A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Rather than calling it the Cynic's Guide, it should be called the CRETINS GUIDE.

Perhaps Nick Pole can explain why Building 007 was totally omitted from even one single mention in the Commission Report he found to be so good and comprehensive?

Do you suppose they accidentally forgot to mention 3 and not 2 buildings were disintegrated to dust and little rubble on the day of 911?

How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each?

All this stuff about jet crashes and burning building is totally irrelevant – How can the 80+ UNDAMAGED, Strongest & Heaviest Bottom floors (under the jet crash floors), be crushed to dust sand rubble within, (according to NIST; the video evidence and seismic data) 10 seconds, when if it were a 417 metres of empty vacuum the top bit fell through – it would take 9.22 seconds Precisely.

How can a building offer next to no resistance yet 1 second prior to the initiation of destruction sequence the very fact the building was upright states it had a minimum of 1 times working load?

Yet if you observe the blueprint the building were designed with 3 times working load in mind as they always have more than 100% redundancy as are the building codes.

So, seeing as for example the UNDAMAGED 50th floor was designed to carry 3 times the 60 floors above it, and we are guaranteed it had to carry at least 1 times the 60 floors above it, and the lower the floors the tougher and heavier they were –

It is just not physically possible to collapse a body through the path of most resistance at near free speed – it defies all common sense and at least three laws of physics.

So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each – what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges?

And if it is physically not even possible for Gravity to destroy the burning buildings within 10 seconds as is Physics fact – then it was not the fire or the jet crash nor the terrorist who brought the buildings down on 911.

Even additional bombs in the basement and elsewhere would not destroy the buildings in 10 seconds; it would require precision set, precision timed demolition on at least every third if not every second floor.

Conspiraloon Alert!

3 year old Kid

Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm

The question is how can you be so totally ignorant? Go and read the following websites:

9-11 Myths

Screwloosechange.blog

Internet Detectives.

All your questions will be answered.

911 conspiracies = DEBUNKED

to all the counter intelligence people that are posting lies please be aware that the truth will out and you will be punished. Notice that the guy who tried to counter 3 year old kids claims, gave no facts himself, told you to look at a report that he does not quote anything from, etc. Look at all the debunking sites and interviews all of them are obviously bogus as they never tackle the facts just attack the personalities.

http://www.netctr.com

I'm Neil's co-host on the Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute (i.e. the other cretin). Just like to note that our website is http://www.radiophonic.org.uk, where you'll also shortly be able to subscribe to a podcast of the show.

You guys have hit the nail on the head. Kudos to you both for having the balls to produce this, I'm sure many truthers will be calling for blood now.

Any report on the kind of feedback you've had since the show?

Please keep us all informed of what you're doing, and thank you to all who had the guts to take part and promote this show.

The cult is slowly being exposed thanks to brave efforts like this.

Yeah these troofers I don't know, I'm sure there are logical explainations for the collapse of 3 steel framed buildings in to their own footprint (the only 3 steel framed syscrapers to collapse due to fire damage in history).

I'm no scientist so I can't give answers as to how these buildings didn't topple (as logic would expect as they were hit on one side), I also cannot give you an explaination as to how jet fuel that burns at a maximum of 1500F could melt steel that had been certified to 2750F.

I'm sure the BBC (and IIRC CNN) have an explaination of how they predicted the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before its collapse (I just can't seem to find explainations for this despite hunting for them). If I predicted someones murder I'm sure it would be investigated thoroughly but this kind of examination of our BBC is not required (an examination would be a bit of a problem as the BBC have said they have lost all of their footage from Sept 11th 2001, quite amazing if true).

Of course the PNAC report that said that the desires of America to spread their democracy would not have enough support without some kind of 'new Pearl Harbour' is not a prediction of any sort (published one year prior to 911)

The strange lack of fighter jets over the most protected piece of airspace in the world (the Pentagon) is again understandable (albeit not to me) and the 2 released CCTV images are the only footage of the plane despite the amount of cameras focussed on this building.

Funny how Rumsfeld gave 3 different accounts of his actions on the morning of 9-11 to the commission and they, rather than querying this they combine 2 of the accounts and completely ignore the other.

Of course the fact that good old Dick Cheney says he arrived in the Whitehouse bunker at 10am despite witnesses putting him there some 35 minutes earlier (i.e. before the plane hit the Pentagon). Cheney was also reportedly told about the plane heading towards the Pentagon at 40, 30, 20 and 10 miles out and was asked 'if the orders still stand' and he said that they did (these obviously weren't the scramble orders to jets to intercept this plane as is standard operationg procedure as these orders were never given).

Your freind and mine George Dubya says that he saw the first jet hit the tower before going in to his meeting with his intellectual superiors in the pre-school classroom (this was of course impossible as the only footage of this wasn't shown until the following day). When he was told of the second plane hitting he sat there for another 20 minutes reading a book about goats rather than responding to the obvious problem.

Then of course Dubya spent endless hours to try and connect Iraq with Osama and the attack (despite the well known fact that Osama hated Saddam nearly as much as Dubya).

I'm completely with George when he says 'Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th' it's just I don't think that he is looking at the same conspiracy theory as me.

Hey-ho it'll be Iraq next, they are currently being told to stop their weapons program despite the fact that the IAEA have said that they don't have one. There'll be some poxy Powerpoint presentation on their nuclear prowess (that or a false flag of some description). The endless war on terror really will be endless if we carry on chasing weapons that don't exist.

400 professionals? Around the whole world you manage to find 400? Is that it? If there was any fact in these claims then ALL engineers etc would be crying out. In fact from the 400 professionals how many are experts in the fields relevant to the science of these claims?

Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked. You might not like it. It might not sit with your opinion but that's the facts. Deal with it. You got it wrong.

Thank you Reptor, you are really making my day.

Well, go on then just don't talk about it – let us see the maths and actual Physics.

Debunk the Physics, now is your chance old chap.

Give us one single experiment or example were a falling body takes the path of most resistance due to gravity alone.

Secondly, give us one single experiment or example were a falling body takes the path of most resistance and falls at nearly freefall speed using gravity alone.

And then just for extra points to prove we qualified folk don't know what we are talking about and how super brainy you are – show the world the maths to back up the claim.

Please show the Physics and the Maths.

Hahaaaa Reptor your entire response to my problems with the official story consists of ‘they couldn’t possibly do that’.

Well I bow to your superior knowledge and reasoning, I can see from your responses that you are totally close minded on this issue. All of the stuff I’ve put in my responses to you are freely available online, have a look in to it.

We aren’t making stuff up, the no planers and space weapons and hologram BS is not where we’re coming from (these theories are at best put forward by idiots or at worst a deliberate attempt to paint all people who don’t fall for the official story as nutcases).

My specific problems as listed above (at the risk of repeating myself) are: -

Only 3 steel framed modern skyscrapers have suffered a collapse due to fire damage. All 3 of those happened on 9-11 and all 3 collapsed into their own footprint. Now as I see it, the damage would have been asymetrical as the planes impact and main focus of the fire would have been on one side of each of the buildings. If this impact and subsequent fire had melted the steel (impossible due to the hardened steel and the burning temperature of kerosene as mentioned above, but even if we ignore that fact) then the buildings would have toppled over due to the second law of thermodynamics (the law of entropy). Now there is always an exception to the rule, so even though it contravenes the laws of physics I could probably write off one of the buildings exhibiting this behaviour as a freak occurence, but 3 freak occurences on the same day? Puhrlease!

The fact that all 3 buildings collapsed at near freefall speed (i.e as if there was no resistance), if you look at the dust clouds created from the crushing/exploding? of the cement those clouds would have taken a lot of energy to create (i.e. made a lot of resistance). If these clouds had been created by the natural collapse of the buildings each floor would have taken an amount of time to collapse and create the dust clouds and this ‘resistance’ would have slowed the collapse substantially (it didn’t).

The fact that WTC7 had no impact from a plane, there were what appeared to be some minor fires looking at the footage but the only propellant they can put in this building is diesel which burns substantially cooler than kerosene, but this building collapsed due to this fire when even kerosene from the planes doesn’t burn hot enough to melt the steel!

