76
77

American Institute of Architects rejects WTC 7 resolution with 160 for and 3,892 against. (self.conspiracy)

Sepulchxr が 投稿

全 170 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順q&a

[–]Homer_Simpson_Doh 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (61子コメント)

Not surprised. Especially if they had the vote setup so everyone could see how everyone else voted, then yeah. Who would vote for that when your boss can see you voted for some "conspiracy stuff".

[–]thatguyhere92 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (60子コメント)

Or it could just simply be that they think 9/11-truth is horseshit. What about that obvious option?

[–]Pvt_Hudson_ 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (57子コメント)

Over a thousand more architects just voted against the truth movement as the number of semi qualified signatories Richard Gage has managed to get at ae911truth over the last 8 years.

[–]spays_marine 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (54子コメント)

Nobody voted against the truth movement. They voted against a new investigation into WTC7. Given the quality of the NIST report, this is highly disturbing, no matter which story you believe. An honest man would have to admit that the investigation was poorly executed and fraudulent, not to mention locked away for the next century. I will never accept that these AIA members made a professional and informed choice to vote against it. It was either a career choice or out of sheer ignorance.

The one architect still blaming the diesel tanks is a good indication that these people are likely to be as ill informed about 9/11 as the general public.

Also, what exactly did you mean by semi-qualified? Can you explain who would be qualified? Do you know that this is a logical fallacy you're using?

[–]Pvt_Hudson_ -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (53子コメント)

Nobody voted against the truth movement. They voted against a new investigation into WTC7.

Dress it up however you like, the truth movement looks awfully silly right now.

Given the quality of the NIST report, this is highly disturbing, no matter which sorry you believe.

2 comments on this. First, maybe the NIST report isn't quite as flawed as you think. Nearly four thousand architects just gave it their support by disagreeing that a new investigation is needed.

Second, do you think the NIST report is the only investigation into building 7? It isn't.

An honest man would have to admit that the investigation was poorly executed and fraudulent, not to mention locked away for the next century.

I guess 95.9 percent of the AIA membership is dishonest then.

I will never accept that these AIA members made a professional and informed choice to vote against it. It was either a career choice or out of sheer ignorance.

Or maybe you're the ignorant one. Have you ever even considered that? Do you think you know better than 4 thousand licensed architects? Or the hundreds of engineers that worked on the NIST report?

Also, what exactly did you mean by semi-qualified? Can you explain who would be qualified?

Look through the list of "architects and engineers" that have signed up on the ae911truth site and see how many of the 2,000 plus are structural or civil engineers or architects. There are a boatload of people on that list with no experience at all with either of those disciplines.

[–]spays_marine 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (52子コメント)

Dress it up however you like, the truth movement looks awfully silly right now.

I'm not dressing anything up, I'm stating a fact, while you, in typical fashion, are twisting the story. Shills and trolls like you have been appealing to emotion like this for 14 years, it didn't work in the last decade, it won't work in this one. We're not kids any more Hudson.

First, maybe the NIST report isn't quite as flawed as you think.

It's not about what I think. The NIST reports are not and cannot be peer reviewed (for "national security reasons"). So by definition, they are flawed. Many people have also pointed out the problems with these reports and, as a sceptic, I'm not comfortable nor interested in acting like these do not exist.

Second, do you think the NIST report is the only investigation into building 7? It isn't.

Indeed it isn't. Many scientists have studied it and have concluded that it came down by explosives. In fact, even FEMA in their original metallurgy analysis stated that a high temperature corrosion attack could've led to the collapse.

It is for this reason that a new investigation is needed. You, however, argue that only scientists in favour of the official story are real scientists, and those who go against it aren't. That's highly convenient for you, but it has nothing to do with science. It's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, and it is on this fallacy that you base your belief.

I guess 95.9 percent of the AIA membership is dishonest then.

I'd say ignorant of how shoddy the official report is. It takes a dishonest man to know the WTC reports and still claim they are truthful.

Or maybe you're the ignorant one. Have you ever even considered that? Do you think you know better than 4 thousand licensed architects? Or the hundreds of engineers that worked on the NIST report?

I can state without a shadow of a doubt that I'm not ignorant about the building collapses. Though undoubtedly there's a lot to be figured out from a proper investigation. I've spent 14 years of my life on this. I'm familiar with both sides, I've read reports and papers from all sides and evaluated them best as I can. And I come to the same conclusion as many licensed engineers and architects. Can you say the same about those architects? Or do you just assume they are informed?

