• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AI agrees WTC7 was a controlled demolition!



-Senator Johnson questioned why Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, collapsed in a manner similar to controlled demolitions.

-He mentioned the presence of molten steel in the Twin Towers and questioned the temperature at which steel melts, implying discrepancies with the official investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

-He referenced Barry Jennings, a key witness who reported explosions in Building 7 before its collapse, and criticized the rapid removal of debris, which he claimed hindered a thorough investigation.
 
commonsense101 said:
After recently watching Former congressman Weldon on Tucker and other shows, I decided to dive deeper in to my long held suspicions with respect to the official narrative of the WTC 7 collapse.
The first thing I did, was ansked AI what the cause of the collapse was, and if it believed the official narrative. Of course, it spit back the conspiracy theory claims when supporting the official narrative.
I then obtained the entire NIST detailed report, and I also obtained the final report from University of Fairbanks Alaska, and all supplemental modeling data.
I uploaded all of it to an Open AI system, and proceeded to have it analyze both reports and all supplemental data,. I then asked it to evaluate based solely on the data, and not on media narratives, or outside biases.
The responses I got were pretty impressive.
It drew the conclusions that the government NIST report was inaccurate and misleading. It also concluded that it was incorrect, and that the only known cause for the collapse would be from a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...
Why would the democrats to that to president Bush?
 
joluoto said:
You can get an AI to agree to anything. It's easy to convince it you just tell it something is in a certain way, and the AI will happily oblige.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Only a fool trusts AI technology to be correct.
 
NOLA Dude said:


-Senator Johnson questioned why Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, collapsed in a manner similar to controlled demolitions.

-He mentioned the presence of molten steel in the Twin Towers and questioned the temperature at which steel melts, implying discrepancies with the official investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

-He referenced Barry Jennings, a key witness who reported explosions in Building 7 before its collapse, and criticized the rapid removal of debris, which he claimed hindered a thorough investigation.
Click to expand...

The NIST report those years back was plenty thorough in its explanation. Anyone thinking this was some false flag operation need to pull up that document and explain the areas it is incorrect.

Without such proper scientific rebuttal, this is all a joke.
 
That there are people who believe it was a controlled demolition shows that the education system is failing them.
 
LouC said:

AI agrees WTC7 was a controlled demolition!​

Something that isn't real agrees with something that wasn't real.
Click to expand...
Yep.

The primary problem with such AI bots, is they us the information they can find on the net and information fed. The shear number of conspiracy theory posts overwhelm the AI with the actual causes.
 
commonsense101 said:
After recently watching Former congressman Weldon on Tucker and other shows, I decided to dive deeper in to my long held suspicions with respect to the official narrative of the WTC 7 collapse.
The first thing I did, was ansked AI what the cause of the collapse was, and if it believed the official narrative. Of course, it spit back the conspiracy theory claims when supporting the official narrative.
I then obtained the entire NIST detailed report, and I also obtained the final report from University of Fairbanks Alaska, and all supplemental modeling data.
I uploaded all of it to an Open AI system, and proceeded to have it analyze both reports and all supplemental data,. I then asked it to evaluate based solely on the data, and not on media narratives, or outside biases.
The responses I got were pretty impressive.
It drew the conclusions that the government NIST report was inaccurate and misleading. It also concluded that it was incorrect, and that the only known cause for the collapse would be from a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Well dang.

Guess that settles it...

..
 
You have to be a very special person to believe such bollocks as in the OP. Not many qualify.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The NIST report those years back was plenty thorough in its explanation. Anyone thinking this was some false flag operation need to pull up that document and explain the areas it is incorrect.

Without such proper scientific rebuttal, this is all a joke.
Click to expand...
Honestly I never even thought about this until I saw a recent interview with former Congresman Weldon. I thought it was crazy kook conspiracy theories before, but as Senator Johnson said there are a lot of questions and things that don't make sense.

Grok on some criticisms of the NIST report:

Methodological Concerns
  • Lack of Physical Evidence: Critics argue that NIST did not sufficiently analyze physical evidence, such as steel samples from the debris, which could have provided insights into the cause of the collapses. The rapid cleanup of the site is often cited as a reason for the lack of evidence.
  • Computer Simulations: NIST's reliance on computer models to simulate the collapses has been criticized for not being fully transparent or independently verified. Some claim that the models were tailored to fit the desired outcome rather than reflecting all available data.
  • Selective Data Use: There are allegations that NIST selectively used data that supported its conclusions while ignoring contradictory evidence, such as witness accounts of explosions or the presence of molten metal.