The many eye witness accounts that describe explosions at WTC7 as it was collapsing, to quote on NYFD employee ‘there was a pop, pop, pop as each floor went, like a demolition’

Now you mentioned the insurance companies and this is one that intrigues me, when I see video of the recent purchaser and insured party that owned WTC7 a Larry Silverstein on video saying how he agreed with the fire department to ‘pull’ WTC7 (‘pull’ is a term used by demolitions teams for the implosion of buildings using detonations), I wonder how on earth they agreed to pay out. I’m sure my house insurance wouldn’t pay out if my house burned down and I was on record as saying that I threw a molitov cocktail at it.

Just out of interest I’d like to know where you come up with the idea that it would take ‘THOUSANDS’ of people to do something like this, just think about the staff member in the Whitehouse bunker asking Cheney ‘if the order still stood’, if this order was not to scramble fighter jets to protect the Pentagon then would the staffer have had to have been in on it or would he just have been obeying the commands of his superior? Would he now like to stand up and inform on Dick Cheney, how far would he think that would get him, other than the dole queue and loss of pension etc? What could each person on their own know? It’s exactly how terrorist organisations work, in cells. Ever heard the term ‘plausible deniability’? The whole conspiracy could not be uncovered unless every person in every part decided to blow the whistle, now what each person has knowledge of would be a little part of the big picture and they would see their knowledge as inconsequential.

I mean the evidence for the US and UK going to war was clearly fabricated, the 45 minutes claim, the nuclear and biological arsenal, the mobile chemical labs (something a student dreamed up that was then put forward as fact), how many people must have been involved in that? How many of them are likely to have signed the official secrets act or the American equivalent? How many of them would be willing to risk a spell in jail to blow the whistle on something that on its own doesn’t really carry much weight.

Some other random ones: -

How did the BBC and CNN predict the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before it collapsed?

Why is Osama seen writing with his right hand in the video where he claims responsibility when the FBI website clearly says he is left handed? Did Osama forget which hand he writes with or are the FBI misinformed?

Just because they say you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you ;)

Question everything and look for yourself, don’t believe me or believe someone else, make your own mind up (what I would say is that a commission report that cost 1/80th of the amount of money spent on finding out what Bill Clinton was doing with his cigars is not the best place to start, also NIST couldn’t get real world models of the towers to fall over so they did a computer simulation so they could alter the parameters. Hey it’s no wonder people are asking for another investigation eh?)

What many of you people are overlooking about this broadcast is that it is not looking at the evidence it is mainly looking at how troofers conduct themselves. Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories.

This has been proven on this very page.

Ashley
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm | Link to this

“I’m sure there are logical explainations for the collapse of 3 steel framed buildings in to their own footprint (the only 3 steel framed syscrapers to collapse due to fire damage in history).”

Yes, the logical explanations can be found in the NIST report. Have you read the NIST report?

“I’m no scientist so I can’t give answers as to how these buildings didn’t topple (as logic would expect as they were hit on one side”

You don’t need to be a scientist – for the building to ‘topple over’ it would require a force pushing from the side. There was none. The only force on the towers was the greatest; gravity. The towers had no-where else to go but straight down. What were they going to do, tap-dance around New York for a while? PS. Have you read the NIST report?

“I also cannot give you an explaination as to how jet fuel that burns at a maximum of 1500F could melt steel that had been certified to 2750F.”

That’s because it’s impossible. The steel didn’t melt, it was heated and LOST STRENGTH, as neatly explained in the NIST report. Have you read the NIST report?

“I’m sure the BBC (and IIRC CNN) have an explaination of how they predicted the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before its collapse (I just can’t seem to find explainations for this despite hunting for them).”

Hunt some more (hint: try 9-11 Myths, Screwloosechange or
Internet Detectives.) Everyone involved knew WTC7 was coming down, that’s why they cleared the area and no-one was killed. the building was gutted by savage, multi-floor fires, one side had massive structural damage from debris from the collapsing towers, and the fucking thing was starting to lean over at an alarming angle…so, they figured it was probably gonna fall. Funny that…

Also, it fell down because gravity was the greatest force, or do you believe it should have joined the towers in a pirouette around New York? have you read the NIST report?

“If I predicted someones murder I’m sure it would be investigated thoroughly….”

It was. The 9-11 investigation was the largest in US history (and the world?)

“Of course the PNAC report that said that the desires of America to spread their democracy would not have enough support without some kind of ‘new Pearl Harbour’ is not a prediction of any sort (published one year prior to 911)”

Sigh. The reference to a ‘new Pearl Harbour’ was taken completely out of context bu the 9-11 truthers. The comment came during a debate about military prowess. The speaker suggested that history showed military improvements often came after some sort of dramatic event which spurred R&D within the military. He suggested this would occur if there was another dramatic events like a ‘new Pearl Harbour’.

“The strange lack of fighter jets over the most protected piece of airspace in the world (the Pentagon) is again understandable (albeit not to me)”

One of the major findings of the investigation was a shocking lack of communication between the different services…between NORAD, the civilian flight controllers, pilots, etc. In short, a level of incompetence. There were THOUSANDS of planes in the sky that day…jeez, go do some bleeding research (hint: read the NIST report).

“the 2 released CCTV images are the only footage of the plane despite the amount of cameras focussed on this building.”

Actually, no. There were bugger all cameras ‘focused’ on the building…they were focused on the car entry, the service station forecourt, etc., as most cameras are.

“Dick Cheney… ‘if the orders still stand’”

I’m getting tired, so get off your lazy backside and go find out.

“Then of course Dubya spent endless hours to try and connect Iraq with Osama and the attack”

You mean Bush was being a politician and trying to use 9-11 to push through his own agenda! Unbelievable!

Enough. You are a moron.

Next….

3 year old kid
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Link to this

“So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance?”

Me! (and a few hundred thousand engineers and physics professors) Gravity dictated where the thing was gonna go, and it dictated straight down. Where else was it going to go? Up? Sideways? Tell me, what is it about gravity you don’t understand?

“Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed?”

Me! (and ditto). The issue here is that word NEAR…it was NEAR free-fall speed, NOT free-fall speed. Tell me, genius, what speed should it have been? A second longer? Two seconds?

have ANY of your morons read the NIST report?

“Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details”

Er, more to the point, how many have NOT joined?
(hint: tens of thousands)

Edward, don’t expect these failed Communist and failed Socialists (NOW claiming to be CULT WATCHERS) to wake up EVER.

The fact is, they are science savvy poor – they are literally unable to grasp and logically process the important scientific 911 facts.

They are so weak minded and so perversely politically driven they allow 911 dust to cloud & choke their judgments; unburned bandannas to blind their vision and this so called “Cult Watch” Characters are the perfect example of were because they were not the centre of attention at somebody else’s public meeting, and because someone just happened to give them a heckle, they now are prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater and are equivalent to becoming holocaust type deniers.

And all this stuff peddled by the likes of Strug.

Quote:-

“What many of you people are overlooking about this broadcast is that it is not looking at the evidence it is mainly looking at how troofers conduct themselves. Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories.

This has been proven on this very page.”

Well pardon me for holding a professional scientific opinion about the most important aspect of 911, that being it is physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance at near freefall speed – it now turns out these characters don’t actually want to focus on what http://www.ae911truth.org/ is actually saying (the HARD scientific FACTS) but how some supporters address & behave at public meetings.

Well what can one say.

How is this for scientific method:-

They wheel in a left wing disgruntled socialists from “Cult Watch” who is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake UFO expert who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it – when neither of these Cretins has even the savvy to question if the CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official 911 Conspiracy plot.

I mean how sort of low can these Cretins Go?

Paul W

Thank you for your erudite reply and for the assertion that I am a moron, unfortunately this is the same kind of personal attack that tries to discredit an argument by resorting to insults as is commonly used by believers of the offical conspiracy theory (if you can’t discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger with an ad-hominem attack – nice).

Your insistence on repeating your ‘have you read the NIST report’ question does not make our arguments go away. NIST initially tried to use real world models to explain the collapse of the 3 buildings, they were completely unable to do this so then changed tack and used a computer simulation to prove their theories (where they could alter the input parameters to their hearts content). Now call me a cynical troofer conspiraloon but if they can’t get real world models to exhibit the behaviour they claim was responsible for the collapse and have to resort to doing it in theory then I have little faith in their findings.

