AIA Convention resolution - the 3rd try. Rebuttals, please!

[Oystein]

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

WHEREAS, thousands of members of the architecture and engineering professions, including the ______ sponsors of this resolution, now believe there is sufficient evidence contradicting the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to warrant a new investigation into the total collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), a 47-story high-rise that collapsed into its own footprint at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001;

WHEREAS, the cause of the total collapse of WTC 7 has become the subject of intense public debate, to which architects — through their knowledge, skill, and experience — are uniquely qualified to contribute; and

WHEREAS, prior to and since September 11, 2001, no steel-framed high-rise
has ever suffered a total collapse, except buildings demolished through the
procedure known as controlled demolition; and

WHEREAS, the total collapse of WTC 7 exemplified many of the signature
features of controlled demolition, including:

• Sudden onset: The roofline of WTC 7 went from being stationary to being in free fall in approximately one-half second.
• Rapidity: The roofline of WTC 7 fell to the ground in less than seven seconds.
• Free fall: For 2.25 seconds of its descent, WTC 7 fell at the rate of gravity over a distance of eight stories, meaning that the lower structure of the building provided no resistance whatsoever.
• Symmetry: WTC 7 fell directly downward through what had been the path of greatest resistance, with the debris deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint.
• Explosions and window breakage: Vertical sequences of explosions and window breakage could be seen running up the north face of WTC 7 as it began to collapse.
• Dismemberment: The steel frame of WTC 7 was almost entirely dismembered.
• Pulverization: Most of WTC 7’s concrete was pulverized to a consistency of sand and gravel.
• Totality: The entire structure of WTC 7 collapsed to the ground, leaving no sections of the building standing; and

WHEREAS, first responders and bystanders reported explosions and other phenomena suggestive of controlled demolition immediately prior to and during the total collapse of WTC 7, as exemplified in the following statement by a New York University medical student who was interviewed on 1010 WINS radio moments after the collapse:

“[W]e heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. Turned around.... (I)t looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out.... And then about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that”; and

WHEREAS, a CNN video camera captured the sound of an explosion coming from WTC 7 and the following statements prior to the onset of the collapse:

Unidentified voice: “You hear that?”

Voice of emergency responder #1: “Keep your eye on that building. It’ll be coming down soon.”

Voice of emergency responder #2: “Building is about to blow up, move it back.... We are walking back, there’s a building about to blow up. Flame and debris coming down”; and

WHEREAS, numerous experts in controlled demolition and structural engineering have attested that the total collapse of WTC 7 could have been caused only by controlled demolition, as exemplified in the following statement made by Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko after viewing video of the collapse:

“This is controlled demolition.... It’s been imploded. It’s a hired job, done by a team of experts.... It’s without a doubt a professional job”; and

WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that the fires in WTC 7 were unextraordinary and the building had only modest structural damage, the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM) began warning members of the New York Fire Department (FDNY) sometime before 11:30 AM that WTC 7 “was in serious danger of collapse,” and the FDNY proceeded to establish a safety zone around WTC 7 in the early afternoon; and

WHEREAS, officials at the scene were so certain of WTC 7’s impending total collapse that it became widely covered in the media, as exemplified by MSNBC’s Ashleigh Banfield, who reported, “I’ve heard several reports from several different officers now that that is the building that is gonna go down next. In fact, one officer told me they’re just waiting for that to come down at this point” — and by the BBC, who erroneously began reporting the total collapse 23 minutes before it actually occurred; and

WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that the total collapse of WTC 7 had been predicted with absolute certainty and accuracy starting six hours in advance, investigators for the Building Performance Study, conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), were reportedly “stunned” by the collapse and concluded in May 2002:

“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence”; and

WHEREAS, NIST stated at the beginning of its investigation in August 2002 that fires “played a significant role” in the total collapse of WTC 7 — thus violating Sections 4.3.7 and 4.3.8 of NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, which advise:

“Until data have been collected, no specific hypothesis can be reasonably formed or tested. All investigations of fire and explosion incidents should be approached by the investigator without presumption....” and,

