Thread: Architects & Engineers Discuss WTC No. 7

Originally Posted by Xei

This is totally separate from the idea that 9/11 was an act of the US government, which is something he will almost certainly find implausible. 9/11 makes no sense as a false flag campaign for an Iraq invasion because the supposed scapegoats, Al Qaeda, were never shown to have any connection to the Iraqi government.

No it's not completely separate. Watch the video.

No, it's an hour long. Nobody is going to watch that video.

Please give me a quote from it where he implies that 9/11 wasn't committed by Al Qaeda.

Originally Posted by Xei

No, it's an hour long. Nobody is going to watch that video.

Please give me a quote from it where he implies that 9/11 wasn't committed by Al Qaeda.

I have an agenda to write at the moment for a committee meeting I am the secretary of at the weekend. I am busy. I'm not going to watch it again just to pick out a juicy quote for you when you can't be bothered to watch it yourself. Please watch it, it is very interesting.

Okay. Do you recall him saying that at some point, though?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

So you don't get all your 9/11 conspiracy theories from the internet? You do realize anyone can claim to be scientific or have followed scientific processes? How is it ad hominem when it's accurate?

Your ‘accurate’ statement was nothing but your baseless accusation that ‘any scientist that supports any 9/11 conspiracy theory is disreputable’. You’ve gone out of your way to dance around their actual science, and dismissed everything they have said out of pure bias. You haven’t really done anything to prove the scientists who are skeptical of the official report are anything but credible, by any other method but simply stating that the are skeptical of the official report.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

These "scientists" published their papers to a dubious source and have since been dropped by the publisher.
Submitting is the easy party; standing up to peer review is the hard part.. Guess who failed peer review?

Peer review? Oh, you mean like the impartial and unbiased peer review that the NIST report had to vigorously withstand, in order for its contents to be published? Just what was that standard of review, anyway? Let’s see:

I. Foundation of Scientific Integrity in Government
NIST has in place a number of policies and procedures to ensure the integrity of the scientific and technological information it develops and disseminates to the public. Those policies and procedures include rigorous internal peer review of any published scientific and technological information.
NIST Scientific Integrity Summary

You mean the internal peer review, that NIST charges itself with?

I don't think I've seen any evidence that the paper in question was dropped because of faulty science, and not simply because it would have been an indictment on the status quo – a potentially career-ending risk – which, we know, happens quite often in the scientific community. If you’re going to dispute that known phenomena, I seriously doubt I’m going to be able to take you seriously enough to even bother rebutting.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Not reputable enough to convince other scientists.

As the video I previously posted showed, he was reputable enough to get even NIST to revamp their report.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

So Bush' family has been planning 9/11 since the early 90's? Bush knew he would be elected President and be able to take advantage of the situation before the American people were elected.. Is this what you are implying?

IF 9/11 was an inside job, and any number of the related theories are true, then yes, I am saying that that would be a strict possibility. We have more evidence that our government is now actually an oligarchy, instead of a traditional democracy (oligarchies, themselves, often perpetuated by an illusion of democracy), and if that is the case, and 9/11 was a direct consequence of that, then yes – again – that is what I would be implying (although it would probably be a little more far-reaching than just ‘the Bush Family’).

Originally Posted by DeathCell

If there were explosives planted in WTC7 why did they bother sending Airplanes into the twin towers?

I hate to say it, but: Spectacle
Remember that, if this conspiracy exists on the level that some allege, it would be arguably the biggest psy-op ever. Distraction and misdirection and spectacle would be the driving forces of the deception. People had to have the experiences burned into their heads. It would have to be televised. It would have to be looked back upon and relived and stand as an absolute justification, whenever we so offered up our emotional vulnerability by watching the attack play out over and over. It had to create Shock and Awe on a level that doesn’t happen when you just hear about some attack that’s happened. How many more viewers of the tragedy do you think the alleged conspirators gained by having practically every news channel in America already trained on the scene, when the second plane hit?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

What possible reason for destroying a building next to the Twin Towers is there?
What reason for the act of making a building next to the towers go down.. is there? What does this gain the secret control force that the twin towers didn't already accomplish?

The purging of a ‘little known’ CIA site right there at ground zero – which could have conceivably oversaw the operation – would have been ideal in such an alleged conspiracy. Wouldn’t it?

Report: CIA Lost Office In WTC - CBS News

Originally Posted by DeathCell

What does anyone gain other than insurance money for one guy?

Why would the secret controlling government that you obviously believe in run an insurance scam when they can just print their own money whenever they want?

I don’t have an answer for that, but I will say that having a suspicion of something is not the same as ‘believing’ in it. Keep slicing away at those strawmen. And you had the nerve to try to call someone else out for making black and white arguments.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

So you have a family member of Bush working in big business for a security company; not quite the smoking gun you're looking for eh?

You are really bad at this. Since you need to be reminded (again), I’m not offering any ‘smoking guns’, here, just the little traces of evidence that people like you say ‘don’t exist.’ Before you came into this thread, I said that people who say ‘there is no evidence’, are usually doing so while ignoring all the evidence and actually looking/waiting for proof. Once you came here – doing exactly that – I then told you that you were doing exactly what I’d been previously talking about. And now, here we are again, witnessing the same thing.

