Alienentity
Active Member
Well yeah, why don't they just get on with it and get the 'Europeans' to review it? Nobody's stopping them..
AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False
- Thread starter gerrycan
- Start date
Well yeah, why don't they just get on with it and get the 'Europeans' to review it? Nobody's stopping them..
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
I noticed on 911 Blogger that the truth guys keep calling C span to out congress critters on the spot about bldg 7 and now Gerry's group's letter to the IG. Are they expecting the Congress critter to lobby the IG about the need to an investigation? I think that's the point. But the congress critter is not going to just take the letter's content as fact and will have to have some engineer vet it I would think. And I don't see that happening. At best they may call the IG's office and ask if they received and evaluated the letter. The IG will have to do the same... get some engineers to evaluate the merits of the content of the letter. Can it be assumed that any engineer will accept the merits of the letter?
My hunch is the the IG will do nothing at all... and do it for as long as they can.
My hunch is the the IG will do nothing at all... and do it for as long as they can.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
I am interested to hear perspectives from others here concerning both what they think the NIST should do and will do, in response to the complaint that they omitted pertinent structural features in the WTC 7 report that would have made their collapse initiation hypothesis impossible.
The complaint was sent to the Department of Commerce Inspector General on Dec. 12, 2013 and can be seen here http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf
The Inspector General responded on January 14, 2014 that he has assigned an investigator to the case and sent it to NIST management. This letter can be seen in the attached.
The complaint was sent to the Department of Commerce Inspector General on Dec. 12, 2013 and can be seen here http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf
The Inspector General responded on January 14, 2014 that he has assigned an investigator to the case and sent it to NIST management. This letter can be seen in the attached.
Bruno D.
Senior Member.
I see some possible outputs:
1 - the investigator will go through the claims, decide they are not enough to re-study anything and dismiss it. Truthers than use that as evidence that it is indeed a cover up for CD.
2 - NIST re-study this part of the report, and don't change anything because they still think it's valid. They provide the arguments disproving the claims from the letters. Truthers than use that as evidence that it is indeed a cover up for CD.
3 - NIST re-study this part of the report, adding new facts and explaining collapse by fire in a different manner. Truthers than use that as evidence that it is indeed a cover up for CD.
4 - same as above, but NIST finds out that the building was poorly built and that's the main reason for the collapse. It open space for an investigation to find other responsible parts. Truthers than use that as evidence that it is indeed a cover up for CD.
5 - NIST re-study this part of the report, finds evidence of CD and the US is changed forever.
I think the first option is what's going to happen, but my preferred one is the third.
I'd lean towards 2.5 - NIST say that the inclusion of the indicated elements may have changed the precise sequence of events, but the analysis shows that the general hypothesis of fire induced floor collapse, followed by buckling of C79 & C80 is still an explanation that fits the observed facts.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Interesting article about the NI
The NIST WTC 7 report has the west side interior collapsing due to a progressive failure from east to west and thus happening several seconds later than the east side interior collapse.
If columns 79 and 80 fail low in the building, and the east side interior fully collapses several seconds before the west side interior, then the east side exterior should deform tremendously and start coming down before the west side exterior. This is what happens in the NIST model.
You are not proposing anything would be different here from that overall perspective. However, on the video, the east and west side exteriors are observed to come down simultaneously. How come?
The NIST WTC 7 report has the west side interior collapsing due to a progressive failure from east to west and thus happening several seconds later than the east side interior collapse.
If columns 79 and 80 fail low in the building, and the east side interior fully collapses several seconds before the west side interior, then the east side exterior should deform tremendously and start coming down before the west side exterior. This is what happens in the NIST model.
You are not proposing anything would be different here from that overall perspective. However, on the video, the east and west side exteriors are observed to come down simultaneously. How come?
Last edited:
Quantify, and start a new thread if it debunks a NIST claim.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
Alienentity
Active Member
Meeting will happen with managers at NIST, probably engineers, to discuss letter sent to IG. Engineers will go over details, decision will be made as to whether further modeling is required making modifications.
Discussion will include a description of AE911Truth, which will reveal that it is little more than a political lobby group, not an engineering body, and not recognized or accredited anywhere as such.
