Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, May 30, 2016.
So NOT simultaneous?
Make up your mind already!
Let's take NIST's model of the WTC7 "collapse", you think NIST's model represents reality?
Your understanding of computer modeling is akin to a grade school child's understanding of advanced calculus.
Easily. Hulsey already explained it to you and I agree.
It did, any fool can see that in every video.
They did and they both contradicted NIST's findings as well. Again, there was not one reputable engineering study that agrees with NIST's findings. Both the ARUP and Weidlinger studies have been proven untenable/invalid by Hulsey as to their respective collapse initiation hypotheses. But you knew that. Prove Hulsey wrong, about anything. I keep asking you to do that if you really can do it in any legitimate scientific platform but all you know how to do is post your opinions in forums and hold Mick West up as some kind of authority on the subject.
As does anyone with a functional pair of eyes and a brain.
No one needs Hulsey to see what anyone can plainly see.
Nice emojis though, do you really believe your childish emojis support your phony arguments and make you sound more intelligent? I have to give it to you Gamolon, you're still trying to push that idiot "progressive collapse initiated by fire alone" hypothesis after all these years despite the facts. You are really deeply devoted to the OCT. I personally think you're just FOS and have some sort of agenda.
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
The research team is currently organizing and uploading all of its data into a format that can be readily downloaded and used. We expect to post the data sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019.
There will be a two-month public comment period from September 3 to November 1, 2019, with the final report will be released later this year. During this period, we welcome any and all members of the public to submit constructive comments intended to further the analyses and presentation of findings contained in the report. Designated reviewers external to UAF and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth will also review the report during this period. Commenters are asked to send their comments in an attached PDF or Word document to
Hopefully if that deadline passes with no data available, the peer review deadline will be extended appropriately. IMO it should be extended regardless. The final published peer reviewed report will become the scientific standard for what most likely happened to WTC7 on 9/11 (that all columns were removed simultaneously, perhaps with the core columns first followed by the remaining columns a fraction of a second later), until proven otherwise*. The NIST report called the "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" (a hypothesis of a gravitational collapse caused by thermal expansion due to fire alone - peddled for almost 11 years as fact) will be scientifically invalidated in the process, until proven otherwise*. Whether that means the Hulsey hypothesis will also be officially accepted or not, we shall see. In the meantime, there's also an initiative to inform Congress:
The scientific invalidation of the NIST WTC7 hypothesis will (or should) precipitate a scientific review/analysis of NIST's WTC1 and WTC2 hypothesis. An article on that subject was published in 1996 and has exceeded 1 million views. That number is by far the most widely read article in the Europhysics Journal.
15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses
* I anticipate that the only thing that might change as time passes is that Hulsey's final report will be edited to include additional detail and perhaps some corrections.
Volunteers from the local group DC911Truth showed up in great measure and did their part by delivering packages to all 535 members of Congress. The packages included a copy of the Bobby McIlvaine Act; a moving letter from Gioia; evidence “postcards” that concisely outline the explosive evidence regarding the destruction of the towers; and a one-page summary of the recent YouGov survey commissioned by AE911Truth, which found that a majority of Americans who see video of the collapse of Building 7 are certain or suspect it was due to a controlled demolition.
On the final day of the visit, Steele delivered a packet to each member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform (chaired by Cummings, whose office hosted a meeting) and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The packet included a cover letter (see below) from Gage, the abstract of the UAF report, and the one-page summary of the YouGov survey. Steele also gave the UAF abstract and the YouGov survey results to Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who is the sole representative from Alaska.
September 13, 2019
Re: World Trade Center Building 7 Collapse Reports by NIST and UAF
Dear Congressman Cummings:
I am writing you today on behalf of more than 3,000 architects and engineers who have signed a petition calling on the U.S. Congress to open a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.
In September 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the National Construction Safety Team Act, which mandated the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to investigate and determine the most likely technical cause of these three building failures. NIST conducted its investigation over the next six years, releasing its report on the Twin Towers in 2005 and its report on World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in 2008.
