IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11 , ae911 , nist

Reply
Old 15th April 2020, 11:38 PM   #1
Jaytje46
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 493
9/11 Families, Experts Mount Unprecedented Challenge to NIST in New Filing

seems they are going to submit a “request for correction” to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/677-...-in-new-filing

Does this mean they are ok with WTC 1 and 2 report now?

Quote:
Starting today, under the procedure governing requests submitted to NIST, the agency has four months to respond. If NIST elects not to take corrective action, it must provide a “point-by-point response to any relevant data quality arguments contained in the request.” The request notes that if NIST does not provide a point-by-point response, NIST will have denied the request “in an arbitrary and capricious manner,” which would set the stage for legal action to force compliance.
in the filing https://files.wtc7report.org/file/pu...t-04-15-20.pdf I see

Quote:
Re: Request for Correction Under the Data Quality Act to NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
Dear Ms. Fletcher:

This petition is a request for correction of information disseminated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”). This Request for correction (the “Request”) is being submitted by 10 family members of people killed on September 11, 2001, by 88 architects and structural engineers, and by the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc. (referred to herein collectively as “Requesters”)
So does this mean they have 88 architects and engineers in total or is this a seperate group of architects and engineers?
And is it a petition or a request for correction?

I thought there own report would refute the NIST report on WTC7, but I guess that did not get the attention they hoped for.
Jaytje46 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2020, 02:48 AM   #2
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,088
This appears to be a compilation of all the AE911T materials which attempted to refute the fire cause, and assert that there were bombs (CD) which was the proximate cause of the building's collapse. (I didn't read it and will not).

A CD explanation for 7 WTC implies (demands?) a CD explanation for the twin towers' collapse and it would appear that NIST's explanation for the twins would be likewise flawed.

This looks like a repackaging of Hulsey which seems to be a flawed effort to show that fire could not lead to complete structural failure of 7wtc and then witness testimony to the sounds of explosions which are presented as bombs or CD.

I don't know what the goal is here. If NIST fails to answer/refute the points raised in the request for correction will AE911T et al "declare victory" as their CD assertions were not refuted by NIST? And then what? Submit the same for the twin towers? Demand an criminal explanation to determine what were the CD devices who placed them?

Does NIST have to refute/answer every point in the request or would a refutation of one point be sufficient to dismiss the request?

Who actually were the authors of this document? Having people such as the McIlvaine and other victims' relatives appears to make this more like a criminal complaint of interested parties rather than a technical inquiry to "correct" the NIST report. This makes me doubt that all the building professional who are requesters were involved in producing the document. I note that some of the most vocal (published) and familiar (online) "detractors of NIST" such as Tony Szamboti, Steven Jones, and Neils Harrit etc. are not requesters.

Is this just another PR attempt as part of a fund raising effort of AE911T? It seems so.

No?
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2020, 05:11 AM   #3
Jaytje46
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 493
This part is weird

Quote:
“We are proud to have supported the University of Alaska Fairbanks and Professor Leroy Hulsey in conducting a genuinely scientific study into the reasons for this building’s collapse,” said Richard Gage, founder of AE911Truth. “Now that the study is complete, the request for correction will force NIST to reverse its outlandish conclusion that fires were the cause of the collapse.”
The reasons for this collapse have not been answered in their report , so why is Gage claiming it has?
Jaytje46 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2020, 05:23 AM   #4
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,465
Originally Posted by Jaytje46 View Post
This part is weird



The reasons for this collapse have not been answered in their report , so why is Gage claiming it has?
It's basically garbage for the Gullible.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2020, 07:42 AM   #5
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,016
Originally Posted by Jaytje46 View Post
This part is weird



The reasons for this collapse have not been answered in their report , so why is Gage claiming it has?
My public comment on the Hulsey draft report, submitted inside the public commenting period last fall, has failed to show up in the public comments they published, and my direct inquiry with Hulsey why it is not part of the public record published by AE911Truth and Hulsey's institute has not been acknowledged, let alone answered.

I think the reason for this is that my comments laid bare how the report on its face totally failed everything:
  • It failed to meet all of its three stated objectives
  • Its conclusion does not in fact follow from the study, by way of a simple Non Sequitur logical fallacy.

My critique was 13 pages long.

But you hit it on the nail: "The reasons for this collapse have not been answered in their report".

In fact, during Q&A last September, following the presentation of the draft, Hulsey, when asked to at least speculate about the reasons for the collapse, answered, and I quote: "Oh, I'm not going there!"

Hulsey, by his own design, intended to not answer the study's main question!


I think this should be the main message about the report: It failed, because Hulsey never intended for it to succeed.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2020, 07:49 AM   #6
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,859
Regarding the "9/11 Families," what on earth would give them any legal or moral standing with regards to an empty building falling down?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2020, 10:33 AM   #7
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 691
Energize the faithful…ask for more money.
__________________
Conspiracy theories are for morons, who like to feel they are smarter than everyone else…
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2020, 12:27 PM   #8
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,618
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Regarding the "9/11 Families," what on earth would give them any legal or moral standing with regards to an empty building falling down?

I think that phrase is referring to nine elevenths of one family. Grandpa and Aunt Lisa aren't cooperating.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2020, 01:37 PM   #9
Jaytje46
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 493
So the government report is biased, but a report spondsored by an organisation which has been yelling that WTC7 was brought down by whatever, even before the official report was out, is not? Makes total sense.
Jaytje46 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2020, 06:49 AM   #10
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,088
What is stunning about this publicity stunt.... is the crazy logic behind the effort. That would be if any of the events was a staged CD and not the result of a hijacked plane... then ALL of the events were part of some sort of "inside job" or false flag,.. which is the core belief of the truthers. So they believe knocking down any "official explanation"... with some sort of evidence of CD would make 911 the inside job they claim. And no need to show the CD in the Twins or at the Pentagon.

The approach begins by trying to use the - no plane hit 1wtc - as the point of entry into their "argument". Then they will usually show some other building which WAS taken down by CD as looking like the fall of 7wtc. Of course all tall buildings which have major structural failures in their axial support system will drop down in a similar manner.

Then they try to demonstrate that the structural failure in the axial system beginning at one column could not have occurred. They try to use NIST's flawed simulation of one possible structural collapse to show that NIST got it wrong.

Hulsey tried to prove a negative but that hardly matters to truther.

The closet thing they can come to some sort of "affirmative" explanation is unreliable witness testimony. YES things explode in building high rise buildings when they are on fire. None of the explosions has the characteristics of any know CD device.

Then they come up with magic nano thermite which can be engineered to have whatever characteristics are needed... no demonstrated let alone proven.

They of course ignore that steel frames REQUIRE working active fire protection to maintain structural integrity. 7WTC lost sprinklers early in the morning and there was no fire fighting whatsoever.

Ignored was the surveys by FDNY that the building was warping and become unstable.... and they evacuated all personnel. No one died in the collapse of 7etc. Why are there requesters who had "no skin in the game" in THAT collapse?

It's pretty clear that this is yet another fraud / fake publicity stunt by AE911T.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:16 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.