Slideshow image


Since your web browser does not support JavaScript, here is a non-JavaScript version of the image slideshow:

slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


Why Fact-check? Why preserve a visual record?

The Website Written as a Book
Introduction
1: Science and Subjective Viewpoints
2: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers
....2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapses
....2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation
....2.4: WTC1 Accurate Collapse History
....2.5: WTC2 Accurate Collapse History
....2.6: WTC7 Accurate Collapse History
3: WTC Collapse Misrepresentations
....3.1: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....3.2: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations
....3.3: NIST WTC7 Misrepresentations
....3.4: NIST WTC2 Misrepresentations
....3.5: Reviewing the Purpose of NIST and FEMA Reports
....3.6: Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progressions
....3.7: Block Misrepresentations of Collapse Progressions
....3.8: AE911T Misrepresentations of the Collapses
4: Scientific Institutions Can Be Unaware of Contradiction
5: Reassessing the Question of Demolition
....5.1: The Case of WTC1
....5.2: The Case of WTC2
....5.3: The Case of WTC7
6: WTC Collapse Records Studied as Meme Replication
....6.1: Meme Replication in Technical Literature
....6.2: Meme Replication in Mass Media
....6.3: Meme Replication in Popular Culture
....6.4: John Q Public and the WTC Collapse Records
Conclusions

WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics

Official, Legal Attempts to Explain Collapses

Academic Attempts to Explain Collapses Reviewed

On the Limits of Science and Technology

WTC Video Record

WTC Photographic Record
WTC1 Attack to Collapse
WTC2 Attack to Collapse
WTC 7
.
-----PHOTO RECORD OF FIRE PROGRESSION-----
Fire Progression, WTC1 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 West Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 West Face
.
----DEBRIS LAYOUT AND CONDITION, BY REGION-----
Debris: WTC1 Around Footprint
Debris: WTC2 Around Footprint
Debris: From WTC1 Westward
Debris: From WTC1 Northward
Debris: From WTC2 Eastward
Debris: From WTC2 Southward
Debris: Plaza Area, Northeast Complex
Debris: Hilton Hotel, Southwest Complex
Debris: General, Unidentified Locations
Damage to Surrounding Buildings
Perimeter Column Photo Record
Perimeter Columns: Types of Damage
Core Box Columns: Types of Damage
Complete Photo Archive
Other Major 9-11 Photo Archives
The 911Dataset Project

WTC Structural Information

Log In
Username

Password

Remember Me



Online Misrepresentations of the WTC Collapses

Forum, Blog Representations of the WTC Collapses

The Book Tested Through Experiments

Miscellaneous Notes, Resources
FAQ for Miscellaneous Notes
History Commons 9/11 Timeline
The 911Dataset Project
Skyscraper Safety Campaign
First and Largest 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Key Words in Book and Website
Trapped Within a Narrowed False Choice
Vulnerability and Requestioning
On Memes and Memetics
Obedience, Conformity and Mental Structure
Denial, Avoidance (Taboo) and Mental Structure
Taboos Against Reviewing the Collapse Events
Extreme Situations and Mental Structure
Suggestibility, Hypnosis and Mental Structure
Awareness and Behavior
Magical, Religious, Scientific Cause-Effect Relations
The Extreme Limits of Mental Dysfunction
Orwell's "Crimestop", "Doublethink", "Blackwhite"
William James, Max Born: Science as Philosophy
Plato on Self Reflection and Mental Structure
Rewriting History, part 1
Rewriting History, part 2
On Smart Idiots

New Ideas in Education

The 9-11 Forum

The 9-11 Forum

This was the best quality WTC forum on the internet. It is linked here

The author of this website discusses research there under the user name "Major_Tom".





History of The 9/11 Forum


For one who wants a short tour of the early forum, reading "An open letter to Richard Gage and AE9/11 Truth" by Greg Urich is a good place to start.