Building 7 Collapse

Free-Fall Collapse: NIST acknowledged that Building 7 experienced a period of free-fall collapse, which critics argue is inconsistent with a fire-induced collapse and more indicative of a controlled demolition. The report's explanation that this was due to the simultaneous failure of all columns is seen as insufficient by some.

Explosions and Witness Testimony: Barry Jennings' testimony about hearing explosions in Building 7 before its collapse is a significant point of contention. Critics argue that NIST did not adequately address these accounts, which suggest pre-collapse explosive events.

Thermal Expansion Theory: NIST's conclusion that thermal expansion caused the initial failure leading to the collapse of Building 7 has been challenged. Critics, including some engineers, argue that this theory does not account for the symmetrical nature of the collapse or the speed at which it occurred.

University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) Study Contradictions

A four-year study by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), directly contradicts NIST's findings for WTC 7. Released on March 25, 2020, the UAF study
concluded that fire did not cause the collapse, instead finding that it was a "global failure" involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building, a characteristic often associated with controlled demolition. The study, led by Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey and supported by Dr. Feng Xiao and Dr. Zhili Quan, utilized computer modeling from May 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, with funding of $316,153. Key findings include:
 
Last edited:
Continued:

NIST overestimated the rigidity of the building's outside frame and underestimated the heat from the fire.

The "beams walk off" theory, where thermal expansion caused beams to disconnect, was found invalid, with the UAF study showing insufficient movement (e.g., girder movement of ~1 inch versus NIST's claimed 6.25 inches) to cause failure.

The collapse at near-free-fall speed (2.25-2.5 seconds for 8 floors) was inconsistent with a fire-induced progressive collapse.

This study, detailed in a 125-page final report (Final Report, Abstract), was peer-reviewed and made all data publicly available, contrasting with NIST's perceived lack of transparency. Following its release, AE911Truth and 10 family members of 9/11 victims submitted a formal request for correction to NIST's report Request for Correction, highlighting the scientific disagreement.

Lack of Physical Testing for Explosives

Critics argue that NIST's failure to physically test debris for explosive residues is a critical omission. NIST explained in their FAQs that they did not test for explosives, stating it would be a waste of taxpayers' money as they found no evidence of blasts. However, critics note that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines, such as NFPA 921, recommend testing for explosives in such investigations, especially given witness reports of explosions. This lack of physical evidence is seen as a gap, particularly when compared to the UAF study's comprehensive modeling approach.

Transparency and Peer Review Concerns

Critics have raised concerns about the transparency of NIST's investigation, particularly the lack of public access to all data and models used. The UAF study, in contrast, provided open data (Open Data, a 256 GB ZIP file requiring ~900 GB storage post-unzipping), allowing for independent verification. This transparency is seen as a strength, with critics arguing NIST's refusal to make modeling information public endangers public safety and compromises future building codes and safety standards. The peer review process for NIST's reports has also been questioned, with some suggesting it was not robust enough, involving a select group of experts potentially biased toward the official narrative.
 
More from Grok:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an extensive investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings following the September 11, 2001, attacks. However, critics have argued that NIST ignored or inadequately addressed certain witness testimonies, particularly those that suggest alternative explanations like controlled demolition. Below is a detailed examination of the witness testimonies that NIST is said to have ignored, based on available sources and critiques:

1. Barry Jennings' Testimony

Details: Barry Jennings, the Deputy Director of Emergency Services for the New York City Housing Authority, was inside World Trade Center Building 7 on the morning of September 11, 2001. He reported hearing and feeling explosions before the building's collapse. In interviews, notably with Dylan Avery for the documentary "Loose Change: Final Cut," Jennings described being on the 23rd floor when an explosion occurred, trapping him and Michael Hess inside. He stated, "I was trapped in there for several hours. I was hearing all kinds of explosions." He also mentioned encountering what appeared to be bodies in the lobby, which contradicted the official report that no one died in Building 7's collapse.