When you tell me to read the NIST report to find out about how the lack of communication between the different services was one of the major contributing factors I’m guessing you mean the 9-11 commission report rather than the NIST report as the NIST report has no such information in it (of course you know this as you keep asking us if we’ve read it, you wouldn’t ask that question unless you had read it yourself eh ;)

You are clearly out of your depth regarding the idea that these buildings would topple over, if the plane impact and resultant fire was one one side of the building then the stresses on the building would be asymetrical. If the stresses on the building were asymetrical you would expect the top of the building to topple over to one side (as explained earlier think Jenga or if you are feeling up to it google for ‘the law of entropy’).

If as you claim that the steel lost strength then that would give even more credence to the idea that the top of the building would have toppled to one side or the other, a weakened piece of steel would not concertina down on itself rather it would go towards the path of least resistance (it would bend before breaking).

How you can claim that the 9-11 investigation was the largest in the world when the sum total of money spent on the 9-11 Commission report came to approximately $500,000 (just to put this in perspective over $40 million dollars was spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky investigation).

All your sighing and huffing and puffing does absolutely nothing to water down my arguments it just makes you look like you are in the playground rather than having an adult conversation.

With regards your assertion that there were only 2 cameras focussed on the area of impact at the Pentagon is absolutely hilarious, this is the most protected building in the world, if you are really of the mind that the images they’ve shown are the best they can offer then seriously I ask you to reconsider. In all likelihood it would be impossible to walk up to that building without a camera being able to get a good look at your face (this would be to deter terrorists from walking up and putting bombs up against the walls, DOH).

I would dearly love to know what you meant by the following: -

“Dick Cheney… ‘if the orders still stand’”

I’m getting tired, so get off your lazy backside and go find out.

Are you in receipt of knowledge that explains this away because you should let people know as no-one else is!

As for WTC7 being ‘gutted from savage multi floor fires’ that is clearly preposterous, go look at some archive footage and come back and say it again. WTC7 was not leaning in any direction whatsoever, there are loads of different angles the collapse was filmed from, please point me in the direction of one which shows this ‘leaning’ (also if it was leaning then the law of entropy would cause us to expect it topple over rather than down and in on itself but the laws of physics don’t seem to be able to convince you of anything).

With regards your question on how long it should have taken WTC7 to collapse, Stephen Jones calculated that just from the resistance of the concrete (ignoring any resistance the steel columns may have had) that the building should have taken just over 10 seconds to collapse rather than the 6.6 it did take (freefall speed with no resistance and in a vacuum would have taken 6 seconds).

As for the PNAC comment being taken out of context, I have read the report myself (it’s freely available online) and I fail to see where you are coming from with this. The gist of it is that America will not be able to spread it’s Pax Americana around the world unless a Pearl Harbour type incident occurs so as to make it a populist move.

With regards the BBC premonition of the collapse of WTC7, I’m sorry your explaination holds no water. This is only the 3rd modern steel framed skyscraper to collapse due to fire damage, no-one could have predicted its collapse some 25 minutes prior.

Please don’t resort to name calling again Paul it only serves to show an element of desperation on your part and that is not a good way to win an argument. Oh btw I loved how you called me lazy and then went on to answer half of my points by calling me a moron, is this not laziness epitomised ;)

Why are troofers ignoring the PEER REVIEW issue?

GET A PEER REVIEW

PEER REVIEW!!

PEER REVIEW!!

PEER REVIEW!!

Without that your science ain't worth shit.

You dismiss a peer review? OMG.

Maybe those who lost their jobs have done so because they have shown themselves to be incapable.

Incase you missed it … http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. “Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7″ points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse.

9/11 demolition theory challenged

An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a “controlled demolition”.

The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.

Resistance to collapse

Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.

In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.

“The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse,” Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.

Dr Seffen was able to calculate the “residual capacity” of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

He added that his calculations showed this was a “very ordinary thing to happen” and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.

The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.

This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive “squibs” can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.

Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

Dr. Keith A. Seffen

http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/

Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy…

For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is…

“Walter P. Murphy Professor of

Civil Engineering and Materials Science

Northwestern University

The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows…

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:

Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?”, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).

That means it’s not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It’s had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.

I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no “theory of intelligent design” except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.”

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/

The paper… http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html

Editor:

Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu

http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis

Editorial Board:

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html

Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html

Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/

Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php

Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/

Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html

Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/

Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/

Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5

Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm

Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm

Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm

Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592

George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm

Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi

Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/

James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/

Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml

Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i

Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show

Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse…

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
“Addendum to ‘Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? – Simple Analysis” (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Brannigan, F.L.
“WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings”
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

“Construction and Collapse Factors”
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P.
“Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster”
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

“Dissecting the Collapses”
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
“Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
“Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center”
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

“Collapse Lessons”
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
“TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering”
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
“World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations”
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
“Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?”
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
“Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site”
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
“No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report”
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
“Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing”
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center – Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

“WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives”
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

Dr Seffen should be commended for at least trying.

Even NIST did not do the 10-second destruction sequence. (I wonder Why?)

Dr Seffen is a very capable person and his mathematics skills are very good indeed.

However despite being rather imaginative and having a jolly good attempt at modeling the impossible – his analysis has several key glaring flaws some of which I have listed here:-

He has assumed there was no cross bracing. (The WTCs were all heavily cross-braced).

He assumes the towers collapsed uniformly – yet damage and fires were more prevalent on one side and we have a video of the top portion toppling.

He assumes there was no reinforced concrete when in fact there were 300,000 tonnes in each 110 floor WTC building.

His paper defies conservation of energy – there was less than 10% of the necessary energy in the entire upright structure needed to do what Dr Seffen claims happened.

His paper defies conservation of momentum. He claims the top smaller section crushed the heavier lower section whilst the top lighter section stayed in a perfect intact condition until after it had finished destroying the much larger and heavier lower 80+ floors.

These are the less technical problems with the paper of which can be proved easily almost none mathematically via freely available evidence.

Regarding peer review, whilst it is very important, it has one or two very deep flaws.

In the case of this particular Seffen paper the referees are anonymous. So how can this paper be effectively peer reviewed if the referees can not be contacted to make comments and back up their approval by providing actual EVIDENCE.

In relation to all my works, I never have it peer reviewed via journals. I keep it secret because of commercial reasons.

So shipmates and Cult watch pirates – Hands up all those who think burning jet fuel in air can weaken steel? DUH!!!!

Is there anybody else apart from Dr Keith Seffen that believes in Free Energy machines?

If so, does anyone want to buy a safe seafront villa in Baghdad?

RINFer

Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Good effort, but you'll get no-where: truthers are insane.

Just read the ravings of 3 year old Kid, Ashely and Co…it 'aint gonna t work, they're too far gone.

Too many bongs, too much paranoia, too many out-of-whack brain cells, too many insecurities.

Is this attacking the person? Damn right it is – if the NIST /Commission reports and the vast amount of online material from various experts and eyewitness doesn't change their mind, nothing will.

I post here so anyone new to the 9-11 'truth' garbage has an opportunity to listen to the other side. This is a very poorly represented faction of the 'truth' movement; don't expect them to offer debunking sites to newbies so they can compare things.

"I just want to talk facts and not attack the person"….

Pah. It's all troofer bunk. I posted an answer to their idiotic comments, and said 'moron' once, and their reply? They answered NONE of the issues I raised but whined on about name-calling. Pathetic.

All they ever do is run and hide when caught in the headlights of reality.

Have to say though, their later posts on how the buildings should have fallen is a riot. What a bunch of fruit-cakes.

More info on black smoke from 911myths:

"While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke indicates nothing meaningful."
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTroubl…

The whole article is: http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html

Countdown to idiot troofers ignoring the debunking and screaming about other 'anomalies' 5, 4, 3, 2….

Paul W

4 posts on the trot and I am raving lol. Look Paul you are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. As for calling me a moron you didn’t just do that you ignored half of my post. You have not, as you claim, answered my idiotic comments (which is in itself another personal attack). Why are you getting yourself worked up in to such a frenzy that you have to insult people. I’m not insulting you so why do you feel the need?

