|
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. |
![]() |
#1 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
AIA Convention resolution - the 3rd try. Rebuttals, please!
They're baaaaack!
AE911Truth has been mailing this following glossy pamphlet to, they allege, 25,000 AIA members - a proposed resolution get the WTC7 collapse "reinvestigated": http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDF...Reply-Card.pdf It lists in somewhat tiring length all the same old lies. I wonder if we could get together and write a rebuttal, to be submitted to AIA's leadership.
Originally Posted by AE911Truth
I'll copy that entire text to a spoilered section and put numbers before the "WHEREAS"ed items, so that you can quote the items and/or refer to them by a number: Perhaps if each of you picks one item and tries to write a short, sweet rebuttal? I haven't thought all items through yet. Perhaps a couple are correct within reasonable bounds and sufficiently relevant - we should not be afraid to acknowledge that then. |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
This debate is being lead largely by amateurs on the internet, most of whom are imfluenced by AE911Truth. There is no such debate among actual building professionals where AE911Truth isn't pushing the agenda.
Even the technical briefs authored under the "AE911Truth" logo are often written by amateurs. |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
AE911Truth has never presented an argument that most of these features are typical for controlled demolition while at the same time not being typical for fire-induced collapses. Therefore, these features do not help to distinguish between "natural" collapse and "demolition".
The feature list is missing the most prominent feature noted by every witness of every explosive demolition: The dozens of extremely large, sharp explosion sounds heard as the building starts to collapse. None of the three major collapses on 9/11, and particularly not the WTC 7, featured any such obvious explosion sounds at collapse initiation. Some witnesses even observed the eery silence with which it went down. (Need we address each sub-item?) |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
|
Quote:
It "fell at the rate of gravitational acceleration" OR "fell with an acceleration equal to 'g' " Would both more properly elucidate this lie (of omission). It is a lie as it fuzzes over the fact that it at no time is a constant acceleration. It ignores the fact that the building, which had been showing definitive failures for 12+ seconds prior to the "free fall" period. It ignores the fact that the entire perimeter had been moving for almost 2 seconds prior to this 2.25 second period. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
|
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
|
As I am not an engineer, I have some difficulties with this part of the text:
Sudden onset: The roofline of WTC 7 went from being stationary to being in free fall in approximately one-half second. I'd expect, that a structure which is not supported by any other strutcture would be in free fall within 0 seconds. So the time of one-half second doesn't seem so sudden to me. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
To the best of my knowledge, AE has no reference to any systematic study of the onsets of natural vs. engineered collapses - or their top acceleration, degree of symmetry, etc etc etc, so all these claims are essentially build on imagination.
Another critique of this "sudden onset" claim: The building - it's eastern core - had been collapsing for several second already before that half second interval they talk of. "Free fall" was not reached in 0.5 seconds (FALSE claim!) but 6 or 8 seconds. |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,302
|
|
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,479
|
It's a real Gish Gallop. Best to respond to only a few points. One thing is the conspiracist argument by innuendo:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,394
|
I'm not sure it's even a good idea to do that. Oystein, I think the main worry I have here is that you're starting off by letting the enemy choose the battlefield, which I think Sun Tzu would disapprove of. I would suggest that it would be better to choose the battlefield yourself.
I haven't been able to find the AIA constitution online, but Wikipedia states that its mission as originally defined was "to promote the artistic, scientific, and practical profession of its members; to facilitate their intercourse and good fellowship; to elevate the standing of the profession; and to combine the efforts of those engaged in the practice of Architecture, for the general advancement of the Art." I would suggest that the best approach here is to start from this mission statement (or, if it's changed significantly, from whatever the mission statement is now), to point out that the mission quite specifically does not include criminal investigation and law enforcement, that the AIA has no significant expertise in this area, and to propose that motions mandating the AIA to take part in these activities be struck down automatically as unconstitutional. It might then be appropriate to point out that the 9/11 attacks were investigated thoroughly by the FBI, whose mission and area of expertise is criminal investigation and law enforcement; that the collapse of WTC7 has been extensively studied, and found in four different engineering reports to have been caused by fire-induced floor collapse removing support from a critical vertical member leading to global collapse; and that one of these investigations specifically found that the evidence did not indicate any hypothetical blast event having played any part in the collapse. It might also be worth adding that, by contesting these expert findings in an area where it lacks expertise, the AIA would lay itself open to loss of prestige and respect. It might even be worth suggesting that anyone repeatedly bringing further unconstitutional motions before the Convention be subject to censure if it was clear that he or she was aware of the ruling. These are all details that could be approached differently if you think fit. But I think generally that playing Gage's game is a bad idea, and it would be better simply to cut off his entire game at source by seeking a ruling that he is, in effect, abusing the constitution of the AIA by seeking to change its purpose from promoting the professional interests of architects to interfering in law enforcement. I suspect that the membership may find that a much easier resolution to support. Dave |
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
The use of whereas in all caps has the power to compel. This is well known.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
|
From the link in the OP:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
Dave Rogers,
I appreciate your objection. What is the goal here? -> To influence the AIA institutions (their board, their convention delegates) into rejecting most clearly Gage's vexatious resolution proposals. I agree it would be ideal if the resolution proposal could be kept from making it to the convention floor, but AE911Truth will easily muster enough sponsors. I don't know if there are any AIA rules that would allow the Board to reject a proposal even if it has the required sponsorship. My hunch is that they will not dare blocking the resolution, so it will more likely than not be voted on. There is a weak trend from the 2015 Convention to the 2016 Convention - and my hunch is that this trend will continue: More and more AIA members get sucked into the nonsense. This is only possibl because no one so far has systematically informed them about all the debunking that exists. This is embarrassing to the AIA. I think we might be able to help any interested AIA members, or perhaps the Board, to give delegates reasons to kick Gage out of the house. Lastly, we could to both - suggest the conflict with AIA's mission as grounds to reject the proposal out of hand; AND give them concise arguments against Gage's hoax. |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
|
I was going to reply to you directly in PM because I said I have nothing to add to the 9/11 CT forum, I do have something to add to this topic.