Greg's letter:

An open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth

Dear Mr. Gage and members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,

I am a member of AE911Truth (pending verification) and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. I have also contributed articles to the Journal of 9/11 Studies. While I appreciate the work you and others are doing to examine the events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I am concerned that many arguments put forth are incorrect. Please don't mistake me for a NIST apologist or an official cover-up story believer. The truth movement needs to be very sure of its claims to avoid being dismissed as ignorant fools, nut-jobs or politically motivated manipulators. Justice is clearly dependent on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Because of the large number of fallacious claims purveyed by various groups within the movement, my approach has been and will continue to be to examine claims on both sides of the argument and take them at their own merit. I hope others will embrace this approach so that the truth movement can live up to its basic values and achieve its well meaning goals. There are clearly problems with the official story and these are well covered by truth movement. However, after spending many 100s of hours examining and discussing evidence, analyses and claims on both sides of the argument, I have found that a large portion of the truth movement's claims are unsubstantiated or incorrect. These need to be corrected. With this in mind, I have looked at the
AE911Truth claims given below and I offer criticism where I feel it can be helpful.
From AE911Truth with my comments interspersed:

"As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Extremely rapid onset of "collapse"

The validity of this claim rests on the definition of "extremely rapid". NIST provides evidence of growing instability 10 min prior to collapse including smoke expulsions from partial floor collapses and bowing of the exterior wall on the south side of WTC1.

2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by over 100 first responders

Surely, there were explosive sounds and flashes of light as there are too many
witnesses to deny this. Nonetheless, the only videos of the collapses with sound do
not have any explosive sounds. In the following video, one can hear people talking and the sound of the collapse. In videos of actual demolitions the explosive charges are at least ten times louder than collapse sounds. Compare:

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_south_below.mpg
to these actual demolitions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XG-l3N1YfQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMkJmnyDuQ

This evidence directly contradicts the controlled demolition theory, at least by conventional means. Nonetheless, the witness testimonies should be taken seriously. It is possible that people heard or saw something else, for example, reflections of lights from emergency vehicles or cars exploding.

3. Squibs, or "mistimed" explosions, 40 floors below the "collapsing" building seen in all the videos

This argument would only favor controlled demolition if the pressures inside the
building in a gravitational collapse are not sufficient or cannot propagate fast enough to cause the observed phenomena. To my knowledge, this has not been
demonstrated.

4. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people - mostly to dust

This claim is not correct and in no way favors controlled demolition over gravitational collapse. Engineers at Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (STJ911), including Greg Jenkins, Tony Szamboti and Gregory Urich, have demonstrated that the upper bound for concrete pulverized to dust was 15%. We have also calculated that the amount of dust attributable to easily crushed materials like gypsum and SFRM (thermal insulation) was equivalent to 5 lbs per square foot over an area of 200 acres. We have also calculated that no extra energy source would be needed to create this amount of dust. The pressures approached 100,000 psi late in the collapse. How could these pressures not result in humans and other materials being crushed to dust?

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

Is the cloud really pyroclastic, or is it just dust? Engineers at STJ911 have calculated that 15% of the concrete together with fireproofing and gypsum would result in massive volumes amounting to 10 lbs of dust per square foot over an area of 200 acres. Engineers at STJ911 have calculated that the air being expelled from the collapsing building was approaching velocities of 200 m/s. This is the primary engine driving the expanding dust clouds. The dust cloud was given even more energy from debris falling outside the perimeter.

6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

This is only one interpretation of the visual records of the collapses. Another
interpretation is that the pressures due to impacts were blowing out the windows. The characterization as "demolition waves" has no support in the evidence or scientific analyses to date.


7. Symmetrical collapse - through the path of greatest resistance - at nearly free-fall speed —the columns gave no resistance

This is simply incorrect. Neither collapse was symmetrical. In WTC2, most debris falling outside the footprint went east and south. In WTC1, most debris falling outside the footprint went north and west. Engineers at STJ911 have calculated that the structure provided resistance to the extent that 40-60% of the original PE was dissipated prior to debris impact at the foundation.