NIST's Response: NIST's final report on WTC 7 (NCSTAR 1-9) does not directly address Jennings' testimony regarding explosions. The report focuses on fire-induced structural failure and does not mention his account of pre-collapse explosions. Critics, including those from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), argue that this omission is significant, as it disregards a firsthand witness report that could indicate explosive events.

Criticism: The omission of Jennings' testimony is seen as a critical gap, especially since his account suggests events inconsistent with NIST's fire-induced collapse theory. His death in August 2008, just before NIST released its final report, has fueled speculation that his testimony was deliberately ignored.

2. Michael Hess' Testimony

Details: Michael Hess, the Corporation Counsel of New York City, was with Barry Jennings in Building 7. Hess also reported hearing explosions and being trapped inside the building. His account corroborates Jennings' testimony, adding weight to the claims of pre-collapse explosive events.

NIST's Response: Similar to Jennings, Hess' testimony is not directly addressed in NIST's report. The focus remains on structural and fire-related causes without considering these witness accounts.

Criticism: The lack of engagement with Hess' testimony is criticized as part of a broader pattern of ignoring evidence that does not align with NIST's conclusions. This is particularly noted in discussions on platforms like the Corbett Report 9/11 Whistleblowers: Barry Jennings, where the testimonies are highlighted as significant oversights.
 
Continued:

3. Firefighter and First Responder Testimonies

Details: Numerous firefighters and first responders reported hearing explosions before the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. For example, Deputy Assistant Chief Albert Turi of the New York Fire Department mentioned in an interview that there were concerns about secondary devices causing explosions. Other first responders, like those cited in the AE911Truth petition, reported similar experiences.

NIST's Response: NIST's investigation included interviews with survivors and emergency responders, but critics argue that testimonies about explosions were not given due consideration. The report's focus on fire and structural damage led to the dismissal of these accounts as misinterpretations of other events, such as collapsing floors or electrical failures.

Criticism: The AE911Truth group and others contend that NIST's dismissal of these testimonies without physical testing for explosives is a methodological flaw. The group's petition, signed by over 3,000 architects and engineers, calls for a new investigation, citing the ignored testimonies as evidence of a controlled demolition AE911Truth Petition.

4. William Rodriguez's Testimony

Details: William Rodriguez, a janitor at the North Tower, reported hearing a massive explosion in the basement before the first plane hit. His testimony suggests pre-impact explosive events, which could indicate a controlled demolition.

NIST's Response: NIST's report on the Twin Towers does not address Rodriguez's testimony. The investigation focused on the aircraft impacts and subsequent fire damage as the primary causes of collapse.

Criticism: Rodriguez's account is often cited by 9/11 truth movements as evidence ignored by NIST. Critics argue that his testimony, if considered, could have led to a different interpretation of the events leading up to the collapses.

5. Other Witness Accounts of Explosions

Details: There are numerous other witness accounts from bystanders, office workers, and emergency personnel who reported hearing and seeing explosions before and during the collapses. These include reports of secondary explosions, flashes, and other anomalous events that do not fit the official narrative.

NIST's Response: NIST's FAQs address the general claim of explosions, stating that audio tracks from video recordings and witness reports were analyzed, and no evidence of blasts was found. However, critics argue that this analysis was superficial and did not account for all testimonies.

Criticism: The dismissal of these accounts is seen as a significant oversight, particularly when combined with physical evidence like the rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses. Platforms like Quora Why didn't the NIST test for explosives when investigating the cause of the collapsing of WTC 1, 2 & 7? highlight this as a failure to follow standard investigative protocols.

Analysis and Context

Methodological Critique: The primary criticism is that NIST's methodology did not include physical testing for explosives, despite witness testimonies suggesting their presence. This is contrasted with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) study, which included comprehensive modeling and open data, challenging NIST's findings UAF WTC 7 Study.

Transparency and Bias: Critics, including those in the Europhysics News article by Steven Jones et al. Europhysics News Article, argue that NIST's lack of transparency and potential bias towards the official narrative led to the ignore of these testimonies. The article cites over 80 peer-reviewed papers that address technical issues, some favoring controlled demolition.
 