Prediction: since the complaint comes from a group which, on its main page, claims many outrageous and non-scientific things, it will probably have little impact on either the IG or NIST. Too bad, since they might have some legitimate points about the NIST model, but their general buffoonery over the years overshadows any valuable work they might be doing.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
You're right; they'll probably spend more time trying to demonize AE911T than focusing on the content itself. NIST has shown their incompetence and negligence since day 1, why would they stop doing so now?
The point is that AE911 shoot themselves in the foot by making a wide variety of extreme and unusual claims, listed on their home page. So they will not get taken seriously.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
It's sort of the same effect as the boy who cried wolf. Except instead of lying they toss out conspiracy related stuff. So now if this is something legitimate, it won't be taken seriously, on those grounds alone.
It will likely cause some people to take it less seriously. That's inevitable. That's why they should have got some kind of independent assessment first. Right now it's the lawyer who has been been trying to prove the MLK and JFK shooters were patsys, and a conspiracy theory PR organization. Regardless of the validity of the claims, it does not look good.
Alienentity
Active Member
That's exactly my point.
I think the real, legitimate complaints about NIST are far less dramatic in importance than AE911Truth or truthers in general are trying to argue. There is still no proof of CD even if you disagree with some of NIST's work. All the gnashing of teeth amounts to naught, really. It's theatrics and attention-getting antics rather than sober inquiry.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
What you are asking for with more confirmation in this case is like asking for more evidence that it is the sun that warms the earth. There is no need for additional independent assessment of whether or not the stiffeners and lateral support beams were omitted and whether or not they would make a difference. It isn't a gray area by any stretch of the imagination. These structural features are on the drawings that NIST had in their possession and admitted to using, but were not included in their analyses, and it is a simple matter to show these features would have prevented the possibility of the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation hypothesis. So the analyses and conclusions in the present WTC 7 report are not based on all pertinent information, which NIST had in their possession, and are thus not legitimate.
There is no justification for a NIST refusal to acknowledge the omissions and include them in a new analysis. They are obligated to do so. What you and some others here are saying is akin to thinking it alright that someone who borrowed money from a specific bank can simply not repay the loan if they claim they don't like some of the people the bank employs or the advertisements they do. The law rightly does not allow for those types of things to be considered an excuse for not fulfilling obligations, and NIST is not above the law.
Last edited:
Says you, a 9/11 Truther who thinks it was controlled demolition. Which is the problem of perception discussed above - regardless of the validity of your claims.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
What does that have to do with the content of the claim? Not a thing. It's just a way to avoid the substance, and I'm sure that NIST will use the same silly tactics. As I said before, they've shown their negligence and incompetence since day 1, it won't stop now.
Which is what I said.
Bruno D.
Senior Member.
And sadly, as soon as NIST says they are not going to review the analysis, or as Mick said, that they reviewed and the additional information are not relevant to the overall scenario, it will be considered just another proof that they are covering up for CD.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
My sense is that this letter will not be taken seriously for several of the reasons already articulated. While many feel that AE911T represents some sort of "conservative" professional association which has conducted studies and analyses of the 3 towers. This is clearly not the case. There is nothing in the published literature to indicate that they are experts related to the three towers.. ie performed in depth building performance studies and the like.
While Gerry and his group may have found flaws in NIST's work, hitching themselves to AE911T will likely derail their effort. AE911T has a history of "attacking" and confronting NIST. It's hard to imagine that NIST will embrace the effort.
Will the IG? Who knows? Doesn't the IG have to hire experts to evaluate the claims? Isn't this almost undertaking a complete investigation?
While Gerry and his group may have found flaws in NIST's work, hitching themselves to AE911T will likely derail their effort. AE911T has a history of "attacking" and confronting NIST. It's hard to imagine that NIST will embrace the effort.
Will the IG? Who knows? Doesn't the IG have to hire experts to evaluate the claims? Isn't this almost undertaking a complete investigation?
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Mick, I am a degreed and experienced engineer and I have a basis for what I am saying. Something you certainly don't have here. Your disrespectful and childish use of the term 911 Truther is telling. You are acting like a baby here. Why?
