What is the official cause of why Building 7 fell when no plane hit it?
NIST is "supposed" to release the WTC7 report before the end of the year for review to the general public, as they did with past reports, you know for PUBLIC REVIEW?
And, in case anyone didn't realize it, the NIST WTC7 has a process called a PUBLIC REVIEW, where all forms of commentaries are submitted.
There is also another well known process, it's called the peer review process, you write highly technical journal articles, to publications like ASCE and ASME, and these papers are reviewed by EXPERTS in the subject matter written about, their known as SME's.
Peer review works only if it stands the test of time and independent validation in subsequent peer reviewed papers.
At least that's how the professionals go about things, not the amateurs (nee experts at pretzel logic), you'd have to ask them how they determine FACT from FICTION. But all your queries will be answered in;
[CENTER]Loose Change(666th edition, release date December 12, 2012)[/CENTER]
Personally I really enjoy pancakes with butter and syrup, preferably made from Bisquick. It has a nice texture and tang. I like them cakey as opposed to flat and stiff.
Notice the golden color, not like the light brown that the Aunt Jemima batter produces. As for syrup, I like butter syrup, but not light syrup. Of course, the best is real maple syrup. But that's expensive!
Oh, one more thing:
Ha ha Brilliant! I see the high from those painkillers/ anasthesia has not worn off! Good stuff!
Bill Maher is a "cowardly milksop" in your opinion? Because he doesn't like loud-mouth protesters in his audience disrupting HIS show, and general acting like assholes in the process?
If Bill Maher could show some courage and acknowledge that numerous problems exist within the official story, then no problem. His "not wanting to know/head in the sand" attitude might have to do with why some protesters got into his audience and heckled him. He seems more comfortable with the out-of-character notion that the Bush Administration is being honest about 9/11, while (knowingly) lying about everything else they have touched.
Quote:
As for "questions"... there are real questions, and then there are accusations merely semantically couched as questions, like "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Read the 3 examples I quoted further up the thread. These are 3 instances (there are numerous, perhaps *hundreds of others) where the government's own material and timeline runs contrary to their own conspiracy theory. T] None of these questions have been answered in a remotely satisfactory fashion, and they refer to every facet of a complex series of events that started before the day of 9/11, then the event(s) itself and have continued for years afterwards. These are not "when did you start beating your wife" type questions, and you know it.
Quote:
The "truthers" questions are of the latter variety. One must answer to each and every real or imagined discrepancy, oddity, and coincidence, and if one can't supply a "truther" with an answer that completely satisfies said truther, well then... the looming supposed answers like "inside job" and "controlled demolition" are very, very, very strongly implied to be the only real alternatives, and anyone who doesn't buy those explanations is very strongly implied to be either a fool or "in on it" too.
If just one aspect of the government's version can be disproven, then it calls into question the veracity of everything else they claim. When a person in court commits perjury in the witness box, all of his testimony is thus considered unreliable and should be disregarded by a jury when considering evidence in order to reach a verdict. Just one instance of fabrications (or lies) re. the official version, and the remainder is thus considered questionable.
The challenge is not for Truthers to prove 100% of their points: it is for the government to come up with a story that is 100% failsafe and honest. In other words: Each of the truthers' claims challenge an aspect of the official story. If just one of these essential claims is disproved, then the official story is thrown into doubt. Critics need not demonstrate the falsity of every essential element of the official account; they need to show the falsity of one such element. The logic is exactly the opposite for attempts to debunk the case against the official theory. This case cannot be undermined by refuting merely some of the claims used in this case. Insofar as this case consists of claims that challenge essential elements of the official theory, this case is not undermined by showing only some of them to be false, or at least unproven. They must all be refuted.
Quote:
"Just asking questions". Please, spare me. You get so angry at the media not being honest -- and rightly so in many cases -- but fail to demonstrate honest rhetoric yourself.
If the government's own story is so correct, honest, accurate and representative re. what went down that morning, then why have they being so damned cagey, shifty, and secretive in the 6 years since the attack? Why have they declined to debate their points with doubters? Why have they changed their timeline to suit the emergence of new facts? Etc etc.
Historically, when there is a national disaster (for example the Challenger and Columbia Space Shuttle accidents) an official inquiry is set up rapidly, ie within days, the mission being to get to the bottom of what happened ASAP, no stones left untured. We did not get this re. 9/11: For a year, the Bush Admin refused to even consider an inquiry, and having reluctantly/grudgingly permitted such, it took them 441 days (!) to even get the ball rolling, and it was only after the pressure from bereaved family members threatened to create a PR nightmare for the White House. They did their damnedest at every turn to scupper the inquiry, starving it of cash, time, personnel and resources, and then to add insult to mass murder, put an avowed neoconservative extremist at the helm. The "inquiry", according to Fire Engineering Magazine, was a "half baked farce". They misrepresented material in their final "report", used circular reasoning throughout, and even fabricated material (ie lied) about evidence. 90% of the material that was presented was summarily omitted because it did not gel with the Commission's preordained conclusion. In short, the Commission was a national disgrace, but because it looked the part with a smart, official looking blue and white cover, with some "authoritative pronouncements", it was accepted by the public as the last word when in reality, it left many more questions unanswered as were cleared up.