Look through the list of "architects and engineers" that have signed up on the ae911truth site and see how many of the 2,000 plus are structural or civil engineers or architects. There are a boatload of people on that list with no experience at all with either of those disciplines.

I'm not going to do your homework. You've made a claim, back it up or retract your words. I know you people love to marginalise everything without ever backing up a statement, so put your money where your mouth is and tell me how many licensed professionals you'd like us to ignore.

Need I also remind you that there's a difference between a group of people "semi-qualified" (whatever that means) and a group of people of which half are fully qualified. Of course, "fully qualified" is probably a term you are not allowed to utter when it comes to people critical of the official story.

[–]Pvt_Hudson_ -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (51子コメント)

Shills and trolls like you have been appealing to emotion like this for 14 years, it didn't work in the last decade, it won't work in this one. We're not kids any more Hudson.

Yikes, someone woke up on the wrong side of his cave this morning. Still a bit salty over getting creamed in that vote?

The NIST reports are not and cannot be peer reviewed

Well...except that they are.

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

In the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the ASCE flagship publication.

Just because they won't release their inputs to internet nobodies like you doesn't mean they won't let qualified individuals see their work.

The second official investigation was done by Aegis insurance, and included collapse modelling done separate from NIST. Guess what they found? Yup, no explosives needed, substandard fireproofing and construction that violated several NYC building codes is all that was needed to bring the building down.

I'd say ignorant of how shoddy the official report is

Four thousand architects on one side, you on the other, and they are the ignorant ones.

Well, thanks for my first belly laugh of the day.

I can state without a shadow of a doubt that I'm not ignorant about the building collapses. Though undoubtedly there's a lot to be figured out from a proper investigation. I've spent 14 years of my life on this.

Where did you get your structural engineering degree?

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Spectacularly ignorant people like you always have supreme confidence in their abilities. Apparently you know better than thousands of licensed and trained architects, and hundreds of engineers that worked on both NIST reports, and hundreds of engineers that have contributed science supporting the NIST report.

I'd make you my Dunning Kruger poster boy, but Akareyon already has that title all sewn up.

[–]spays_marine 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (50子コメント)

Well...except that they are.

No, they are not, that's not a peer review. If you read the abstract, you'll realize that. In fact, just the first sentence will do.

Here's why:

Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information:

  1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

  2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

~

Patrick Gallagher Director National Institute of Standards and Technology Dated: JUL 09 2009

.

Just because they won't release their inputs to internet nobodies like you doesn't mean they won't let qualified individuals see their work.

It's thanks to a qualified individual that we know that NIST is withholding information.

http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf

[–]PhrygianMode -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (45子コメント)

I've already debunked / educated him on this topic before. Check this out in case you haven't already seen it. Very relevant to his statement that NIST is "peer reviewed."

http://journalof911studies.com/resources/Brookman-Vol-33-Oct2012.pdf

"The technical paper published in the Journal of Structural Engineering summarizes, but necessarily condenses, many details found in the National Construction Safety Team Act Reports NCSTAR 1A (Sunder et al. 2008), NCSTAR 1-9 (McAllister et al. 2008) and NCSTAR 1-9A (MacNeill et al. 2008) published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). However, the paper lacks references to public sources of information sufficient to verify the authors' assumptions and conclusions. For example, structural calculations demonstrating the "walk-off" failure mechanism that hypothetically triggered the progressive collapse are unavailable. This information was placed off limits in 2009 when the NIST Director determined that release of calculations "might jeopardize public safety" (Gallagher 2009). If released, according to NIST, the calculations "would provide instruction to individuals wanting to learn how to simulate building collapses and how to most effectively destroy large buildings" (Kollar-Kotelly 2011). But the Ethical Standards for ASCE Journals are clear; technical papers are required to include "detail and reference to public sources of information sufficient to permit the author's peers to repeat the work or otherwise verify its accuracy." This standard aligns with the engineer's responsibility for ensuring public safety and has nothing to do with devising ways to destroy buildings. Although structural calculations demonstrating the "walk-off" failure mechanism are unavailable, many structural design, fabrication and erection drawings of WTC 7 were released by the NIST Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office and are available for those interested in studying the building's structural system. A comparison of original construction documents with details of the NIST study raises numerous questions germane to the collapse initiation. This discussion summarizes several of these questions."