Anyway myself and 3yo kid aren’t alone, 36% of people questioned in a national poll in the US believe that the US administration was complicit in some way. There are former members of the intelligence community that believe it was an inside job, a former prime minister of a western country, physics professors, architects, first responders, employees that were there on the day, firemen, policemen, civil engineers, soldiers and countless millions of other people from all walks of life (but of course you know more than all of these put together).

It is not an open and shut case as you would like the rest of the world to believe and do you know what would appease many of these people? A new well funded and powerful inquiry that covers all the bases, rather than starting with a conclusion and looking only for facts which prove them right.

Some of your responses are clearly wrong, ‘pull’ is an industry term for controlled demolition, anyway what did Larry Silverstein mean when he said it? The only answer he has managed to give is to pull the firefighters out of the building, this is a clear lie as no firefighting took place inside WTC7 according to a member of NIST and according to the FEMA report. Now such a clear inconsistency should be investigated, expecially when you consider more than 3,000 people died on that day and countless others are ill from the dust clouds that they were told were safe (let alone the illegal invasion of a sovereign country that ensued as a direct result).

A new investigation is required and all and sundry should be able to put their POV in to that (even the loopy space weapons and holograms ideas etc) so that every avenue can be explored.

Looking at the evidence, the most obvious cause for those buildings to fall were demolition charges, now believers of the official story are coming up with stuff like ‘the molten metal seen coming out of the building is a UPS that was on the 81st floor’ and all sorts of other explainations to anomolies and you are eating them up like a spoon fed baby (btw Aluminum doesn’t glow bright yellow when molten, go find it out for yourself). Now I am sure you are aware that in the archive footage of the collapse there is a clear shot of yellow glowing metal coming out of the building just before collapse, this is consistent with the use of thermate or thermite. Also there are countless interviews with clean up crews and footage that says and shows in no uncertain terms that there were pools of molten metal in the clean up site. Now if the temperatures weren’t hot enough to melt the steel (which is a conclusion of the NIST report), then where did the molten metal come from?

Please don’t patronise me Paul and tell me how much more you know than me, because at best you look bigheaded but to 36% of Amricans you look like something a lot less generous.

Now I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier when you confused the NIST Report with the Kean Report (9-11 commission report) I am less inclined to do so really but I would stop short of calling you names out of politeness. Stop telling people to go and read the NIST report, you clearly haven’t read it but you seem to place a lot of faith in it.

You say that the buldings didn’t collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition but in a similar manner. For the benefit of everyone reading this please can you outline the main differences as you see them? (oh and I’m not on about what NIST says, I’m on about what it looked like)

You say that the woman seen looking out of the entry hole is there after the fires have moved on elsewhere, I’m interested to know how the steel supports were weakened due to fire as the only place where the Kerosene was is where the plane was (or is there some special non-conspiracy kerosene that climbs up stairwells and ignites itself on higher floors?). The reason I ask this is that a standard office fire without the accellerant kerosene would burn at a substantially lower temperature.

If, as you claim, the fire had moved elsewhere that would imply that the kerosene had all burnt off and that the temperature in that area had dropped low enough for people to walk about in it. How on earth are we to believe that with temperatures low enbough for people to survive, steel certified to 2750F for 2 hours weakened enough for collapse? (at a substantially lower temperature for a substantially shorter period of time).

You say that the symtyrical collapses due to asymetrical damage is explained in NIST (not to the satisfaction of a good deal of people), but then you go on to say it will be explained in the upcoming WTC7 report. Now are you clairvoyant, so important you have been given a sneak preview or just plain guessing?

You just appear to be going off to any site you can find in google and quoting their debunking, now I’d like to know have all of these sources been peer reviewed Paul or are you just taking their word for it?

I don’t believe every 9-11 conspiracy out there as I have stated before, but you appear to hold as gospel any piece of information that gives you a chance to debunk. I have used my own critical faculties to come to my own conclusions from looking at the evidence (archive footage etc), a rudimentary understanding of physics, common sense and real world knowledge. You appear to just be putting all your eggs in the debunking websites basket.

To be honest Paul I hope you are right, because if you aren’t then there are bigger problems in the world than the non-existent nuclear weapons program of Iran and the US hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East.

Do you think it is reasonable that $40M is spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal but only $500,000 on the Kean Report? Don’t you think that it is an insult to those who died on the day and since due to the events of that day?

If I was a relative of one of the victims I would be absolutely outraged that the philandering of one man is seen to be 80 times more important that the deaths of 3,000 odd people and the subsequent deaths from the effects.

Wouldn’t you like to see a new inquiry? All of your debunking could be made official instead of guesswork. Then you wouldn’t have to put up with idiotic morons like me.

Anyway toodle-pip for now :)

No, go and take your filthy lies, hate crimes & Delphi mind tactics elsewhere MaxPane.

What we should be doing is Exposing this Hit Piece Diatribe radio broadcast LIES for what it is – subtle HATE MEDIA.

It is promoting the HATE and distrust of Professionals such as 400+ Professional Architects and Engineers at

http://www.ae911truth.org/

from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS – whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics.

The NAZIS used EXACTLY the same type of tactics with the Reichstag fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Let us Examine the scientific method used for this HIT PIECE Cretins Guide to 911 and TAKE THEM TO PIECES, DUST AND RUBBLE:-

They wheel in a left wing disgruntled socialists/Commey who

set up “Cult Watch” who is obviously not scientifically

trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering [who has

spent time in jail ] & a fruitcake UFO expert who just

happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has

ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom

just because he really read the official pack of lies and

believed it –

when neither of these Cretins has even the savvy to question

if the CIA actually officially ever wanted Osmar Binladen

for the official outrageous 911 Conspiracy plot.

I mean how low can these HATE Cretins Go?

So shipmates and "Cult Watch" "HATE CRETS" – Is Osmar

Bin-whatever wanted by the CIA for 911 – or NOT?

AND

IF NOT – Why NOT?

And do you still think burning jet fuel can weaken steel? DUH!!!!

The "9/11 was an inside job" theory relies in part upon evidence of molten metal found at ground zero.

Deutsch Bank hired a firm, RJ Lee Group, to conduct tests on the WTC dust as part of a study of how to clean up their area. Their report concludes:

"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20St…

Similar spherical particles were found by Professor Stephen Jones.

The melting point of steel and iron is known. Therefore this is direct and irrefutable evidence of temperatures exceeding those which are possible by hydrocarbon (jet fuel) fires. The existance of molten metal on the scene is backed up by eyewitnesses testimony, while these extreme temperatures were also recorded by NASA thermal satellite images.

NIST denies this evidence exists, although they have admitted that they themselves did not look for such evidence, their reasoning being "there's no point looking for something that isn't there."

Can we agree that since there is evidence of temperatures beyond those which are possible by hyrdocarbon fires, then there should be a new investigation?

Could such molten and evaporated metal affect the building collapse? Or is it insignificant? If you think these high temperatures contributed to the collapse, then wouldn't it be sensible to find out what caused such temperatures?

It would help us to more fully understand the mechanism of the collapse and prevent such disasters in the future. The NIST report theorises on the conditions and events that lead up to the collapse of the towers, but stops at the actual moment of collapse.

NIST ignores evidence of molten iron (or steel), because it states that hydrocarbon fires cannot burn hot enough to melt steel or iron. Therefore, according to NIST, these spherical particles cannot exist.

This shouldn't be about "who is right." This is an important issue concerning the safety of steel structures, especially for those who live or work inside them. There are still questions that need to be answered.

It is irrelevant if people believe the Holocaust or not, So WHAT? Who cares about what happened 60+ years ago?

That was then – this is now!

What we should be doing is Exposing this Hit Piece radio broadcast for what it is –

It is promoting the distrust of Professionals such as 400+ Professional Architects and Engineers from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS – whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics by peddling nonsense about Holocaust denial.

Let us Examine the scientific method used for this “Cretins Guide to 911” and utterly debunk them :-

I repeat myself:-

They wheel in this disgruntled socialists/ Commey from “Cult Watch” who was told to clear off by “the Troofers” , is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture,

Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake self confessed UFO NUT who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is

a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it – when neither of these brainy Chaps has even the savvy to question if the

CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official outrageous 911 Conspiracy plot.

I mean – what is going on?