I’m not offering proof of any conspiracy theory. I don’t have any, and I probably won’t have any. I’m just attempting to show that the ‘there is no evidence’ argument that people (like yourself) make is – as you would say – ‘a steaming pile of bullshit’.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

You believe military-grade explosives allow for buildings to fall straight down? Could you please show me a study on the use of military-grade explosives for neat and orderly demolitions; as is so argued by the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. You can't have your cake and eat it to after all.. Industrial demolition projects take a lot of time because they aren't as simple as spraying foam and hoping the building falls down orderly.

I'm saying it's not plausible.

It’s just speculation on my part, at the moment. If I can find any proof of that, I will let you know.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Yes we would; because you're having it right now.. You believe everything you hear; as long as it's not from the evil government that's trying to turn your mind into a soulless slave of the Illuminati...

Lol. Keep hacking away at those strawmen. hack/slash/stab

Originally Posted by DeathCell

The reason people can believe the 9/11 evidence from the side that supports fire taking down WTC7 is because it's backed up by evidence, science and facts.. while the false-flag, blah blah crowd relies on youtube videos and personal accounts

It’s backed up by an internal investigation – which has been disputed, rewritten, and criticized by other scientists. Period. If that is the standard at which you sear something into your brain as ‘absolute truth’, then I actually pity you.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Evidence for your claim? How is questioning the 9/11 story not an automatic, Pavlovian reaction that your mind instinctually slips into because it's lack of trust for government?

Because I tailor every answer to you, specifically, based on what you’ve said. You, instead, for the most part, have been attacking the ghosts of your past ‘truther battles’; accusing me of things I have never said, and making assumptions about what I might believe, with no other reason to do so than that you feel I’m a ‘truther’. It’s sad, and it’s obvious, and you should really stop.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I have a feeling that, the more we carry on this discussion, the more evidence I'll provide and the less you'll actually pay attention to the argument and instead will continue to parrot your belief as the more likely story regardless of any factual evidence and mostly will provide just a bunch of assumptions and conjecture.

More evidence? The only thing I have seen you provided is the NIST report and an affinity for dismissing every argument that disagrees with the NIST report. Did I miss something?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Since you know so much about federal laws; could you link me to some case law on the subject? Or at least where this law can be found in a law book of some sort?

Trying to set up another strawman already. You work fast, don’t you? I don’t know jack about law (well, very little), but that my mentioning one of the most obvious laws in the country has you coming at me like I’m trying to show off some vast, legal knowledge is hilarious. I’ll play, though…

Obstruction by Destruction of Evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(c))
The obstruction by destruction of evidence offense found in subsection 1512(c) is the creation of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,71 and proscribes obstruction of federal administrative, judicial, or
congressional proceedings by destruction of evidence.72
More specifically, subsection 1512(c) provides that
I. Whoever
II. corruptly
III. A.1.alters,
2. destroys,
3. mutilates, or
4. conceals
B. 1. a record,
2. document, or
3. other object, or
C. attempts to do so,
D. with the intent to impair the object’s
1. integrity, or
2. availability for use
E. in an official proceeding, or
IV. otherwise
A. 1. obstructs,
2. influences, or
3. impedes
B. an official proceeding, or
C. attempts to do so
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.73
As is generally true of attempts to commit a federal offense, attempt to violate subsection 1512(c)
requires an intent to violate the subsection and a substantial step toward the accomplishment of
that goal.74
As for the necessary nexus between the defendant’s destructive conduct and the obstructed
proceedings: “the defendant’s conduct must ‘have a relationship in time, causation, or logic with
the [official] ... proceedings’; in other words, ‘the endeavor must have the natural and probable
effect of interfering with the due administration of justice.’”75
Like subsection 1512(a) and 1512(b) offenses, subsection 1512(c) offenses are RICO and money
laundering predicate offenses,76 and may provide the foundation for criminal liability as a
principal, accessory after the fact, conspirator, or one guilty of misprision.77 If the federal judicial,
administrative or congressional proceedings are obstructed, prosecution may be had in the United
States even if the destruction occurs overseas,78 the proceedings are yet pending,79 or the offender
is unaware of their federal character.80

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34303.pdf

I’m sure there’s probably a ‘law book’ on that, somewhere. You know how we can’t trust anything we find on the internet…unless it’s on the NIST website…

Originally Posted by DeathCell

So there was no investigation done.. hmm I remember the 9/11 Commission.. that would actually count as an investigation..

Ah, yes, because letting all suspects investigate their own crimes is how justice should always be carried out.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

…and I'm betting the FBI/CIA and other agencies also investigated as well...

The FBI and CIA? You mean those organizations that the 9/11 commission was blaming for being too incompetent to stop the attacks?

Do you have any proof for your claim?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

My thoughts are that you probably don't know how law works but are instead parroting some idea you've heard on the web before....

Ah, and there it is; that strawman you were setting up to fall, moments ago. Right on cue. I never said I knew much about law. I simply referenced one that should be common sense to pretty much anyone, and it was valid. Nice try, though.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

A trial is based on the concepts of Motive, Opportunity, Evidence. The official story does a lot better of a job providing motive, opportunity and evidence.. than your side does.. Trust me. Your "movement" hasn't actually ever provided a serious motive that is logical or coherent.