He would know this if he actually read any of the papers that he links to. But he hasn't.

[–]Pvt_Hudson_ -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's a freedom of information request. He's not asking for the information in a confidential professional capacity, he's asking for it to be released publicly.

The NIST report was peer reviewed in the Journal of Structural Engineering.

The JSE peer review panel reviewed, approved, and published the paper. Sorry if this blows a hole in your argument.

[–]spays_marine 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's a freedom of information request. He's not asking for the information in a confidential professional capacity, he's asking for it to be released publicly.

As it should be. There is not a single reason why any of this should be hidden from the public.

The NIST report was peer reviewed

I've just proven that a large chunk of the information was not available, unless you can show me otherwise or prove that those almost 4000 pages were irrelevant, the facts contradict your claim. How can something be reviewed when a third is missing?

[–]fromherewegosublime 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The argument that tries to discredit AE911 on the merits of member qualifications has never made sense to me. AE911 was specifically created to form a highly qualified panel of professional architects, structural and civil engineers, academics in both fields, as well as thousands of other engineers and architects. You can view the list on their website: [http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/Petition-2000-AEs-13-09.pdf](Link)

I'm not sure what the vote really proves, in terms of factual basis of arguments. The vote results say that an overwhelming majority of other architects don't have an interest in questioning the 9/11 events, for one reason or another. I think most other architects do not believe it is politically possible, feasible, or desirable to discredit the official story. It may be that doing so could open them to financial backlash - a negative press story or a customer boycott. It may be possible that they have no interest in researching the events. It may be possible that they have researched the events, but disagree with the AE911Truth statements. However, a Yes/No vote loses this kind of definition.

However, I think that AE911Truth should continue their work, in the event that they find a breakthrough in evidence, or find a whistleblower.

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

just voted against the truth movement

More specifically Resolution 15-6

[–]sheasie -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What about that obvious option?

You really have to be quite naive to believe WTC1, 2, 6 & 7 collapsed due to two planes.

[–]spays_marine -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Undoubtedly many think so, until they've looked at the evidence.

[–]Horrible_Bastard 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Architects? Pfft. If I gave a shit what type of trees were in the lobby or what shape the vestibule of the emergency exit was I might be interested. Give me a structural engineers opinion any day.

[–]Sepulchxr[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hint... They would say the same.

Also, its not the AIA who asking Richard Gage for a vote. He's been trying to get them to do it for years, so clearly their opinion matters to him..

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

He's been trying to get them to do it for years, so clearly their opinion matters to him..

Source?

[–]Sepulchxr[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Here you go.

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Appreciated. They got a committee together to discuss the evidence AE911truth presented! That they actually got a committee together on the second attempt meant they took it seriously. I'd love to hear them explain the 2.25 seconds of free fall. Oh to be a fly on the wall when that meeting happened.

[–]Rockran 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

When you resubmit this, include a source - The convenience helps a great deal with promoting discussion.

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

May 2, 2015 - Telephone Interview - Transcribed May 15, 2015

Quick 15 Minute Q&A with Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth on the upcoming AIA convention campaign this weekend.

Where are you?

RG: We're in London right now! I will be in a theatrical performance written by Peter Neathey which has played in London about 20 times, it's called "7 Seconds" — I play Richard Gage and conduct a live presentation of the evidence for Building 7's key demolition features. It's a couple hours long.

You're in London right now as apart of your tour, correct?

RG: Yeah, we started in Reykjavik on the 11th of April and we went to Copenhagen where we were with Neils Harrit on the stage with around 150 people in attendance. Later on we presented in front of around 950 people in Amsterdam at Delft Technical University—largely students—which was great. Then we're off to Paris, Lavon, and then onto Vienna, Rome, and Budapest. Then we go straight back to Atlanta where the conference is going on with the American Institute of Architects.

Let's get into this AIA stuff -- how did the 55 sponsors come to be?

RG: We have more than 100 AIA members counted among our 2,300 architects and engineers. We realized we could sponsor a resolution, so we got 50 of them to sign the resolution which calls for a new investigation into Building 7. The good news about this is that they have to accept it due to our sponsors, which they did, and on May 16th in a session with 300 delegates a vote will be held. We will have the opportunity to present the evidence for Building 7 and why the NIST investigation is flawed.

So you get to present in front of these 300 delegates before the vote? That's great.