Sadly, it has become apparent to the thousands of professionals who have signed our petition, as well as to countless experts in other technical fields, that NIST conducted its investigation based on the pre‑determined conclusion that all three failures were due primarily to fire. Along the way, NIST ignored, dismissed, and denied the overwhelming evidence contradicting that conclusion.
As part of our effort to establish the truth about these three building failures, we have funded a four-year computer modeling study of the collapse of WTC 7 by engineers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). The draft report of this study was released on September 3, 2019. The final report will be published by the end of the year, after a two-‐‑month public comment period.
We respectfully ask that you, as chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, read the draft report. Then, following the release of the final report, we ask that you do everything in your power to have the Committee on Oversight and Reform investigate the profound discrepancies between the NIST findings and UAF findings — and hold NIST and its lead investigators accountable. Pending the outcome of your investigation, we also ask you to consider introducing the obby McIlvaine World Trade Center Investigation Act, which would establish a select committee to reinvestigate the destruction of all three World Trade Center towers (see AE911Truth.org/justice).
Enclosed you will find the abstract of the UAF WTC 7 report. You may download the full report at http://ine.uaf.edu or at https://AE911Truth.org/wtc7. If you have any questions, please contact me directly.
Richard Gage, AIA
Founder and President
Didn't the 9/11 Commission and/or Congress order the FBI to submit a report? They would've had that power, right?
The thing is, that none of these whistleblowers are blowing the whistle on the attack operations on the day, just the investigation which followed. When people say, 'but someone would've talked' they are referring to the people inside the government who would've been involved in the actual attack operations.
There is no publicly available report (that I'm aware of) that the FBI may have submitted to Congress or the 9/11 Commission so we don't know what they might have given these 2 entities, if anything. There was a 9/11 Review Commission Report released in March 2015 that the FBI submitted to Congress that is currently the subject of a federal lawsuit by the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry. The lawsuit cites that the FBI failed to include in its report evidence that the FBI knew about for years.
Congress yes but they were deceived by the FBI. The 9/11 Commission was also given subpoena power which they never used.
Not necessarily. Some of these whistleblowers were government insiders who had information that challenged and/or contradicted the official story. No one knows for sure what role elements within the US government had in the 9/11 attacks other than a deliberate stand down and likely the planning of the controlled demolition of 3 towers on 9/11. There is the extremely slim possibility (non-existent as far as the overwhelming evidence shows) that no one within the US government took part other than the stand down, which occurred in plain sight. Any whistleblower who may have been in on the planning or had first hand knowledge would likely endanger his/her life and their family for speaking out. This was after all a mass murder of extreme proportion, followed by a US government policy of genocide and other human rights atrocities.
How were they deceived?
What stand down?
Why would anyone agree to be part of a demolition crew to demolish an obviously active, healthy building?
The FBI withheld over 80,000 pages of documents from the 9/11 Commission and Congress for over a decade and failed to do the job they were mandated to do by Congress.
9/11 went down to near perfection despite multiple warnings prior to 9/11. There were 12 war games planned and scheduled to take place on the morning of 9/11 designed to divert the entire air defense apparatus away from the northeast corridor of the US so that the entire incident would go off unmolested. George Bush himself did absolutely nothing despite knowing about the attacks and neither did anyone else who may have been able to do something. This was not by accident or incompetence, despite the official claim. And not one person was ever held accountable for dereliction of duty, in fact some were promoted (for a job well done I suppose).
The facts, science and logic point strongly to a controlled demolition of 3 towers on 9/11. Who, what, where, how, when and why is matter for a legitimate criminal investigation that never took place. Anyone can speculate anything else but what is not up for speculation is the catastrophic global failure of 3 towers on 9/11 that could not possibly have been caused naturally strictly by planes, damage, fire or a combination.
Was Congress asking for these 80,000+ pages?
How do you know that Bush knew about the attacks?
Yeah, certainly that is insane.
Well the point is, that surely someone would've talked. I can't imagine how someone would be able to live with themselves with that on their conscience, unless everyone involved were just total sociopaths!
No, neither Congress or the 9/11 Commission were made aware by the FBI that the documents existed.
There are several articles on the subject including this one:
History is filled with all sorts of people, especially national leaders, who think nothing of committing all sorts of atrocities and have no conscience. The last 3 US Presidents are a good example aside from the more obvious ones such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pinochet.