So – Is Osmar Bin-whatever wanted by the CIA for 911 or NOT? AND IF NOT – Why NOT?

Does anyone else see a big problem here?

Does anyone else understand that If the truth is not exposed many more lives will continue to be lost.

Tina

Ummm no I haven't read the Commission report, I don't read fiction. In all seriousness I have no appetite for something quite so dry and I do know for a fact that a lot of the things I mention are not included in the report so reading it is not going to appease me anyway (there aren't answers in it for most of the questions 3yo kid, Toby and myself pose above for instance).

As for branding all truthers as antagonistic I think you'll find I've been called an idiot and a moron but have managed to refrain from name calling myself (have a read if you disbelieve me). I think you'll find that I am trying to discuss it, I am avoiding getting 'all ranty' and am letting the insults slide. Why when 3yo kid calls someone a cretin you jump all over it but when I'm called an idiot and a moron you ignore it? Do you have a bias? Are you being selective with the 'evidence'?

Some of the things I've mentioned I don't need to be a physicist to understand, like asymetrical damage to something should produce an asymetrical effect (I even used Jenga to illustrate my point, that's how little it needs physics). I also don't need to be a physicist to ask where molten metal came from when the fires weren't hot enough to cause it. I also don't need to be a physicist to know that if a fire is raging with enough intensity to 'weaken' steel hardened to withstand temperatures of 2750F that it would not be possible for human beings to be wandering around in it. I don't need to be a physicist in order to ask why no jets were scrambled around the Pentagon, I don't need to be a physicist in order to ask if Osama is left handed according to the FBI then how come he is seen writing with his right hand in the video where he supposedly claims responsiblity (it's beside the point that in the video he looks more like my dad made up to look like Osama than Osama ;) I can carry on but I don't really want to. If these questions are ever going to go away then a new inquiry is not necessary but vital in the intersts of all concerned. I fully expect you not to agree as you have shown your bias in your posting, probably without even noticing it, it's funny how this subject polarizes people isn't it.

Juice

The work of fiction comment was a joke (I thought that would have been fairly obvious by the next sentence starting 'In all seriousness……')

In all seriousness the 9-11 Commission Report started with a conclusion (that 19 Arabs attacked America and the reasons they got away with it is because of incompetence and various other coincedences) and only looked for facts to prove this, there was no other possibilities entertained and so many questions remain unanswered.

The idea of controlled demolition was not entertained so not investigated. If I told you that the collapses of those buildings could definitely have occured due to controlled demolition, would you dispute this?

If I asked you where the molten metal came from would you be able to furnish me with an answer from the report?

Can you explain why Osama doesn't look like Osama in the responsibility video, how come he writes with his right hand when the FBI tell us he is left handed? Would you get those answers from the 9-11 Commission Report?

At the end of the day I'm not going through the questions again as I have put them up plenty of times in this thread. For crying out loud look at the questions that remain unanswered, don't just slag people off as troofers (you are doing what is often claimed of truthers). These questions need answering. Do you have answers to every question I've posed? Did you get those answers from the 9-11 commission report or did you get them from websites?

The actual science has never been peer reviewed, that is very different from not being able to pass peer review.

I'm not after the moon on a stick, I just think that there are so many unanswered question that it demands a fresh look.

Not one of the official story proponents on here have been able to answer my questions. Paul w seems to take one question out of 20, debunk it (using whatever site he can find) and then pour scorn on the questioner in order to try and discredit the other 19 questions.

Thanks for that Juice.

You do make some valid points, even if the report was total TITS UP – one should read it.

That is, unless you know prior to reading it – its an absolute pile of crock.

Here is an analogy you will grasp easily:-

Suppose you have a corner shop, which is precisely 1/4 of a mile from your front door.

Suppose you phone the shop and put in an order for groceries, and when you ask the assistant how long they will be they say – "less than 10 seconds".

Now you put the phone down and sure enough, less than 10 seconds later the doorbell rings and there is the delivery you ordered.

Now let us analyze this rather odd scenario.

The delivery van appears to be just an ordinary Escort van. So, how is it even physically possible for the van to get from the shop to your house in less than 10 seconds?

But hold on a minute – how long would it have taken to pick & pack the order?

So, then you have to get your thinking cap on.

The only possible way the order could have got there within 10 seconds of the phone being put down is if the order had already been picked and packed and the delivery van was nearly outside the house when the phone call was made.

If it was a regular order this is not unexceptional and the Physics makes perfect sense.

However, if the order was not a regular order and no order has ever been put before because you have just moved in from Australia, and the van turns up within 10 seconds of your call à you have 100% proof the guy must have broken the speed limit and that to do so his van would have had to have at least several hundred brake horsepower under the hood.

Now seeing as it is an ordinary escort van, and seeing how the order would have to have been picked and packed prior to transport – you know such a fiction is totally Physically IMPOSSIBLE.

Regarding 911

And so, because one knows the times, heights and the acceleration due to gravity, a simple equation H=1/2gt^2 absolutely proves 911 could be nothing but Controlled Demolition.

And we can know this with 100% accuracy – that is why NIST did not cover the fall sequence and neither did the Omission Commission.

So why read a full report you know is totally wrong?

just read & ignore the conclusions.

Thanks Tina & others.

The powers that be, know most of the population are not science savvy, they also know that of those who are science savvy they can control them from blabbing without even having to lift a finger.

Imagine this, you work 10 years just to become a Qualified Physicist or Engineer or Architect. To even start that you had to work your butt off at school and college.

Now imagine you now have your PhD and a position which is paying you a living or good wage. You have a wife and children to support, mortgage to pay and Kids to get through college etc. You have the car payments, the bill payments and you have holiday money to find.

Along comes 911.

3,000 people die.

The governments of the world say it was 19 Muslim hijackers what done it etc etc.

What do you do?

You have all these personal responsibilities, marriage, children, dog ,cat etc – they all need feeding and clothing etc.

Let’s suppose you know 100% in your own mind the official government story sucks. What do you do?

Well, I will tell you what the smart people do – the smart people say and do NOTHING. They keep their head down, they say nothing to anyone which can rock the boat.

Departments need funding; they get that funding ultimately from taxpayers via the controlling Government funding bodies. If a professor starts blabbing off they are told they are putting the funding at risk, which is putting all of their jobs and reputations at risk. So the pressure to "act responsibly" is very powerful.

The same applies with the military, you will notice only officers who have retires ever speak out.

Well, in academia a scientist never retires really until they die. Imagine if the scientist has retired, do you suppose they are willing to risk the credibility of their life’s work and speak out?

And not only be attacked by the Government side, but by the likes the “HATE CRETS” from “Cult watch”.

Tina, what would you do if you knew?

Dear All,

This is a Physics proof 911 was a Controlled demolition for peer review by you and the whole wide world.

Start of world peer review à

First we must identify what we already know as absolute

FACT: –

FACT 001: Twin towers 1 & 2 were 1,368 ft and 1362 ft respectively. (without TV mast)

Let us pick the tallest one to be conservative and convert the feet units into SI units (Metres)

The tallest tower was 417 m to the nearest metre.

Fact 002: We know near the surface of the earth at sea level we can use g = 9.81 m/s2 (metres per second per second), which is a scientifically accepted approximation of gravity at sea level.

Fact 003: according to the NIST report & video evidence we know the towers fell in just under 10 Seconds each.

Fact 004: Any body falling in a vacuum will always fall faster than if air is present due to the elimination of air resistance.

So now we look in every physics advanced level or degree level text book on the planet, even in Chinese, and look up the equation for a falling body at sea level in a vacuum.

Which is H = 1/2g(t^2)

Were

(H) is hight of fall , (g) is the acceleration due to gravity & (t) is the time taken for the fall straight down.

Let us first run a factual mathematical simulation by excluding all of the air.

417 = ½ * 9.81 * (t^2)

when we rotate the equation to put ( t ) as the subject we get

[Square root (2(417))/9.81) ] = ( t ) = 9.22 seconds

So in a perfect vacumme at sea level if we dropped any mass from the top of the tallest WTC it would take 9.22 seconds to hit the ground.

Now we look at FACT 004 again

Fact 004: Any body falling in a vacuum will always fall faster than if air is present due to the elimination of air resistance.