Lol @ ‘my “movement”’. Love that shadowboxing. You are like the Strawman Cinderella Man. Lol.

Actually, the skeptical side has provided pretty strong motive. False flags about as old as conventional war, itself, I believe, and for you to say that there was no motive for the U.S. to get into the strategic position we are moving toward now, in the Middle East, through way of deceiving and sacrificing thousands of people (isn’t that what war does, by definition???), then you are completely, and utterly, asleep.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

There is proof that the extremists hijacked the planes on 9/11 and crashed it into the towers. You don't think theirs airport footage of these people boarding planes?? LOL? The FBI and Law Enforcement never submits all details to the public.

Hijackers Were Not Identified Before 9/11, Investigation Says

Your ball.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Nope I debunked them…

Still working on that part, I take it?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Ahh.. The television, another great source of information......... Let me guess; everything on the History channel is historic!? Ancient aliens here we come.

And another strawman bites the dust! hack/slash/stab!

Originally Posted by DeathCell

The things you say I allege; I never alleged. I alleged that's where you get your information from; is it not?

The thing I alleged, you implied in the first sentence of the previous quote! LOL.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

There is little doubt that conspiracy theories generate controversy and thus ratings.

No argument, there.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

9/11 Conspiracy theories started on the internet; I've been hearing this same shit for years.

I don’t even know what this means….?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I've proven that you believe things that have no reputable source nor scientific evidence to substantiate said claims.

Of course you did.

All you’ve helped to do is prove that I’m willing to entertain an uncertain idea, enough to think critically about it and remain skeptical about a popular, opposing argument that is riddled with inaccuracies and loose ends. I thank you for that. The difference between us, in this, is that you just went one step further and placed all of your faith in the official report and its proponents. So much so, that you ignore any evidence to the contrary, and use your faith as an ego boost, whenever you get the chance to talk down to those crazy conspiracy theorists.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

If you feel insulted than perhaps you shouldn't form your opinions based on dubious sources; than you wouldn't feel insulted. The "scientists" matter little compared to the science that has been rejected by peer review. You can call it gold; but it's still a pile of shit.

You are really out of touch. This is the reality of scientific publication. It is subject to (and often saturated with) corruption and manipulation, just like anything else. You have placed faith in a governmental review board to investigate itself and call that ‘peer review’, while completely ignoring just how hard it is for many other legitimate works to get published, due to unpopular ideas. Like you said, ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it to.’ You only claim sources as ‘dubious’, because they aren’t the ones you have already placed your (mainstream) faith in, not because you’ve actually specified something being wrong with their science.

I’m not saying that peer review isn’t a helpful tool, but you are making the implication that ‘if it isn’t in a peer reviewed journal, it isn’t true’, and that is just plain false. In other words:

Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. He remarks,
There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.[29]
Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.[30]
Allegations of bias and suppression
The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers.[31] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[32][33] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[34][35][36] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views,[37] and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[38] Experts have also argued that invited papers are more valuable to scientific research because papers that undergo the conventional system of peer review may not necessarily feature findings that are actually important.[39]

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Yeah; no.

I'll continue to tell people who don't bother to read evidence; to shut up. What's the point of discussing a topic with those who don't bother to educate them on the reality of a situation and instead prefer to live in a fantasy world?

And I’ll continue to point out hypocrisy, when I see it. ^There it is.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I don't call everything I disagree with bullshit; I call 9/11 conspiracy theories that point to our government doing it bullshit. And without evidence; that's what it is.. a steaming pile of bullshit.

I might expect this from someone who is completely ignorant of U.S. false flag operations of the past. There may be no proof, which I have never suggested that there was, but to say that there is no evidence (since you have such a hard time differentiating between the two) is bullshit, just as you said.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Please get a handle on yourself, quickly. If you are intelligent and capable of explaining your position, the childish whining over e-feelings is absolutely unnecessary. Neither you or I will be stopped because no one was actually insulted in this thread. I'm not a care-bear and I never will be; if you don't like my tone.. Don't reply.

Ironic that you would use the world childish, when it is exactly about maturely presenting your position. Anyone will tell you, that if you can’t make a valid point, you just make an invalid one as loudly and as aggressively as you can.

What it’s also about is that, we do try to hold our members to a certain standard around here, and if it’s shown that you can’t hold your debates without relying on personal insults, then you won’t be welcome to debate here. Has nothing to do with the views you have, but how you present them. If that’s not something you can handle, then you can kick rocks. Otherwise, we can debate like gentlemen – not toddlers.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I'm not gonna sit here and cry about your attitude; but I certainly will continue to cut down your inability to defend your positions.

When that happens, I’m sure someone will let me know. Forgive me if I don’t rely on your own personal assessment of your performance to dictate whether or not I’ve accurately defended my position.

You know…peer review and all…

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I'm gonna give you the formal courtesy of letting you know you should mind your own business and tone while discussing things here at DV. As such I'll do the same.

Your tone is my business.

Originally Posted by DeathCell[/quote

I'll be waiting for a quote of when I called someone an "idiot".. As for the rest... Calling theories bullshit; when they are.. Isn't against any forum rules. Nor is sarcasm as far as I'm aware? I can't say shut up? Is that like a fuck you now? I'll say it again.. Put up, or Shut up.