“[i]Expectation bias is a well-established phenomenon that occurs in scientific analysis when investigator(s) reach a premature conclusion without having examined or considered all of the relevant data.... The introduction of expectation bias into the investigation results in the use of only that data that supports this previously formed conclusion and often results in the misinterpretation and/or the discarding of data that does not support the original opinion[I/]”; and

WHEREAS, three and one-half years after NIST began its investigation, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, stated that NIST had some “preliminary hypotheses,” but conceded, “[T]ruthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7”; and

WHEREAS, NIST finally concluded in 2008 — three years after the originally scheduled release of its WTC 7 report — that the total collapse of WTC 7 was caused by normal office fires that burned “at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in design practice for establishing structural fire resistance ratings,” and ruled out earlier hypotheses that diesel fuel fires and structural damage contributed to the collapse; and

WHEREAS, NIST declined to examine previously melted steel from WTC 7 that had a “Swiss cheese appearance,” and which had been documented in Appendix C of the FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study as follows:

“Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the
source of the sulfur has been identified”; and

WHEREAS, NIST’s computer model — which terminates less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse — fails to replicate the observed structural behavior, showing large deformations to WTC 7’s exterior not observed in the videos, while not showing the observed period of free fall; and

WHEREAS, NIST omitted critical structural features of WTC 7 from its computer model, which, in the opinion of independent engineers, if corrected, would show that the initiating failure reported by NIST had zero probability of occurring; and

WHEREAS, NIST has refused to release key portions of its modeling data to engineers studying the collapse of WTC 7, claiming that to do so “might jeopardize public safety” — thus making it impossible for any building professional in the world to independently verify NIST’s findings;

Wow. What a big pile of ********! Clearly designed to bamboozle.

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:

(1) WHEREAS, thousands of members of the architecture and engineering professions, including the ______ sponsors of this resolution, now believe there is sufficient evidence contradicting the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to warrant a new investigation into the total collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), a 47-story high-rise that collapsed into its own footprint at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001;

(2) WHEREAS, the cause of the total collapse of WTC 7 has become the subject of intense public debate, to which architects — through their knowledge, skill, and experience — are uniquely qualified to contribute; and

(3) WHEREAS, prior to and since September 11, 2001, no steel-framed high-rise
has ever suffered a total collapse, except buildings demolished through the
procedure known as controlled demolition; and

(4) WHEREAS, the total collapse of WTC 7 exemplified many of the signature
features of controlled demolition, including:

1. Sudden onset: The roofline of WTC 7 went from being stationary to being in free fall in approximately one-half second.
2. Rapidity: The roofline of WTC 7 fell to the ground in less than seven seconds.
3. Free fall: For 2.25 seconds of its descent, WTC 7 fell at the rate of gravity over a distance of eight stories, meaning that the lower structure of the building provided no resistance whatsoever.
4. Symmetry: WTC 7 fell directly downward through what had been the path of greatest resistance, with the debris deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint.
5. Explosions and window breakage: Vertical sequences of explosions and window breakage could be seen running up the north face of WTC 7 as it began to collapse.
6. Dismemberment: The steel frame of WTC 7 was almost entirely dismembered.
7. Pulverization: Most of WTC 7’s concrete was pulverized to a consistency of sand and gravel.
8. Totality: The entire structure of WTC 7 collapsed to the ground, leaving no sections of the building standing; and

(5) WHEREAS, first responders and bystanders reported explosions and other phenomena suggestive of controlled demolition immediately prior to and during the total collapse of WTC 7, as exemplified in the following statement by a New York University medical student who was interviewed on 1010 WINS radio moments after the collapse:

“[W]e heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. Turned around.... (I)t looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out.... And then about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that”; and

(6) WHEREAS, a CNN video camera captured the sound of an explosion coming from WTC 7 and the following statements prior to the onset of the collapse:

Unidentified voice: “You hear that?”

Voice of emergency responder #1: “Keep your eye on that building. It’ll be coming down soon.”