So how were the documents discovered and when?
So he was warned about Al Qaeda attacking. I thought you meant he knew about an inside job.
Let's face it IF 9/11 was an inside job, the odds are pretty good Bush knew about it. Although there is no incontrovertible evidence confirming that it was an inside job, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence suggesting it was.
UAF, AE911Truth Release All Data from WTC 7 Study — Time for NIST to Do the Same
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is pleased to announce the release of all input data, results data, and simulations that were used or generated during the University of Alaska Fairbanks World Trade Center Building 7 study.
All of the data can be downloaded in a ZIP file at either AE911Truth.org/wtc7 or ine.uaf.edu/wtc7.
Because the release of these files was delayed by two weeks, the deadline for the public comment period has been moved from November 1 to November 15, 2019.
Help Ensure an Open and Transparent Scientific Process Regarding WTC 7
The files contained in this download will enable any person with the requisite software tools to examine and replicate all of the computer analyses performed during this study.
Unfortunately, while the UAF research team has made all of its data available to the public, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has so far refused to practice the same level of transparency regarding its taxpayer-funded investigation into the collapse of WTC 7.
In 2009, then-NIST Director Patrick Gallagher issued a “Finding Regarding Public Safety Information” stating that the disclosure of certain information related to the NIST WTC 7 investigation “might jeopardize public safety.” Since then, NIST has cited this public safety exemption as grounds for withholding key portions of its modeling data and other information from members of the public — including from licensed engineers, whose foremost duty is to protect the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
In response to one engineer’s appeal of NIST’s decision to withhold this information, the U.S. Department of Commerce subsequently claimed that, if released, the withheld information “might provide instruction to groups and individuals that wish to learn how to simulate building collapse and devise ways to destroy buildings.”
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which represents thousands of professionals who are tasked with ensuring the public’s safety, vigorously objects to the withholding of any information related to the NIST WTC 7 investigation. It should be clear to all observers that the risk of anyone using this information to devise ways to destroy buildings is infinitesimal to zero and that the withholding of this information has merely served to prevent the public from scrutinizing the analyses performed by NIST.
We therefore encourage every member of the public who cares about ensuring an open and transparent scientific process regarding the collapse of WTC 7 to email NIST Director Walter Copan at firstname.lastname@example.org and respectfully ask him to annul the 2009 “Finding Regarding Public Safety Information.” This simple action would allow NIST to disclose any information related to its WTC 7 investigation that members of the public request in the future.
So we are a step closer to getting the scientific community to face the facts and accept the industry wide standard truth that the NIST report on WTC7 is not valid. And that the only possible cause of the global destruction of WTC7 on 9/11 at free fall and near free fall is the near simultaneous failure of every column which of course could never have been caused by fire. It is up to NIST or anyone, to try to legitimately refute this reality.
There was nothing relevant in any of those 80,000+ pages was there?
Do you think that it was most likely an inside job?
They are classified to this day, no one knows what's in them.
For me the stand down alone is complicity to terrorism and mass murder. Everything points to an inside job, it's difficult to believe it was just a stand down.
Some folks have nothing better to do than immerse themselves in silly conspiracy theories. I suppose it is their entertainment, like spitting into the wind.
No questions surrounding 9/11 then? Official story is completely above scrutiny? The government should be 100% believed?
And some folks have nothing better to do than to post irrelevant off topic drivel because they're desperately trying to sidetrack the actual discussion. If you don't want to participate in the subject matter being discussed stay the **** out of the thread.
Nothing like a little entertainment.
Once again, if you refuse to discuss the topic of this thread and related issues, you are trolling and violating the rules of this forum.
And MIT analysis, not some conspiracy theorist.
The official narrative IS a conspiracy theory peddled via the 9/11 Commission Report. The FACTS (see below) show the 9/11 Commission and their report is severely bankrupt on many different levels. So what MIT analysis are you talking about? There is no "MIT analysis" with respect to the 9/11 Commission and their report that I'm aware of, which are the subject of this thread.
What MIT analysis?
Sure, but only foreknowledge about an attack by an outside actor.
Separate names with a comma.