8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris - outside of building footprint

This claim in no way favors CD over gravitational collapse. The size of the debris field is not surprising considering that the exteriors peeled outward (see also #10). The debris was not equally distributed.

9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

The characterization of blast waves is not supported. Since most of the broken
windows were broken lower down on the surrounding buildings, the most likely cause
was winds caused by the expulsion of air from the building as described in #5. The
winds described above would certainly be capable of blowing in windows.

10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

Close inspection of some of the videos reveal that most exterior columns fell still
connected as the exterior peeled outward. Since the exterior was 1400 ft. high it is not surprising that they reached 500 ft. away. In fact, there exist photos of the nearly intact exterior stretching all the way from WTC1 to the World Financial Center.

11. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements - obliterating the steel core structure.

It has not been demonstrated that this is uncharacteristic of a gravitational collapse that initiates high up in a 110 floor, high rise, tube/core structure building. Since the world has never seen such a collapse prior to or after 9/11, there are no empirical results to compare to. Often, the collapses are compared to gravitation collapses due to earthquakes resulting in pan-caking or toppling. These comparisons are not relevant to the Twin Towers because the initiation of the collapses is low in the building due to lateral forces. Nonetheless, it has been demonstrated that there was plenty of potential energy to enable buckling of all columns at every floor. In reality, the core columns broke mostly at the welded connections every 36 ft, which takes even less energy.

12. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (What could have produced all of that molten metal?)

Does any evidence for "tons of molten metal" exist? What metals comprise this
molten metal? This author is only aware of witness statements regarding molten
metal and only small pieces of previously molten metal. Can molten metal observed in
the pile weeks after the collapse be attributed to a thermate attack weeks before? The fires in the pile would not be hot enough to ignite any unburned thermate and any thermate burning in the pile would give off a characteristic bright white light, which was not observed. If there is in fact evidence of tons (i.e. more than one ton), this is a reasonable issue to investigate. Until this claim is supported by evidence, it cannot be considered indicative of a thermate attack.

13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

I believe that this is a valid issue which should be pursued by independent researchers and NIST alike. However, there may be alternative explanations other than a preplanned demolition and these should receive at least as much attention.

14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and inter-granular melting on structural steel samples

I believe that this is a valid issue which should be pursued by independent researchers and NIST alike. However, there may be alternative explanations other than a preplanned demolition and these should receive at least as much attention.

15. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings"

This does not favor the CD hypothesis over the gravitational collapse hypothesis. See #4.


And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations.

See #1 above.

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires).

Has any rigorous analysis of the "path of least resistance" been done? An application of the principle of least action would probably be more appropriate. Mechanical dynamics are governed by inertia, force, momentum and material properties. This author has seen no
dynamic analyses showing that the top parts of the towers should have fallen off. Unless this
argument is supported by careful analysis it is only conjecture.
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel.
It is well proven that temperatures in building fires can soften steel. This is why buildings
have thermal insulation applied to the steel structural components.



4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed".

These buildings were not structurally damaged to begin with and had different structural designs than the Twin Towers. It would be meaningful to examine whether or not the buildings, which survived serious fires, had concrete cores or not. Does any evidence exist that buildings with similar structural design, damaged in the manner of the world trade center, should not collapse due to fires?

My conclusion is that there is no claim favoring the controlled demolition hypothesis over NIST's impact/fire/gravitational collapse hypothesis. Most important, there are no tell-tale sharp cracking
sounds in the sound video given above and there is no comparison between the sounds in that video and the sounds in videos actual demolitions. This means we can rule out demolition using conventional means.

I hope that your commitment to the truth is such that you take my criticisms seriously. If the truth movement is going to be successful, we will need to distance ourselves from fallacious claims and avoid conjecture. I would welcome constructive discussion of these issues in any forum. I am regularly available on the STJ911 and JREF forums, and you have my e-mail address.

Sincerely,
Gregory Urich

P.S. Some wordings have been changed for clarity and small errors have been corrected in this published version.





Another small sample is in the thread "Debate, what debate?" linked here.