Voice of emergency responder #2: “Building is about to blow up, move it back.... We are walking back, there’s a building about to blow up. Flame and debris coming down”; and

(7) WHEREAS, numerous experts in controlled demolition and structural engineering have attested that the total collapse of WTC 7 could have been caused only by controlled demolition, as exemplified in the following statement made by Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko after viewing video of the collapse:

“This is controlled demolition.... It’s been imploded. It’s a hired job, done by a team of experts.... It’s without a doubt a professional job”; and

(8) WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that the fires in WTC 7 were unextraordinary and the building had only modest structural damage, the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM) began warning members of the New York Fire Department (FDNY) sometime before 11:30 AM that WTC 7 “was in serious danger of collapse,” and the FDNY proceeded to establish a safety zone around WTC 7 in the early afternoon; and

(9) WHEREAS, officials at the scene were so certain of WTC 7’s impending total collapse that it became widely covered in the media, as exemplified by MSNBC’s Ashleigh Banfield, who reported, “I’ve heard several reports from several different officers now that that is the building that is gonna go down next. In fact, one officer told me they’re just waiting for that to come down at this point” — and by the BBC, who erroneously began reporting the total collapse 23 minutes before it actually occurred; and

(10) WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that the total collapse of WTC 7 had been predicted with absolute certainty and accuracy starting six hours in advance, investigators for the Building Performance Study, conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), were reportedly “stunned” by the collapse and concluded in May 2002:

“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence”; and

WHEREAS, NIST stated at the beginning of its investigation in August 2002 that fires “played a significant role” in the total collapse of WTC 7 — thus violating Sections 4.3.7 and 4.3.8 of NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, which advise:

“Until data have been collected, no specific hypothesis can be reasonably formed or tested. All investigations of fire and explosion incidents should be approached by the investigator without presumption....” and,

“[i]Expectation bias is a well-established phenomenon that occurs in scientific analysis when investigator(s) reach a premature conclusion without having examined or considered all of the relevant data.... The introduction of expectation bias into the investigation results in the use of only that data that supports this previously formed conclusion and often results in the misinterpretation and/or the discarding of data that does not support the original opinion[I/]”; and

(11) WHEREAS, three and one-half years after NIST began its investigation, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, stated that NIST had some “preliminary hypotheses,” but conceded, “[T]ruthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7”; and

(12) WHEREAS, NIST finally concluded in 2008 — three years after the originally scheduled release of its WTC 7 report — that the total collapse of WTC 7 was caused by normal office fires that burned “at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in design practice for establishing structural fire resistance ratings,” and ruled out earlier hypotheses that diesel fuel fires and structural damage contributed to the collapse; and

(13) WHEREAS, NIST declined to examine previously melted steel from WTC 7 that had a “Swiss cheese appearance,” and which had been documented in Appendix C of the FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study as follows:

“Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the
source of the sulfur has been identified”; and

(14) WHEREAS, NIST’s computer model — which terminates less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse — fails to replicate the observed structural behavior, showing large deformations to WTC 7’s exterior not observed in the videos, while not showing the observed period of free fall; and

(15) WHEREAS, NIST omitted critical structural features of WTC 7 from its computer model, which, in the opinion of independent engineers, if corrected, would show that the initiating failure reported by NIST had zero probability of occurring; and

(16) WHEREAS, NIST has refused to release key portions of its modeling data to engineers studying the collapse of WTC 7, claiming that to do so “might jeopardize public safety” — thus making it impossible for any building professional in the world to independently verify NIST’s findings;

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.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Oystein

(2) WHEREAS, the cause of the total collapse of WTC 7 has become the subject of intense public debate, to which architects — through their knowledge, skill, and experience — are uniquely qualified to contribute; and

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.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Oystein

(4) WHEREAS, the total collapse of WTC 7 exemplified many of the signature features of controlled demolition, including:

1. Sudden onset: The roofline of WTC 7 went from being stationary to being in free fall in approximately one-half second.
2. Rapidity: The roofline of WTC 7 fell to the ground in less than seven seconds.
3. Free fall: For 2.25 seconds of its descent, WTC 7 fell at the rate of gravity over a distance of eight stories, meaning that the lower structure of the building provided no resistance whatsoever.
4. Symmetry: WTC 7 fell directly downward through what had been the path of greatest resistance, with the debris deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint.
5. Explosions and window breakage: Vertical sequences of explosions and window breakage could be seen running up the north face of WTC 7 as it began to collapse.
6. Dismemberment: The steel frame of WTC 7 was almost entirely dismembered.
7. Pulverization: Most of WTC 7’s concrete was pulverized to a consistency of sand and gravel.
8. Totality: The entire structure of WTC 7 collapsed to the ground, leaving no sections of the building standing; and

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?)

[jaydeehess]

Quote:

fell at the rate of gravity

Why can no one ever actually reference this properly?

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.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Oystein

(Need we address each sub-item?)

No, the first three items all fall under the single blanket of lie of omission.

Oystein:
the number 3 is redundant.
"seven seconds" is part of 2

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

...
Oystein:
the number 3 is redundant.
"seven seconds" is part of 2

Oops, thanks, corrected

[Africanus]

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.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Africanus

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.

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.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Oystein

(5) WHEREAS, first responders and bystanders reported explosions and other phenomena suggestive of controlled demolition immediately prior to and during the total collapse of WTC 7, as exemplified in the following statement by a New York University medical student who was interviewed on 1010 WINS radio moments after the collapse:

“[W]e heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. Turned around.... (I)t looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out.... And then about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that”; and

That's not suggestive of controlled demolition. Explosions also happened during the Windsor fire in Madrid.

ETA: Also, in the videos we see the EPH collapsing, and that caused the reported phenomena.

[Redwood]

It's a real Gish Gallop. Best to respond to only a few points. One thing is the conspiracist argument by innuendo:

Quote:

WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that the fires in WTC 7 were unextraordinary and the building had only modest structural damage, the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM) began warning members of the New York Fire Department (FDNY) sometime before 11:30 AM that WTC 7 “was in serious danger of collapse,” and the FDNY proceeded to establish a safety zone around WTC 7 in the early afternoon; and

Quote:

WHEREAS, officials at the scene were so certain of WTC 7’s impending total collapse that it became widely covered in the media, as exemplified by MSNBC’s Ashleigh Banfield, who reported, “I’ve heard several reports from several different officers now that that is the building that is gonna go down next. In fact, one officer told me they’re just waiting for that to come down at this point” — and by the BBC, who erroneously began reporting the total collapse 23 minutes before it actually occurred; and

Ask the delegates if they really want to second-guess authorities at the scene and endorse a resolution accusing them of being agents of a Vast Conspiracy.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Redwood

It's a real Gish Gallop. Best to respond to only a few points.

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

[marplots]

The use of whereas in all caps has the power to compel. This is well known.

[jaydeehess]

From the link in the OP:

Quote:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AIA Board of Directors shall
commence the process to adopt a Position Statement, to be published in the
AIA Directory of Public Policies and Position Statements, declaring both:
The AIA’s belief that incidents involving the catastrophic failure
of buildings and other structures must be investigated using
the highest standards of science-based investigation and
analysis; and
The AIA’s support for a new investigation into the total collapse
of WTC 7

Not too sure how that would fit into the mission statement identified above.

[Oystein]

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.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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.

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.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by DGM

... Should we fight to protect the reputation of every private organisation? ...

The strategic objective is not to protect AIA's reputation, but prevent such a large organization, and I think the most prestigeous of its kind, from putting their name to the nonsense and thus aiding the effort to mislead the general public.

[MileHighMadness]

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.

[Whip]

Originally Posted by marplots

The use of whereas in all caps has the power to compel. This is well known.

you are correct. I was compelled to ignore those 'points'

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Oystein

The strategic objective is not to protect AIA's reputation, but prevent such a large organization, and I think the most prestigeous of its kind, from putting their name to the nonsense and thus aiding the effort to mislead the general public.

.....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?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by DGM

.....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?

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.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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.

Trump is not a "truther" and the "media crisis" is blown way out of proportion. The size of the fringe will not change.

Want to guess who's doing this?

[Loss Leader]

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.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by DGM

Trump is not a "truther"

I didn't say he is. He is a symptom of a society where lies can fly.

Originally Posted by DGM

and the "media crisis" is blown way out of proportion.

Not sure about this.

Originally Posted by DGM

The size of the fringe will not change.

Bare assertion.

Originally Posted by DGM

Want to guess who's doing this?

Doing what?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

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.

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.

[skyeagle409]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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.

Wow. What a big pile of ********! Clearly designed to bamboozle.

Perhaps if each of you picks one item and tries to write a short, sweet rebuttal?

I find #1, #7, and #8 interesting.

Quote:

(1) WHEREAS, thousands of members of the architecture and engineering professions, including the ______ sponsors of this resolution, now believe there is sufficient evidence contradicting the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to warrant a new investigation into the total collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), a 47-story high-rise that collapsed into its own footprint at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001;

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:

(7) WHEREAS, numerous experts in controlled demolition and structural engineering have attested that the total collapse of WTC 7 could have been caused only by controlled demolition, as exemplified in the following statement made by Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko after viewing video of the collapse:

“This is controlled demolition.... It’s been imploded. It’s a hired job, done by a team of experts.... It’s without a doubt a professional job”; and

Apparently, Brent Blanchard, an explosive expert himself, does not agree with Danny Jowenko.

Quote:

Brent Blanchard Interview

Undicisettembre: What do you think about World Trade Center 7? Was its collapse a controlled demolition, in your opinion?

Brent Blanchard: No. Absolutely not.... To me, the fact that it collapsed so many hours after the other towers tends to support evidence of the natural progression of the collapse rather than some sinister plot.

-Brent Blanchard is a demolition expert; he serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services, a world leader in engineering and vibration consulting for explosive demolition projects. He's also a senior writer and editor at the website Implosionworld.com.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/...ve-expert.html

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:

(8) WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that the fires in WTC 7 were unextraordinary and the building had only modest structural damage, the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM) began warning members of the New York Fire Department (FDNY) sometime before 11:30 AM that WTC 7 “was in serious danger of collapse,” and the FDNY proceeded to establish a safety zone around WTC 7 in the early afternoon; and

Let's take a look as to why the FDNY set up a safety zone around WTC 7.

Quote:

WTC 7 Safety Zone

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed."
- Chief Cruthers

"WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

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.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by skyeagle409

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.

They'll never do that. It's the core tenet of JAQing off.

[Trojan]

"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

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Trojan

"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

... wonder why you think it is significant.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Oystein

...
(8) WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that the fires in WTC 7 were unextraordinary and the building had only modest structural damage, the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM) began warning members of the New York Fire Department (FDNY) sometime before 11:30 AM that WTC 7 “was in serious danger of collapse,” and the FDNY proceeded to establish a safety zone around WTC 7 in the early afternoon; and

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?).

Originally Posted by Oystein

(9) WHEREAS, officials at the scene were so certain of WTC 7’s impending total collapse that it became widely covered in the media, as exemplified by MSNBC’s Ashleigh Banfield, who reported, “I’ve heard several reports from several different officers now that that is the building that is gonna go down next. In fact, one officer told me they’re just waiting for that to come down at this point” — and by the BBC, who erroneously began reporting the total collapse 23 minutes before it actually occurred; and

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.

Originally Posted by Oystein

(10) WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that the total collapse of WTC 7 had been predicted with absolute certainty and accuracy starting six hours in advance, investigators for the Building Performance Study, conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), were reportedly “stunned” by the collapse and concluded in May 2002:

“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence”; and

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

Originally Posted by Oystein

(11) WHEREAS, three and one-half years after NIST began its investigation, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, stated that NIST had some “preliminary hypotheses,” but conceded, “[T]ruthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7”; and

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

Originally Posted by Oystein

(12) WHEREAS, NIST finally concluded in 2008 — three years after the originally scheduled release of its WTC 7 report — that the total collapse of WTC 7 was caused by normal office fires that burned “at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in design practice for establishing structural fire resistance ratings,” and ruled out earlier hypotheses that diesel fuel fires and structural damage contributed to the collapse; and

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.