RG: Yes! We have 3 presenters and they get 2 minutes each, but we're a little disappointed that we do not get to actually show Building 7 coming down...we will have to describe it.

Is the voting anonymous? People have been saying that if it is, there would be a better chance of it passing.

RG: Well it's a visual vote, it's very open as to who is voting for what and how many voted and did not for each resolution. It could go both ways. Originally the AIA leadership from the top down bought hook line and sinker of the NIST report. We don't know what the level of openness or discussion was, so among these 300 mid level members I think we would rather have an open vote. I don't think they are going to feel any pressure that might intimidate them in voting openly for the resolution.

What happens if it passes?

RG: I guess it could be amended, but it would be an adopted resolution in writing on their website. I don't know what happens after that, certainly a lot of discussion and hullabaloo will ensue if it passes!

Some say that this could be used to discredit the truth movement by having it rejected by the AIA, which would discredit AE911Truth and the overall message that Building 7 was a demolition and needs to be re-investigated because the NIST report is fraudulent — what do you think about that?

RG: I think that's a risk that we take, you know? Anytime we speak the truth about 9/11 we run the risk of the Powers That Be discrediting or at least trying to discredit us. This is one of those risks and we thought it would be worth taking. At least at the minimum we are bringing the truth about Building 7's uniform, 7 second, symmetrical, free fall collapse, suddenly, on the afternoon of 9/11 at 5:20—which was not hit by an airplane—after witnesses hear explosions. So that information will be given to at least 300 mid level members in this open meeting and that is unprecedented. Now, if they choose to vote down the resolution I don't know what else we could do, but we are presenting at Georgia Tech that night, so hopefully more come to learn more about the controversy.

My good friend goes to SDSU for Mechanical Engineering and his class was assigned to do a report on building failures and his group chose Building 7 — all of their minds have been blown...they're confused as to how it collapsed so symmetrically! Ever since your C-SPAN video and Rudy Dent things seem to have reignited. How's it going since Rudy has jumped on board? He's a former Fire Marshall, 9/11 survivor and FDNY first responder. He's very articulate and his original interview has over 1 million views on youtube.

RG: (Laughter) Yeah that's a phenomenon! And we're just delighted to have Rudy on board of course, he saw Building 7 go down with his own eyes and he was on the towers' pile where he lost brothers. He is quite a force for speaking the truth out there. The video with LeAnn Macadoo who interviewed him is very powerful. We have enjoyed having him on our conference calls and we're strategizing and forming new ways of getting to the fire fighters that haven't been able to speak out yet because of their own internal battles going on. It's been great. I have to go in about 60 seconds, but you can call me anytime.

No problem, one more question before I let you go — recently your 'Solving the Mystery of WTC 7' video on youtube was removed, which was at over 1 million views as your most popular video. None of your other videos were touched and it was just taken off your youtube channel — do you know anything about that?

RG: I sure do. We've been in a series of communications with Google from our attorneys and now they have hired attorneys. We want them to act responsibly and legally with respect to the arbitrary removal of our video. So far it is not going as well as we want it to, they won't even tell us specifically what copyright infringement or spam or commercially deceptive content they have claimed. Obviously they are acting illegally and arbitrarily, but we do believe eventually somehow we will get justice and force them to put it back up. They haven't taken the new one down, but of course we lost the view count which was well over 1 million.

I tried to e-mail you about it when it happened, so I am glad you noticed. Just having a million views gives credibility and helps the video go viral through different youtube channels, so the fact that it was censored is not very cool.

RG: They're just not responsive. A few times they have sent us some lame responses saying basically there's nothing we can do and stating their non-descriptive problems, so we're still continuing that battle too.

Coming up on 15 minutes, I'll let you go now, thanks for this interview and we'll be in contact later. Have a great tour!

RG: Okay. Thank you, Goodbye.

[–]toneii 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (42子コメント)

Wow, this now brings into play for me the possibility that those 160 are mistaken.

[–]Pvt_Hudson_ 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That would be a natural response to a vote so completely overwhelmingly against the truth movement.

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (40子コメント)

Wow, this now brings into play for me the possibility that those 160 are mistaken.

The average truther as well as the above average topminder of reddit knows about 2.5 seconds of free fall that NIST admitted but didn't explain.

[–]khamul787 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

2.5 seconds of free fall that NIST admitted but didn't explain.

You mean the 2.5 seconds of free-fall that they explained, at length, in their report?

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

They explained that free fall is free fall? At length?

