By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 17:10 - Sep 13 by Cheltenham_Blue
I must admit I took sometime to take a look at this having not wanted to do it over the weekend.
I asked you to send me a 'credentialed and peer reviewed journaled article' to support your theory of a thermite reaction within the Towers. That's not what you sent me.
You work for the Economist to I assumed you knew what a peer reviewed journaled article meant, but it seems, alas not. What you sent me was an article from 'Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth' a group set up in 2006 by Richard Gage, a well known conspiracy nut and someone who has repeatedly cited as being, "responsible for peddling some of the most pernicious and long-running lies about the 9/11 attacks".
This article in 'AE911' contains a number of references, 4 of which, from YouTube, that well known academic resource, (and home of the conspiracy nut job), one of which a video from AE911 themselves, meaning they used their own film as a reference for their article and an out of context video of firefighters talking about "molten rivers of steel running down the channel runs", 9/11 is not mentioned, bar a 1 second clip of fire fighters pointing at an aerial shot of the 9/11 'pile'. The most telling thing in this out of context clip is the final fire fighter, who says, "There was no machinery, because the machinery was all gone", what 'machinery' could possibly be in the towers prior to collapse, except for the lift gear, which was well above the impact zone, and even if fire fighters WERE in the lift rooms, you'd have to argue that they were pretty sh1t at their jobs to be in a room unaffected by fire well above the seat of the fire.
Next we come to the article, written by several academics that you hint at. This article was published in 'The Open Chemical Physics Journal'. I assume, working for the economist, you'll know what an 'open' journal means?
Just in case, it means it's not reviewed, I could write an article that said I discovered the existence of BigFoot and I can prove he is responsible for teaching people how to make crystal meth, and they'd probably publish it.
All of this is before I've even mentioned that the article by Niels H. Harrit, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen et al has been completely dismissed as inaccurate and the samples reanalysed by spectroscopy, the final report stating,
"There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles that you would expect to see from a thermite burn. They say the red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon-steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. And there is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, so the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."
Niels Harrit tried to sue for libel a Danish newspaper, Weekendavisen, which dismissed his claims and called him a liar, during the trial, he called Professor Per Hedegaard as a witness on his behalf, the following is from Professor Hedegaard's testimony, "from the data in Harrit’s nanothermite report there would have to be about 60 metric tonnes of unreacted nanothermite, which would mean that there would have been even more inside the buildings that actually reacted."
Dr Harrit lost his libel claim.
Peddling this sort of sh1t, is really pretty low. Do some proper research, not rely on 'research' that at my University would have got an F for being unable to substantiate their claims, and talk to people who were actually there.
Still think they were packed out with Thermite? Thermite is a very reactionary substance, funny how it managed to stay inert as two planes flew into it isn't it? 9/11 isn't a suitable subject to be going, 'look how clever and edgy I am', especially on a football forum.
[Post edited 13 Sep 2021 18:16]
I am sorry to learn that you witnessed 9/11 first hand and thank for posting your experience and thoughts on it. I can’t imagine how horrendous it must have been for you.
A good friend of mine is into the conspiracy theory stuff but I’ve long since stopped discussing 9/11 with him. I just don’t buy it any more than I do the stuff about the moon landings being faked. Mind you, he does carry the Satanic bible and a pack of tarot cards with him at all times!
I know what I saw, I know what I’ve heard and read from the many people who were there. While I am no scientist, I know enough not to be taken in by the nonsense and dysfunctional people that should know better..
Enough on this, back to Ipswich Town, just how awful are we?
2
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 16:28 - Sep 14 with 1392 views
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 17:10 - Sep 13 by Cheltenham_Blue
I must admit I took sometime to take a look at this having not wanted to do it over the weekend.
I asked you to send me a 'credentialed and peer reviewed journaled article' to support your theory of a thermite reaction within the Towers. That's not what you sent me.
You work for the Economist to I assumed you knew what a peer reviewed journaled article meant, but it seems, alas not. What you sent me was an article from 'Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth' a group set up in 2006 by Richard Gage, a well known conspiracy nut and someone who has repeatedly cited as being, "responsible for peddling some of the most pernicious and long-running lies about the 9/11 attacks".
This article in 'AE911' contains a number of references, 4 of which, from YouTube, that well known academic resource, (and home of the conspiracy nut job), one of which a video from AE911 themselves, meaning they used their own film as a reference for their article and an out of context video of firefighters talking about "molten rivers of steel running down the channel runs", 9/11 is not mentioned, bar a 1 second clip of fire fighters pointing at an aerial shot of the 9/11 'pile'. The most telling thing in this out of context clip is the final fire fighter, who says, "There was no machinery, because the machinery was all gone", what 'machinery' could possibly be in the towers prior to collapse, except for the lift gear, which was well above the impact zone, and even if fire fighters WERE in the lift rooms, you'd have to argue that they were pretty sh1t at their jobs to be in a room unaffected by fire well above the seat of the fire.
Next we come to the article, written by several academics that you hint at. This article was published in 'The Open Chemical Physics Journal'. I assume, working for the economist, you'll know what an 'open' journal means?
Just in case, it means it's not reviewed, I could write an article that said I discovered the existence of BigFoot and I can prove he is responsible for teaching people how to make crystal meth, and they'd probably publish it.
All of this is before I've even mentioned that the article by Niels H. Harrit, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen et al has been completely dismissed as inaccurate and the samples reanalysed by spectroscopy, the final report stating,
"There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles that you would expect to see from a thermite burn. They say the red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon-steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. And there is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, so the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."
Niels Harrit tried to sue for libel a Danish newspaper, Weekendavisen, which dismissed his claims and called him a liar, during the trial, he called Professor Per Hedegaard as a witness on his behalf, the following is from Professor Hedegaard's testimony, "from the data in Harrit’s nanothermite report there would have to be about 60 metric tonnes of unreacted nanothermite, which would mean that there would have been even more inside the buildings that actually reacted."
Dr Harrit lost his libel claim.
Peddling this sort of sh1t, is really pretty low. Do some proper research, not rely on 'research' that at my University would have got an F for being unable to substantiate their claims, and talk to people who were actually there.
Still think they were packed out with Thermite? Thermite is a very reactionary substance, funny how it managed to stay inert as two planes flew into it isn't it? 9/11 isn't a suitable subject to be going, 'look how clever and edgy I am', especially on a football forum.
[Post edited 13 Sep 2021 18:16]
Excellent and informative reply, thanks.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
1
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 15:19 - Sep 15 with 1323 views
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 17:10 - Sep 13 by Cheltenham_Blue
I must admit I took sometime to take a look at this having not wanted to do it over the weekend.
I asked you to send me a 'credentialed and peer reviewed journaled article' to support your theory of a thermite reaction within the Towers. That's not what you sent me.
You work for the Economist to I assumed you knew what a peer reviewed journaled article meant, but it seems, alas not. What you sent me was an article from 'Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth' a group set up in 2006 by Richard Gage, a well known conspiracy nut and someone who has repeatedly cited as being, "responsible for peddling some of the most pernicious and long-running lies about the 9/11 attacks".
This article in 'AE911' contains a number of references, 4 of which, from YouTube, that well known academic resource, (and home of the conspiracy nut job), one of which a video from AE911 themselves, meaning they used their own film as a reference for their article and an out of context video of firefighters talking about "molten rivers of steel running down the channel runs", 9/11 is not mentioned, bar a 1 second clip of fire fighters pointing at an aerial shot of the 9/11 'pile'. The most telling thing in this out of context clip is the final fire fighter, who says, "There was no machinery, because the machinery was all gone", what 'machinery' could possibly be in the towers prior to collapse, except for the lift gear, which was well above the impact zone, and even if fire fighters WERE in the lift rooms, you'd have to argue that they were pretty sh1t at their jobs to be in a room unaffected by fire well above the seat of the fire.