I apologize. I thought I’d seen you call someone’s views “idiotic” in this thread, but I believe I got you confused with Jookia. (In looking at your post history, though, you have thrown a few ‘morons’ around, in your time, though.)

As for the rest, the forum rules state:

Originally Posted by Forum Rules

Be respectful and tolerant of other users.
Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated and will lead to a warning. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all! (thanks mom.) Obviously we'll use discretion in regards to policing this because joking around between friends is certainly permitted.

And I’ll say it again: Plenty of evidence has been ‘put up’, much of which you have completely ignored. So, basically, all you’re doing is tell everyone who doesn’t agree with you to ‘shut up’, because you’re certainly not considering their points. Bill O'Reilly? Is that you??

Originally Posted by Rainman

I don't think there is anything wrong with inquiry. I there is reasonable cause there to demand further explanation or investigation. To DeathCell, I don't believe that Oneironaut Zero is saying "THIS ALL HAPPENED, IT'S A CONSPIRACY WE'RE ALL SCREWED, THE GOVERNMENT DID IT, IT'S CERTAIN!" I think he is saying something which is completely reasonable and agreeable- "There are enough unknown factors in this incident to merit further official investigation." I don't know why you have such a problem with that. You have a lot of valid points that you're trying to make, but they are stained with personal attack and repetitive talking points which don't really address the majority of the argument which has been presented. For someone who I believe is likely pretty intelligent, it's a disappointing thing to witness such childlike name-calling and internet bashing. It accomplishes only two things- tarnishing what credibility you had in the first place, and simultaneously, it demonstrates an egoic response, triggered by the fear of being wrong. Insulting your opposition only validates the likely mindset that you're uncertain of your argument, and cannot refute the points made objectively without adding your personal flare and attacks, because you don't want to admit to ANY possibility that just PERHAPS, this time, you could be wrong.

Quoted for (obvious) Truth.

Called it.

Originally Posted by Xei

Called it.

Haha. I know it. Well played, Xei.

Old habits die hard. Lol.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Your ‘accurate’ statement was nothing but your baseless accusation that ‘any scientist that supports any 9/11 conspiracy theory is disreputable’. You’ve gone out of your way to dance around their actual science, and dismissed everything they have said out of pure bias. You haven’t really done anything to prove the scientists who are skeptical of the official report are anything but credible, by any other method but simply stating that the are skeptical of the official report.

Their is no actual science. They use samples that given to them by random people on the street. They failed at the most basic parts of gathering data. I proved that the study you provided is bunk and that the publishers

Bentham Publishers has dropped the journal which published the Active Thermitic Materials paper by Harrit and Jones:

No scientist is going to waste his time debunking, junk science. Because it's fake science.

Peer review? Oh, you mean like the impartial and unbiased peer review that the NIST report had to vigorously withstand, in order for its contents to be published? Just what was that standard of review, anyway? Let’s see:

You mean the internal peer review, that NIST charges itself with?

They were officially charged with studying it. And they actually know what they are talking about, unlike your paper that was dropped by the publisher..

I don't think I've seen any evidence that the paper in question was dropped because of faulty science, and not simply because it would have been an indictment on the status quo – a potentially career-ending risk – which, we know, happens quite often in the scientific community.

Of course it was dropped because it was faulty. It was, you can't defend the science because you don't understand it. It's all based on making shit up and having people like yourself believe it, because government bad.

A private company didn't need to respond to the status quo, but it does need to respond to fake science if it wants to attempt to appear legit.

Internal peer review between scientists is far better than no peer review and no one actually taking it serious in the respective scientific communities.

People online believing whatever they read is not proof that your paper has any modicum of knowledge.

If you’re going to dispute that known phenomena, I seriously doubt I’m going to be able to take you seriously enough to even bother rebutting.

Don't than. Realize how must delusion you are causing yourself.

As the video I previously posted showed, he was reputable enough to get even NIST to revamp their report.

Not reputable at all actually. Report was changed because people like yourself online believe whatever they read.

IF 9/11 was an inside job, and any number of the related theories are true, then yes, I am saying that that would be a strict possibility. We have more evidence that our government is now actually an oligarchy, instead of a traditional democracy (oligarchies, themselves, often perpetuated by an illusion of democracy), and if that is the case, and 9/11 was a direct consequence of that, then yes – again – that is what I would be implying (although it would probably be a little more far-reaching than just ‘the Bush Family’).

So you are delusional? You're a believer in the Illuminati. That's what it sounds like to me. Why would anyone take you seriously?

Our government being broken does not lead to an oligarchy.

I hate to say it, but: Spectacle

Still not making any sense.. If they were flying the planes into the towers, they didn't need explosives to piss Americans off. You just disproved your own point. If it was about it being a "spectacle" they accomplished that with airplanes.

Remember that, if this conspiracy exists on the level that some allege, it would be arguably the biggest psy-op ever.

Awesome, and I can make up more conspiracies and call them even bigger psy-ops. So cool man. World War II never happened, Jews don't exist! I swear.

Distraction and misdirection and spectacle would be the driving forces of the deception.

But their is no conspiracy and their is no deception expect the ones you believe that are pushed by people making money off people like yourself who are tricked into buying crap literature and products. Or going to sites and giving people link advertising revenue.

You're a consumer being manipulated by the Alex Jones of the worlds, how does it feel?