Originally Posted by Oystein

(13) WHEREAS, NIST declined to examine previously melted steel from WTC 7 that had a “Swiss cheese appearance,” and which had been documented in Appendix C of the FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study as follows:

“Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified”; and

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.

Originally Posted by Oystein

(14) WHEREAS, NIST’s computer model — which terminates less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse — fails to replicate the observed structural behavior, showing large deformations to WTC 7’s exterior not observed in the videos, while not showing the observed period of free fall; and

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.

[JSanderO]

Originally Posted by Africanus

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.

all things dropping from static begin at 0 velocity... eh... and are we to assume AE measure the velocity/ acceleration during the first 0.5 seconds... FF would be a displacement of 5 feet... so if it was less where's their data??

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by JSanderO

all things dropping from static begin at 0 velocity... eh... and are we to assume AE measure the velocity/ acceleration during the first 0.5 seconds... FF would be a displacement of 5 feet... so if it was less where's their data??

4 ft.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Why can no one ever actually reference this properly?

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.

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).

[Oystein]

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

[ozeco41]

Preliminary prognosis:

1 out of 17 nonsense claims dropped in one annual cycle of conventions.

So come back in 2032??

[Richard the G]

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

[Oystein]

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.

[Playing Games]

Originally Posted by Oystein

And so this year they found 200 morons. I don't think there are shenanigans with those numbers or the wording.

That's a lot of morons. I feel sorry for them. Sorry, I couldn't resist. It was knee jerk reaction.

[pgimeno]

In light of the recent happenings in Iran...

Quote:

WHEREAS, prior to and since September 11, 2001, no steel-framed high-rise
has ever suffered a total collapse, except buildings demolished through the
procedure known as controlled demolition; and

No longer true.

Quote:

WHEREAS, the total collapse of WTC 7 exemplified many of the signature
features of controlled demolition, including:

• Sudden onset: The roofline of WTC 7 went from being stationary to being in free fall in approximately one-half second.
• Rapidity: The roofline of WTC 7 fell to the ground in less than seven seconds.
• Free fall: For 2.25 seconds of its descent, WTC 7 fell at the rate of gravity over a distance of eight stories, meaning that the lower structure of the building provided no resistance whatsoever.
• Symmetry: WTC 7 fell directly downward through what had been the path of greatest resistance, with the debris deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint.
• Explosions and window breakage: Vertical sequences of explosions and window breakage could be seen running up the north face of WTC 7 as it began to collapse.
• Dismemberment: The steel frame of WTC 7 was almost entirely dismembered.
• Pulverization: Most of WTC 7’s concrete was pulverized to a consistency of sand and gravel.(*)
• Totality: The entire structure of WTC 7 collapsed to the ground, leaving no sections of the building standing; and

The points highlighted in yellow are not characteristics unique to CD. The recent collapse shows that unequivocally.

(*) This point is a... bold faced lie (sorry for the bad pun). And it's not really a characteristic of building demolitions.

Quote:

WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that the fires in WTC 7 were unextraordinary and the building had only modest structural damage, the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM) began warning members of the New York Fire Department (FDNY) sometime before 11:30 AM that WTC 7 “was in serious danger of collapse,” and the FDNY proceeded to establish a safety zone around WTC 7 in the early afternoon; and

Well, the fires in the Tehran building were just as unextraordinary as WTC7's. I wonder how an extraordinary building fire looks like. The area around the Tehran building was cleared as well.


I wonder if they're going to modify them before the AIA convention.

[Oystein]

Thanks, pgimeno

Originally Posted by pgimeno

...
Well, the fires in the Tehran building were just as unextraordinary as WTC7's. I wonder how an extraordinary building fire looks like. ...

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.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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.

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.