The AIA is a private member funded organisation. If you pay your dues you are allowed to believe anything you want. If they want the organisation to represent the fringe of actually technical understanding, so be it. Why should we care? Should we fight to protect the reputation of every private organisation? They're not going to kick out Gage and any of the other supporters as long as they pay their dues. AIA has already told Gage he couldn't use their logo, that's as far as we're likely to see them go. I contacted them last year when Gage used the logo and they quickly took action. They need to police themselves and there is no reason to believe they do not hold the "debunking" information within their ranks. |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
|
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 642
|
Who is going to pay for this new investigation...not federal government, not AIA and you bet it will not be AE 9/11 truth.
As we all know, energized the faithful, get money flowing into Dicky Gage's retirement fund. |
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 714
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
|
.....to what end? The general public doesn't follow AIA and the "truthers" have become irrelevant.
In 2006 there was a short spurt of following covered by main stream media. Since then they have disappeared into the obscurity of the odd internet forum. Do you really think support by an organisation that the majority doesn't know about will change this? If I recall there's a discussion about "insignificant fringe"(on another forum). Who exactly is still talking about them? |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
I sympathize with your preference to leave this forum. I am not there yet.
Yes, AE911Truth, or the Truth Movement, is an insignificant fringe, as they make up only tiny percentages of deciders in the relevant professions, or in the political arena. Nonetheless, we now have a President Trump, a crisis of the established media, and some allege the advent of a "post-factual" era. We could all give up on debunking CTs altogether. But when we don't give up, we ought to do it right, and take it somewhere we can effect a change. Even if that changes only the size of a fringe. |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Do you want to date my Avatar?
Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,987
|
Since it's been roundly defeated every year as almost a formality, does it really require a rebuttal? When I was in law school, we learned that if you're winning, just shut up.
|
__________________
I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
|
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
They got 4% the first year, and almost triple that in the second. Which practically nobody here guessed. The appeal of a slickly presented list of lies to architects seems to get underestimated around here.
We can do another prediction thread in the month before the next convention. I predict that most people here will again grossly underestimate the result. What if they get 30% next year? Will you oppose some activity to stop the trend in 2018? I say: Stop ip earlier rather than later. |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
|
I find #1, #7, and #8 interesting.
Quote:
It said that "a 47-story high-rise that collapsed into its own footprint at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001" but let's take a look at this photo, which proves that WTC 7 did not collapse into its own footprint. ![]() Continue
Quote:
Quote:
I would like for AE911Truth to point out where demolition explosions were heard as WTC 7 collapsed and I would be more than happy to provide videos taken during the collapse event of WTC 7 and challenge AE911Truth to point out the video time lines where CD explosions are heard.
Quote:
Let's take a look as to why the FDNY set up a safety zone around WTC 7.
Quote:
AE911Truth, doesn't want its donators to hear the true story. I want to challenge AE911Truth to point out where at any time, CD explosions were heard as WTC 7 collapsed, or WTC 1 and WTC 2 for that matter. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Do you want to date my Avatar?
Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,987
|
|
__________________
I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 487
|
"and the FDNY proceeded to establish a safety zone around WTC 7 in the early afternoon; and"
This is false, it was a collapse zone, as described by the FDNY on the scene ... wonder why they changed the name |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
MISLEADING, and implies LIBEL.