People had to have the experiences burned into their heads. It would have to be televised. It would have to be looked back upon and relived and stand as an absolute justification, whenever we so offered up our emotional vulnerability by watching the attack play out over and over. It had to create Shock and Awe on a level that doesn’t happen when you just hear about some attack that’s happened. How many more viewers of the tragedy do you think the alleged conspirators gained by having practically every news channel in America already trained on the scene, when the second plane hit?

And what did they accomplish? Nothing. Wars overseas that could be started without attacking our center of commerce.. As I said.. your theories wouldn't stand up in a court room.

Let me guess, the Challenger explosion was an Illuminati plot to scare Americans away from space exploration!

Tragedy's happen, terrorism happens, people are nuts. You have no proof for your washed out words so they hold no water in any court of reason or logic.

The purging of a ‘little known’ CIA site right there at ground zero – which could have conceivably oversaw the operation – would have been ideal in such an alleged conspiracy. Wouldn’t it?

Lol no.. Because the conspiracy you talk about would be so deep that no one would be investigating the conspiracy in the first place.

You're logical misunderstanding of spy work is clear and obvious.

Also a conspiracy this deep and no ones ever come out as being involved or knowing anything? Impossible.

It's just bullshit sold by snake oil salesmen. And makes them a tiny sum of dough.

Report: CIA Lost Office In WTC - CBS News

You just keep digging yourself deeper into an illogical hole. So a secret base they destroyed on purpose.. instead of keeping it a secret.. they reported it in newspapers. Seems sensible.. or they could have just kept it completely under wraps....

I don’t have an answer for that, but I will say that having a suspicion of something is not the same as ‘believing’ in it. Keep slicing away at those strawmen. And you had the nerve to try to call someone else out for making black and white arguments.

The problems is you don't have an answer for anything. You have "suspicions" based on what people on the internet have made you believe. They are not your own thoughts or your own conclusions, junk science and conspiracy sold to you by profiteers of misinformation.

Keep slicing away at that baseless conjecture of "suspicions" . I'll keep slicing away at facts, science and logic.

You are really bad at this. Since you need to be reminded (again), I’m not offering any ‘smoking guns’, here, just the little traces of evidence that people like you say ‘don’t exist.’

You actually haven't provided any traces of evidence. You might want to check your argument over again.. you have suspicions.

Before you came into this thread, I said that people who say ‘there is no evidence’, are usually doing so while ignoring all the evidence and actually looking/waiting for proof. Once you came here – doing exactly that – I then told you that you were doing exactly what I’d been previously talking about. And now, here we are again, witnessing the same thing.

You have trouble understanding what evidence is. That's your problem not mine. Calling something evidence, does not make something evidence.

I'm witnessing the same thing all over the web. People like yourself who are convinced that conjecture is evidence and that junk science is actual science.

Here we are again.

I’m not offering proof of any conspiracy theory.

Clearly. You're not even providing evidence.

I don’t have any, and I probably won’t have any. I’m just attempting to show that the ‘there is no evidence’ argument that people (like yourself) make is – as you would say – ‘a steaming pile of bullshit’.

There is no evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. And you have yet to provide any evidence of the contrary.

It’s just speculation on my part, at the moment. If I can find any proof of that, I will let you know.

Indeed. Empty speculation.

I speculate that the Twin Towers never came down and are actually still in New York City and that what you see is a hologram of it not existing. People from 9/11 are trapped their in a wormhole.

Lol. Keep hacking away at those strawmen. hack/slash/stab

I just leveled up. I've pretty much knocked down all of your strawmen, are you psychic?

It’s backed up by an internal investigation – which has been disputed, rewritten, and criticized by other scientists. Period. If that is the standard at which you sear something into your brain as ‘absolute truth’, then I actually pity you.

I never said it was absolute truth or 100% accurate. It doesn't need to be to support my argument. See if it's inaccurate in parts that doesn't imply or prove a conspiracy.

I certainly will trust something with internal peer review over something that doesn't follow any scientific protocol.

Because I tailor every answer to you, specifically, based on what you’ve said. You, instead, for the most part, have been attacking the ghosts of your past ‘truther battles’; accusing me of things I have never said, and making assumptions about what I might believe, with no other reason to do so than that you feel I’m a ‘truther’. It’s sad, and it’s obvious, and you should really stop.

Are you not a truther.. You just like to entertain ideas of 20+ year plots to take down the towers just to enter into a war in a place we already went to war?

What is your point other than misunderstanding what evidence is?

More evidence? The only thing I have seen you provided is the NIST report and an affinity for dismissing every argument that disagrees with the NIST report. Did I miss something?

The arguments are fallacious. If the NIST report is flawed it doesn't imply that people pushing 9/11 as a government plot are in the least bit accurate.

Where are the serious rebuttals to the NIST report? Not ones relying on dubious sampling procedures? Those I'd take seriously, those no one bothers with.. because you were right it's about sensationalism.. and they sold it to you.

It was thermite.. Is a laughable joke that no one in intellectual communities takes serious.

Trying to set up another strawman already. You work fast, don’t you? I don’t know jack about law (well, very little), but that my mentioning one of the most obvious laws in the country has you coming at me like I’m trying to show off some vast, legal knowledge is hilarious. I’ll play, though…

Sticks and stones will break my bones

So other than quoting some legal, how exactly was the law broken?

If someone obstructed.. Why wouldn't someone take them to court? Or is it because you don't understand law and don't realize that no one broke any?

I’m sure there’s probably a ‘law book’ on that, somewhere. You know how we can’t trust anything we find on the internet…unless it’s on the NIST website…

Well.. we can't trust any science that uses dubious sampling procedures. We can't trust articles that are dropped by their "science" publishers..

Basic things you can use to narrow down junk science from real science...

Ah, yes, because letting all suspects investigate their own crimes is how justice should always be carried out.

Because NIST is a suspect in 9/11 in only your world. It's a big government conspiracy that every agency is in on, yet no one knows except people like Alex Jones. They so smart.

The FBI and CIA? You mean those organizations that the 9/11 commission was blaming for being too incompetent to stop the attacks?

Do you have any proof for your claim?

Indeed they were rightfully blamed for mismanagement of intelligence. I'm saying, I'm sure they investigated as well.

Proof for my claim; What doesn't the FBI and CIA try to get intelligence on? If they didn't.. well that would be another failure on their part.

And does the FBI or CIA often make currently relevant information available to the public?

Ah, and there it is; that strawman you were setting up to fall, moments ago. Right on cue. I never said I knew much about law. I simply referenced one that should be common sense to pretty much anyone, and it was valid. Nice try, though.

Law is not common sense; that's why people spend years in school studying it.

Throwing away a knife in a murder is clear obstruction. Having a government agency study parts of the rubble and disposing of the rest instead of.. storing billions of dollars worth of rubble in some location for what reason?

Lol @ ‘my “movement”’. Love that shadowboxing. You are like the Strawman Cinderella Man. Lol.

What I'm saying is you're all the same. You all think you have your own independent thoughts, but their all exactly the same.

Actually, the skeptical side has provided pretty strong motive. False flags about as old as conventional war, itself, I believe, and for you to say that there was no motive for the U.S. to get into the strategic position we are moving toward now, in the Middle East, through way of deceiving and sacrificing thousands of people (isn’t that what war does, by definition???), then you are completely, and utterly, asleep.

On the further skeptical side I understand that a strong motive for war can easily be attained without possibly destroying our economy and attacking a smaller non-civilian target with planted causalities.

Hijackers Were Not Identified Before 9/11, Investigation Says

Your ball.

My ball? I know they weren't identified before. What your doing is dodging the real thing I said

You don't think theirs airport footage of these people boarding planes??

Their is footage of them at the airports.
Evidence that these men hijacked the planes, phone calls.. etc..

Still working on that part, I take it?

I can't make you think, I can only give you information.

And another strawman bites the dust! hack/slash/stab!

I don't think you actually know what a strawman is.

The thing I alleged, you implied in the first sentence of the previous quote! LOL.

I allege this is a waste of our time. You don't want to believe it's not a conspiracy so you won't.

I don’t even know what this means….?

You obviously weren't online in 2001.

Of course you did.

All you’ve helped to do is prove that I’m willing to entertain an uncertain idea, enough to think critically about it and remain skeptical about a popular, opposing argument that is riddled with inaccuracies and loose ends. I thank you for that. The difference between us, in this, is that you just went one step further and placed all of your faith in the official report and its proponents. So much so, that you ignore any evidence to the contrary, and use your faith as an ego boost, whenever you get the chance to talk down to those crazy conspiracy theorists.

Uncertain ideas is a great way to sugar coat ideas that make no logical sense and have no evidence supporting them. I think Cthulhu destroyed the towers.

I didn't put all my faith in anything, I choose to ignore dubious evidence meant to craft a fake plot. When you provide science and evidence on what happened let me know. I'm not ignoring any evidence, because what you are calling evidence is in fact bunk. It's akin to creationism.

You are really out of touch. This is the reality of scientific publication. It is subject to (and often saturated with) corruption and manipulation, just like anything else. You have placed faith in a governmental review board to investigate itself and call that ‘peer review’, while completely ignoring just how hard it is for many other legitimate works to get published, due to unpopular ideas. Like you said, ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it to.’ You only claim sources as ‘dubious’, because they aren’t the ones you have already placed your (mainstream) faith in, not because you’ve actually specified something being wrong with their science.

Well yes.. it's dubious because the study you push was taken from people in the city not collected on site. It's a failure in every scientific protocol.. Theirs no need to even read past that line in your study. There is no reason to believe that the source is accurate. Am I saying the official report is 100% accurate? No, never have. But I'm saying there is no reason to take the study you cite seriously.

We could critique the peer review process for hours but it's not even necessary to support my argument.

I’m not saying that peer review isn’t a helpful tool, but you are making the implication that ‘if it isn’t in a peer reviewed journal, it isn’t true’, and that is just plain false. In other words:

No I agree it doesn't necessarily mean it's false.. but when no one will peer review something... it tends to lead towards false and junk science.

And I’ll continue to point out hypocrisy, when I see it. ^There it is.

It's not though. Believing a study just because it was written when it doesn't follow scientific protocol is your fault, not mine.

I might expect this from someone who is completely ignorant of U.S. false flag operations of the past. There may be no proof, which I have never suggested that there was, but to say that there is no evidence (since you have such a hard time differentiating between the two) is bullshit, just as you said.

Blah blah.. It was false flag..Why? because of this dubious article.

Ironic that you would use the world childish, when it is exactly about maturely presenting your position. Anyone will tell you, that if you can’t make a valid point, you just make an invalid one as loudly and as aggressively as you can.

I'm not aggressive whatsoever. I've made all my points above in the last post and in this post.. You just don't read them.

What it’s also about is that, we do try to hold our members to a certain standard around here, and if it’s shown that you can’t hold your debates without relying on personal insults, then you won’t be welcome to debate here. Has nothing to do with the views you have, but how you present them. If that’s not something you can handle, then you can kick rocks. Otherwise, we can debate like gentlemen – not toddlers.

I'm not going to sit here and listen to someone with a worse attitude than my own on how to debate like gentlemen and not toddlers. If you can't look into the mirror and see your own childish behavior than perhaps you shouldn't be critiquing others behavior?

I don't need a members standard speech when I've been here since 2008; please go back to your high horse shop and get a refund.

When that happens, I’m sure someone will let me know. Forgive me if I don’t rely on your own personal assessment of your performance to dictate whether or not I’ve accurately defended my position.

Consider yourself officially. Let known.

You know…peer review and all…

Consider yourself peer reviewed.

Your tone is my business.

It is in not in fact your business. If you were a moderator doing there job you would be sending private messages to an uninvolved third party to moderate the issue for us. Otherwise I think what your doing is throwing a bunch of empty words onto the forum because you can't defend your positions on believing false studies.

I'll be waiting for a quote of when I called someone an "idiot".. As for the rest... Calling theories bullshit; when they are.. Isn't against any forum rules. Nor is sarcasm as far as I'm aware? I can't say shut up? Is that like a fuck you now? I'll say it again.. Put up, or Shut up.[/quote]

I apologize. I thought I’d seen you call someone’s views “idiotic” in this thread, but I believe I got you confused with Jookia. (In looking at your post history, though, you have thrown a few ‘morons’ around, in your time, though.)

Oh noes.. Call the moron police. When did Dreamviews turn into the Oh noes my internet feelings were hurt over nothing crowd? Oh they didn't?

As for the rest, the forum rules state:

Yep didn't break any of them. So thanks for bringing up nothing for no reason. I call ideas moronic when I see them, and I'm sarcastic.. Don't like it don't talk to me.. I'm not going to sit here and "flame" you so move on or discuss. But don't sit here whining about forum rules that no one broke.

And I’ll say it again: Plenty of evidence has been ‘put up’, much of which you have completely ignored.

Zero evidence has been put up. None of what was provided qualifies as evidence.

So, basically, all you’re doing is tell everyone who doesn’t agree with you to ‘shut up’, because you’re certainly not considering their points. Bill O'Reilly? Is that you??

Nope I'm saying those who believe Alex Jones and the Misinformation crew profiteers should just keep their clap traps closed. No one in the scientific community takes 9/11 truthers seriously. If you want to have discussions based around evidence, provide some real evidence.. Anyone can make up things and call them facts.. that doesn't mean educated folks are going to believe them and no one should be faked into taking this shit seriously.

And I loled at rainman because he nitpicks my words and doesn't seem to notice your impropriety. You know what they say about people in glass houses?











P.S. Learning the difference between yourself and what you believe. They are not one and the same.. A person can hold stupid views without being stupid. Just as someone can call your views stupid without personally insulting you. I don't identify my views as my being so I'm not easily offended; maybe this can be a lesson for you. Disconnect yourself from your beliefs because they can easily be false. No reason to feel insulted unless someone is going after your character.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Where are the serious rebuttals to the NIST report?

A school physics teacher points out at a NIST technical briefing that NIST's analysis is just bullshit. Incidentally, NIST changed its analysis because of this physics teacher.

The first video below has been removed from the NIST website!

Originally Posted by DeathCell

No one in the scientific community takes 9/11 truthers seriously.

Actually I have found over 400 so far that have been publicly quoted as saying that they don't believe the official story given by the government, NIST and the 9/11 commission. Here are a just a tiny few from the ones I have found:

A. K. Dewdney, PhD - Professor Emeritus, Department of Computer Science, University of Western Ontario.

'The debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. In particular, in the absence of some agency that removed the wings, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings, and therefore the aircraft, were never present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001.'

David L. Griscom, PhD - Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).

'I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.

The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the official assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus, a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215.

Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!

Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering - Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965 - 1978. Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 - 1990.

'Many technical analyses cast doubt on the official explanation of the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings, including those presented by an impressive new group: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. More difficult than discovering the truth, however, is convincing most of the public to accept the bitter truth.

When it comes to 9/11, we face the strong belief that only al-Qaeda caused 9/11. But analyses by many experts reveal the collapse of the three WTC buildings was not caused by the two airplanes exploding into the twin towers. Without getting into details that one can spend many hours examining on a number of websites, the general view is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.'

Hugo Bachmann, PhD - Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

'In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished.'

Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force - Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology.

'Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise - including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots - have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.

They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official investigations have really been cover-up operations.

Thus far, however, there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or, for that matter, in other capitals around the world. Our organization, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, has been formed to help bring about such a response.

We believe that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now - not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books---so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administration’s interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed.'

Fred E. Gardiol, MS EE, ScD EE - Professor Emeritus of Electromagnetism and Microwaves, and Director of the Laboratory of Electromagnetism and Acoustics at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland 1970 - 1999. Honorary Professor, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.

'Even though my personal domain of competence is not civil engineering nor materials, I feel that the official version of 9/11 does not make sense. There are very many specific questions that have not been answered satisfactorily or not answered at all. I feel that a serious inquiry should be carried out, but personally wonder whether we will ever know the truth and who are the real culprits.'

Originally Posted by Xei

Out of interest... why were explosives supposedly placed in the towers anyway? Controlled demolitions are generally rather obvious and noisy things which would obviously jeopardise the entire operation. You may have missed it but a couple of Boeings smashed into the skyscrapers and this is generally enough to cause mass loss of life and huge structural damage.

You are asking a very good question and one that deserves a good answer. I am not just answering for your sake but because I want more public debate on this very question.

I used to believe the official 9/11 story and asked this same question to 9/11 skeptics.

However, I now think there is a plausible answer to this, and I fully admit I am just putting forward a hypothesis, but here goes.

First some background: There is plenty of evidence that whoever hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings used a false identity to board the planes. The BBC and other mainstream sources have found a number of the 19 hijackers alive and well since 9/11:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

So whoever hijacked those planes did not use their real identity, which should not seem unexpected to any intelligent person. Thus we have no certain way of knowing that the culprits were the 19 Saudi nationals the government accused. Our society is based on the idea of one being innocent until proven guilty. All rational people acknowledge this and simply put, our government never demonstrated the guilt of the accused. In fact, we know they did not investigate the identities of the hijackers fully. I'm happy to supply more evidence on this point, but for now I'll be brief.

Couple that with the fact that major put options were purchased before 9/11 and you have the following: Someone in the upper echelons of power knew this was coming, and the rest of us can see that the government did not properly investigate who actually hijacked the planes. That in itself makes a new investigation necessary in my mind.

So now to your question:

I will make a leap of inference and hypothesize. If this was an organized conspiracy with some level of government complicity, then whoever hijacked the planes must have had some connection with intelligence agencies of one or more governments. The hijackers may have been crazy fanatics, but if there was a conspiracy, they must have been goaded on by some kind of government operative (or they may have been a government operative), which is why they most likely would not use their real identity.

Again, if there was any level of government complicity in his operation, then we can safely say the government would do everything in its power to cover its tracks. That means the black boxes and the bodies on the airplane, which could still be identified, needed to be completely destroyed. I think therein lies a perfectly plausible explanation for why the buildings were wired with explosives. It is also possible the government hoped the buildings would collapse under their own weight but had explosives as a 'plan B'.

You may disagree with my train of thought, but the fact is we have no way of knowing what actually happened because we do know for a fact that the government lied about the identities of the attackers. If there was any level of government complicity it is not surprising that they would want to blow the whole scene up rather than have nosy investigators combing through the rubble and possibly identifying bodies.

And I hope you realize I am not trying to prove anything other than the idea that there is a plausible explanation for why the buildings could have been wired prior to 9/11. I do not claim to know what actually happened, simply that no rational person can know that the accused were in fact guilty of the crime committed.

Clearly the argument I have provided above is not evidence of wrongdoing by the government, I fully understand that. I am only attempting to show that there would be a plausible motive for blowing up the buildings if any government complicity had happened.

People believe anyone claiming to be an expert is an expert. Not a surprise to me.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

No one in the respective scientific communities take 9/11 truther's seriously.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f..._qa_082108.cfm

Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTA...ic_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Does this mean there are hundreds or thousands of unsafe tall buildings with long span supports that must be retrofitted in some way? How would you retrofit a building to prevent this problem?

While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics: long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion (i.e., heat-induced expansion of material at different rates). Engineers should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.

Several existing, emerging, or even anticipated capabilities could have helped prevent the collapse of WTC 7. The degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:

More robust connections and framing systems to better resist effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.
Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse.
Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.
Improved compartmentation in tenant areas to limit the spread of fires.
Thermally resistant window assemblies to limit breakage, reduce air supply and retard fire growth.

OMG WATCH THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO IT HAZ ALL THE TRUTHS ROFL.

A new standard for deception.

Believing shit you hear on youtube videos.

I love how instead of repyling to the many instances proving that 9/11 truthers are full of shit.... you just post an hour long video..

Issue averted.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

OMG WATCH THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO IT HAZ ALL THE TRUTHS ROFL.

A new standard for deception.

Believing shit you hear on youtube videos.

I love how instead of repyling to the many instances proving that 9/11 truthers are full of shit.... you just post an hour long video..

Issue averted.

The film clip of Mr. Ryan adequately illustrates the many inconsistencies within NIST's whitewash of a report. Mr. Ryan has read and dissected the 10,000+ page report. Have you? Below is the letter that Mr. Ryan sent to NIST's Dr. Gayle that highlights the ridiculous shit you like to spout about asshole.

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL (Underwriter Laboratories) was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive...overstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. WTC Disaster Study 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. WTC Disaster Study (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan

Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

http://911research.wtc7.net/debates/...mer/index.html

Water tester is expert in demolitions.

ROFL.



"Mr. Ryan" adequately fools people who want to latch onto a government conspiracy.