Shetline: What do you think happened that morning? Do you honestly believe that the Bush Administration was taken entirely by surprise, with 19 hijackers slamming planes into landmarks with zero foreknowledge? That is what they are claiming, and many people have their doubts. What is so terrible, or insane, or unpatriotic, or "requiring medication" about having one's doubts, especially regarding a conspiracy tale so bizarre and unlikely that it belongs in the realm of wacky fiction??
And your are trying to prove your intelligent by posting this? Bravo...
Why don't you do something useful with yourself like trying to look at the movie I linked to above which scientifically proves that controlled demolitions were used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings?
And your are trying to prove your intelligent by posting this? Bravo...
Why don't you do something useful with yourself like trying to look at the movie I linked to above which scientifically proves that controlled demolitions were used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings?
Listen carefully to the firemen in the video speaking to each other. One says, "It's hotter than Hell in there -" and the other fireman replies, "That's why he pulled everybody out of there.". Then another fireman says, "That's definitely 50 stories, it could definitely reach us from here.". What he means is the debris from the eventual collapse of the building. The firemen and Silverstein realized it was going to collapse and "pulled" the operation ("it").
The Purdue Civil Engineering and Science Professors simulating jets colliding with Pentagon & World Trade Center.
"To support the controlled-demolition theory, conspiracy theorists attack the official NIST report by insisting that fire doesn't melt steel. What NIST actually does claim is that the fires were sufficient enough to weaken the steel to the point where they would fail - structurally. This video attempts to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theorists one at a time."
These are pretty much convinced me that it was two jetliners that brought the downfall of the WTC Towers and eventually brought WT 7 to collapse. I also talked to one NY fireman and a NY Port Authority officer, they were, like there. Plus a half dozen New York friends of mine. Demolition experts too.
Don't get me wrong, this administration and the ones before it have brought 9-11 right into their laps. Took 30 years, but here it is. The president and vice president should be impeached and tried for war crimes.
Listen carefully to the firemen in the video speaking to each other. One says, "It's hotter than Hell in there -" and the other fireman replies, "That's why he pulled everybody out of there.". Then another fireman says, "That's definitely 50 stories, it could definitely reach us from here.". What he means is the debris from the eventual collapse of the building. The firemen and Silverstein realized it was going to collapse and "pulled" the operation ("it").
As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:
1. \tRapid onset of “collapse”
2. \tSounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. \tSymmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4. \tSquibs, or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. \t“Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. \tMassive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. \tTons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. \tChemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. \tFEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
10. \tExpert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. \tFore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. \tSlow onset with large visible deformations
2. \tAsymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. \tEvidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. \tHigh-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
Quote:
The Purdue Civil Engineering and Science Professors simulating jets colliding with Pentagon & World Trade Center.
"To support the controlled-demolition theory, conspiracy theorists attack the official NIST report by insisting that fire doesn't melt steel. What NIST actually does claim is that the fires were sufficient enough to weaken the steel to the point where they would fail - structurally. This video attempts to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theorists one at a time."
These are pretty much convinced me that it was two jetliners that brought the downfall of the WTC Towers and eventually brought WT 7 to collapse. I also talked to one NY fireman and a NY Port Authority officer, they were, like there. Plus a half dozen New York friends of mine. Demolition experts too.
None of this stuff answers the key questions or "debunks" the evidence which proves the WTC buildings were destroyed by the planes. Both the NIST and Purdue simulations are meaningless here. Nowhere do they even claim to have demonstrated a mechanism for a collapse at free fall speed, straight down. At best, in the case of NIST, they only propose a mechanism for the "initiation" of collapse". NIST even admits that it can not explain the collapse of the twin towers (because they refuse to consider controlled demolition): http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ist_admits.htm
Just look it this, it is an explosion, it is obvious:
Again... As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:
1. \tExtremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2. \tSounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
3. \tObservations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)
4. \tSquibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
5. \tMid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
6. \tMassive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. \tVertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
8. \tSymmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
9. \t1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
10. \tBlast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
11. \tLateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
12. \tTotal destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.
13. \tTons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
14. \tChemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
15. \tFEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
16. \tMore than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. \tSlow onset with large visible deformations
2. \tAsymmetrical 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)
3. \tEvidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. \tHigh-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”
The case is proven beyond doubt in this video, please just consider looking at it for a moment, if you think it is crap just turn it off, but at least give a minute, this is very serious: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21782753292874
NIST admitts that it is "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" of the WTC Twin Towers after a 20 million dollar, three year study of the case (because it refuses to consider controlled demolition):
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the NIST Fire Science Division calls for an independent review of the NIST World Trade Center study: http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12
Well I found four (keyword "structur"), but none of these were PhD. P.E.'s (commonly called phud-pee's where I work) or SME's (subject matter experts).