So in other words, it is physically not possible for anything to fall faster than 9.22 seconds from 417 metres at sea level in air.

Now on 911 the jet slammed in to one tower and then slammed into the other tower.

Let us take the worst case scenario, let us take the case were there are just over 80+ undamaged lower floors below the damage point.

This means there is the largest pile driver or (Top Bit) to fall through the bottom bit.

NIST publish and video evidence state both towers fell in under 10 seconds.

10.00 – 9.22 = 0.78 seconds

So what the BUSH Government is trying to claim is the top bit some 20 odd floors, fell and crashed through the bottom 80+ undamaged bottom floors at almost freefall speed of decent.

Were 9.22 seconds would have been the time of freefall speed in a perfect vacuum.

Now let us hypothetically remove the bottom undamaged 80+ floors for one moment.

The falling top bit would have had air resistance as it fell the near ¼ mile to earth, its footprint was exactly 1 square acre.

But let us ignore any slowing air resistance just to be ultra conservative in our calculations.

So, after ignoring slowing air resistance we now find that the bottom strongest, heaviest lower 80+ floors were crashed through by the top 20 so floors, and the time taken for this was almost identical to if the 80+ floors had not even been there at all.

It simply defies almost every known law of physics, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum etc, and the bottom strongest and heaviest 80+ floors Physically can not offer next to ZERO resistance.

This is not physically possible for a near 1/4 mile of building matter to offer near zero resistance.

This is because less than one second prior to the building starting to disintegrate, the very fact the building held itself upright proves it had at minimum 1 times working load resistance.

Suddenly the same 1/4 mile building structure offered almost Zero working resistance.

HOW?

The only possible way this can happen is Controlled Demolition.

PROVED! 911 was Controlled Demolition and NOT a Gravity collapse.

The Japan times

Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts global

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080617…

Now he has the evidence to prove the CD in any court in the world.

Hello again Ashley, 3 year old kid and other readers, I’m back with a few more comments and questions!

Again, I’d like to thank both Ashley and 3 year old kid for their comments and their time.

Ok, firstly to address points raised by 3 year old kid. You mention the fact that scientists who work hard for their qualifications, earn the wage for their homes and family wouldn’t want to risk it all. I understand that.

But as you said, 3,000 people died that day, that may (I would put that in italics and bold if I could) encourage me to speak out, but may not. However, not all scientists would have the responsibilities listed and may well speak out. So, let’s see who I can think of who has spoken out (please add more people as I’m sure this isn’t the complete list)…Dr Judy Wood (mechanical engineering), Dr Morgan Reynolds (economics), Dr James Fetzer (history and philosophy of science), Dr Steven Jones (physics). Then there are a few others who haven’t got an academic background (from what I can tell) in science….Jim Hoffman (software engineer) and Dr David Ray Griffin (philosophy of religion and theology). I could go on with a few more, but these are the people who often get quoted and cited when it comes to issues surrounding 9/11.

Why is it then that the work of Dr Wood, Dr Reynolds, Dr Fetzer and Dr Jones re 9/11 hasn’t been peer reviewed and doesn’t appear in reputable scientific journals?

3 year old kid, you ask what I would do? Well, like I said, it does depend on circumstances and situations. Let’s say for argument sake, I’m a doctor in physics and can prove these things, I have no family (as in no spouse, no children) just have my own mortgage/rent and bills to pay….not a hugely unlikely scenario. What would I do? Share the work I’ve done with others, aim to get it peer reviewed. At the end of the day, I’d be fighting for the memory and tragic loss of the people and families on that day, and for truth. That would be a risk worth taking. On the flip side, if I had a spouse, children, maybe the answer would be different.

But, there are scientists out there sharing their work. I won’t repeat myself at this point.

You later talk about a ‘world peer review’. Nice idea, but again, we (the population at hand) are not the correct peers, we are not the experts.

Ashley – I apologise if I implied the ‘they’ meant the whole truth movement. I obviously did not word this correctly. Again, I know that you have not conducted yourself in a manner which has resulted in name calling and that you have been called name yourself here. It was the case that the first person to respond was from the truth movement calling names and getting (what I consider) a bit ranty. Again, I apologise to taint all truthers with this.

Commission Report – I know that the report was meant to be independent, but surely we know that the government had a hand in it. I’m not saying (and haven’t said) that the report is true or accurate. What I AM saying is that you need to look at both sides of an argument to make a complete conclusion. You can discredit any information you choose when making your judgement, but you still need to look at the evidence presented. It is a concern of mine that people ‘pick and choose’ the evidence that best fits, rather than looking at opposing arguments.

Ashley – I agree with you on the war criminals but I’d include a few others in there too, like Blair.

Back to the physics, again 3 year old kid loses me with the science. I’m not scientific, I was no good at it at school! If you’re aiming the equation explanation at me, I’d need it in proper layman’s terms.

Oh, and I don’t see how Yukihisa Fujita “has the evidence to prove the CD in any court in the world.”

It is also a shame that some of my other points weren’t addressed.

Ok, now that I’ve addressed some points….took a while, sorry! I’d like to ask some other questions/issues concerning controlled demolition.

Controlled demolition (CD) – I’ve read that during a CD, explosives are placed at the bottom of the building and it is the explosives purpose to destroy the structure of the building. During this CD, it is the force of gravity which is used to bring down the building, not the explosives. So, with this in mind, regardless the towers were subject to CD, they would have been brought down by gravity anyway.

People seem to judge the way that the towers fell, fell at free-fall speed. But if you look at footage, debris from the building falls faster than the structure. The debris also falls faster than the dust cloud…the cloud falling faster than the structure. So, did the structure fall at free-fall if debris was falling faster?

When the towers fell, didn’t they fall from the middle? Around the 80/90th floor? So if explosives were put at the bottom, why didn’t it fall from the bottom?

However, if the argument is to go that the towers were fitted with explosives throughout, wouldn’t this be a massive job? And why would explosives be needed to fit throughout, surely it only needed one lot at the bottom? This then poses other questions like, how did they manage to set off the explosives whilst it fell and how did they manage to fit the explosives with no one knowing.

The Hudson Building (over 100ft shorter than WTC1 and 2) was brought down by CD. It took 12 people 24 days to put in the 4,118 charges into the building. So, if WTC1 and 2 are both taller than the Hudson Building, is it really possible that they managed to sneak all those explosives in over such a long period?

I’m going to leave it there for now. I’d appreciate some thoughts on the matter and I’m not saying I have answers or have made my mind up on what happened. These are questions that I’d like some clear answers to.

Thanks :)

"The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down. " http://www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.h…

Ahhhhh its Mr paul W who knows all about the Holocaust or should we say "burnt offerings". Good morning Sir, did you sleep well?

Have you just got up and thought of that?

Well, here is some more ignorance for you to learn, the term SEMITE as in "ANTI SEMITISM" actually refers not to just Israelis but Arabs who occupy the surrounding Israeli areas too.

What the "TRRRRRRROOOOOOOFFFFFFEEERS" dislike and are against is the murder and mistreatment of ARAB SEMITES by ISREALI SEMITES.

ZIONISTS today ARE equivalent to NATZIS in 1930s Germany. It is Zionists (Israeli NAZIS) "TRRRROOOOOOFFFFFFERS" would like to stop from doing EVIL – good Jewish people are indeed victims of these Israeli NAZIS (Zionists) just as much as the Arab Palestinians are.

So to educate Mr PW with yet more “TRRROOOOOFFFEEER” ignorance See here a real nice group of Jewish chaps trying to tell the world how it really is and being attacked by some crazy ZIONIST NAZI type.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zion…

Basically Jewry has been hijacked by Atheist Nationalist types (Zionist NAZIS) after many good Jews were murdered in the 1930s by Hitler’s Nazis.

Anti Zionist is not Anti Semitism.

Only a political opportunist would try & confuse the two.

For Example, I personally seriously dislike NAZIS, but I like most Germans? So it is with Israelis, I strongly dislike Israeli Nationalist (Zionists NAZIS) but I like Israeli people in general.

Hi Tina,

You are correct, Gravity is what brings a Controlled Demolition and a Gravity Collapse down.