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
You may have a problem with AE911 Jeffrey, but it was individuals who have signed its petition who have proven Bazant's tower analysis wrong and exposed the NIST structural feature omissions in their WTC 7 report.
The bottom line is that there has been no scientific basis provided for natural collapse which explains the evidence, and some of the attempted explanations, like those from NIST and Bazant, have been shown to be in such serious error that it is hard to imagine that there wasn't intent, due to the nature of the omissions and distortions. It seems there does need to be a complete investigation because of these "errors". It is very unlikely that patches will work.
Last edited:
I'm illustrating the perception you will receive. You can't just get all huffy. This is what is going to happen. You're the one whose organization has both "9/11" and "Truth" in it's name.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
No, you are illustrating an ignorant perception that you can only attribute to yourself. Let others speak for themselves.
Now now Tony, you know full well that the 9/11 truth movement is widely regarded as a little eccentric at best. It's a problem. You can't just pretend it does not exist.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Tony,
Veering off topic. I do have many problems with AE911T among them is their failure to retract false statements they have made... such as the dust depth and the distance of the Winter Garden to the West face of 1wtc nwhich is where the steel fcame from (not ejected but fell off and away).
There are non CD explanations for the collapse of the twin towers which is not NISTs. All explanations will be incomplete because there is a lack of data from the tower. Picture analysis can only tell us so much. Then it become modeling based on reasonable assumptions. But there is no proof what happened and there is no proof of CD either.
The issue was if the letter to the IG sent by William Pepper referencing AE911T for credentials and credibility was a good thing. I think not and I think that the paper should be submitted to a journal and then based on the response assuming it is published and receives support from engineers who have no skin in the game... put together a "bipartisan" or whatever the word is... group to ask the IG for a review of the NIST report in view of the acceptance of the work of Gerry's group.
Whether I like AE911T or not, hitching on to them seems like an unwise approach destined to fail. AE for what it's worth is considered a small fringe group of disgruntled engineers and architects... few of whom are civil engineers.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
I would say the North Tower's even collapse initiation, rapid horizontal propagation, and lack of deceleration after the initial fall are most certainly proof of controlled demolition. You might disagree but your explanation has serious problems and the controlled demolition theory does not.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
We disagree... my explanation does not. You don't comprehend it and further it's been evolving over time... as I learn!
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
No, I know the present official explanations for the collapses are so weak that those who attempt to prop them up have to resort to smears of those who are skeptical, in an attempt to bias anyone who has not looked into it to think that there is nothing to see. You engaged in smear tactics and got called on it.
In any situation I have been in with other engineers, and have had time to discuss and debate the issue, there has never been anyone who did not come away with serious misgivings about the present story. The complete symmetrical free fall collapse of WTC 7 especially causes skepticism, and it is what got me to look into the issue. Although I did wonder where all of the energy came from to generate the rapid destruction of the twin towers when I saw it happen live, it was that third building collapse that really perplexed me. Well we now know what happened. It is simply impossible to explain as a natural event, so it is not surprising that those who tried had to resort to sophomoric attempts at omitting things which would make their hypothesis impossible. That is obviously why the smears and slurs are needed. It must stink to be in a position where you have to stoop to such low brow tactics. They don't fool most people and say a lot about the person using them and the unfounded story they are attempting to defend. The controlled demolition of WTC 7 should just be acknowledged with those who were involved having to explain their actions.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
I certainly can comprehend what you are trying to say caused the collapses and have shown you how your hypotheses cannot possibly work to explain the observables. I see you have modified them, to try and escape those criticisms, but they still don't work.
Last edited:
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
I am not trying ton escape anything... The towers collapse 99.9% because of gravity. Once a progression of failures gets going it reached the point were the forces overwhelm the structure and that's it. There is enough stored PE to take them down... naturally and heat and mech damaged released that PE.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
By the way, did everyone here see this http://www.opednews.com/articles/Em...tack_Engineer_Misconduct_WTC7-140117-254.html
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Controlled demolitions use gravity, so what you are saying there is true. But, there was not enough released PE in a one or two story drop to effect a continuation. Bazant had to wildly embellish the kinetic energy and dramatically underestimate the column energy absorption to make it seem plausible.
There was not enough damage and heat to cause the initiation and rapid horizontal propagation.
The initiation and progression is what controlled demolition ensures and that is precisely what happened, with the aircraft impacts and fires being causal ruses.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
I am another one who doesn't fully comprehend your revised explanation. Perhaps you need to clarify a bit. I was surprised, and pleased, to read earlier that you had correctly identified that core drop was the only possible mechanism to match the observations. The way you then disassociated the core columns from the hat truss by describing a failure of their upper connections as they came into tension when designed for compression went part way towards squaring one circle. Those columns dropping away, and missing their matching lower column stubs to fall through floors, would certainly be a credible initiation hypothesis.
But surely that would only affect columns already severed lower down by plane impacts. The bit that I am missing is how you are suggesting that all of the undamaged columns also join in with their disconnection from the hat truss, at that same instant, to allow the entire core to drop and pull all of the floor trusses (virtually) simultaneously down, and thus pull all of the outer walls inwards within the same half second.
It would help if you could take time to expand on this puzzling aspect of your theory, because clearly the entire core did drop as one unit, and until I can take on board a credible explanation for the undamaged columns 'joining in' it remains a huge mystery to me, that only CD seems to fully address.
OneWhiteEye
Senior Member
If the structure had acted in the same manner as a single column being compressed with a perfect axial force in an unreviewed FEA where the ends were constrained against lateral motion and eccentricity!!! Seriously, that is ALL you have to back that statement, and it is ludicrous. There's already another thread for this, one you walked away from right about the time the going got tough (in a way which you perceived).
On the topic, I looked at the letter and have a question.
Dr. Pepper said:
First sentence, stop right there. Aside from a misplaced comma, there is something that jumps right out. Are all the 2,100 degreed architects and engineers, or are there other disciplines involved amongst the signatories (or members or whatever they are)?
OneWhiteEye
Senior Member
The guy has a propensity for extraneous commas. So do I.
Reading on, the NIST erratum looks very bad on the surface. If I were a TA, I'd make them show their work.
Reading on, the NIST erratum looks very bad on the surface. If I were a TA, I'd make them show their work.
Perhaps worth a thread in itself, due to the general nature of the argument from false authority that AE911 uses. But also very relevant to this letter. as it calls upon the authority of "more than 2,100 professionally, degreed architects and engineers". Attached is the list, via:
http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html
About 60% of them seem to be "Engineering Professionals", lots of electrical and computer/software engineers. Which I find amusing, as I always get mocked for "just" being a software engineer.
Bruno D.
Senior Member.
Tony, I have one conceptual question. Why did they choose different demolition strategies for WTC 1/2 and WTC 7? I mean the first two towers collapsed from top to bottom, relying significantly at the fact that the weight of the top floors would help the whole thing to come down; WTC 7 on the other hand collapsed in a whole different way.
I'm bemused as to why you should bring this up. It seems simply a re-telling of Pepper's letter by Andrew Mills, who "is a hydrologist serving as a consultant to local environmental consulting firms. ", and a proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories. What does it signify?
OneWhiteEye
Senior Member
Yes, exactly. I'm trying to keep editorial comments to a minimum but occasionally I am overcome with how frequently falsehoods or at least false implications roll so easily from an organization with 'truth' in its name. It's a pedantic observation, but not one for which I'd want to be on the receiving end. Neither is it an insignificant matter, any more than clinging to mantras like "all three buildings in freefall" and so on.
It's deliberate misrepresentation. I'm not sure why anyone is supposed to think this is okay coming from an organization seeking accountability and transparency. As others have noted, there are more conservative and credible approaches to tackling this objective, and I think that starts by not misrepresenting the nature of your clients in the very first sentence.
The interesting thing is (again, from a rather superficial perspective) they seem to have at least one valid point. I do not find the point enhanced by application of snake oil.
Thank you. I thought I'd heard something of that nature, too lazy to chase it down. Also interested in hearing Tony's response to this, as my spin radar is powered up and ready to receive.
No ****. I'm with you on that. I'm a software engineer - although I have mechanical, test and process engineering in the past - and I've gotten the same thing.
Last edited:
OneWhiteEye
Senior Member
Oh, and I forgot this part: with elements stretched well beyond their ductile limits.
Similar threads