[–]khamul787 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

No, they explained the cause. Are you being intentionally thick?

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Can you use your words to sum it up or maybe copy and paste the relevant text for all to see?

[–]khamul787 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

This sequence is all laid out in great detail in NIST NCSTAR 1-9 at 598-607, 682-683 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9a at 81-83; NIST NCSTAR 1-9 at 586-607 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9a at 86-92; and, NIST NCSTAR 1-9 at 586-589, 592-593 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9a at 78-79, 98-100.

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 at 598-607

Does yours read "Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7 Volume 2"?
I ask because on page 598-607 it goes over Probable Collapse Sequence and then goes on to Other Possible Hypotheses. It doesn't mention or explain 2.25 seconds of free fall?

I hope you feel NIST should explain why they started the 5.4 seconds of collapse time at frame 16? You can scrub the video back and forth to your hearts content but it doesn't show any progressive movement after that until frame 60. You can verify this yourself. It's like they wanted to match the 5.4 sec they got from the model to the video and had to back it up to frame 16. That's my bet.

[–]PhrygianMode -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Although members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had long been pointing out that this building descended at the same rate as a free-falling object, or at least virtually so, NIST had long denied this. As late as August 2008, when NIST issued its report on WTC 7 in the form of a Draft for Public Comment, it claimed that the time it took for the upper floors – the only floors that are visible on the videos – to come down “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.”52

As this statement implied, any assertion that the building did come down in free fall, assuming a non-engineered collapse, would not be consistent with physical principles – meaning basic laws of Newtonian physics. Explaining why not during a “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” on August 26, 2008, NIST’s Shyam Sunder said:

“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”53

In saying this, Sunder was presupposing NIST’s theory that the building was brought down by fire, which, if it could have produced a collapse of any type, could have produced only a progressive collapse.

Sunder even said free fall didn't / wouldn't / couldn't happen with this collapse. Then people did his job for him and showed him that it did take place. He kind of dug himself into a hole with this one....Oops...

[–]Sepulchxr[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (32子コメント)

Ehhh.. They sort of did though. The north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. The acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (31子コメント)

NIST dropped "consistent with physical principles" in its final report. The cat's been out of the bag for a long time. Free fall is free fall.

[–]Sepulchxr[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (30子コメント)

The cat's been out of the bag for a long time. Free fall is free fall.

Alright, so considering the above explaination is there. Would you like to actually say why this is physically impossible. If you bring up Newton's Laws I will start laughing uncontrollably.

Also, while you are at it, tell me why this is better explained by a controlled demolition (also throw in what devise/substance explains this). Is it the columns buckling that you have a problem with? The fact that the north side of WTC 7 was essentially just the facade for that phase of the collapse? I mean you are pedalling this idea that because it attained free-fall, that is the smoking gun. Give me a reason to belive you.

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (28子コメント)

Watch the video NIST used to measure the 5.4 seconds. No progressive movement between frame 16 (Where NIST started) and frame 60. The collapse model predicted a 5.4 second collapse time and they backed the starting time on the tape to match.

attained free-fall

  1. NIST b7 technical briefing. Q&A's

Dr. S. Shyam Sunder Director and Lead Investigator.
"Free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it..."

  1. NIST b7 final report:

Free fall 2.25 seconds.

[–]Sepulchxr[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (27子コメント)

Dude this is explained in NIST's FAQ.. You are willfully ignorant, or intentionally distorting facts here.

Now would you care to actually reply to my post?

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (26子コメント)

If you understood it you'd surely be able to explain or cite a reference? I'll be sure to take a look at any specific references or debunking sites that you derived your understanding from.

[–]Sepulchxr[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (25子コメント)

I've just said, its on NIST's FAQ.. Jesus.

Now fucking answer the questions I asked you instead of dancing around.

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (24子コメント)

Where on the NIST FAQ?? Do you remember any words or concepts about the 2.25 seconds of free fall that sums up what you read? Maybe a quick synopsis of the major points explaining the issue at hand?

[–]franciswsears 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Or 95.9% of the vote.

[–]MIBPJ 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Its especially stark when you consider that the remaining 4.1% is the upper limit of what percentage actually think that anything other than a fire brought down WTC7. They don't necessarily think that it was brought down by explosives or whatever. They just think its worth investigating. The other 95.9% think its such a closed case that its not worth investigating.

[–]thatguyhere92 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

There you have it. 9/11 truth movement is officially in a casket.