This decision was made by the FDNY chief in command, Daniel Nigro. Nigro later explained in an interview that this decision was his alone, and explicitly declared that any insinuations that he might be part of a conspiracy are obscene. He made the decision based on the assessment of the highly qualified fire science experts at the scene. AE911Truth here clearly suggests that the FDNY and their chief were either merely acting as patsies for the, so it would be implied, conspirators of New York's Office of Emergency Management, or themselves be a guilty party in the conspiracy to murder more than 2000 people, 343 of them their own men (were there women in that casualty number?). It seems mysterious why this certainty, expressed and communicated by the ranking Fire Department New York officers on the scene - that the building would collapse due to fire - should be grounds to doubt the conclusions that indeed the building did collapse due to fire. It instead tends to support NIST's general conclusions. This item a) is libelous: It insinuates that the authorities - the FDNY, the OEM, the fire commissioner - had advance knowledge of the alleged "explosive demolition" and are thus complicit in the murder of thousands, including 343 members of the FDNY b) misrepresents the early findings of FEMA and the ASCE, who did not have the benefit of a full scale investigation. c) is worded with hyperbole: "absolute certainty and accuracy". Nothing in an unprecedented emergency is ever known or predicted with "absolute" certainty, and neither the authorities nor the media presented the expected collapse this way It is disingeneous to quote mine statements pertaining to a preliminary hypothesis and an admittance of problems. NIST overcame the troubles and presented findings in the final report It is disingeneous to quote mine early but eventually discarded hypotheses. This is the normal course of properly conducted scientific investigations: That hypotheses are tested against evidence, and often discarded in favour of better hypotheses found by the study. This refers to a study by Biederman, Barnett and Sasson of Worcester Polytechnical Institute, eminent experts on fire engineering. Jonathan Barnett has been interviewed about exactly this intervier years ago, and explained that not being certain of the source of sulfur does not mean that it is unlikely that sulfur was present. Barnett suggested several possible sources, and made it explicit that this "Swiss cheese" steel is not suspicious with regard to the causes of collapse. AE911Truth has been aware of Barnett's objections to their attacks. It is disingeneous to ignore his response. This claim: "NIST’s computer model ... terminates less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse" is false. AE911Truth systematically and wilfully ignores several seconds of ongoing collapse before the release of the perimeter walls. NIST's computer model actually terminates XX seconds into the XX-second collapse, at a time when all columns have already failed and complete collapse to the ground thus inevitable. The expectation that a simulation of a very complex collapse scenario ought to replicate every obsevered detail with great accuracy is an invalid call to perfection and thus fallacious. |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
|
|
__________________
So many idiots and so little time. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
|
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,316
|
That and -in the case of the same claims being made about the towers- one can observe large sections of structure that break free achieve greater acceleration and sustained velocity of descent than the still partially intact upper floors riding the collapse down.
Only 2 possibilities could explain this: 1) The free structures were being acted upon by some force in addition to the pull of gravity. 2) The collapsing mass of the building was encountering a force which resisted the pull of gravity. If no credible explanation for (1) can be given, then (2) is the only remaining probability. Theoretically it could be a combination of the two, but this again relies upon some explanation for (1). |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
For reference links to the 2015 and 2016 equivalents:
AE911Truth's AIA resolution proposal for 2016 (page 36) AE911Truth's AIA resolution proposal for 2015 The ISF thread about AIA Convention 2016 The ISF thread about AIA Convention 2015 |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394
|
Preliminary prognosis:
1 out of 17 nonsense claims dropped in one annual cycle of conventions. So come back in 2032?? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 237
|
I am not sure if this is a con or a scam or both.
The flyer has 170 names on it. But they say 200 are going to sign it. Does that mean that 170 already have. And why do they very clearly differentiate "supporters" from signers Or are they saying that they have 200 ae911truth members who support the ballot and they just need to find the 50 AIA members to support it. And how could any self respecting architect support such a badly worded unclear document. I will give you a few ideas on how to reply |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
Richard,
they had a bit over 50 supporters signing their 2015 proposal - 50 being the minimum mandated by AIA bylaws for resolution proposals not sponsored by individuals as opposed to Chapters. In 2016 they had, I think, somewhere around 100 supoorters signing as sponsors of their resolution. And so this year they found 200 morons. I don't think there are shenanigans with those numbers or the wording. |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 219
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,302
|
In light of the recent happenings in Iran...
Quote:
Quote:
(*) This point is a... bold faced lie (sorry for the bad pun). And it's not really a characteristic of building demolitions.
Quote:
I wonder if they're going to modify them before the AIA convention. |
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,850
|
Thanks, pgimeno
The TM generally misrepresents what is meant by "ordinary fires" in NIST's communications. The word obviously refers to the circumstances - Fuel type - Fuel load - Ventilation What is clearly extraordinary, and not captured by what NIST communicated, obviously are - Extent (area, total fuel mass) - Started on several floors at the same time Ask a truther to show one single other office fire that burned a larger floor area than any of the three WTC towers, and they'll pretend they can't see your message. |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,829
|
Gage, and Tony need to fly to Tehran, barge into the office of the Supreme Leader, with some dust from the fire, and Demand he test for explosives!
Then after they shoot them, because I am told the supreme leader saw the fires himself, he lives in Tehran, Tony can come back as a ghost, and tell us what type of hush boom explosives were used! The Iranians I am told are taking the AE/911truth statement as an insult to the Hero fire fighters. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|