And I'm unaware of ANY structural engineer (with expertise in structural dynamics AND explosives/energy impacts) publishing in the peer reviewed engineering literature in ANY regard to "controlled demolition" of ANY of the WTC buildings that collapsed that fateful day.
You need to go through these forums for the past year or so, the issues you raise aren't new by any means, all have been dealt with ad infinitum.
If you're going to go on about this, bring something NEW to the table! \
(... on the other hand, it appears that people here still do not understand what happened on 9/11, so repetition and further explanation is necessary on this very serious subject).
(... on the other hand, it appears that people here still do not understand what happened on 9/11, so repetition and further explanation is necessary on this very serious subject).
When was that journal started? 2006! Where's the JFK Journal, The Shakespeare Journal, The UFO and Aliens Journal, The Ghosts are Real Journal, The It's Not AGW Journal (Oops, aka Energy and Environment, it actually exists!), The Creationists Journal (DI = ID), The Blog-O-Smear Is Full Of P00p, N00bs, And Random Noise Journal.
Please list accepted and accredited works done in mainstream publications like ASCE and ASME, or dozens of RESPECTED professional peer reviewed journals that existed PRIOR to 9-11, TYVM!
As to the video by Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, it's meant for a lay audience, the website constricts itself only to the WTC, it even starts out like a typical AJ/DI type video showing the "church" of silent Sheeple™ attentively listening to their sermon from their high priest(s).
So what NEW specific technical information is put forth in said video? I don't have time for pretty slide show presentations of OLD disinformation!
Please wake me up when NIST releases the WTC7 report, I'm going to LOVE reading the public commentary on that one!
Oh, and thanks for updating us on who to watch out for when the WTC7 report is released, it will save us all a lot of trouble in filtering FACT from FICTION!
Please list accepted and accredited works done in mainstream publications like ASCE and ASME, or dozens of RESPECTED professional peer reviewed journals that existed PRIOR to 9-11, TYVM!
Sorry, no one has published there.
Perhaps you had better consider looking at papers that exist and judging them on their merit.
Or are you telling us that you are too ignorant to read a paper yourself?
So what? It proves that the WTC buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.
How old are you bofors2?
(I'm 47) Conspiracy theories have always been a "hobby" for me. My older brother experienced the JFK assassination and was very interested for years on that case (LBJ and the CIA plotted it ). So I have plenty of experience and knowledge of the conspiracy theories of the past and today. It's important to ask questions and to find the truth. But you have to be open to all information and not to ignore other points of view either.
Where were you on 9-11?
(I was at home in Phila. out of work and watched everything unfold on live television from the after the first plane hit until that evening.)
What is your experience with engineering and architecture?
(I have none, but have colleagues [I'm a graphic designer] involved in architecture, design and engineering. I also have visited NYC on 5 separate occasions in the past six years. I've recounted the day with my cousin [who has lived in Manhattan for over 12 years], friends and as mentioned before, firemen, NYPO and police officers who were there on 9-11).
I haven't wanted to attack you or insult you on this. You seem to be pretty steadfast in your beliefs.
So what? It proves that the WTC buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.
... in said video?
BTW, that is a serious question.
I mean, since this is the first video presentation presented to a lay audience that provides an incontrovertible proof that the government did it, certainly others would have already pointed this out, right?
As to Steven Jones "so called" paper in his own "peer reviewed journal," please read;
Interestingly, the real thrust of the debunkers' (ie supporters of the Bush Administration/NeoCon/official position) goes into arguing against the "controlled demolition" aspect of 9/11. Whether the collapses were gravity induced, or explosives induced cannot be proven either way to anyone's satisfaction, the trenches are dug far too deep, and there is too much time invested on both sides of the argument, and nobody is now prepared to lose face (too much testosterone?). Furthermore, a real scientific investigation is impossible because the evidence/debris quickly was placed under armed guard, inaccessible (even to NIST investigators who complained bitterly about it), and then shipped off to the far east to be melted down, or buried in a land-fill. (This was a most blatant case of tampering/interfering with a crime scene on the grand scale, but nobody was prosecuted of course...) So we are left with NIST/Purdue etc. trying their best to prove a gravity induced collapse by computer modeling, and having to push the input parameters way beyond real world conditions to get the buildings to fail.