The way we can prove the difference between a Gravity Collapse and a Controlled Demolition is by seeing if the material underneath the damaged 80+ floors offered any resistance to the material falling through.

As the peer review physics clearly proves for the world to see – the bottom strongest and heaviest 80+ floors offered near Zero resistance hence proving Controlled Demolition.

Sorry if this Science upsets you but I have a duty to inform.

The difference being of course Controlled Demolition on 911 would mean most of those 3,000 victims were murdered by Terrorists, but not the 19 Muslim hijackers, because remember they were supposedly on the plains.

I am sorry to say this but the official US Government jet fuel gravity Collapse story is not even Physically possible for it defies just about every law of physics.

What the governments are doing is rewarding with promotions such as Dr Keith Seffen those who help support the Gravity Collapse theory, but those who offer conflicting proof are victimized and vilified, indeed some whistle blowers have been sacked.

Not only that but then the likes of “HATE CREEPS” like “Cult Watch” also go around trying to discredit these whistle blower professionals too.

Well I say now is your opportunity to try and learn some Physics Tina, copy and past the proof I have posted and put it past an Engineer of Physicist or Mathematician you know and trust.

I really do wish I was wrong, but I am not.

I would like nothing better than for someone to prove this physics wrong.

3 year old kid, thanks for the response, but I'd be grateful if you could also address the other points that I have made.

I don't mean to be rude here, but you seem to be repeating yourself in the last few coments you have made.

Science doesn't 'upset' me, I just don't understand it. I've explained this already.

I am guessing that you disagree with the link I gave about CD in an above comment?

Also, it may be worth you looking into the history of the term 'anti-semitism' and the dictionary definition.

Oh, and as far as 'peer review', have you published a paper and submitted it to the relevant bodies for peer review? Or if you haven't publihsed a paper, why don't you do it?

See, I've responded to your comments, could you please address the comments I've made in this and previously.

Thank you.

Thanks Ashley for your response.

As you mention, it would take a long time to put all those explosives and charges into such a large building. Again, I'll post in what I said before about the Hudson Building…

The Hudson Building (over 100ft shorter than WTC1 and 2) was brought down by CD. It took 12 people 24 days to put in the 4,118 charges into the building. So, if WTC1 and 2 are both taller than the Hudson Building, is it really possible that they managed to sneak all those explosives in over such a long period?

Again, so if it were CD how much time do you think they had to fit all those explosives and charges without anyone noticing or becoming suspicious?

I can't find a quote at the moment, so I may be wrong about this. But I'm sure I've read that security and sniffer dogs were apparently removed from WTC1 and 2 for around 5 days. But 5 days surely isn't enough time to fit the explosives and charges?

Tina

I'm no expert in CD so I am guessing a lot of stuff. Logistically I admit it does seem difficult but then on the CDI website in the details of the CD of the Sheikh A. Alakl Residential & Commercial Center they say 'At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations. – Now this is only a 17 storey building but I don't think the idea of 9-11 collapses being controlled demolition can be written off from a purely logistical perspective.

I guess that a lot of the time fitting out a building for implosion is the wiring of it all, if as some suggest the charges were set off by radio then these could have been made and readied prior to install (thus making the time to ready shorter than with conventional wiring). btw this is complete supposition.

I don't have blueprints of the towers but as I understand it the central core (the area within the central columns) is given over to lifts, stairwells, services etc. These would certainly be the easier areas to get to. As for the columns on the periphery of the building your guess is as good as mine. There was a power down for 36 hours in one of the buildings on the weekend prior but that is only one tower so I don't know.

Like I said I don't have all the answers, but I do have a lot of questions.

Tina

Yes I am aware of that, looking at the pictures there appears to have been quite a lot of it left.

My logic says to me that as this had partially collapsed, that it would have been a more difficult environment to work in and a lot more care would have been taken whilst wiring the building hence more time (supposition again I'm afraid as we don't know how stableunstable the building was).

As mentioned in their info, they had to be careful about how the building fell so as not to effect the excavation of bodies in the already collapsed portion, so it wasn't a case of chuck a load of dynamite at it and see what happens.

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that they wouldn't have seen this as an easier job than a still standing, complete and structurally sound building. I doubt they would have viewed a partial collapse as a helping hand or a head start.

What did you people think of this vid?

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zion…

Basically it states Jewry has been hijacked by Atheist Nationalist types (Zionist NAZIS) after many good Jews were murdered in the 1930s by Hitler’s Nazis.

Does this video prove Anti Zionist is not Anti Semitism?

Or do we need more evidence?

Watch as Zionist Nazi thugs beat up a real peaceful jewish chap and stab him in the back.

Should I be against Zionists NAZI People or not?

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zion…

I am sorry about sending the same link several times I meant to send links to different videos as evidence for discussion, here are the links as they should have been.

—————————————————————————————————

A real nice group Jewish chap tells about the Evil Nationalist (NAZI) Zionists part 001

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zion…

——————————————————————————————————-

A real nice group of Jewish chap tells about the Evil Nationalist (NAZI) Zionists part 002

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zion…

——————————————————————————————————-

Zionist Nazi thugs beat up and stab a nice Jewish holy man in the back.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zion…

So am I a bad person if I don’t like these Zionist thugs?

The blinking links are not doing what they are supposed to do, to get the different videos go to the links on the left hand side and you will see the videos there.

Ms T

If I am able to answer I will be delighted, please send me your question again and excuse me for missing you out the first time around.

I did not claim to be politically correct Ms T. The fact I do not like Bully thug Zionist Nazis proves that.

I stand by what I said about this particular program as it failed to even ask or answer the most simplest question – why is Osmar Binladen not want ed by US law enforcement for 911?

Re the CD I suspect the Explosives were already set prior to the jet crashes. From what I recall there were reports of secondary explosions prior to the collapse sequence initiation. However I can only prove for certain it was a Controlled Demolition any other information will have to come from in-depth investigation.

The following is in response to 3 year old kid, but of course, anyone is free to answer.

Questions I have previously asked:

if what the truthers are saying is true, what next? What do the truthers want to achieve from this? Of course one answer would be the ‘truth’, I understand and support that! But what else? 9/11 has been and gone. There are major issues going on in the world right now that need to be stopped! I almost worry that some of these people continue to spend their lives questioning, without any real answers (as in “what did happen on 9/11?”) and for what? What outcome do you want to see?

Why is it then that the work of Dr Wood, Dr Reynolds, Dr Fetzer and Dr Jones re 9/11 hasn’t been peer reviewed and doesn’t appear in reputable scientific journals?

People seem to judge the way that the towers fell, fell at free-fall speed. But if you look at footage, debris from the building falls faster than the structure. The debris also falls faster than the dust cloud…the cloud falling faster than the structure. So, did the structure fall at free-fall if debris was falling faster?

Why would explosives be needed to fit throughout, surely it only needed one lot at the bottom?

Also, it may be worth you looking into the history of the term ‘anti-Semitism’ and the dictionary definition. I wonder if you have done this?

Oh, and as far as ‘peer review’, have you published a paper and submitted it to the relevant bodies for peer review? Or if you haven’t published a paper, why don’t you do it?

Re the video link, I’ve seen it before. Do you know anything about the group of Jews who were talking?

You say you are a professional, maybe I have missed this, but a professional in what?

Does calling people ‘cretins’ and using terms such as ‘Zionist Nazi’ part of your professionalism? (If your reference "I do not claim to be politically correct" is your answer, our definitions of 'political correctness' and 'abusive terms/name calling' differ).

Tina,

I've answered a few of those questions already for you, namely: -

if what the truthers are saying is true, what next? What do the truthers want to achieve from this? Of course one answer would be the ‘truth’, I understand and support that! But what else? 9/11 has been and gone. There are major issues going on in the world right now that need to be stopped! I almost worry that some of these people continue to spend their lives questioning, without any real answers (as in “what did happen on 9/11?”) and for what? What outcome do you want to see? (see my comment 'to be proven wrong')

Why is it then that the work of Dr Wood, Dr Reynolds, Dr Fetzer and Dr Jones re 9/11 hasn’t been peer reviewed and doesn’t appear in reputable scientific journals? (see my comment 'which academic journal is likely to print it when academics are losing their posts for questioning 9-11')

Why would explosives be needed to fit throughout, surely it only needed one lot at the bottom? (see my comment 'Controlled Demolition Inc's demolition of the 32 storey building with charges on 11 floors to make sure it fell safely', I suggested that the safety of surrounding buildings on 9-11 may have been a factor)

I'll attempt to answer a couple of your other questions for you if that's OK

People seem to judge the way that the towers fell, fell at free-fall speed. But if you look at footage, debris from the building falls faster than the structure. The debris also falls faster than the dust cloud…the cloud falling faster than the structure. So, did the structure fall at free-fall if debris was falling faster?