Next we come to the article, written by several academics that you hint at. This article was published in 'The Open Chemical Physics Journal'. I assume, working for the economist, you'll know what an 'open' journal means?
Just in case, it means it's not reviewed, I could write an article that said I discovered the existence of BigFoot and I can prove he is responsible for teaching people how to make crystal meth, and they'd probably publish it.
All of this is before I've even mentioned that the article by Niels H. Harrit, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen et al has been completely dismissed as inaccurate and the samples reanalysed by spectroscopy, the final report stating,
"There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles that you would expect to see from a thermite burn. They say the red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon-steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. And there is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, so the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."
Niels Harrit tried to sue for libel a Danish newspaper, Weekendavisen, which dismissed his claims and called him a liar, during the trial, he called Professor Per Hedegaard as a witness on his behalf, the following is from Professor Hedegaard's testimony, "from the data in Harrit’s nanothermite report there would have to be about 60 metric tonnes of unreacted nanothermite, which would mean that there would have been even more inside the buildings that actually reacted."
Dr Harrit lost his libel claim.
Peddling this sort of sh1t, is really pretty low. Do some proper research, not rely on 'research' that at my University would have got an F for being unable to substantiate their claims, and talk to people who were actually there.
Still think they were packed out with Thermite? Thermite is a very reactionary substance, funny how it managed to stay inert as two planes flew into it isn't it? 9/11 isn't a suitable subject to be going, 'look how clever and edgy I am', especially on a football forum.
[Post edited 13 Sep 2021 18:16]
Keanish has gone very quiet since this post.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 15:45 - Sep 15 with 1300 views
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 15:19 - Sep 15 by The_Flashing_Smile
Keanish has gone very quiet since this post.
Keanish is attracted to this kind of nonsense. He HATES it being mentioned but remember when he was going to have his accountant explain how Evans made money from the club by using it as a tax loss? Then mysteriously he changed accountants and couldn't provide us with this proof?
If he works for the Economist it's probably driving the delivery van to local retailers.
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 19:24 - Sep 15 by J2BLUE
Keanish is attracted to this kind of nonsense. He HATES it being mentioned but remember when he was going to have his accountant explain how Evans made money from the club by using it as a tax loss? Then mysteriously he changed accountants and couldn't provide us with this proof?
If he works for the Economist it's probably driving the delivery van to local retailers.
[Redacted]
0
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 20:25 - Sep 15 with 1209 views
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 15:19 - Sep 15 by The_Flashing_Smile
Keanish has gone very quiet since this post.
Sorry lads, busy working hard and putting a long post together for you. I’ll have some thought starters up for to intellectually fiend over in the morning.
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 19:24 - Sep 15 by J2BLUE
Keanish is attracted to this kind of nonsense. He HATES it being mentioned but remember when he was going to have his accountant explain how Evans made money from the club by using it as a tax loss? Then mysteriously he changed accountants and couldn't provide us with this proof?
If he works for the Economist it's probably driving the delivery van to local retailers.
For the record, my accountant was genuinely surprised my wrested in tax evasion and corruption in sport. She was up for looking into it but changed her mind. Out of my hands that one although I’m up for continuing this thread. Stay tuned.
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 22:31 - Sep 15 by Keaneish
For the record, my accountant was genuinely surprised my wrested in tax evasion and corruption in sport. She was up for looking into it but changed her mind. Out of my hands that one although I’m up for continuing this thread. Stay tuned.
Your avatar depicting a dangling pair of boll*cks is more telling than ever. Keep going though, it’s oddly compelling to watch a seemingly quite intelligent individual attempt to justify this stuff.
0
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 23:57 - Sep 15 with 1137 views
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 10:04 - Sep 10 by MerseyBlue
I don't know if we in particular should hold a minute's silence due to our newfound American connection, however, I think you could make a case that there should be a minute's silence across all sporting fixtures.
This was an awful and monumental event that continues to shape the 21st century. It's often portrayed as one terrible day for America in isolation but in reality it was simultaneously the culmination of decades of geopolitical posturing, and the launchpad for so many other problems we all now face.
3000 deaths directly from the attacks. Thousands of allied troops killed in operations. Tens of thousands more allied troops and veterans who have taken their own lives over the course of the last twenty years. Hundreds of thousands of civillians killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan. Horrific human rights abuses both in the warzone, and at Guantanamo Bay. The rise of Islamophobia. The trillions of dollars poured down the drain.
Look at the news today - MI5 suggesting that extremists will be emboldened by the successful coup, and that our chances of suffering a large-scale terror attack in the years to come will in all likelihood increase. I don't doubt that they're right. It won't happen immediately, but it will happen at some point.
I think you are rather confusing cause with effect.
What happened in New York 20 years ago was merely one effect of the global struggle for control of resources - oil in particular, in this case.
The US and others have been blowing women and children to pieces in the Middle East for decades. It should not come as any surprise that retaliations will follow. More so when the ability to do so is so well funded by the Wahabi Saudis. For every act of 'terrorism' others see it as an act of 'freedom fighting'.
And no, I am not defending those, or any other killings. Merely pointing out that this has two sides and that it is not the arabs who are in the US extracting their oil. Nor the Vietnamese napalming US kids in US states, Koreans bombing US cities either.
To claim this is shaping the 21st century is as silly as it is misleading. As long as the west seeks to control access to resources in the 'third world' then it will continue to cause conflict./ How those conflicts manifest themselves is subject to many variables - but they are happening every day, and have done continuously in regard to oil since the British and French fought the Getmans in WW1 over access to that oil.
It might be noted how the duplicity of the British over events that followed WWI has been the main cause of so much strife in the Middle East.
It might also interest those with an open mind to have a look at what part the US played in causing so much of the conflict
rather disturbing when you see the connection between the bin Ladens and the US
0
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 08:05 - Sep 16 with 1092 views
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 22:28 - Sep 15 by Keaneish
Sorry lads, busy working hard and putting a long post together for you. I’ll have some thought starters up for to intellectually fiend over in the morning.
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 22:28 - Sep 15 by Keaneish
Sorry lads, busy working hard and putting a long post together for you. I’ll have some thought starters up for to intellectually fiend over in the morning.
Good to hear, hopefully won’t be more than the stuff from the AE911 site that Cheltenham easily dealt with.
I was wrong earlier, the list of 35,000 architects and engineers, that was then corrected as 3000 engineers, is still public domain.
But 3000 was apparently still compelling. Can you guess where this post is going?
There is an article on the AE911 website, the explains how they vetted all the people on the list. It no longer has, as far as I can tell, someone from the University of Life.
The list in its current, tidier, vetted form, is harder to scan through than the old list.
But… it still contains engineers such as, Electrical, Optical, Software, computer hardware, Telecom, Land Architects ( Gardeners), project managers, Energy Efficiency professionals, a carpenter, architects that build local wooden buildings, a coast guard, someone that designs newspaper machines that has also “..designed a number of filling, capping and labeling machines for the personal care products industry”, a Quality Engineer, a paper engineer, a philosophy of engineering economics graduate, a patent lawyer, biomedical engineers, a rural engineer working in sanitation, Agricultural Engineers, a Financial Services professional that loves his country, a technician that had spent 3 years in a seminary and almost got his masters and there are a fair few people listed that do not have any information logged about their professional qualifications, only a name.
So not all the “architects and engineers” are in profession qualified to have an educated opinion on the science of what happens to buildings that have been on fire for a very long time. I am not suggesting that sticking a label on a personal care product, or writing some code, or sorting out toilets in fields are not perfectly valid jobs. But, you know, it isn’t quite the same.