Maybe the best way around this intractible situation, to benefit the official explanation, is to include the "controlled demolition" scenario as part of the al Qaeda plot. Perhaps this has already been thought of, in the light of spreading doubts? Can we expect a specially prepared statement in the not-too-distant future by the Bush (or succeeding Administration) implying something like this: in the light of new (and highly classified) intelligence, we have learned that the 9/11 plot was broader and more extensive than was originally thought. We have learned that another terrorist cell, working in league with the hijacking teams, was operating in New York City, under cover, and by taking advantage of lax security at the World Trade Center, rigged 3 of the main buildings in the complex.... etc etc). By placing the blame on al Qaeda, the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would change its status with middle America from the realms of "wacky conspiracy theory" to "being eagerly accepted", at a stroke. Of course, this wouldn't answer the other 99% of questions that remain, but it would help the official cause by engaging the energy of the counter flow, akin to the martial arts...
~
I have noticed that the debunkers refrain from tackling the points in the story where the government's own evidence clearly contradicts itself. Hmmm.... One also cannot ignore that their "best" evidence, ie the confession of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed re. being the mastermind of 9/11 was extracted using torture, thus making it unreliable at best. And... the fact that according to the CIA, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed lied regarding "his role" in the killing of Daniel Pearl...
And sammi jo, you don't believe the whole "controlled demolition" FUD do you? Please say no...
I think there was a thread recently where I stated that "it appears as if it might have been" or words pertaining to that. When taking such factors such these into account, it does make one wonder:
*explosions in the basements of both towers prior to (both) the airplanes impacting, and also prior to each collapse.. or
*numerous videotapes of explosions in both the North and South Towers (and #7) between the times that the planes went in, to when the collapses happened... or
*stacks of eyewitness reports from police, firefighters, onlookers and TV crews reporting explosions in the towers in the same time period,
*audio and seismic waveforms indicating explosions in the buildings
etc etc
I know you must be aware of all these, being a diligent reseacher. However, one doesn't need to be a diligent researcher, since such material resides all over youtube and googlevideo etc, and much originates from msm news camera footage. Perhaps these were
*gas explosions from gas escaping from broken lines? Or
*explosions caused b the detonation of unknown (explosive or volatile) material that was stored (probably illegally) in the Twin Towers? Or
*explosions caused by kerosene vapor + air? Perhaps
*coal dust + air explosions? Or
*flour + air explosions from a pita bread bakery owned by Ahmed Iqbal on the 37th floor? Or
*bottled fart gas and liquid oxygen? Maybe
*al Qaeda kidnapped and murdered a bunch of conspiracy theorists, mixed their remains with ammonium perchlorate and fuel oil, and set them off in the buildings?
*Perhaps these videos were all faked, in real time (!), to produce controversy?
Silliness aside, why did the 9/11 Commission need to lie regarding the internal structure of the Twin Towers in their final report? Was this in order to prop up the theory that the Towers collapsed because of heat stress on the steel which caused a progressive failure down the entire structure, because (this theory) was considered weak and liable to question? When the blueprints of the Twin Towers were leaked earlier this year, this new evidence proved beyond a shaow of a doubt that the Commission had lied and misrepresented the facts. It is this kind of shenanigan which puts the official story on very shaky ground and makes people ask questions.
As I stated earlier, if a witness lies on the stand, then it calls into question the veracity of ALL his evidence. If the 9/11 Commission lied and misrepresented, not just about the structure of the Twin Towers, but dozens of other key aspects of the attacks, then why should we believe any part of their story.. especially when 90% of the evidence was excluded because it didn't fit with what appeared to be a pre-ordained conclusion?
You asked me if I believed the Twin Towers collapsed because of a controlled demolition?
My answer is:
"I don't know how they collapsed, but I would sure love to know. The official explanation has far too many holes, inconsistencies, impossibilities and unlikelihoods to be acceptable (to my mind at least). It is speculative at best, and it is supported largely by what we (the general public) would prefer to acknowledge, rather than by hard evidence The "controlled demolition" explanation is also speculative; it wasn't given a chance to be proven or disproven, because the best evidence was prevented from being collected for timely analysis.
Mere "Belief" shouldn't come into this. Evidence is what is required. I have never baldly stated said that "the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition"... simply because, I do not KNOW. Neither do you. Neither does anyone (apart from the culprits, whoever they may be).
And when it comes to belief, as you asked me: when people lie, belief goes out of the window.
Comments
Since we are on the topic...
What is the official cause of why Building 7 fell when no plane hit it?
NIST is "supposed" to release the WTC7 report before the end of the year for review to the general public, as they did with past reports, you know for PUBLIC REVIEW?
And, in case anyone didn't realize it, the NIST WTC7 has a process called a PUBLIC REVIEW, where all forms of commentaries are submitted.
There is also another well known process, it's called the peer review process, you write highly technical journal articles, to publications like ASCE and ASME, and these papers are reviewed by EXPERTS in the subject matter written about, their known as SME's.
Peer review works only if it stands the test of time and independent validation in subsequent peer reviewed papers.