Note how Dr G writes about the highly polarized situation created by sites like JREF and AE911T. Also note his disappointment with academia and the NIST. Ironically, note his comment on what Bazant thought about academic response.

The common feeling among the early posters is that JREF represented 'anti-thought' and AE911T was no better. And note how people openly questioned the NIST.

It was this twin repulsion which served as the motivating force behind creating this forum.


Some early participants felt they were being lied to and censored by both the 'truther' side and the 'debunker' side. In fact, some of us knew we were.


Greg Urich was participating in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth forum before this forum was created. A guy called "Max Photon" got kicked out of the forum. I was kicked out of that forum for pointing out contradictions and asking too many difficult questions. I was creating quite a scene there and had the opportunity analyze the papers by Steven Jones and question him directly about his choice of arguments and photographic evidence. Others were watching with interest and it must have been too embarrassing and one day my password stopped working. I was kicked out with no warning and shortly after that Greg Urich quit.

I was able to verify directly that open debate is not welcome there and they had no intention of fixing their mistakes and making a public announcement about errors and corrections like I was insisting they do. Others were also able to verify that, too.


But that did not mean that the same people were not equally repulsed by JREF (actually, JREF was worse). Or by the NIST. Or by academic response.



The early threads set the tone and the "renaissance" portion was from 2009 to 2011. The renaissance portion was the most interesting part.


From that time onward, using the research gathered during the peak productive periods of this forum, it was easy to verify in a much more direct way that the twin repulsion that some of us felt instinctively was based on fact. Some of us were right to be highly suspicious of what we were seeing from both 'truthers' and 'debunkers', from the NIST and from academia.

The repulsion was a healthy response, and looking back I am satisfied to observe that in my own case my repulsion never diminished over time.


These are quotes taken from the 'Debate? What debate?' thread linked earlier:

From 'Dr G':

My original thread was something of a diatribe against JREFers for their inability to truly debate "truthers". However, I should add that I have seen the same level of vitriol and bigotry on many other 9/11 "research" websites and blogs, with the same pattern of behavior coming from both sides of the debate.


From OneWhiteEye:

In many ways I see the two sides of this debate as two sides of the same coin. Sides are chosen largely on the basis of faith consistent with personal ideology, not evidence, rational inquiry or sound reasoning principles. There are some dissimilarities, but all the same character types are present on both sides. The vast majority are of the "what he said" variety even if they don't understand what was being said - it rings true to them, based on their personal faith. One psychological distinction is that debunkers of all persuasions seem to be the playground bullies that steal lunch money and truthers seem to be the ones that let them.



This was posted in January, 2009.


So, time has passed and we can sit back and look at what seems to be pretty much the final form of this 'debate'. And the OWE and Dr G comments are still as true now as when they were originally made.

The reference to 'bullies' is quite astute. As I mentioned, I had the opportunity to ask many challenging questions to Steven Jones directly in front of other observers, including Greg Urich, Richard Gage, Graham McQueen, Greg Jenkins, and Gordon Ross among others.

I was eventually kicked out of the forum but not because the listed people were acting hostile toward me. They were actually quite polite considering the situation. Gordon Ross was in no way mean to me and expressed interest in my analysis. He even used some of it on his website. Graham McQueen was very polite and recommended to a person he had met who had a huge quantity of images to contact me and send his collection to me. Greg Jenkins didn't seem to have any issues with me and gave feedback on my analysis of photos.

I was kicked out with no warning by a person with the user name 'victronix' or something like that who was the moderator and, I was told but couldn't verify, is the wife of Jim Hoffman. I was kicked out most probably because the exchanges were too threatening to the core memes being circulated by the group but not because the people watching the exchanges were pushing for my departure. It is a private forum and one needs a working password to enter so when one is kicked out with no warning all ones research posted is effectively stolen.

I noticed that Richard Gage, responding to my analysis, recommended that the group drop the claim of 'angle-cut columns'. I thought that was a good idea and told them to announce that publicly. They clearly have the responsibility make a public statement if and when they retract a claim like that. But there was no statement issued. And the images suggesting 'angle-cut columns' remain within the Journal of 9/11 Studies.