[–]billdietrich1 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A single solid, clear piece of evidence would revive it. But in 13+ years, the truthers have been unable to come up with a single such thing.

[–]Pvt_Hudson_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's an ass kicking. Wow.

[–]muhsonic -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (41子コメント)

I wonder how many even know what wtc 7 is?

[–]PhrygianMode 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (24子コメント)

One architect from New York stated that diesel fuel fires were responsible for WTC 7’s destruction, an explanation that even NIST itself has disavowed.

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=bcd0bc392b&e=[UNIQID]

[–]dennabebotnoos 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (13子コメント)

One architect from New York

One architect. If we are to judge a group by a group or viewpoint by a single persons erroneous opinion, what does this say about the 9/11 truth movement? Nevermind that the individual who chose to use this hilariously poor argument is the leader of the largest organization representing the truth movement.

[–]Sepulchxr[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

How have I never seen that before.. That. Was. Incredible. I started laughing like a maniac when I saw the two little cardboard boxes.

[–]dennabebotnoos 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (6子コメント)

It might be my favorite video on the internet. The first time I saw it I couldn't believe he was going with that.

[–]glugglug -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

To be fair, the NIST report and the crazy pancake theory clearly assumes the buildings have less structural integrity than wet cardboard.

Actually more like the lower floors were whipped cream supporting the pancakes.

[–]dennabebotnoos 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, it doesn't. But considering I imagine you get this opinion from Richard "the cardboard box man" Gage himself, I'm not surprised you think that.

[–]khamul787 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

To be fair, the NIST report and the crazy pancake theory clearly assumes the buildings have less structural integrity than wet cardboard.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you can just make crap up.

[–]Really_Like_Pancakes -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yum! :P

[–]spays_marine 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

People mocking this video don't seem to realize how analogous this example is to the real WTC collapse. You're meant to mock it, as it means you're mocking the official story. If you think it's Gage failing in an experiment, you've completely missed the point.

He isn't trying to prove that the building would not collapse, he's pointing out the that a building collapsing in free fall through all of the resistance is so ridiculous that the only correct response is to laugh at the mere suggestion.

[–]dennabebotnoos 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

No we all understand what he is trying to argue. It is hilariously stupid.

[–]spays_marine 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Exactly, free fall through the path of most resistance is hilariously stupid.

[–]dennabebotnoos 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It didn't fall at free fall. You can literally see other debris falling faster right beside the towers. Keep listening to cardboard box man though.

[–]spays_marine 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can literally see other debris falling faster right beside the towers.

Yea.. no, that difference is so small that it does not warrant me to add "nearly". The point is that it was so close to free fall that we can conclude that there was no resistance from the 80 stories below the impact zone. That's quite remarkable.

[–]thatguyhere92 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (9子コメント)

And 3,000+ architects this pass weekend disagree.

[–]PhrygianMode -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Your comment makes no sense in relation to mine. Which architect do you think made that statement?

[–]thatguyhere92 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (7子コメント)

They disagree with a re investigation. That's what I was referring to.

[–]PhrygianMode -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I never claimed otherwise. Do you even understand the comment I posted?

[–]thatguyhere92 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I understand your position.

[–]PhrygianMode -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

So you purposely made an irrelevant comment? Got it.

[–]thatguyhere92 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Its relevant, but stop acting like you got a problem with it.

[–]PhrygianMode -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

In relation to the comment I made? No. It isn't. Sorry.

[–]Sepulchxr[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (14子コメント)

I'd say the vast majority. Considering its the only building to collapse by fire damage, its a point of interest for those whose career is based are buildings.

[–]muhsonic 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (13子コメント)

You would think so, the vote indicates otherwise.

[–]Sepulchxr[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

"The only reason they disagree with me is because they don't know about it!"

[–]muhsonic -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (9子コメント)

There are many other possible and more likely reasons: peer pressure, dissonance, greed, stupidity, indifference etc

[–]Sepulchxr[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

You literally just implied that it was because they hadn't heard of WTC 7. But yes, they are more likely, but simply because of the fact that it is completely absurd to say that they have no idea that WTC 7 collapsed.

But greed? Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me these people were paid off?

[–]muhsonic 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Or.. fearful for careers or future earnings? You doubt that as a factor?

[–]Sepulchxr[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Apparently Richard Gage didn't see these things as too much of an obstacle at the time. Otherwise I doubt he would have wasted his time trying to push this, only to get so demonstrably humiliated.