At least that's how the professionals go about things, not the amateurs (nee experts at pretzel logic), you'd have to ask them how they determine FACT from FICTION. But all your queries will be answered in;
[CENTER]Loose Change (666th edition, release date December 12, 2012)[/CENTER]
Personally I really enjoy pancakes with butter and syrup, preferably made from Bisquick. It has a nice texture and tang. I like them cakey as opposed to flat and stiff.
Notice the golden color, not like the light brown that the Aunt Jemima batter produces. As for syrup, I like butter syrup, but not light syrup. Of course, the best is real maple syrup. But that's expensive!
Oh, one more thing:
Ha ha Brilliant! I see the high from those painkillers/ anasthesia has not worn off! Good stuff!
Bill Maher is a "cowardly milksop" in your opinion? Because he doesn't like loud-mouth protesters in his audience disrupting HIS show, and general acting like assholes in the process?
If Bill Maher could show some courage and acknowledge that numerous problems exist within the official story, then no problem. His "not wanting to know/head in the sand" attitude might have to do with why some protesters got into his audience and heckled him. He seems more comfortable with the out-of-character notion that the Bush Administration is being honest about 9/11, while (knowingly) lying about everything else they have touched.
As for "questions"... there are real questions, and then there are accusations merely semantically couched as questions, like "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Read the 3 examples I quoted further up the thread. These are 3 instances (there are numerous, perhaps *hundreds of others) where the government's own material and timeline runs contrary to their own conspiracy theory. T] None of these questions have been answered in a remotely satisfactory fashion, and they refer to every facet of a complex series of events that started before the day of 9/11, then the event(s) itself and have continued for years afterwards. These are not "when did you start beating your wife" type questions, and you know it.
The "truthers" questions are of the latter variety. One must answer to each and every real or imagined discrepancy, oddity, and coincidence, and if one can't supply a "truther" with an answer that completely satisfies said truther, well then... the looming supposed answers like "inside job" and "controlled demolition" are very, very, very strongly implied to be the only real alternatives, and anyone who doesn't buy those explanations is very strongly implied to be either a fool or "in on it" too.
If just one aspect of the government's version can be disproven, then it calls into question the veracity of everything else they claim. When a person in court commits perjury in the witness box, all of his testimony is thus considered unreliable and should be disregarded by a jury when considering evidence in order to reach a verdict. Just one instance of fabrications (or lies) re. the official version, and the remainder is thus considered questionable.
The challenge is not for Truthers to prove 100% of their points: it is for the government to come up with a story that is 100% failsafe and honest. In other words: Each of the truthers' claims challenge an aspect of the official story. If just one of these essential claims is disproved, then the official story is thrown into doubt. Critics need not demonstrate the falsity of every essential element of the official account; they need to show the falsity of one such element. The logic is exactly the opposite for attempts to debunk the case against the official theory. This case cannot be undermined by refuting merely some of the claims used in this case. Insofar as this case consists of claims that challenge essential elements of the official theory, this case is not undermined by showing only some of them to be false, or at least unproven. They must all be refuted.
"Just asking questions". Please, spare me. You get so angry at the media not being honest -- and rightly so in many cases -- but fail to demonstrate honest rhetoric yourself.
If the government's own story is so correct, honest, accurate and representative re. what went down that morning, then why have they being so damned cagey, shifty, and secretive in the 6 years since the attack? Why have they declined to debate their points with doubters? Why have they changed their timeline to suit the emergence of new facts? Etc etc.
Historically, when there is a national disaster (for example the Challenger and Columbia Space Shuttle accidents) an official inquiry is set up rapidly, ie within days, the mission being to get to the bottom of what happened ASAP, no stones left untured. We did not get this re. 9/11: For a year, the Bush Admin refused to even consider an inquiry, and having reluctantly/grudgingly permitted such, it took them 441 days (!) to even get the ball rolling, and it was only after the pressure from bereaved family members threatened to create a PR nightmare for the White House. They did their damnedest at every turn to scupper the inquiry, starving it of cash, time, personnel and resources, and then to add insult to mass murder, put an avowed neoconservative extremist at the helm. The "inquiry", according to Fire Engineering Magazine, was a "half baked farce". They misrepresented material in their final "report", used circular reasoning throughout, and even fabricated material (ie lied) about evidence. 90% of the material that was presented was summarily omitted because it did not gel with the Commission's preordained conclusion. In short, the Commission was a national disgrace, but because it looked the part with a smart, official looking blue and white cover, with some "authoritative pronouncements", it was accepted by the public as the last word when in reality, it left many more questions unanswered as were cleared up.
Shetline: What do you think happened that morning? Do you honestly believe that the Bush Administration was taken entirely by surprise, with 19 hijackers slamming planes into landmarks with zero foreknowledge? That is what they are claiming, and many people have their doubts. What is so terrible, or insane, or unpatriotic, or "requiring medication" about having one's doubts, especially regarding a conspiracy tale so bizarre and unlikely that it belongs in the realm of wacky fiction??