There was someone from Dublin, and I checked, because, you know, I was expecting better. Luckily his comment was nothing to do with the actual collapse of buildings and seemed a reasonable comment, “The government needs to declassify and release all documentation, and explain how one of the largest militaries (and associated intelligence communities) in the world was caught unawares and in a state of unpreparedness.”
There were other similar comments, e.g. they signed the petition, not because of any doubt over science, but wanted more transparency on the terrorist investigations and intelligence failures.
There are also comments along this line by a U.K. based musician and architect, “When 9/11 occurred I knew in my bones it was a fix.” That is not someone who is concerned about the science behind the NIST report, they are anchored to a feeling, established during the event.
So, in that list of 3000, not all have any form of qualification, or have a relevant qualification, or are even questioning the science.
Remember this is a list that is very carefully vetted, apparently.
By the way, I did spot 3 metallurgy experts, at least one was outside the US, and one of whom didn’t seem 100% convinced that planes did actually hit the towers.
It is worth considering this.
In polls, in the US, 11% of the general population believe that the US government knowing allowed the attacks to happen.
11% of the US population believe a conspiracy about 911. There are conspiracy theories that get larger percentages.
There are at least 95,000 registered architects in the US. Let’s take the premise that all 3000 people are in fact qualified enough to have a valid scientific opinion. We know it is much smaller than that, and that 3000 figure consists of people from around the world. But the larger number is better to justify the “compelling” assertion. There are other professions that could have a professional opinion, but that would increase the 95,000 number of possible informed people. E.g. considering 3 metallurgists out of all possible people with a metallurgy qualification would probably not be compelling.
So even if we take the higher number of professionals from the lowest number of the potential population. It is just over 3% of architects, that actual ask a form of question.
So amongst a knowledgeable community, the number of people believing a 9/11 conspiracy is less than the general population.
Stated another way, more knowledgeable people are less likely to believe the “doubters” of AE9/11.
I would suggest, if an appeal to authority argument is a valid thing to assert, then that is a stronger appeal.
I would suggest that an organisation, using an appeal to authority, that uses misleading and false data, is more akin to someone attempting a con, rather than being in real pursuit for non-emotive scientific investigation.
Plus Richard Gage, who runs AE911, and is paid from the donations, has been caught lying a number of times, and dismissing events that don’t suit a narrative,at some of the college events he speaks at.
So hopefully you have something scientific, rigorous, peer reviewed and better than something produced by people that use con tricks, lies and dismiss inconvenient evidence.
4
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 08:31 - Sep 16 with 1064 views
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 08:06 - Sep 16 by eireblue
Good to hear, hopefully won’t be more than the stuff from the AE911 site that Cheltenham easily dealt with.
I was wrong earlier, the list of 35,000 architects and engineers, that was then corrected as 3000 engineers, is still public domain.
But 3000 was apparently still compelling. Can you guess where this post is going?
There is an article on the AE911 website, the explains how they vetted all the people on the list. It no longer has, as far as I can tell, someone from the University of Life.
The list in its current, tidier, vetted form, is harder to scan through than the old list.
But… it still contains engineers such as, Electrical, Optical, Software, computer hardware, Telecom, Land Architects ( Gardeners), project managers, Energy Efficiency professionals, a carpenter, architects that build local wooden buildings, a coast guard, someone that designs newspaper machines that has also “..designed a number of filling, capping and labeling machines for the personal care products industry”, a Quality Engineer, a paper engineer, a philosophy of engineering economics graduate, a patent lawyer, biomedical engineers, a rural engineer working in sanitation, Agricultural Engineers, a Financial Services professional that loves his country, a technician that had spent 3 years in a seminary and almost got his masters and there are a fair few people listed that do not have any information logged about their professional qualifications, only a name.
So not all the “architects and engineers” are in profession qualified to have an educated opinion on the science of what happens to buildings that have been on fire for a very long time. I am not suggesting that sticking a label on a personal care product, or writing some code, or sorting out toilets in fields are not perfectly valid jobs. But, you know, it isn’t quite the same.
There was someone from Dublin, and I checked, because, you know, I was expecting better. Luckily his comment was nothing to do with the actual collapse of buildings and seemed a reasonable comment, “The government needs to declassify and release all documentation, and explain how one of the largest militaries (and associated intelligence communities) in the world was caught unawares and in a state of unpreparedness.”
There were other similar comments, e.g. they signed the petition, not because of any doubt over science, but wanted more transparency on the terrorist investigations and intelligence failures.
There are also comments along this line by a U.K. based musician and architect, “When 9/11 occurred I knew in my bones it was a fix.” That is not someone who is concerned about the science behind the NIST report, they are anchored to a feeling, established during the event.
So, in that list of 3000, not all have any form of qualification, or have a relevant qualification, or are even questioning the science.
Remember this is a list that is very carefully vetted, apparently.
By the way, I did spot 3 metallurgy experts, at least one was outside the US, and one of whom didn’t seem 100% convinced that planes did actually hit the towers.
It is worth considering this.
In polls, in the US, 11% of the general population believe that the US government knowing allowed the attacks to happen.
11% of the US population believe a conspiracy about 911. There are conspiracy theories that get larger percentages.
There are at least 95,000 registered architects in the US. Let’s take the premise that all 3000 people are in fact qualified enough to have a valid scientific opinion. We know it is much smaller than that, and that 3000 figure consists of people from around the world. But the larger number is better to justify the “compelling” assertion. There are other professions that could have a professional opinion, but that would increase the 95,000 number of possible informed people. E.g. considering 3 metallurgists out of all possible people with a metallurgy qualification would probably not be compelling.
So even if we take the higher number of professionals from the lowest number of the potential population. It is just over 3% of architects, that actual ask a form of question.
So amongst a knowledgeable community, the number of people believing a 9/11 conspiracy is less than the general population.
Stated another way, more knowledgeable people are less likely to believe the “doubters” of AE9/11.
I would suggest, if an appeal to authority argument is a valid thing to assert, then that is a stronger appeal.
I would suggest that an organisation, using an appeal to authority, that uses misleading and false data, is more akin to someone attempting a con, rather than being in real pursuit for non-emotive scientific investigation.
Plus Richard Gage, who runs AE911, and is paid from the donations, has been caught lying a number of times, and dismissing events that don’t suit a narrative,at some of the college events he speaks at.
So hopefully you have something scientific, rigorous, peer reviewed and better than something produced by people that use con tricks, lies and dismiss inconvenient evidence.
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 19:24 - Sep 15 by J2BLUE
Keanish is attracted to this kind of nonsense. He HATES it being mentioned but remember when he was going to have his accountant explain how Evans made money from the club by using it as a tax loss? Then mysteriously he changed accountants and couldn't provide us with this proof?
If he works for the Economist it's probably driving the delivery van to local retailers.
I didn't know that, interesting!
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
2
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 08:39 - Sep 16 with 1056 views
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 08:06 - Sep 16 by eireblue
Good to hear, hopefully won’t be more than the stuff from the AE911 site that Cheltenham easily dealt with.
I was wrong earlier, the list of 35,000 architects and engineers, that was then corrected as 3000 engineers, is still public domain.
But 3000 was apparently still compelling. Can you guess where this post is going?
There is an article on the AE911 website, the explains how they vetted all the people on the list. It no longer has, as far as I can tell, someone from the University of Life.
The list in its current, tidier, vetted form, is harder to scan through than the old list.