NOLA Dude said:
More from Grok:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an extensive investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings following the September 11, 2001, attacks. However, critics have argued that NIST ignored or inadequately addressed certain witness testimonies, particularly those that suggest alternative explanations like controlled demolition. Below is a detailed examination of the witness testimonies that NIST is said to have ignored, based on available sources and critiques:

1. Barry Jennings' Testimony

Details: Barry Jennings, the Deputy Director of Emergency Services for the New York City Housing Authority, was inside World Trade Center Building 7 on the morning of September 11, 2001. He reported hearing and feeling explosions before the building's collapse. In interviews, notably with Dylan Avery for the documentary "Loose Change: Final Cut," Jennings described being on the 23rd floor when an explosion occurred, trapping him and Michael Hess inside. He stated, "I was trapped in there for several hours. I was hearing all kinds of explosions." He also mentioned encountering what appeared to be bodies in the lobby, which contradicted the official report that no one died in Building 7's collapse.

NIST's Response: NIST's final report on WTC 7 (NCSTAR 1-9) does not directly address Jennings' testimony regarding explosions. The report focuses on fire-induced structural failure and does not mention his account of pre-collapse explosions. Critics, including those from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), argue that this omission is significant, as it disregards a firsthand witness report that could indicate explosive events.

Criticism: The omission of Jennings' testimony is seen as a critical gap, especially since his account suggests events inconsistent with NIST's fire-induced collapse theory. His death in August 2008, just before NIST released its final report, has fueled speculation that his testimony was deliberately ignored.

2. Michael Hess' Testimony

Details: Michael Hess, the Corporation Counsel of New York City, was with Barry Jennings in Building 7. Hess also reported hearing explosions and being trapped inside the building. His account corroborates Jennings' testimony, adding weight to the claims of pre-collapse explosive events.

NIST's Response: Similar to Jennings, Hess' testimony is not directly addressed in NIST's report. The focus remains on structural and fire-related causes without considering these witness accounts.

Criticism: The lack of engagement with Hess' testimony is criticized as part of a broader pattern of ignoring evidence that does not align with NIST's conclusions. This is particularly noted in discussions on platforms like the Corbett Report 9/11 Whistleblowers: Barry Jennings, where the testimonies are highlighted as significant oversights.
Click to expand...
I see. You expect every unproven statement to be addressed by the NIST? That is not part of their mandate.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
I see. You expect every unproven statement to be addressed by the NIST? That is not part of their mandate.
Click to expand...
It looks like the NIST report is incomplete, they ignored certain things including witness testimony and &there are plenty of holes in it.
 
NOLA Dude said:
It looks like the NIST report is incomplete, they ignored certain things including witness testimony and &there are plenty of holes in it.
Click to expand...
Believe as you wish. Keep up your denial of the facts presented.
 
commonsense101 said:
After recently watching Former congressman Weldon on Tucker and other shows, I decided to dive deeper in to my long held suspicions with respect to the official narrative of the WTC 7 collapse.
The first thing I did, was ansked AI what the cause of the collapse was, and if it believed the official narrative. Of course, it spit back the conspiracy theory claims when supporting the official narrative.
I then obtained the entire NIST detailed report, and I also obtained the final report from University of Fairbanks Alaska, and all supplemental modeling data.
I uploaded all of it to an Open AI system, and proceeded to have it analyze both reports and all supplemental data,. I then asked it to evaluate based solely on the data, and not on media narratives, or outside biases.
The responses I got were pretty impressive.
It drew the conclusions that the government NIST report was inaccurate and misleading. It also concluded that it was incorrect, and that the only known cause for the collapse would be from a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...
Why did you start another thread on exactly the same subject?
 
NOLA Dude said:
What facts?
Click to expand...
The NIST report. It details very well the most likely reason it fell like it did. just because it left out something you think was important.... Yawn....
 
Lord of Planar said:
The NIST report. It details very well the most likely reason it fell like it did. just because it left out something you think was important.... Yawn....
Click to expand...
Okay well nobody presented them here so I wasnt sure what you were talking about. How can the NIST report be complete based on what they ignored, the witness testimony they ignored and other things I listed?
 
Cters really do lack basic reasoning skills
 
NOLA Dude said:
Okay well nobody presented them here so I wasnt sure what you were talking about. How can the NIST report be complete based on what they ignored, the witness testimony they ignored and other things I listed?
Click to expand...
Wow.

That report came out more than twenty years ago. I really do not care what you believe. I have no desire to rehash it. I never thought you to be a CT nut, but here we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom