AE911Truth To File LawsuitTo End FEMA/NIST Stonewalling

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
AE911T Signatories

2,316 "Architects & Engineers"
20,014 "Other Supporters"

So just under 11% of total members have some related training or expertise to be included in the " architects and engineers" in the membership of AE911T.

AE911T is a vastly non-engineering, non-architect organization.
Just under 90% of signatories have no training or education with which they can be included in the "architect and engineer" category.

Contrast with the ASCE with a total membership in 2007 of about 141,500 of which only about 20% haven't the qualifications for membership grade above "Affiliate".

https://books.google.ca/books?id=e39...ed=0CDMQ6AEwCQ

The CTBUH has almost 800,000 members. While I do not have the breakdown in terms of qualifications, and many if not most, do not have structures training, education or experience, it should be noted though that the organization's executive has gone on record as not supporting any 9/11 conspiracy theory.

So again I wonder what standing AE911T has to argue a technical challenge to any NIST report in court. Does the court even hear technical based arguments in appeals to FOIA requests?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The organization is run by volunteers... and a there are a few are techcnically "qualified" such as Jon Cole or Kevin Ryan. The rest of the volunteers have no license or background in engineering or architecture. There is little to no contact with the signers... professionals... ever. They are a marketing operation, run by volunteers to raise money sending out CDs and so forth.. to raise money.... to collect signatures...
 

econ41

Senior Member
...So again I wonder what standing AE911T has to argue a technical challenge to any NIST report in court. Does the court even hear technical based arguments in appeals to FOIA requests?
We still don't know the legal point which is proposed to be presented.

BUT the issue is a decision to not release certain documents for reasons of security.

So, even if discussion of a technical issue was plausible in a court hearing, the technical issue under contention is security NOT structural aspects of WTC buildings. I cannot conceive of how an alleged error in the technical field of engineering could overrule a decision made on totally different technical grounds.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
We still don't know the legal point which is proposed to be presented.

BUT the issue is a decision to not release certain documents for reasons of security.

So, even if discussion of a technical issue was plausible in a court hearing, the technical issue under contention is security NOT structural aspects of WTC buildings. I cannot conceive of how an alleged error in the technical field of engineering could overrule a decision made on totally different technical grounds.
So to paraphrase, if I understand what you are saying, any and all scientific and engineering aspects of the issue of what caused, or did not cause, the collapses, bears no relevance to the issue of why the data was not released which is an issue of security of the general public.
 

econ41

Senior Member
So to paraphrase, if I understand what you are saying, any and all scientific and engineering aspects of the issue of what caused, or did not cause, the collapses, bears no relevance to the issue of why the data was not released which is an issue of security of the general public.
Yes - that is what I'm saying. And your statement of it may be clearer than mine.

Whether I am right could be a different matter but it is how I read the situation.

Personally I doubt that AE8911 would want to discuss the collapse engineering in a legal protocol setting. Even they must know they have nothing going for them. And none of their experts would last long under competent cross examination. T Szamboti is probably the best they have.

I would think that getting denied standing or otherwise procedurally barred would serve their purpose - then they go crying to the suckers for more money etc etc
 
Last edited:

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Yes - that is what I'm saying. And your statement of it may be clearer than mine.

Whether I am right could be a different matter but it is how I read the situation.
No, I venture to say that several other posters would agree with you, quite possibly including Mick West.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
It would be one thing of AE has proposed the mechanism and made a case that the concealed "evidence" would unequivocally support the mechanism they propose. All they are done is run around with their hair on fire screaming... NIST made a mistake... no committed fraud and there was an inside job CD and NIST is part of the cover up.

I think NIST probably did not nail the initiation... but the cause of out of control fire and heat was clearly what led to the mechanical collapse. I suppose this is the core concept that AE completely rejects... heat can undermine a steel structure. That is their first mistake. It clearly can!
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
I think NIST probably did not nail the initiation... but the cause of out of control fire and heat was clearly what led to the mechanical collapse. I suppose this is the core concept that AE completely rejects... heat can undermine a steel structure. That is their first mistake. It clearly can!

You know very well that NIST did not 'nail' the initiation. Any reasonable person who has seen and understood the implications of the omitted structural elements in NIST's claim will see that they didn't.

You may recall that for years NIST 'couldn't get a handle on it'. With good reason. They knew that all past real life and experimental experience showed that steel frame highrise buildings just do not fail from office fires. They rejected physical impact damage and internal diesel fires. They were baffled.

For you to now glibly say that such fires were 'clearly' what led to the collapse therefore flys in the face of all past experience. It wasn't clear to NIST. Again for good reason.

Later, the mystery was solved and suddenly it became obvious. That 'obvious' explanation was the failure of a single connection. Unfortunately, as you admitted yourself, that initiation event is seen to be in grave doubt when the correct elements are included. This should logically lead any truly scientific organisation to admit their errors and re-examine their data to discover what really caused this unprecedented collapse.

It also means that your second unfounded bare assertion ; that such office fires can bring down buildings is now questionable because the debate has gone back to square one where the world and his wife agreed that it wasn't possible.

This is like discovering that if the first domino doesn't fall then the chain of domino failures doesnt happen . Yet you insist that the chain did occur despite also admitting that the first domino didn't fall.

All that the proposed legal action is attempting to do is discover what really happened and to stop NIST stonewalling and trying to pretend that their initiation claim is accurate.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
You know very well that NIST did not 'nail' the initiation. Any reasonable person who has seen and understood the implications of the omitted structural elements in NIST's claim will see that they didn't.

You may recall that for years NIST 'couldn't get a handle on it'. With good reason. They knew that all past real life and experimental experience showed that steel frame highrise buildings just do not fail from office fires. They rejected physical impact damage and internal diesel fires. They were baffled.

For you to now glibly say that such fires were 'clearly' what led to the collapse therefore flys in the face of all past experience. It wasn't clear to NIST. Again for good reason.

Later, the mystery was solved and suddenly it became obvious. That 'obvious' explanation was the failure of a single connection. Unfortunately, as you admitted yourself, that initiation event is seen to be in grave doubt when the correct elements are included. This should logically lead any truly scientific organisation to admit their errors and re-examine their data to discover what really caused this unprecedented collapse.

It also means that your second unfounded bare assertion ; that such office fires can bring down buildings is now questionable because the debate has gone back to square one where the world and his wife agreed that it wasn't possible.

This is like discovering that if the first domino doesn't fall then the chain of domino failures doesnt happen . Yet you insist that the chain did occur despite also admitting that the first domino didn't fall.

All that the proposed legal action is attempting to do is discover what really happened and to stop NIST stonewalling and trying to pretend that their initiation claim is accurate.

My read on this is that these 3 buildings were not your ordinary high rise steel framed towers. The twins had a very unique structural design... hull and core and innovation erection / construction never used before or since for that matter. 7wtc was erected to span over a massive 3 story tall power sub station. I don't think there is another high rise anywhere in the world like that!

These designs employed strategies to make them stand and used standard engineering principles and attributes of materials... but they were innovation and like all steel frames were vulnerable to mechanical damage as well as the effect of heat. We know that ALL steel frames use sprinklers and fire retardant coatings.. precisely because steel IS vulnerable. If it wasn't why would codes require this. For years these measures prevented building on fire to get out of control. The WTC fires were not controlled and there was thousands of gallons of Jet fuel burning the twins... and thousands of gallons of diesel fuel inside of 7WTC. Sprinkler systems failed immediately... leaving nothing to mitigate the effects of fire.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
All that the proposed legal action is attempting to do is discover what really happened and to stop NIST stonewalling and trying to pretend that their initiation claim is accurate.

But what's the actual legal claim here? What's are they asking, and what is the basis in law? Are they simily filing a more complicated FOIA request?

How does the disagreement about the significance of the details of the initiation event apply to the lawsuit?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I think Mick is correct. AE wants all the data made public.. like a FOIA because they believe in that data they will find proof of a CD or an effort to not look at evidence which might lead to a CD. So they have their hair on fire claiming NIST did more than make mistakes... the intentionally with malice aforethought deceived the people and covered up the inside job CD. THIS is the theme/meme of AE and presumably what their activities are meant to show.. CD inside job.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
CD inside job.

Well..."AE4T" might be still, as a 'fringe' effort, attempting to "prove" such a claim. However?

Isn't it fair to state that every observed case of actual CD illustrates the VERY loud percussion sounds associated with the explosives? These seem to be undeniable....and also ABSENT from all three of the 9/11 buildings (WTC 1&2, and WTC 7).

SO?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well..."AE4T" might be still, as a 'fringe' effort, attempting to "prove" such a claim. However?

Isn't it fair to state that every observed case of actual CD illustrates the VERY loud percussion sounds associated with the explosives? These seem to be undeniable....and also ABSENT from all three of the 9/11 buildings (WTC 1&2, and WTC 7).

SO?

How does this relate to the lawsuit? Let's not get into the laundry list unless it directly relates.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
AE never states what the CD mechanism is... so their suit is... it seems... to get data which would show it was some sort of CD or they investigators simply set aside some evidence because it seemed to lead to CD. AE never really lays out what they think the CD was... but they don't accept that fires can weaken steel... enough to lead to a complete collapse...

Fishing expedition?
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
... but they don't accept that fires can weaken steel....

Of course its accepted that heat weakens steel. But its also well known and documented what that effect is over both time and temperatures involved. The effects on fireproofed steel is also understood. The codes set out what protection is required based on experimentation. There is also a wealth of data on the fire loads in a typical office, and measurements taken on how rapidly an organic fire moves from one area to another as the available fuel is expended. Typical maximum heat values are known and that 20 minutes is average for any area to burn before it starts to cool. The fireproofing codes are then designed to cover that time, and after that the cooled steel rapidly regains any lost strength. But of course you know all this. After all its why such high rise buildings don't collapse in a normal office fire. What puzzles me is why you keep asserting that in the case of WTC7 all this can be ignored. And why you think that for the first ( and only ) time in history, a fully fireproofed building - with a normal office fire load - burning for a normal 20 minutes in any one area - can defy all experimentation, and documented data, and cause global collapse.

( Mick, before you delete this as being off topic I must point out that when an undeleted off topic entry is made then a reply should be allowed.)

And Jeffrey, turning to the thread subject again, I have to repeat that the action is to try to open up the whole subject of what caused WTC7 to fail so spectacularly. Don't lose sight of the fact that NIST said that a single connection failed and that was the cause of the global collapse ; partly at total freefall acceleration. If that initiation event can be shown to be wrong then the real reason needs to be discovered. The integrity and safety of all other high rise buildings depend on that.

You give the impression that you tend to agree that NIST's initiation explanation is in error. Why do you not want to find out what really happened in case new codes and connection details are required ?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
You know very well that NIST did not 'nail' the initiation. Any reasonable person who has seen and understood the implications of the omitted structural elements in NIST's claim will see that they didn't.

Sounds like personal opinion.
Also not germane to this thread.
You may recall that for years NIST 'couldn't get a handle on it'. With good reason. They knew that all past real life and experimental experience showed that steel frame highrise buildings just do not fail from office fires. They rejected physical impact damage and internal diesel fires. They were baffled.
Also merely your opinion, and not germane to this thread.
<<snipped more off topic musings>>

All that the proposed legal action is attempting to do is discover what really happened and to stop NIST stonewalling and trying to pretend that their initiation claim is accurate.
Finally on topic.

So tell us what legal arguement is AE911T going to use, and when will this begin?
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Of course its accepted that heat weakens steel. But its also well known and documented what that effect is over both time and temperatures involved. The effects on fireproofed steel is also understood. The codes set out what protection is required based on experimentation. There is also a wealth of data on the fire loads in a typical office, and measurements taken on how rapidly an organic fire moves from one area to another as the available fuel is expended. Typical maximum heat values are known and that 20 minutes is average for any area to burn before it starts to cool. The fireproofing codes are then designed to cover that time, and after that the cooled steel rapidly regains any lost strength. But of course you know all this. After all its why such high rise buildings don't collapse in a normal office fire. What puzzles me is why you keep asserting that in the case of WTC7 all this can be ignored. And why you think that for the first ( and only ) time in history, a fully fireproofed building - with a normal office fire load - burning for a normal 20 minutes in any one area - can defy all experimentation, and documented data, and cause global collapse....Why do you not want to find out what really happened in case new codes and connection details are required ?
Put me on the list of people who acknowledge that their formal science schooling is probably inadequate
to competently pass judgement on the facts of this collapse...who might be willing to spend a lot of time studying up,
in hopes of understanding exactly what happened here...except that in the complete absence of any legit CD evidence, the fire explanation seems like too obvious an answer to justify investing a bunch of time into alternate realities.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
New topics in new threads please. This is broad enough as it is.

Can anyone even speculate as to the legal basis for the lawsuit?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
the fire explanation seems like too obvious an answer to justify investing a bunch of time into alternate realities.

Yes. Heat from un-fought, or "uncontrolled" fires can get exceed temperatures that steel (which has has its "fire-proofing" coating 'blown off' from severe impacts) can exceed the structural integrity OF the original design.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Can anyone even speculate as to the legal basis for the lawsuit?

I believe this was up a few posts. AE4T "simply" dispute that hot fires are sufficient for a "global collapse" as seen on 9/11.

Astonishing when considering that these who make such claims, are "architects" and "engineers".

Hence, the apparent "genesis" of this lawsuit proposal (?). I could be mistaken. Perhaps "AE4T" are attempting a 'last-ditch' ploy for some sort of sustainability?

IMO there is simply no basis. IF it proceeds to the "crucible" of an actual court proceeding? Then perhaps this will be shown.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I believe this was up a few posts. AE4T "simply" dispute that hot fires are sufficient for a "global collapse" as seen on 9/11.

Astonishing when considering that these who make such claims, are "architects" and "engineers".

We know what AE911 dispute. But what about the legal basis for the lawsuit? I mean, what is the actual law?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
But what about the legal basis for the lawsuit? I mean, what is the actual law?

THAT is the pertinent question, and should "circle back" to zero-in, here. Too many posts into this thread, it's time to either "re-focus" on THAT pertinent question, or dust our hands of this.

In fact....IS the "AE911T" team still pursuing this lawsuit? (That might also be pertinent).
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I believe this was up a few posts. AE4T "simply" dispute that hot fires are sufficient for a "global collapse" as seen on 9/11.

Astonishing when considering that these who make such claims, are "architects" and "engineers".
That is a technical argument though WW.
A legal argument might be to call into question the reason for the rejection of the FOIA request. They may try to demand that NIST illustrate why its a danger to the public.

However, NIST could then outline their reasoning and two things could happen.
The judge could rule in NIST's favour and conclude that the public safety trumps disclosure. The judge could decide that a demostrably secure professional organization could receive the data. That would leave AE911T out since it is not a demonstrably professional organization. It does not even have members, it has "signatories". NIST could then say they will release specific data to a professional group if they can show what they will do with it, specifically.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The judge could rule in NIST's favour and conclude that the public safety trumps disclosure. The judge could decide that a demostrably secure professional organization could receive the data. That would leave AE911T out since it is not a demonstrably professional organization. It does not even have members, it has "signatories".

This, then, would be a mistake (not that I understand the "law")...because AE4/911T would then cite such a ruling as a "win", and tout it as a "sign of the conspiracy"!! (If I understood the gist of your point, there).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm a little puzzled as to why there seems to be nothing about this lawsuit on their web site. All I see is a passing mention:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/affili...-nist-via-oig-re-fraudulent-wtc-7-report.html
Maybe this is something that Cole is talking up, and the main AE911 (Gage) is not too interested?
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I suppose that the underlying basis of this suit is the notion that fire cannot cause a single failure leading to total collapse... NIST made the single column failure case... but I too question that in a typical frame. WTC7 was not a typical frame.. so it might very well lead to collapse as their nutty animation shows... the one that doesn't match what happened.. but if DOES show a single column failure can collapse the tower. I think in the case of 7WTC there are other "single location" failures which could collapse the tower. If AE believes this NOT to be the case... let them say it... rather than there actual analysis /mechanism proposed has "minor" technical errors making it a FRAUD.

OT I think the towers designs were the problem as much as the uncontrolled fired with plenty of fuel present. And the effect of fire on steel AND connections needs to be understood... as I suspect connections fail before robust frame sections themselves. This is evident in collapse phase of all three because you have a lot of sections broken at the ends... from out of spec mechanical stresses... weakest link goes first... weakest link... connections. There was no there there as far as the path of most resistance in 7wtc... and so once things started to move laterally all axial coupling to the foundations was destroy. Humpty dumpty time. AE refuses to see how this could happen and they can only envision blowing things to kingdom come... That's pretty limited thinking.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Problem is that the notion that fire cannot lead to global failure is not a legal argument.
AE911T needs a legal basis for its lawsuit.
I do not think that the court will even hear technical arguments.

The only recourse I can think of for AE911T is to appeal that the court review and rule on the reason for refusal of the FOIA request.

Like I said, AE911T could 'win' but still not get the data themselves.

Of course even IF they try this tact they could lose and have a judge side with NIST:s public safety rationale.
AE911T will count this as a 'win' anyway since it will be further proof of govt cover up.

However, I believe that AE911T will push the court to hear those technical arguments we are all so familiar with and the case will be thrown out right off.

I am cynical of Gage's and Cole's motives. I don't believe they want the data actually released. It would remove a rationale for asking for donations and contradict the meme of big bad govt cover up.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I am cynical of Gage's and Cole's motives. I don't believe they want the data actually released. It would remove a rationale for asking for donations and contradict the meme of big bad govt cover up.

They could easily switch to claiming that any released data was falsified and still request funding to push on in their quest for "THE TRVTH".
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
They could easily switch to claiming that any released data was falsified and still request funding to push on in their quest for "THE TRVTH".
Yes.

Assuming they did get all the data that they ask for, what will they do with it? All that has been said is that they would"verify" the data and instructions in the FEA. There isnt much as to what that even means.
Are they planning on running an FEA themselves?
AE911T internet denizens have stated that NIST simply picked input for the FEA to get what they wanted and that this data has no basis in fact.
I have also seen statements that rail on that the FEA based animation bears no resemblance to the actual collapse.
So, do they plan on rerunning the e act same FEA to see it the animation collapse results again?
Is the plan to review each data point and comment on its veracity?

If the later is the plan then why hasnt AE911T created a data set on their own?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I'm a little puzzled as to why there seems to be nothing about this lawsuit on their web site. All I see is a passing mention:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/affili...-nist-via-oig-re-fraudulent-wtc-7-report.html
Maybe this is something that Cole is talking up, and the main AE911 (Gage) is not too interested?
Pepper's letter, iirc, was from AE911T.

ETA: first sentence says he is wtiting at the request and on behalf of a professional organization of 2100 engineers and architects. Sounds like its supposed to be AE911T.

Yes, it is odd, but about as organized as anything else they do. Other than getting Gage speaking dates and a paycheque.
 
Last edited:

Hevach

Senior Member.
They could easily switch to claiming that any released data was falsified and still request funding to push on in their quest for "THE TRVTH".
I don't think they'll do this, because of their MO (and that of most conspiracy theorists). They will pour over the information for years (it'll take that long easily), and quote mine it, pulling information out of context or straining context to the breaking point finding new talking points. Hundreds of minds provided the information and thousands of hands have typed it. There will be mistakes, there will be contradictions, and there will be ambiguities. Context will resolve them all, but they will be pure fodder for quote mining.

More context-free unsorted data than a non-expert can ever process is what creates and feeds these theories. Even if the entirety of that data destroys any claim they can make, it will only fuel them for decades.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
This, then, would be a mistake (not that I understand the "law")...because AE4/911T would then cite such a ruling as a "win", and tout it as a "sign of the conspiracy"!! (If I understood the gist of your point, there).
Whilst I have some sympathy for the direction you would like to take that is not the way the law works.

There is no way that probable misrepresentation of the court ruling by one of the parties could be taken into account in forming the judgement.

"Members of the jury. If you find against my client he will go public and call you names. So it would be better if you found in his favour."
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
Yes.

Assuming they did get all the data that they ask for, what will they do with it? All that has been said is that they would"verify" the data and instructions in the FEA. There isnt much as to what that even means.
Are they planning on running an FEA themselves?
AE911T internet denizens have stated that NIST simply picked input for the FEA to get what they wanted and that this data has no basis in fact.
I have also seen statements that rail on that the FEA based animation bears no resemblance to the actual collapse.
So, do they plan on rerunning the e act same FEA to see it the animation collapse results again?
Is the plan to review each data point and comment on its veracity?

If the later is the plan then why hasnt AE911T created a data set on their own?

In the utopic world where AE really gets their hands on 100% of data, what would happen?

1 - like mentioned above, they would nitpick a lot of stuff and find errors in NIST models. This would be proof of CD (even when their own models contain errors. Nothing is perfect)

2 - or they would not find a single error in NIST models, and it would be proof of CD because the data was tampered with. That would be the only explanation for a perfect model to exist (nothing is perfect)

That's possibly one reason for this data release to never happen. With AE, it's always a loose loose situation. IMHO, if AE and truthers were a fair group (accept discrepancies, adjust their models over time, debate with open mind, etc) debates with other professionals or experts would be muuuuuch easier.
 
Apparently, Richard Gage, AIA, CEO and Kelly David, Chief Operating Officer for AE911Truth discuss steps towards 9/11 justice in 2015, including plans to sue NIST for withholding information from FOIA requests. They discuss the importance of support from the AE911Truth family in this important and historic effort in this coming year.

They don't have a leg to stand on, IMO.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
On the redesigned AE911T site, under "What you can do" - "Membership", I found the following:

 
On the redesigned AE911T site, under "What you can do" - "Membership", I found the following:

I perused AE911's new website looking for updates on this supposed lawsuit. I've come up empty handed. It's June of 2015. Maybe they reached a dead end and decided not to persue it?
 

Related Articles

Top