But… it still contains engineers such as, Electrical, Optical, Software, computer hardware, Telecom, Land Architects ( Gardeners), project managers, Energy Efficiency professionals, a carpenter, architects that build local wooden buildings, a coast guard, someone that designs newspaper machines that has also “..designed a number of filling, capping and labeling machines for the personal care products industry”, a Quality Engineer, a paper engineer, a philosophy of engineering economics graduate, a patent lawyer, biomedical engineers, a rural engineer working in sanitation, Agricultural Engineers, a Financial Services professional that loves his country, a technician that had spent 3 years in a seminary and almost got his masters and there are a fair few people listed that do not have any information logged about their professional qualifications, only a name.
So not all the “architects and engineers” are in profession qualified to have an educated opinion on the science of what happens to buildings that have been on fire for a very long time. I am not suggesting that sticking a label on a personal care product, or writing some code, or sorting out toilets in fields are not perfectly valid jobs. But, you know, it isn’t quite the same.
There was someone from Dublin, and I checked, because, you know, I was expecting better. Luckily his comment was nothing to do with the actual collapse of buildings and seemed a reasonable comment, “The government needs to declassify and release all documentation, and explain how one of the largest militaries (and associated intelligence communities) in the world was caught unawares and in a state of unpreparedness.”
There were other similar comments, e.g. they signed the petition, not because of any doubt over science, but wanted more transparency on the terrorist investigations and intelligence failures.
There are also comments along this line by a U.K. based musician and architect, “When 9/11 occurred I knew in my bones it was a fix.” That is not someone who is concerned about the science behind the NIST report, they are anchored to a feeling, established during the event.
So, in that list of 3000, not all have any form of qualification, or have a relevant qualification, or are even questioning the science.
Remember this is a list that is very carefully vetted, apparently.
By the way, I did spot 3 metallurgy experts, at least one was outside the US, and one of whom didn’t seem 100% convinced that planes did actually hit the towers.
It is worth considering this.
In polls, in the US, 11% of the general population believe that the US government knowing allowed the attacks to happen.
11% of the US population believe a conspiracy about 911. There are conspiracy theories that get larger percentages.
There are at least 95,000 registered architects in the US. Let’s take the premise that all 3000 people are in fact qualified enough to have a valid scientific opinion. We know it is much smaller than that, and that 3000 figure consists of people from around the world. But the larger number is better to justify the “compelling” assertion. There are other professions that could have a professional opinion, but that would increase the 95,000 number of possible informed people. E.g. considering 3 metallurgists out of all possible people with a metallurgy qualification would probably not be compelling.
So even if we take the higher number of professionals from the lowest number of the potential population. It is just over 3% of architects, that actual ask a form of question.
So amongst a knowledgeable community, the number of people believing a 9/11 conspiracy is less than the general population.
Stated another way, more knowledgeable people are less likely to believe the “doubters” of AE9/11.
I would suggest, if an appeal to authority argument is a valid thing to assert, then that is a stronger appeal.
I would suggest that an organisation, using an appeal to authority, that uses misleading and false data, is more akin to someone attempting a con, rather than being in real pursuit for non-emotive scientific investigation.
Plus Richard Gage, who runs AE911, and is paid from the donations, has been caught lying a number of times, and dismissing events that don’t suit a narrative,at some of the college events he speaks at.
So hopefully you have something scientific, rigorous, peer reviewed and better than something produced by people that use con tricks, lies and dismiss inconvenient evidence.
Let me reiterate this yet again for those who didn’t read prior posts. I believe there are inconsistencies in the NIST report that need to be addressed in an open, independent hearing. Until this has happened, I do not think the NIST report is completely credible. I am not a ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ but I do believe conflicting scientific evidence needs greater scrutiny. So, I’m not “peddling” anything, I’m merely stating an opinion and below are the reasons which have led to this, WTC7 being the area of discussion.
What I’m actually asking for is a peer review, which, ironically, is what you’re crying out for here in what feels like a level of intellectual oneupmanship - lets drop that, this should be discursive. There has never been an official peer review on the NIST report. They opened their report up to questions from the public in 2008, which were ingested and tailored back in an FAQs format - vetted, if you will (2). They, “…met regularly with diverse stakeholder groups, soliciting and considering their input in developing the investigation plan, findings, recommendations and final reports.” (12). To compile the report, NIST did lean on…”knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) (14)”. However, this has never been openly scrutinised by unsolicited parties. The indirect consequence of no peer reviews, it can be argued, has led to wars, further loss of life and a refugee problem (1). Naturally these reports take a long time to publish so you may argue that peer reviews wouldn’t have prevented the above especially given the government leadership at the time; agree to disagree. Incidentally, for the benefit of those who haven’t read this text, the 9/11 Commission failed in its official report to even mention WTC7 (3). Surely, if we’re agreeing peer reviews are necessary, this glaring omission would have been spotted, after all, its gross negligence.
There are inconsistencies in the full NIST official report documented at the International hearing in 2010, which I believe raise significant questions for debate. You may question the validity of the hearings and those who presided over it but it remains an independent hearing none-the-less. The NIST’s conclusion was that office fires caused fully fire proofed steel beams to fail in one area of the WTC 7 building leading it to entirely collapse. If this is true, it means that all tall buildings that suffer from thermal expansion aren’t safe from total collapse should there be an office fire.
This post will be very lengthy if I post all 5 NIST points I have conjecture with so I’ll illustrate some for further discussion but pull out one for focus. For those who want to cry “Conspiracy Theorist”, please don’t. It’s easy to label people if they go against popular convention irrespective of the amounts of research others may do. Unfortunately, official statements released to owned channels take moments to organise and can easily discredit, whether valid or not. We should suspend our disbelief and certainly not label others so simply, in my view.
For the record, none of the below is my own research. I have lifted this from essays, articles, books and journals I have read. These points don’t explore the science in great detail, they merely illustrate the points for further scientific discussion.
Point 1 for debate: The Fire Hypothesis and inaccuracies in data modelling
Fire Resistance and Fire Load: NIST investigators knew that a fire load in any one area would only support 20 mins of fire (4, 14) and that the 2-3 hours it refers to is the time a fire lasts anywhere on that floor, not a specific area, like underneath a beam (causing the girder “walk-off” theory). Steel girders were rated for 3 hours of fire resistance, which abides by the fire resistance plan (13). Underwriters Laboratories provided fire resistance information for WTC7 and NIST even confirmed prior to 9/11 that the fire proofing applied met the fire resistance requirements (10). 

Why is there inconsistency in fundamental data reporting on safety standards?

Fire Duration: At 4pm NISTs simulation showed fires raging across the 12th floor but a video of the WTC 7 floor 12 at 3:49pm showed the opposite (6, 7). NIST stated that, “…the observed fire activity gleaned from the photographs and videos was not a model input” (8), which is a very unscientific approach to modelling a simulation. Photographic evidence contradicts the fire modelling as NIST stated there were seven-hour fires on floors 11 and 13 which “lasted until the time of collapse”. Photographic evidence from the day does not show any fires until around 2pm and the building fell 3.5 hours later. Notoriously, BBC reported it fell even earlier than it did without fact checking their broadcast (16). 

Are we satisfied that the fire intensity and reporting is accurate?
Modelling inconsistencies: NIST refused to release their computer models to the public and a structural engineer, Ron Brookman was denied an FOIA when he requested the calculations and analysis behind the girder “walk-off” failures; reason was that it “risked public safety”. The fire hypothesis leading to the collapse relies on the girder “walk-off” but the modelling shows the building collapsing at the side. All known footage shows the point of structural collapse from girder 79 at the centre of the building (9). In 1988, when the Salomon Brothers leased the top 19 floors of WTC 7, Larry Silverstein who owned the ground lease on the site said, “…it was designed to allow for "entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity”, (14) largely due to the cantilever model. This contradicts the theory that global collapse could be achieved through the “walk-off” of structural girder 79, 80, 81 and its supporting slabs. The FEMA were moved off the project and its was given to NIST as their summary was inconclusive (15). 

Does the NIST report satisfy the inconclusiveness of the FEMA summary?
Points 2 - 5 for later debate:
 * No physical tests were allowed or performed by other experts outside of NIST to challenge or disprove their hypothesis and no member of the NIST or the Government attended an International hearing to answer questions about their investigation. * No steel was tested for thermite as there was no steel to test - it had been cleared up illegally so ruling this out is problematic. Asa result, NIST failed to test for explosives, which is decreed by National Fire Protection Association. * Floor slabs were not heated in its differential thermal expansion model meaning thermal expansion was not tested properly. The counter theory is that if all elements were subject to thermal expansion, they would expand together preventing the “walk-off” theory. * Facts about sheer studs on the critical girder were ignored meaning thermal expansion could not have caused the girder to “walk off” its seat.
There are a few gaps in sources I would like to have plugged but I don’t have the time. I’d like to have included more insight into the omission of sheer studs from the structural columns in NISTs report even though the WTC 7 project manager released an academic paper in 1986 starting there we…”30 sheers studs” (I can’t find the source). I do agree there are anomalies which contradict Conspiracy Theorists rabid views on thermite explosion. In the FEMA report photographic evidence clearly shows the WTC 7 penthouse disappearing first which could support the NIST theory of internal collapse. However, I’m sceptical. As previously stated, no steel buildings have ever globally collapsed due to fire so for three to achieve it in the space of 8 hours in the same area by two different methods (Doplar and Thermal Expansion) seems highly dubious and statistically very improbable, in my opinion.
Note: All academic and professional researchers are cited in these articles. I have not provided the peer sources of the above points raised, just the sources themselves.
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 08:39 - Sep 16 by Keaneish
Let me reiterate this yet again for those who didn’t read prior posts. I believe there are inconsistencies in the NIST report that need to be addressed in an open, independent hearing. Until this has happened, I do not think the NIST report is completely credible. I am not a ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ but I do believe conflicting scientific evidence needs greater scrutiny. So, I’m not “peddling” anything, I’m merely stating an opinion and below are the reasons which have led to this, WTC7 being the area of discussion.
What I’m actually asking for is a peer review, which, ironically, is what you’re crying out for here in what feels like a level of intellectual oneupmanship - lets drop that, this should be discursive. There has never been an official peer review on the NIST report. They opened their report up to questions from the public in 2008, which were ingested and tailored back in an FAQs format - vetted, if you will (2). They, “…met regularly with diverse stakeholder groups, soliciting and considering their input in developing the investigation plan, findings, recommendations and final reports.” (12). To compile the report, NIST did lean on…”knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) (14)”. However, this has never been openly scrutinised by unsolicited parties. The indirect consequence of no peer reviews, it can be argued, has led to wars, further loss of life and a refugee problem (1). Naturally these reports take a long time to publish so you may argue that peer reviews wouldn’t have prevented the above especially given the government leadership at the time; agree to disagree. Incidentally, for the benefit of those who haven’t read this text, the 9/11 Commission failed in its official report to even mention WTC7 (3). Surely, if we’re agreeing peer reviews are necessary, this glaring omission would have been spotted, after all, its gross negligence.
There are inconsistencies in the full NIST official report documented at the International hearing in 2010, which I believe raise significant questions for debate. You may question the validity of the hearings and those who presided over it but it remains an independent hearing none-the-less. The NIST’s conclusion was that office fires caused fully fire proofed steel beams to fail in one area of the WTC 7 building leading it to entirely collapse. If this is true, it means that all tall buildings that suffer from thermal expansion aren’t safe from total collapse should there be an office fire.
This post will be very lengthy if I post all 5 NIST points I have conjecture with so I’ll illustrate some for further discussion but pull out one for focus. For those who want to cry “Conspiracy Theorist”, please don’t. It’s easy to label people if they go against popular convention irrespective of the amounts of research others may do. Unfortunately, official statements released to owned channels take moments to organise and can easily discredit, whether valid or not. We should suspend our disbelief and certainly not label others so simply, in my view.
For the record, none of the below is my own research. I have lifted this from essays, articles, books and journals I have read. These points don’t explore the science in great detail, they merely illustrate the points for further scientific discussion.
Point 1 for debate: The Fire Hypothesis and inaccuracies in data modelling
Fire Resistance and Fire Load: NIST investigators knew that a fire load in any one area would only support 20 mins of fire (4, 14) and that the 2-3 hours it refers to is the time a fire lasts anywhere on that floor, not a specific area, like underneath a beam (causing the girder “walk-off” theory). Steel girders were rated for 3 hours of fire resistance, which abides by the fire resistance plan (13). Underwriters Laboratories provided fire resistance information for WTC7 and NIST even confirmed prior to 9/11 that the fire proofing applied met the fire resistance requirements (10). 

Why is there inconsistency in fundamental data reporting on safety standards?

Fire Duration: At 4pm NISTs simulation showed fires raging across the 12th floor but a video of the WTC 7 floor 12 at 3:49pm showed the opposite (6, 7). NIST stated that, “…the observed fire activity gleaned from the photographs and videos was not a model input” (8), which is a very unscientific approach to modelling a simulation. Photographic evidence contradicts the fire modelling as NIST stated there were seven-hour fires on floors 11 and 13 which “lasted until the time of collapse”. Photographic evidence from the day does not show any fires until around 2pm and the building fell 3.5 hours later. Notoriously, BBC reported it fell even earlier than it did without fact checking their broadcast (16). 

Are we satisfied that the fire intensity and reporting is accurate?
Modelling inconsistencies: NIST refused to release their computer models to the public and a structural engineer, Ron Brookman was denied an FOIA when he requested the calculations and analysis behind the girder “walk-off” failures; reason was that it “risked public safety”. The fire hypothesis leading to the collapse relies on the girder “walk-off” but the modelling shows the building collapsing at the side. All known footage shows the point of structural collapse from girder 79 at the centre of the building (9). In 1988, when the Salomon Brothers leased the top 19 floors of WTC 7, Larry Silverstein who owned the ground lease on the site said, “…it was designed to allow for "entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity”, (14) largely due to the cantilever model. This contradicts the theory that global collapse could be achieved through the “walk-off” of structural girder 79, 80, 81 and its supporting slabs. The FEMA were moved off the project and its was given to NIST as their summary was inconclusive (15). 

Does the NIST report satisfy the inconclusiveness of the FEMA summary?
Points 2 - 5 for later debate:
 * No physical tests were allowed or performed by other experts outside of NIST to challenge or disprove their hypothesis and no member of the NIST or the Government attended an International hearing to answer questions about their investigation. * No steel was tested for thermite as there was no steel to test - it had been cleared up illegally so ruling this out is problematic. Asa result, NIST failed to test for explosives, which is decreed by National Fire Protection Association. * Floor slabs were not heated in its differential thermal expansion model meaning thermal expansion was not tested properly. The counter theory is that if all elements were subject to thermal expansion, they would expand together preventing the “walk-off” theory. * Facts about sheer studs on the critical girder were ignored meaning thermal expansion could not have caused the girder to “walk off” its seat.
There are a few gaps in sources I would like to have plugged but I don’t have the time. I’d like to have included more insight into the omission of sheer studs from the structural columns in NISTs report even though the WTC 7 project manager released an academic paper in 1986 starting there we…”30 sheers studs” (I can’t find the source). I do agree there are anomalies which contradict Conspiracy Theorists rabid views on thermite explosion. In the FEMA report photographic evidence clearly shows the WTC 7 penthouse disappearing first which could support the NIST theory of internal collapse. However, I’m sceptical. As previously stated, no steel buildings have ever globally collapsed due to fire so for three to achieve it in the space of 8 hours in the same area by two different methods (Doplar and Thermal Expansion) seems highly dubious and statistically very improbable, in my opinion.