What about this factor of the vote.. AE4911Truth haven't got jack shit, Richard Gage is a charlatain pedaling nonsense and making a living off it. Instead of using the money for actual publishable research, you know, how science is supposed to work.. They see the money is better spent on animated billboards. Has that crossed your mind?

[–]muhsonic 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I very much doubt RG expected it to pass, neither did we. Exposure is the name of the game. No matter how they voted, some will have doubts and questions.

[–]PhrygianMode 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exposure is the name of the game. No matter how they voted, some will have doubts and questions.

"We are pleased to have gained the signatures of another 150 AIA members," - Richard Gage

[–]Sepulchxr[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is not a good thing for the Truther movement. Not in the slightest. Exposure is what his organisation has been doing from the start. Not a penny has gone towards any actual research. They aren't going to get anywhere with the current 'evidence' they are touting, that is self evident.

Now, could you propose a reason that they haven't done actual publishable research to discredit NIST's findings or methods used? Because from where I'm sitting, it looks apparent that they've simply not got a leg to stand on in the realm of his peers.

[–]spays_marine 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

for actual publishable research

You mean like the research that made NIST finally admit the building came down in free fall?

Or the research that showed that there are explosives in the dust?

Here's a whole bunch of them:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles.html http://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/

[–]stugots85 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He said that as ONE potential reason...

[–]Pvt_Hudson_ -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

They were handing out literature throughout the event and had 6 minutes on stage to pitch to the attendees exactly what the resolution was for.

[–]FranktheShank1 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

speaking as a person that used to work with a lot of architects, they're not exactly the smartest lot. Even if they agreed on this resolution it really wouldn't mean as much as say engineers

[–]HaltNWO -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Called it.

[–]wasthereadogwithyou 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You mean the government lies to us in order to legitimize attacks on various countries? No way!

[–]Sepulchxr[S] -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

AIA are not the government. Nor was it essential for the buildings to collapse to "legitimize attacks on various countries." So I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

[–]wasthereadogwithyou 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

When did I say AIA was the government? And yeah, if 9/11 hadn't happened, there's no way anyone would have agreed to invade Iraq, even though the "Taliban" that supposedly orchestrated the attack is based in Pakistan/Afghanistan.

[–]Sepulchxr[S] -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Its a thread on the AIA's decision to dismiss a review of the collapse of WTC 7. And I wasn't questioning that. I just stated that the collapse of the buildings was not integral to the invasion of Iraq.

My point is that your comment isn't applicable to what we're talking about.

EDIT: Instead of downvoting, would anyone care to tell me where I'm wrong here?

[–]Ago_Solvo -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is there a link to this whole resolution? I mean where did you get this from? This is really a play on words this whole title, you don't specify what they voted against. They voted against investigating WTC 7 any further. The way you state this makes it sound as if they voted that the official story of WTC 7 is false. You don't link anything. I'm going to have to say that this is a sort of reverse psychology you're using to gauge on what will be said and who will react, and how they do.

[–]Sepulchxr[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I tried submitting AE911Truth's Facebook post about it, but its auto deleted on /r/conspiracy. Couldn't find an even semi-decent source for this and it was hours after the decision, without a post up here.

Basically all you wrote is nonsense.. Richard Gage and his troop AE4911Truth essentially strong armed the AIA into deciding whether to further investigate the collapse of WTC 7 and NIST.

They received 160 votes supporting it (they already had 100 members signed up to their group who are part of AIA), but received 4% of the vote.

So no, this is not some sort of test for /r/conspiracy, although I was very interested to see what the reaction would be, especially what would have been if the vote had passed. This post would have reached the front page IMO.

[–]Winterwatch -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If those 3,892 really believe office fires brought down three steel girdered skyscrapers, then they need to immediately recommend a complete revision of the universal building code. In the meantime they should request the closure of all skyscrapers until the necessary reinforcements can be enacted.

[–]GhostPantsMcGee -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Why wouldn't you source your claim?

[–]Sepulchxr[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I would have if there was a source worth reading at the time of posting. /r/conspiracy auto deletes Facebook links and it was hours after the decision without a submission to here. The voting numbers were the important part IMO.

[–]GhostPantsMcGee 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It actually happening is arguably the important part...

[–]cm18 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've not been following this. What is "WTC 7 Resolution" and who proposed it?