Ha ha Brilliant! I see the high from those painkillers/ anasthesia has not worn off! Good stuff!
Yeah..but I have more drugs whenever I wish. Mmm...Percocet and Pancakes!
You are an idiot.
And your are trying to prove your intelligent by posting this? Bravo...
Why don't you do something useful with yourself like trying to look at the movie I linked to above which scientifically proves that controlled demolitions were used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings?
Here it is again, "How The Towers Fell (Blueprint for Truth, The Architecture of Destruction)" by architect Richard Gage: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21782753292874
If that is too much to ask consider that 204 archiects and engineers have endorsed it here: http://www.ae911truth.org/
And your are trying to prove your intelligent by posting this? Bravo...
Why don't you do something useful with yourself like trying to look at the movie I linked to above which scientifically proves that controlled demolitions were used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings?
Here it is again, "How The Towers Fell (Blueprint for Truth, The Architecture of Destruction)" by architect Richard Gage: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21782753292874
If that is too much to ask consider that 204 archiects and engineers have endorsed it here: http://www.ae911truth.org/
And how many ACTIVE Structural Engineers from the U.S. are on that list?
Just curious.
And ho many ACTIVE Structural Engineers from the U.S. are on that list?
Just curious.
Good question, it looks like at least 20 to me. See the partial list here: http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php
Listen carefully to the firemen in the video speaking to each other. One says, "It's hotter than Hell in there -" and the other fireman replies, "That's why he pulled everybody out of there.". Then another fireman says, "That's definitely 50 stories, it could definitely reach us from here.". What he means is the debris from the eventual collapse of the building. The firemen and Silverstein realized it was going to collapse and "pulled" the operation ("it").
The Purdue Civil Engineering and Science Professors simulating jets colliding with Pentagon & World Trade Center.
Link to article...
http://www.physorg.com/news77212675.html
Links to the research material, images and simulation videos of the WTC and the Pentagon attacks...
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/
http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-cons...-debunked.html
"To support the controlled-demolition theory, conspiracy theorists attack the official NIST report by insisting that fire doesn't melt steel. What NIST actually does claim is that the fires were sufficient enough to weaken the steel to the point where they would fail - structurally. This video attempts to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theorists one at a time."
These are pretty much convinced me that it was two jetliners that brought the downfall of the WTC Towers and eventually brought WT 7 to collapse. I also talked to one NY fireman and a NY Port Authority officer, they were, like there. Plus a half dozen New York friends of mine. Demolition experts too.
Don't get me wrong, this administration and the ones before it have brought 9-11 right into their laps. Took 30 years, but here it is. The president and vice president should be impeached and tried for war crimes.
But to some here that's crazy talk!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYlVmTHjHe8
Listen carefully to the firemen in the video speaking to each other. One says, "It's hotter than Hell in there -" and the other fireman replies, "That's why he pulled everybody out of there.". Then another fireman says, "That's definitely 50 stories, it could definitely reach us from here.". What he means is the debris from the eventual collapse of the building. The firemen and Silverstein realized it was going to collapse and "pulled" the operation ("it").
That has to do with Building 7. It quite obviously a controlled demolition (and Silverstein even admitted it). I mean, just look at this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...73116607499063
As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:
1. \tRapid onset of “collapse”
2. \tSounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. \tSymmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4. \tSquibs, or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. \t“Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. \tMassive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. \tTons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. \tChemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. \tFEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
10. \tExpert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. \tFore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. \tSlow onset with large visible deformations
2. \tAsymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. \tEvidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. \tHigh-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
The Purdue Civil Engineering and Science Professors simulating jets colliding with Pentagon & World Trade Center.
Link to article...
http://www.physorg.com/news77212675.html
Links to the research material, images and simulation videos of the WTC and the Pentagon attacks...
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/
http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-cons...-debunked.html
"To support the controlled-demolition theory, conspiracy theorists attack the official NIST report by insisting that fire doesn't melt steel. What NIST actually does claim is that the fires were sufficient enough to weaken the steel to the point where they would fail - structurally. This video attempts to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theorists one at a time."
These are pretty much convinced me that it was two jetliners that brought the downfall of the WTC Towers and eventually brought WT 7 to collapse. I also talked to one NY fireman and a NY Port Authority officer, they were, like there. Plus a half dozen New York friends of mine. Demolition experts too.
None of this stuff answers the key questions or "debunks" the evidence which proves the WTC buildings were destroyed by the planes. Both the NIST and Purdue simulations are meaningless here. Nowhere do they even claim to have demonstrated a mechanism for a collapse at free fall speed, straight down. At best, in the case of NIST, they only propose a mechanism for the "initiation" of collapse". NIST even admits that it can not explain the collapse of the twin towers (because they refuse to consider controlled demolition): http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ist_admits.htm
Just look it this, it is an explosion, it is obvious:
Again... As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:
1. \tExtremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2. \tSounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
3. \tObservations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)
4. \tSquibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
5. \tMid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
6. \tMassive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. \tVertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
8. \tSymmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
9. \t1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
10. \tBlast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
11. \tLateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
12. \tTotal destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.
13. \tTons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
14. \tChemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
15. \tFEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
16. \tMore than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. \tSlow onset with large visible deformations
2. \tAsymmetrical 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)
3. \tEvidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. \tHigh-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”
The case is proven beyond doubt in this video, please just consider looking at it for a moment, if you think it is crap just turn it off, but at least give a minute, this is very serious: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21782753292874
NIST admitts that it is "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" of the WTC Twin Towers after a 20 million dollar, three year study of the case (because it refuses to consider controlled demolition):
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ist_admits.htm
http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/508.html
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the NIST Fire Science Division calls for an independent review of the NIST World Trade Center study: http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12
Good question, it looks like at least 20 to me. See the partial list here: http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php
Well I found four (keyword "structur"), but none of these were PhD. P.E.'s (commonly called phud-pee's where I work) or SME's (subject matter experts).
And I'm unaware of ANY structural engineer (with expertise in structural dynamics AND explosives/energy impacts) publishing in the peer reviewed engineering literature in ANY regard to "controlled demolition" of ANY of the WTC buildings that collapsed that fateful day.
You need to go through these forums for the past year or so, the issues you raise aren't new by any means, all have been dealt with ad infinitum.
If you're going to go on about this, bring something NEW to the table!
If you're going to go on about this, bring something NEW to the table!
This is new, try looking at it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21782753292874
(... on the other hand, it appears that people here still do not understand what happened on 9/11, so repetition and further explanation is necessary on this very serious subject).
EDIT: One more thing...
The Journal of 9/11 studies is here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Papers there are peer-review.
Prof. Steven Jones (Physics) paper is probably the best to look at: http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ade_Center.pdf
This is new, try looking at it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21782753292874
(... on the other hand, it appears that people here still do not understand what happened on 9/11, so repetition and further explanation is necessary on this very serious subject).
EDIT: One more thing...
The Journal of 9/11 studies is here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Papers there are peer-review.
Prof. Steven Jones (Physics) paper is probably the best to look at: http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ade_Center.pdf
When was that journal started? 2006!
Who does the "peer review?" Perhaps a short list from Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice!
Please list accepted and accredited works done in mainstream publications like ASCE and ASME, or dozens of RESPECTED professional peer reviewed journals that existed PRIOR to 9-11, TYVM!
As to the video by Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, it's meant for a lay audience, the website constricts itself only to the WTC, it even starts out like a typical AJ/DI type video showing the "church" of silent Sheeple™ attentively listening to their sermon from their high priest(s).
So what NEW specific technical information is put forth in said video? I don't have time for pretty slide show presentations of OLD disinformation!
Please wake me up when NIST releases the WTC7 report, I'm going to LOVE reading the public commentary on that one!
Oh, and thanks for updating us on who to watch out for when the WTC7 report is released, it will save us all a lot of trouble in filtering FACT from FICTION!
Please list accepted and accredited works done in mainstream publications like ASCE and ASME, or dozens of RESPECTED professional peer reviewed journals that existed PRIOR to 9-11, TYVM!
Sorry, no one has published there.
Perhaps you had better consider looking at papers that exist and judging them on their merit.
Or are you telling us that you are too ignorant to read a paper yourself?
As to the video by Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, it's meant for a lay audience...
So what? It proves that the WTC buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.
So what? It proves that the WTC buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.
How old are you bofors2?
(I'm 47) Conspiracy theories have always been a "hobby" for me. My older brother experienced the JFK assassination and was very interested for years on that case (LBJ and the CIA plotted it
Where were you on 9-11?
(I was at home in Phila. out of work and watched everything unfold on live television from the after the first plane hit until that evening.)
What is your experience with engineering and architecture?
(I have none, but have colleagues [I'm a graphic designer] involved in architecture, design and engineering. I also have visited NYC on 5 separate occasions in the past six years. I've recounted the day with my cousin [who has lived in Manhattan for over 12 years], friends and as mentioned before, firemen, NYPO and police officers who were there on 9-11).
I haven't wanted to attack you or insult you on this. You seem to be pretty steadfast in your beliefs.
So what? It proves that the WTC buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.
... in said video?
BTW, that is a serious question.
I mean, since this is the first video presentation presented to a lay audience that provides an incontrovertible proof that the government did it, certainly others would have already pointed this out, right?
As to Steven Jones "so called" paper in his own "peer reviewed journal," please read;
A physicist critiques Steven Jones' new paper
And, I'm assuming that you've read Steven Jones reply in his aforementioned "peer reviewed journal."