I experienced censorship there but I never experienced blatant bullying until my experience at JREF. The 'debunking' websites and JREF seem to encourage and participate in harassment in a way that it is accepted as normal. Those places do not like research which looks at the 9/11 attacks deeply. And I am not the only one who has noticed this. As the case of Dr G shows, it doesn't matter who is doing the research. If it deviates from the memeplex of which 'gravysites' serves as an excellent working template, it will be harassed constantly.


It was within this environment that the 9/11 Forum came into being as Dr G expresses so well in his first post in the 'Debate, what debate?' thread. The first contributors clearly thought that the events of 9/11/01 deserved a deeper look for whatever reason and that the groups and institutes that claimed to being doing just that were not doing what they claimed to be doing. If they did not feel that way the forum wouldn't exist. Likewise, if they felt there was some other environment which encouraged independent evidence-based research into the 9/11 attacks they most probably would have used the environment already established.

This place exists because there wasn't any other environment.

Other groups and institutions were not only avoiding open evidence-based research of this subject, they were acting as impediments for those who wanted to examine the events deeper.






There are at least 3 distinct phases of the 9/11 Forum, and Greg Urich only participated in the first phase. I refer to the 3 phases this way:


PHASE 1: Early posts (2008-early 2009)

PHASE 2: Renaissance (2009-2011)

PHASE 3: 'The Forgetting', or 'Entrenchment' (2011 to the present)


These are 3 distinct phases as they seem to have very little to do with each other, other the fact that each follows from or is a reaction to the preceding phase.

The forum as it exists at present is not a direct continuation of the period of the most intense output from 2009 to 2011. Just as the name implies, some posting now have no memory of (or interest in) the work that was done earlier. This is very easy to verify.

The current atmosphere is one in which entrenched viewpoints are the norm, which is very similar to the atmosphere elsewhere. As Max Photon used to say, the 'noise to signal ratio' is quite high once again. The atmosphere which was possible within the first 2 phases of the forum no longer exists. After (or perhaps partly in reaction to) the intensive open sharing of resources and discovery process which characterized the renaissance phase of this forum, a counter-reaction was triggered in which various people, groups, and institutions dug their trenches deeper than ever. And this re-entrenchment and forgetting seems to be the final state of affairs with respect to any written recorded history. This, too, is easy to verify.








For the purposes of understanding the history behind the 9/11 Forum, this is a copy of Greg Urich's letter of resignation from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice:

>>>>>>>>>

Dear Steering Committee of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice,

I hereby resign my membership with Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and respectfully demand that all information on the public web site regarding my membership status be updated to reflect this or be removed. My reasons for this decision are that the organization does not live up to its charter regarding "evidence based scientific inquiry" or democratic principles.

I have repeatedly called on the steering committee to reign in abuses by the moderator (Victoria Ashley) on the discussion forum only to be ignored. The abuses have ranged from anti-scientific censorship tactics (i.e. moving unwanted arguments to the "Debunker" sub-forum) to the banning of members who actually call others to the mat to support their spurious claims. I have repeatedly asked the steering committee to make a simple statement to the effect that ALL evidence based arguments should be permitted on the "Scientific Analysis" sub-forum.

An earlier letter to the steering committee:

Dear Friends,

I have sent the moderators at the STJ911 forum the following questions and posted them repeatedly on the forum:
1. I believe the analysis by Kuttler (WTC1) is incorrect for a number of reasons. Is it OK to post on the Scientific Analysis forum demonstrating what is wrong with this analysis?

2. Is it OK to challenge each generally accepted theory or results which I believe may be incorrect on the Scientific Analysis forum?

3. If I think that gravitational collapse is the most likely cause of the destruction of WTC1 and 2, is it OK to argue that on the Scientific Analysis forum?


No answers have been forthcoming. Considering the hundreds of hours I have put into sincere work for our cause, I believe I at least deserve answers to these questions. Any support you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Let's not let science and truth die on our watch.

Best regards,
Gregory Urich


These calls for a commitment to the scientific process have fallen on deaf ears. In all fairness, Steven Jones has supported this, but he is not on the steering committee. Actually, one steering committee member did support this and was subsequently banned from the discussion forum after repeatedly arguing my point of view.

The organization, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, is supposed to be democratic in accord with the frequently asked questions on the web site which is as close to a charter as I can find for the group:

5. "Who is in charge now, and how does the group operate?"
An elected steering committee will be in charge of the website and its contents. Currently an ad hoc committee is in place. Administrative positions will be limited to one year. Important decisions affecting the whole group will be submitted via email to the membership.

To my knowledge, the original ad-hoc committee has retained their positions for years, there have been no elections and not a single "important decision" has ever been submitted to the whole group.

Needless to say, I am extremely disappointed by the organization. In my opinion the group no longer functions in its search for truth, but has come down on the side of delusion and misinformation. I hope my resignation is a wakeup call to the steering committee and members. Justice can never be served if the truth is secondary to the movement.

Sincerely,
Gregory Urich


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The original letter was posted in this forum at this link and in the JREF forum in January, 2009.





A little history behind this...

After Max Photon was booted, I was the first to be kicked out of the forum for placing evidence-based arguments which contradicted their public taking points within the forum. Before I was finally kicked out, the moderator, Victoria Ashley, would move threads that I would start to a section of the forum called "controversial theories".

I was basically being censored right out in the open, which was pretty embarrassing for forum management since my arguments and supporting evidence attracted the attention of other posters. It wouldn't have been easy to kick me out without starting a small rebellion.






Within the letter of resignation it is easy to see the efforts made toward open evidence-based research being countered by an entrenched set of viewpoints by a level of management which is unaccountable and cannot even be openly identified. And this is exactly what Dr G experienced, too, in a different context.

It is important to note that neither Greg Urich or Dr G participated in the renaissance phase of this forum. They were of an earlier period which helped set the stage for it. There was open questioning of both government and 'truther' claims and there was an attempt to introduce an evidence-based research environment which could openly challenge those claims, but the level of research was not even close to what was to follow shortly thereafter.

Just one example: The following graphic was prepared by Greg Urich and used by Ryan Mackey in an exchange with Tony Szamboti:





And this is a version of the same event used in the same argument by Ryan Mackey:







These images are like primitive cartoons when compared to the research produced during the renaissance portion of this forum. This is not the fault of Greg Urich. This was the understanding at the time the images were produced. They got this information directly out of the NIST reports using the NIST's stated values for early movement.


When I asked Greg why he drew the graphic the way he did, he answered that he got the information from the NIST report. He answered in a single post with no hesitation and no emotional hang-ups.

When I asked Ryan Mackey why he drew the graphic the way he did, he went into a prolonged mode of total denial and total melt-down. To this day he still has not given an answer to that simple question. He just digs the trenches deeper and refuses to budge.


It is easy to verify that people were having debates and making arguments in 2009 and earlier with graphic representations which were cartoons when compared to later work done within this forum. Even the original moderator and creator of this forum was using them without realizing how bad they were.

And even the NIST was using pathetic, cartoon-like descriptions of early movement and ejection patterns of WTC1 and 2. After all, that is from where the information in the Urich and Mackey graphics came.








Another small thread that helps to understand the environment at the time the forum began is called "Truth movement groups uninterested in truth" started by Greg Urich. It is linked here. The thread clearly shows that the forum began as a response to direct censorship that some of us were experiencing. Some early participants were being banned and being censored on other forums and discussion environments. This was the only place that some of us felt we could communicate openly without regular censorship.

Some of the participants within that thread viewed this forum as a new and refreshing environment with possibilities to present evidence-based research within a forum setting which can be seen by anyone who wished to do so.

There was open distrust of all available sources of information concerning the WTC collapses. Uncertainty was accepted. There was nothing wrong or taboo about questioning all sources of information.

Also note there was no sharp truther-debunker division as is so characteristic within other forums or websites on this subject. It was a unique atmosphere. The most productive phase of this forum (stage 2) was permitted because it grew out of this early environment.


The current environment, which I have called the stage of 'forgetting' or 'entrenchment', would not have allowed the most productive period of the forum to take place. It would be poisoned or shouted down by those who do not share the same values as those posting when the forum was just beginning.












The period of greatest productivity, 2009 to 2011


The best way to see what the environment of this forum was like during the period of greatest productivity is to simply look through the threads in the Scientific and Technical Forums section.




Organizing the results into collective mappings


One of the best ideas for organizing the observations and measurements collected through this forum into a whole was suggested by Femr2. He called it a 'roadmap'. His idea was to put all the observations and measurements into a data bank and make them accessible to a viewer through a 3-D graphic interface. The interface would have looked something like this:


Pulpit rock
Pulpit rock



It would have been essentially a 4 dimensional summary (3 space dimensions and one time dimension) of observed building behavior.

The idea was excellent but it never materialized in this form.



The collective mappings as they currently exist grew organically out of individual thread topics within the Scientific and Technical Forums. I basically grabbed the work of various researchers, put the items in chronological order, and edited the results to create an overview of observed building behavior for WTC1, 2, and 7.

The results of their efforts, in which I acted as only one contributor and editor, can be seen at the following links:


2.4: WTC1 Accurate Collapse History
2.5: WTC2 Accurate Collapse History
2.6: WTC7 Accurate Collapse History


and WTC1 and 2 collapse progression information can be found here:

2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers
2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapses
2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation


These mappings are the most accurate, detailed records of WTC1, 2 and 7 building movements and collapse behaviors available anywhere. These mappings do not exist anywhere else.






A short summary of what has been presented so far...



Why was this forum created?


    To introduce open evidence-based research as the foundation upon which 9/11 related issues and claims about the collapses of the WTC towers are made

    There were uncertainties that needed to be openly addressed

    To counter a culture of censorship, bullying, and harassment around this issue

    To counter the sharp, artificial, polarized divisions between 'truther' and 'debunker' subcultures

    Some of us were repulsed by (or forcibly removed from) other venues discussing this subject





Why were elements of the mappings originally compiled?


    There was a distrust of the available information from all sources, including the NIST, academia, and internet-based information

    There was uncertainty about what actually happened

    To fact-check claims and counter deceptive information within the public domain




How could the mappings be used?


    To create a basis here and elsewhere by which understanding and discussion could move from the vague to the specific

    To fact-check claims and challenge entrenched viewpoints

    To provide ones self and others with an accurate record of collapse events


There is another highly illuminating way that the mappings can be used. One can test the overall environment: forums, organizations, academia and academic culture, professional journals, government institutions, news media.

How open are these elements of society to fact-checking their own sources of information and self-correction?




A comment from another thread:


Imagine for a moment that while ROOSD was being discussed and formulated while this language and behaviour was going on, it would have probably never got off the ground. The reason it did is partly because this place gave them the platform to do so, free from that distraction.


This is an excellent point. It is even truer in relation to the collapse initiation mappings. And it is easy to see the differences between the three distinct stages of this forum from this point of view.

A quick review of the three distinct stages:


PHASE 1: Early posts (2008-early 2009)

PHASE 2: Renaissance (2009-2011)

PHASE 3: 'The Forgetting', or 'Entrenchment' (2011 to the present)



Simply put, if the current atmosphere of the forum was present at the beginning, stages 1 and 2 couldn't possibly have existed. It was the early atmosphere that allowed the most productive period of the forum (stage 2) to come into being.

That atmosphere does not exist here anymore, and it doesn't seem to exist anywhere else on the internet. It doesn't seem to exist on the subject of the WTC towers in any professional journals. It didn't exist within the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth or within S911TJ exchanges as some of us who put pressure on the groups were able to test and verify.


I think it is easy for those who have experienced and appreciated the earlier atmosphere within stages 1 and 2 of this forum to see the change in atmosphere. If some of the current participants had any role in moderation at that time, or played a major role in setting a tone within this forum, then the best parts of the forum would have been destroyed before they had any chance to develop.






The period of entrenchment: Testing the external environment


What do I mean by 'entrenchment'? I can show anyone who wishes to see what I mean simply by presenting some of the results of the work done within this forum from 2009 to 2011 to different audiences outside of the forum.

I have done some experiments along those lines as the work was being produced here.


To explain what I was doing at the time I'll use an analogy.





The man in the picture is using a sniper decoy to check how the external environment will react if he puts his own head out of the window to look around. If the decoy gets shot at, he knows how the environment outside the window will react to his presence if he isn't careful.


In a similar way, most of the work put together during the renaissance phase of this forum has been posted within different environments on the internet. It was posted within 'truther' settings and within 'debunker' settings. I posted the work in places where I knew it would get quite a lot of 'views'. Just as I had done earlier within the S911TJ forum, I wanted to make sure that certain people saw the information and I recorded their opinions and reactions to it.









I have done some experiments along those lines as the work was being produced here.




This was one of the experiments:


I put together a summary of an entire section of this forum called WTC1 and WTC2 - Collapse Initiation and placed the information on WTC1 in a single thread at JREF. I placed the information on WTC2 in a second thread. I wanted to show the forum participants here how their work would be received within the JREF environment.

The threads I started were called "WTC1 Feature List" and "WTC2 Feature List". These 2 threads were merged together and moved out of the JREF 9-11 sub-forum. The resulting merged thread is here:

WTC 1 Feature List, WTC 2 Feature List merged


The information which formed the basis of each OP was later compiled into the most detailed, accurate set of mappings of the collapse behavior of WTC1 and 2 on the planet.





Results of the experiment:

The thread shows in a very clear way the central differences between The 9/11 Forum and the JREF forum. Within The 9/11 Forum the information within the OP exists as an entire section of the forum. Each of the links within the OP consists of a separate thread and posters were very interested in the material. Within the JREF forum the same information consisted of a single thread in which posters constantly complained about the material and eventually had it removed from the subforum altogether.

So, the experiment shows the stark contrast between the JREF environment and the environment within this forum during its most productive period. What consists of an entire subsection here was not worthy of a single thread there.


More importantly, the threads show 'entrenchment' or 'historic revisionism' in action. There are people who are heavily invested in promoting a false narrative of the collapses of WTC1, 2, and 7, and experience shows they will never be able to move beyond these false narratives. The JREF/ISF environment is just one example of this. They didn't create the environment. They and other groups like them are the product of an environment which is much larger than themselves which will never be able to move beyond a false narrative of collapse events.

This is what entrenchment looks and feels like and it isn't going to go away. It is a permanent state. It is a state of being heavily invested in a false narrative, it is very stubborn and immovable, and it is very hostile toward anything that challenges the certainty of the narrative.






A second experiment was conducted in the same way in the same forum for the same purpose. This time the topic covered the collapse progression processes of WTC1 and 2.


The original thread and the resulting branches are here:

OOS Collapse Model and this thread and OOS Collapse Model II





Results of the experiment:

This experiment went on for a total of 5 years, during which time I asked the participants pretty much the same questions throughout the threads.

Once again, the threads show 'entrenchment' or 'historic revisionism' in action. This is what entrenchment looks and feels like. It is not difficult to see that the people responding within the threads were heavily invested in promoting a false interpretation of the written technical history regarding the collapse progression processes of WTC1 and 2.


These are exchanges that lack any form of intelligent ground rules. The experiments show that this behavior can be drawn out endlessly and results in a collective form of historic revisionism within the group. This type of entrenchment that can last for years. Also note that exchanges like this are 'meme' driven rather than being logically coherent.














Created on 05/01/2009 08:30 PM by admin
Updated on 01/12/2017 01:05 PM by admin
 Printable Version

Copyright © 2008 WiredTech, LLC
phpWebSite is licensed under the GNU LGPL