivolous, unsubstantiated claims investigated by a Grand Jury, one could perhaps assume that Grand Jury's do not investigate frivolous, unsubstantiated claims and therefore the AE and LC petition should then ought not be considered frivolous and containing unsubstantiated claims?
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  26. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Why is your question relevant? You said you don't know whether Berman presented the mail package to a Grand Jury.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. cptn_fantastic

    cptn_fantastic New Member

    Mail package- I though it was a petition?

    "We have received and reviewed The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.'s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions. Very truly yours, GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney"
    This strongly suggests that the petition will be presented to a Grand Jury.
    Do Grand Jury's deal in frivolous matters as a matter of routine?

    So;
    Seems to me that if one cannot present examples of frivolous, unsubstantiated claims investigated by a Grand Jury, one could perhaps assume that Grand Jury's do not investigate frivolous, unsubstantiated claims and therefore the AE and LC petition should then ought not be considered frivolous and containing unsubstantiated claims.

    Grand Jury's may indeed deal in frivolous matters, I don't know- do you?
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  28. cptn_fantastic

    cptn_fantastic New Member

    "Hulsey's main claim is that he has shown that fire could not cause the collapse. That is a global negative claim which CANNOT be proved in the context of this study. So his claim is falsified even before we examine his errant engineering assesments."

    Just a small correction- Hulsey's main claim is that he has shown that fire could not cause the collapse as described by NIST.
    Such a claim is very specific, testable and in no way "global"
     
  29. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    that is not true.

    quote from the page immediately following the title page of the Sept 3, 2019 draft report.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  30. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    A petition submitted as a stack of printed paper in a mail package.

    What makes you think "This strongly suggests that the petition will be presented to a Grand Jury."? You said said earlier you don't whether it was, and that's true: we don't know. So why are your questions relevant? Please present a reasoned argument to support your assumption the mail package was forwarded to a GJ, and don't simply repeat your loaded question!
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  31. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Thanks for responding to that one point out of my post. And also for your implicit agreement that a "global negative" claim cannot be supported. You are the first person to respond to my many comments on that issue.

    Now as dierdre has already quoted from the draft report:
    ....which does NOT support your interpretation.

    And the history of this project is clear. Hulsey has many times stated two separate and distinct objectives which have been - in my words - Hulsey's terminology has varied:
    1) He has asserted "Fire could not cause collapse of WTC7".
    2) He would prove that NIST was wrong.
    NOTE: The first is a "global negative" claim. And the second has been a separate objective NOT a limit on the first.

    So if - as you say - he is now conflating the two so that his previously global assertions are NOW limited to only proving NIST wrong can you reference the statements by Hulsey where:
    - He explicitly withdraws his many earlier claims;
    - Proves that he has distanced himself from his previous false claims; AND
    - (presumably) He has admitted he was wrong.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019 at 5:10 AM
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    The claim that all columns failed simultaneously is false. The form of the collapse betrays this statement. Yes! this would lead to the building dropping straight down in a crush up. For sure he intended to say that all the columns were destroyed.... or "taken out" at the same level. No evidence to support that.

    Any explanation has to account for the FORM of the collapse which reveals what parts or the structure were failing (from whatever cause) and when (sequence). Something caused the EPH to descend before the rest of the building. Something caused the screen wall to then collapse and then the WPH. Some caused the tower's north facade to kink as it descended. Something cause the distortion of the north facade and breaking / distortion of the glass. Something accounts for the multistory vertical kink in the north face.

    When investigators attempt to model the sequence of failures they need to figure out what was happening to the structure... beams, girders, columns, transfers, connections, slabs and so forth... all interconnected. Further fires DO cause steel to warp, bend, twist, expand and then contract when cooled... loose strength. They have to account for so many variables that lead to many global collapse failure sequences. Finding THE one from 911 is like finding a needle in a haystack.