It's "Debunker I" versus "Debunker II" versus Debunkers I" ...
Maybe these people should join the WWE?
That would at least make all this debunking rather ENTERTAINING!
[CENTER]
Maybe the best way around this intractible situation, to benefit the official explanation, is to include the "controlled demolition" scenario as part of the al Qaeda plot. Perhaps this has already been thought of, in the light of spreading doubts? Can we expect a specially prepared statement in the not-too-distant future by the Bush (or succeeding Administration) implying something like this: in the light of new (and highly classified) intelligence, we have learned that the 9/11 plot was broader and more extensive than was originally thought. We have learned that another terrorist cell, working in league with the hijacking teams, was operating in New York City, under cover, and by taking advantage of lax security at the World Trade Center, rigged 3 of the main buildings in the complex.... etc etc). By placing the blame on al Qaeda, the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would change its status with middle America from the realms of "wacky conspiracy theory" to "being eagerly accepted", at a stroke. Of course, this wouldn't answer the other 99% of questions that remain, but it would help the official cause by engaging the energy of the counter flow, akin to the martial arts...
~
I have noticed that the debunkers refrain from tackling the points in the story where the government's own evidence clearly contradicts itself. Hmmm.... One also cannot ignore that their "best" evidence, ie the confession of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed re. being the mastermind of 9/11 was extracted using torture, thus making it unreliable at best. And... the fact that according to the CIA, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed lied regarding "his role" in the killing of Daniel Pearl...
And sammi jo, you don't believe the whole "controlled demolition" FUD do you? Please say no...
With no new evidence, Fox continues to ask: Did al Qaeda burn California?
And sammi jo, you don't believe the whole "controlled demolition" FUD do you? Please say no...
I think there was a thread recently where I stated that "it appears as if it might have been" or words pertaining to that. When taking such factors such these into account, it does make one wonder:
*explosions in the basements of both towers prior to (both) the airplanes impacting, and also prior to each collapse.. or
*numerous videotapes of explosions in both the North and South Towers (and #7) between the times that the planes went in, to when the collapses happened... or
*stacks of eyewitness reports from police, firefighters, onlookers and TV crews reporting explosions in the towers in the same time period,
*audio and seismic waveforms indicating explosions in the buildings
etc etc
I know you must be aware of all these, being a diligent reseacher. However, one doesn't need to be a diligent researcher, since such material resides all over youtube and googlevideo etc, and much originates from msm news camera footage. Perhaps these were
*gas explosions from gas escaping from broken lines? Or
*explosions caused b the detonation of unknown (explosive or volatile) material that was stored (probably illegally) in the Twin Towers? Or
*explosions caused by kerosene vapor + air? Perhaps
*coal dust + air explosions? Or
*flour + air explosions from a pita bread bakery owned by Ahmed Iqbal on the 37th floor? Or
*bottled fart gas and liquid oxygen? Maybe
*al Qaeda kidnapped and murdered a bunch of conspiracy theorists, mixed their remains with ammonium perchlorate and fuel oil, and set them off in the buildings?
*Perhaps these videos were all faked, in real time (!), to produce controversy?
Silliness aside, why did the 9/11 Commission need to lie regarding the internal structure of the Twin Towers in their final report? Was this in order to prop up the theory that the Towers collapsed because of heat stress on the steel which caused a progressive failure down the entire structure, because (this theory) was considered weak and liable to question? When the blueprints of the Twin Towers were leaked earlier this year, this new evidence proved beyond a shaow of a doubt that the Commission had lied and misrepresented the facts. It is this kind of shenanigan which puts the official story on very shaky ground and makes people ask questions.
As I stated earlier, if a witness lies on the stand, then it calls into question the veracity of ALL his evidence. If the 9/11 Commission lied and misrepresented, not just about the structure of the Twin Towers, but dozens of other key aspects of the attacks, then why should we believe any part of their story.. especially when 90% of the evidence was excluded because it didn't fit with what appeared to be a pre-ordained conclusion?
You asked me if I believed the Twin Towers collapsed because of a controlled demolition?
My answer is:
"I don't know how they collapsed, but I would sure love to know. The official explanation has far too many holes, inconsistencies, impossibilities and unlikelihoods to be acceptable (to my mind at least). It is speculative at best, and it is supported largely by what we (the general public) would prefer to acknowledge, rather than by hard evidence The "controlled demolition" explanation is also speculative; it wasn't given a chance to be proven or disproven, because the best evidence was prevented from being collected for timely analysis.
Mere "Belief" shouldn't come into this. Evidence is what is required. I have never baldly stated said that "the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition"... simply because, I do not KNOW. Neither do you. Neither does anyone (apart from the culprits, whoever they may be).
And when it comes to belief, as you asked me: when people lie, belief goes out of the window.