Note: All academic and professional researchers are cited in these articles. I have not provided the peer sources of the above points raised, just the sources themselves.
[Post edited 16 Sep 2021 8:41]
You have no idea what peer review is, 6 blokes chatting about it on a football forum is not peer reviewing anything, you talk about intellectual oneupmanship, but yet here you are again, trying to prove your 'point of view' to be the correct one, all the while, framing it as 'research'.
The truth is, you clearly love this, as others have mentioned. You talk about the fact you have empathy because "Too much conjecture means families can never rest, it's not right and its not just.", and yet here's Keeneish, PEDDLING yet more confusion and conjecture and you are doing that, now matter how many times you dress it up as 'a debate'.
Keeneish- "the 9/11 Commission failed in its official report to even mention WTC7 (3). Surely, if we’re agreeing peer reviews are necessary, this glaring omission would have been spotted, after all, its gross negligence."
You're looking in the wrong place - The remit of the 9/11 commission was to establish, “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,”, that ended following the collapse of WTC2. The collapse of WTC7 was as a result of the collapse of WTC1, the terrorist activity had ceased. If we are going to go down the route of, 'the collapse was indirectly caused by terrorist activity to WTC1 and 2 and so is valid as terrorist activity' then maybe you want the 9/11 report to also consider the murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sheik in Arizona on September 15th. His murderer, told friends that he was, "going to shoot some towel heads" as revenge for 9/11 and shot Sodhi to death outside the petrol station he ran. Dead as a result of terrorist activity on 9/11.
1. "Why is there inconsistency in fundamental data reporting on safety standards?
" - Where is the inconsistency? You've provided no evidence of this. Do you think the baseline fire safety certificate is issued based on A 108 story building collapsing after a jet fuel fire into the building in question (in this case WTC7) or do you think it is based on a general combustable materials fire? Also your figures for the fire resistance plan are off. The requirement at the time of building for beams was 1.5 hours and 2 hours for columns exposure to a floor fire. The building was constructed to maintain 2 hours for beams and 3 hours for columns, well in excess of the requirements, (those requirements being a general combustible floor fire, not a jet fuel fire).
2. "Are we satisfied that the fire intensity and reporting is accurate?", prefaced with, "Photographic evidence from the day does not show any fires until around 2pm and the building fell 3.5 hours later.", Speaking as both a layman and as a former press photographer, (hence my presence that day), do you really think, just because you can't see the fire, that it isn't there? Offices buildings are full of voids, and deliberately so. Unless photographers were able to access a position above the fire floor in an adjacent building there is no way to see sufficiently inside the structure to photograph any deep seated fire and therefor photograph it.
Whats funny about this one is you had put this line in your pre-amble, "I am not a ‘Conspiracy Theorist’" and then follow up with, "Notoriously, BBC reported it fell even earlier than it did without fact checking their broadcast", which, ironically, is a spectacular favourite of conspiracy theorists on this subject to indicate that, 'Main Stream Media' were in someway 'in' on this 'inside job'.
Have you any idea how confused the situation was that day? Of course you don't, there was panic and general confusion well into the evening, a colleague of mine shot an entire roll of film, only to discover he had incorrectly loaded the film, and he had a completely blank roll. This was a photographer of 30 years experience of shooting in the most challenging environments, for example under fire in Bosnia, and yet on that day, he panicked and got things wrong, badly wrong in his case, as those moments are gone forever. Needless to say, I can understand the BBC making a broadcast error, why can't you? Because it provides evidence of a 'conspiracy', it provides no tangible proof that the collapse of WTC7 wasn't as in the official findings, just a very loose potential of 'something else going on'.
3. And I'm getting pretty tired of this now. The walk off of Column 79 does explain the collapse, the statement of Larry Silverstein is another line trotted out by 'truthers' over and over again. The opening up of floor areas for the Soloman Brothers, to which Silverstein was referring was done outside of the building core. Silverstein had only owned the lease on the WTC site for 14 days prior to the attacks, and yet he seems to have an intimate knowledge of its entire construction.
If the modelling shows side collapse then that is exactly what happened in the initial moments of the collapse, immediately following the buckling of column 79 there is a lateral shift in the building structure from east to west and windows in the north east corner began to break. What you have written, whilst having merits, completely fails to address the addition of the east penthouse in 1981 for Solomon brothers and the effect on the design load limits following its installation. Hence why the collapse commences at the penthouse as you mention.
I have to add as a final point here, that you add at the bottom of this, "As previously stated, no steel buildings have ever globally collapsed due to fire so for three to achieve it in the space of 8 hours in the same area by two different methods (Doplar and Thermal Expansion) seems highly dubious and statistically very improbable, in my opinion."
Its the "in my opinion", bit that for me is the killer gorilla, All of that research, to be followed by 'in my opinion' seems to frame your opinion very well.
I don't think you're a bad person, but I do think you have gone down the rabbithole of YouTube and the internet and read a lot of things by apparently eminent people that have convinced you that, 'something odd' went on that day. Show me one architect that thinks something is 'off' and I'll show you one nurse that thinks Coronavirus is a hoax.
I suppose I should be thankful that you haven't so far headed down the route of United 175 actually being a US Army drone or a projection and the plane actually landed at a military airfield. Its the obsession with what happened to WTC7 that triggers me, because thats the building that has constantly been pointed to by 'truthers' as the smoking gun, because of, well, everything you've mentioned up to now, if they lied about that, what else did they lie about?
But here's the rub, if it did collapse because of a controlled explosion, so what?
It had been burning a long time, the structure had been weakened by the impact of debris from the WTC It had been evacuated 90 minutes prior to the collapse, firefighters were pulled back from the vicinity 20 minutes prior, no one died, so, frankly, so what, who cares?
But.......It means they lied? Bless.
If it was a controlled demolition, of course they did, why wouldn't they? The IRS, and Defence Department along with the Secret Service were in there and there are even rumours of a CIA office, (which would make sense). Do you think anyone, and I do mean anyone, would want people poking around in those offices?
And in the event of a controlled demolition, OR a heat expansion collapse caused by intense fire, (which is what I subscribe to), in either case, do you really think 'they' would want hard drives or files from those offices just hanging around for days on end when genuinely random people with no ID, but said they wanted to help were able to get inside the cordons in the immediate aftermath? (I personally witnessed this).
You appear to have fallen into the trap of 'Us against Them', sure there is stuff that THEY want to keep from us, (see Tony Blair and WMD's), its always been that way, but the collapse, or controlled demolition, which ever way you want to play it, of WTC7 does not change what I saw with my own eyes at 09:03 which was a plane, with a blue underbelly flying over my head as I walked up Greenwich Street about 2 blocks from the Fire Station adjacent to WTC2, and dip it's wings as it impacted the building.
I'm going to bow out of this one now, as I can see where this is headed.
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 11:19 - Sep 16 by Cheltenham_Blue
You have no idea what peer review is, 6 blokes chatting about it on a football forum is not peer reviewing anything, you talk about intellectual oneupmanship, but yet here you are again, trying to prove your 'point of view' to be the correct one, all the while, framing it as 'research'.
The truth is, you clearly love this, as others have mentioned. You talk about the fact you have empathy because "Too much conjecture means families can never rest, it's not right and its not just.", and yet here's Keeneish, PEDDLING yet more confusion and conjecture and you are doing that, now matter how many times you dress it up as 'a debate'.
Keeneish- "the 9/11 Commission failed in its official report to even mention WTC7 (3). Surely, if we’re agreeing peer reviews are necessary, this glaring omission would have been spotted, after all, its gross negligence."
You're looking in the wrong place - The remit of the 9/11 commission was to establish, “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,”, that ended following the collapse of WTC2. The collapse of WTC7 was as a result of the collapse of WTC1, the terrorist activity had ceased. If we are going to go down the route of, 'the collapse was indirectly caused by terrorist activity to WTC1 and 2 and so is valid as terrorist activity' then maybe you want the 9/11 report to also consider the murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sheik in Arizona on September 15th. His murderer, told friends that he was, "going to shoot some towel heads" as revenge for 9/11 and shot Sodhi to death outside the petrol station he ran. Dead as a result of terrorist activity on 9/11.
1. "Why is there inconsistency in fundamental data reporting on safety standards?
" - Where is the inconsistency? You've provided no evidence of this. Do you think the baseline fire safety certificate is issued based on A 108 story building collapsing after a jet fuel fire into the building in question (in this case WTC7) or do you think it is based on a general combustable materials fire? Also your figures for the fire resistance plan are off. The requirement at the time of building for beams was 1.5 hours and 2 hours for columns exposure to a floor fire. The building was constructed to maintain 2 hours for beams and 3 hours for columns, well in excess of the requirements, (those requirements being a general combustible floor fire, not a jet fuel fire).
2. "Are we satisfied that the fire intensity and reporting is accurate?", prefaced with, "Photographic evidence from the day does not show any fires until around 2pm and the building fell 3.5 hours later.", Speaking as both a layman and as a former press photographer, (hence my presence that day), do you really think, just because you can't see the fire, that it isn't there? Offices buildings are full of voids, and deliberately so. Unless photographers were able to access a position above the fire floor in an adjacent building there is no way to see sufficiently inside the structure to photograph any deep seated fire and therefor photograph it.
Whats funny about this one is you had put this line in your pre-amble, "I am not a ‘Conspiracy Theorist’" and then follow up with, "Notoriously, BBC reported it fell even earlier than it did without fact checking their broadcast", which, ironically, is a spectacular favourite of conspiracy theorists on this subject to indicate that, 'Main Stream Media' were in someway 'in' on this 'inside job'.
Have you any idea how confused the situation was that day? Of course you don't, there was panic and general confusion well into the evening, a colleague of mine shot an entire roll of film, only to discover he had incorrectly loaded the film, and he had a completely blank roll. This was a photographer of 30 years experience of shooting in the most challenging environments, for example under fire in Bosnia, and yet on that day, he panicked and got things wrong, badly wrong in his case, as those moments are gone forever. Needless to say, I can understand the BBC making a broadcast error, why can't you? Because it provides evidence of a 'conspiracy', it provides no tangible proof that the collapse of WTC7 wasn't as in the official findings, just a very loose potential of 'something else going on'.
3. And I'm getting pretty tired of this now. The walk off of Column 79 does explain the collapse, the statement of Larry Silverstein is another line trotted out by 'truthers' over and over again. The opening up of floor areas for the Soloman Brothers, to which Silverstein was referring was done outside of the building core. Silverstein had only owned the lease on the WTC site for 14 days prior to the attacks, and yet he seems to have an intimate knowledge of its entire construction.
If the modelling shows side collapse then that is exactly what happened in the initial moments of the collapse, immediately following the buckling of column 79 there is a lateral shift in the building structure from east to west and windows in the north east corner began to break. What you have written, whilst having merits, completely fails to address the addition of the east penthouse in 1981 for Solomon brothers and the effect on the design load limits following its installation. Hence why the collapse commences at the penthouse as you mention.
I have to add as a final point here, that you add at the bottom of this, "As previously stated, no steel buildings have ever globally collapsed due to fire so for three to achieve it in the space of 8 hours in the same area by two different methods (Doplar and Thermal Expansion) seems highly dubious and statistically very improbable, in my opinion."
Its the "in my opinion", bit that for me is the killer gorilla, All of that research, to be followed by 'in my opinion' seems to frame your opinion very well.
I don't think you're a bad person, but I do think you have gone down the rabbithole of YouTube and the internet and read a lot of things by apparently eminent people that have convinced you that, 'something odd' went on that day. Show me one architect that thinks something is 'off' and I'll show you one nurse that thinks Coronavirus is a hoax.
I suppose I should be thankful that you haven't so far headed down the route of United 175 actually being a US Army drone or a projection and the plane actually landed at a military airfield. Its the obsession with what happened to WTC7 that triggers me, because thats the building that has constantly been pointed to by 'truthers' as the smoking gun, because of, well, everything you've mentioned up to now, if they lied about that, what else did they lie about?
But here's the rub, if it did collapse because of a controlled explosion, so what?
It had been burning a long time, the structure had been weakened by the impact of debris from the WTC It had been evacuated 90 minutes prior to the collapse, firefighters were pulled back from the vicinity 20 minutes prior, no one died, so, frankly, so what, who cares?
But.......It means they lied? Bless.
If it was a controlled demolition, of course they did, why wouldn't they? The IRS, and Defence Department along with the Secret Service were in there and there are even rumours of a CIA office, (which would make sense). Do you think anyone, and I do mean anyone, would want people poking around in those offices?
And in the event of a controlled demolition, OR a heat expansion collapse caused by intense fire, (which is what I subscribe to), in either case, do you really think 'they' would want hard drives or files from those offices just hanging around for days on end when genuinely random people with no ID, but said they wanted to help were able to get inside the cordons in the immediate aftermath? (I personally witnessed this).
You appear to have fallen into the trap of 'Us against Them', sure there is stuff that THEY want to keep from us, (see Tony Blair and WMD's), its always been that way, but the collapse, or controlled demolition, which ever way you want to play it, of WTC7 does not change what I saw with my own eyes at 09:03 which was a plane, with a blue underbelly flying over my head as I walked up Greenwich Street about 2 blocks from the Fire Station adjacent to WTC2, and dip it's wings as it impacted the building.
I'm going to bow out of this one now, as I can see where this is headed.
[Post edited 16 Sep 2021 11:25]
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I’ll have a read when I’ve got a bit more time but to reiterate, these are questions I’m raising are for discussion or debate im not trying to win or prove a point. We all have different opinions on sources or source material - the volume of it all is overwhelming and is good to evaluate, in my opinion anyway.
Whether this forum is the right means for it or not but a highly unlikely I guess given the median.
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 11:28 - Sep 16 by Keaneish
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I’ll have a read when I’ve got a bit more time but to reiterate, these are questions I’m raising are for discussion or debate im not trying to win or prove a point. We all have different opinions on sources or source material - the volume of it all is overwhelming and is good to evaluate, in my opinion anyway.
Whether this forum is the right means for it or not but a highly unlikely I guess given the median.
Here is the trick you are falling for.
Take evolution, people that oppose the theory of evolution of humans will say stuff like there is a missing link, you have a data point at 100,000 years and 300,000 years. Look there is a big bit missing. How do you explains that huh?
A scientist finds a skull that is 200,000 years old. For a scientist you have three proof points.
An anti-evolutionist, now has two gaps.
0
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 20:33 - Sep 16 with 919 views
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 20:21 - Sep 16 by eireblue
Here is the trick you are falling for.
Take evolution, people that oppose the theory of evolution of humans will say stuff like there is a missing link, you have a data point at 100,000 years and 300,000 years. Look there is a big bit missing. How do you explains that huh?
A scientist finds a skull that is 200,000 years old. For a scientist you have three proof points.
An anti-evolutionist, now has two gaps.
Not a fair comparison and not the place to begin this argument either. There are many issues with the molecules-to-man evolution evidence without arguing over missing links.
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 11:19 - Sep 16 by Cheltenham_Blue
You have no idea what peer review is, 6 blokes chatting about it on a football forum is not peer reviewing anything, you talk about intellectual oneupmanship, but yet here you are again, trying to prove your 'point of view' to be the correct one, all the while, framing it as 'research'.
The truth is, you clearly love this, as others have mentioned. You talk about the fact you have empathy because "Too much conjecture means families can never rest, it's not right and its not just.", and yet here's Keeneish, PEDDLING yet more confusion and conjecture and you are doing that, now matter how many times you dress it up as 'a debate'.
Keeneish- "the 9/11 Commission failed in its official report to even mention WTC7 (3). Surely, if we’re agreeing peer reviews are necessary, this glaring omission would have been spotted, after all, its gross negligence."
You're looking in the wrong place - The remit of the 9/11 commission was to establish, “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,”, that ended following the collapse of WTC2. The collapse of WTC7 was as a result of the collapse of WTC1, the terrorist activity had ceased. If we are going to go down the route of, 'the collapse was indirectly caused by terrorist activity to WTC1 and 2 and so is valid as terrorist activity' then maybe you want the 9/11 report to also consider the murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sheik in Arizona on September 15th. His murderer, told friends that he was, "going to shoot some towel heads" as revenge for 9/11 and shot Sodhi to death outside the petrol station he ran. Dead as a result of terrorist activity on 9/11.
1. "Why is there inconsistency in fundamental data reporting on safety standards?
" - Where is the inconsistency? You've provided no evidence of this. Do you think the baseline fire safety certificate is issued based on A 108 story building collapsing after a jet fuel fire into the building in question (in this case WTC7) or do you think it is based on a general combustable materials fire? Also your figures for the fire resistance plan are off. The requirement at the time of building for beams was 1.5 hours and 2 hours for columns exposure to a floor fire. The building was constructed to maintain 2 hours for beams and 3 hours for columns, well in excess of the requirements, (those requirements being a general combustible floor fire, not a jet fuel fire).
2. "Are we satisfied that the fire intensity and reporting is accurate?", prefaced with, "Photographic evidence from the day does not show any fires until around 2pm and the building fell 3.5 hours later.", Speaking as both a layman and as a former press photographer, (hence my presence that day), do you really think, just because you can't see the fire, that it isn't there? Offices buildings are full of voids, and deliberately so. Unless photographers were able to access a position above the fire floor in an adjacent building there is no way to see sufficiently inside the structure to photograph any deep seated fire and therefor photograph it.
Whats funny about this one is you had put this line in your pre-amble, "I am not a ‘Conspiracy Theorist’" and then follow up with, "Notoriously, BBC reported it fell even earlier than it did without fact checking their broadcast", which, ironically, is a spectacular favourite of conspiracy theorists on this subject to indicate that, 'Main Stream Media' were in someway 'in' on this 'inside job'.
Have you any idea how confused the situation was that day? Of course you don't, there was panic and general confusion well into the evening, a colleague of mine shot an entire roll of film, only to discover he had incorrectly loaded the film, and he had a completely blank roll. This was a photographer of 30 years experience of shooting in the most challenging environments, for example under fire in Bosnia, and yet on that day, he panicked and got things wrong, badly wrong in his case, as those moments are gone forever. Needless to say, I can understand the BBC making a broadcast error, why can't you? Because it provides evidence of a 'conspiracy', it provides no tangible proof that the collapse of WTC7 wasn't as in the official findings, just a very loose potential of 'something else going on'.
3. And I'm getting pretty tired of this now. The walk off of Column 79 does explain the collapse, the statement of Larry Silverstein is another line trotted out by 'truthers' over and over again. The opening up of floor areas for the Soloman Brothers, to which Silverstein was referring was done outside of the building core. Silverstein had only owned the lease on the WTC site for 14 days prior to the attacks, and yet he seems to have an intimate knowledge of its entire construction.
If the modelling shows side collapse then that is exactly what happened in the initial moments of the collapse, immediately following the buckling of column 79 there is a lateral shift in the building structure from east to west and windows in the north east corner began to break. What you have written, whilst having merits, completely fails to address the addition of the east penthouse in 1981 for Solomon brothers and the effect on the design load limits following its installation. Hence why the collapse commences at the penthouse as you mention.
I have to add as a final point here, that you add at the bottom of this, "As previously stated, no steel buildings have ever globally collapsed due to fire so for three to achieve it in the space of 8 hours in the same area by two different methods (Doplar and Thermal Expansion) seems highly dubious and statistically very improbable, in my opinion."
Its the "in my opinion", bit that for me is the killer gorilla, All of that research, to be followed by 'in my opinion' seems to frame your opinion very well.
I don't think you're a bad person, but I do think you have gone down the rabbithole of YouTube and the internet and read a lot of things by apparently eminent people that have convinced you that, 'something odd' went on that day. Show me one architect that thinks something is 'off' and I'll show you one nurse that thinks Coronavirus is a hoax.
I suppose I should be thankful that you haven't so far headed down the route of United 175 actually being a US Army drone or a projection and the plane actually landed at a military airfield. Its the obsession with what happened to WTC7 that triggers me, because thats the building that has constantly been pointed to by 'truthers' as the smoking gun, because of, well, everything you've mentioned up to now, if they lied about that, what else did they lie about?
But here's the rub, if it did collapse because of a controlled explosion, so what?
It had been burning a long time, the structure had been weakened by the impact of debris from the WTC It had been evacuated 90 minutes prior to the collapse, firefighters were pulled back from the vicinity 20 minutes prior, no one died, so, frankly, so what, who cares?
But.......It means they lied? Bless.
If it was a controlled demolition, of course they did, why wouldn't they? The IRS, and Defence Department along with the Secret Service were in there and there are even rumours of a CIA office, (which would make sense). Do you think anyone, and I do mean anyone, would want people poking around in those offices?
And in the event of a controlled demolition, OR a heat expansion collapse caused by intense fire, (which is what I subscribe to), in either case, do you really think 'they' would want hard drives or files from those offices just hanging around for days on end when genuinely random people with no ID, but said they wanted to help were able to get inside the cordons in the immediate aftermath? (I personally witnessed this).
You appear to have fallen into the trap of 'Us against Them', sure there is stuff that THEY want to keep from us, (see Tony Blair and WMD's), its always been that way, but the collapse, or controlled demolition, which ever way you want to play it, of WTC7 does not change what I saw with my own eyes at 09:03 which was a plane, with a blue underbelly flying over my head as I walked up Greenwich Street about 2 blocks from the Fire Station adjacent to WTC2, and dip it's wings as it impacted the building.
I'm going to bow out of this one now, as I can see where this is headed.
[Post edited 16 Sep 2021 11:25]
I admire your persistence with responding but he has fixed his view on this and trying to reason is not going to change it. He is trying to argue science without understanding it and without realising that there are far higher qualified responding.
You have shown the clear evidence that his arguments are from whacky conspiracy theorists. He argues he himself isn't one but how you can perpetuate the arguments of those who clearly are and not realise you are I am at a loss to understand.
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 20:36 - Sep 16 by Nthsuffolkblue
I admire your persistence with responding but he has fixed his view on this and trying to reason is not going to change it. He is trying to argue science without understanding it and without realising that there are far higher qualified responding.
You have shown the clear evidence that his arguments are from whacky conspiracy theorists. He argues he himself isn't one but how you can perpetuate the arguments of those who clearly are and not realise you are I am at a loss to understand.
I'm not a flat Earther but I think those guys who think the Earth is flat make some valid points about the lack of observable curvature of the Earth. Until science can explain that in a way that flat Earther scientists also agree with I think there are legitimate questions to answer about whether the Earth is indeed spherical.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