Please can you point me in the direction of a video showing this, this one -> http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc+collaps… clearly shows the molten metal that doesn't exist according to NIST and then goes on to show the collapse, the collapsing floors outpace the debris as far as I can see. It may be that lower down there were no explosives (and it was relying on gravity to do the work so the debris may very well have overtaken it if that was the case. It certainly wasn't the case for the floors shown in this video), like we have agreed we don't know enough about controlled demolition to offer a definitive answer.

Also, it may be worth you looking into the history of the term ‘anti-Semitism’ and the dictionary definition. I wonder if you have done this?

The Online Etymology Dictionary definition of a Semite is: -

1847, "Jew, Arab, Assyrian, Aramæan," from Mod.L. Semita, from L.L. Sem "Shem," one of the three sons of Noah (Gen. x:21-30), regarded as the ancestor of the Semites (in the days when anthropology was still bound by the Bible), from Heb. Shem. Semitic (1813 of languages, 1826 of persons) is probably from Ger. semitisch (first used by Ger. historian August Schlözer, 1781), denoting the language group that includes Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Assyrian, etc. In recent use often with the specific sense "Jewish," but not historically so limited.

Re the video link, I’ve seen it before. Do you know anything about the group of Jews who were talking?

They would be Neturei Karta I'm guessing, a very anti-Zionist group of orthodox Jews. They believe that Israel should not exist according to the Torah and the Talmud. Any discussion regarding Israel is a challenge ('Like riding two bikes at the same time' – Robert Fisk), but more moderate anti-zionists such as Gilad Atzmon and Tony Judt are called 'self hating Jews' for their opinions and the term anti-semite is regularly used for those who disagree with the way Israel conducts itself. This name calling does nothing to further understanding on either side of what is imo a very difficult subject to discuss critically. I mean does this help? -> http://masada2000.org/list-A.html

HTH

Greetings Fellow Earthlings

Re Ms Ts post: Jun 19th, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Go to http://www.ae911truth.org/ if anyone wished to learn more about the 911 Controlled Demolitions or indeed the members impeccable credentials.

At impact the chap means as the tower hit the ground at 202 mph in 9.23 seconds.

To hit the ground at anything like 202 mph the bottom 80+ floors offered almost no resistance at all.

This proves my point exactly.

So the structure hit the ground at about 202 mph, but clearly parts of the structure hit faster.

This again is yet more evidence of Demolition Explosives, as some parts are blown up and out and some are blown out and down.

If it had been a gravity collapse would you not have expected to see 110 squashed pancaked floors stacked up at the bottom like all the other gravity collapses?

Regarding what I do when I let my hair down in my own time, sure, its ok to call Zionist NAZI thugs who stab a defenseless Jewish chap in the back – Zionist NAZI thugs.

And what term should be given to groups who appear on radio attacking qualified professionals regarding 911 and do not even bother to find out if Osmar Binladen is even wanted by CIA for the official 911 plot – if not CRETINS?

Or how about "Logically challenged" or

"brainwashed delusional"

Hi 3 year old kid thanks for the response.

Again, you haven't addressed all the points I re-pasted in (unless you are doing this as I type).

Re the equation thingie that I posted in – as I'm not a physics expert, I didn't understand all the equation part but as I found it, I thought I'd post it to see what you response was. Thanks for your reply. I'm wary about asking you (3 year old kid) questions now (as I don't always get a response)but…what about the part where it says if it was CD, it would require 272 tons of TNT?

Call people what you want, I can't stop that. I personally wouldn't use such abusive terms, but there again, thats me. Each to their own I guess.

Whilst I look at the url you gave me to check out these "impeccable credentials" I hope that not only that you are well, but that you have the time at some point to address the points I have now made twice :)

Update – (I like this new edit function! Very handy! ta!) Ok, looked at ae911 site. Yes, impressive list of many architects and engineers. Although it is my understanding that engineering is a pretty big field, so those most relevant would be in civil engineering? Anyway, although the list is impressive boasting around 500-600 architects and engineers (including 'degreed', licensed and retired) this is only a very small amount compared to the amount of architects and engineers worldwide? So where are the others? And dare I mention those two words? I'll give you a clue..first word begins with 'p', the second begins with 'r'.

Hi Ashley, Thanks again for your response and I’m sorry about the misunderstanding of the questions!

When I refer to the historical origins of the term anti-semitism, I’m referring to Wilhelm Marr. I guess (again possible apology from me as I may not have been so clear) is the origin of the term rather than the words.

I’m wary of the masada2000 site, seems a bit too hateful and extreme for my liking. It has been brought down a few times and I’m not suprised! Nasty site!

Ok, without getting too rude here, one thing we both most realise about each other. You believe that CD were used on 9/11, I do not. (I hope I have your opinion correct there). So when you ask me about explosives in the towers, I just don’t see it. That’s why I do not automatically address the matter. Also, I have already said (I think!) that I do not pretend to have the answers!

Not to be picky here, but there is a difference in almost free fall speed and free fall speed, isn’t there?

You mention that I haven’t commented on hermetically sealed explosives. Well, thats because I don’t believe any explosives were used! Where do you think these hermetically sealed explosives were? Throughout the buildings?

I also don’t believe that WTC towers came down in under 10 seconds. See this video http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ow0y5q7MHw

Take care.

Ashley,

I have said several times that I am no physics expert, no CD expert, that I haven't got all the answers and that I am still questioning things. I've been looking into 9/11 for a few years now and heard arguments from CD to beam weapons to no planes and the like. Up until a few months ago I was more or less convinced that CD was the only explanation, but then I realised something…I was only looking at one side of the argument (surrounding what happened on 9/11…official version vs conspiracy in the simplist terms). I then started to look at the other side of the coin, just out of interest to see what they said. As compelling as I thought the CD theory was, I began to see flaws in the theory, and thats where I am at now. I've been "it was CD and thats that" from me a while back, I've been there. But now I have serious doubts and its this that I'm sharing with yourself and anyone else who is reading. I've not made my mind up and to be honest, I don't think I ever will. Although I put time and effort into debating on this article thread, I have thought "well, 9/11 has been and gone. Whatever happened on that day, happened, regardless of how, if, why, what…There are far more important things going on in the world RIGHT NOW that we should be focusing our engergies on imo….civil liberties, illegal wars, formation of the EU, etc" Yes, some (maybe all) can be argued that this happened or was pushed forward by the events of 9/11, but we can't turn back the clock and stop 9/11. We can stop (or at least attempt to stop) an illegal war, people unfairly imprisoned, the destruction of Iraq and the Iraqi people, etc.

People who research and investigate 9/11 don't bother me, of course I still look into it. It's just difference of opinion and different priorities.

You mention that I didn't reply to your points, I'm sorry if I over-looked something you said as I did think I'd addressed what you said.

You see, when it comes to CD, I simply don't buy it (in the same way that you can't see how it is anything else but CD).So when you ask me about explosives (be it hermetically sealed or not) I can't see how it can be proved. I've looked at evidence before and I've looked at counter-evidence. The latter has convinced me more at this time. Again, the issue also relies on advanced knowledge and understanding of engineering, mathematics and physics (and I'm sure a few more areas)…something that I can not begin to admit that I have. So I have to rely on experts in that field, regardless of what they say, they are experts, not me.

If you could point me to (or explain in more detail) how heretically sealed explosves work, how they are fitted, where they would be fitted, pros and cons, etc, then I'm more than willing to look at it. How can I pass judgement on something that I have little knowledge of?

[quote post="3838"]I mean if there are only a handful of demolition companies in the world that will even try to demolish a building in to its own footprint (from your ‘howstuffworks’ link), perhaps we ought to go in to the demolition business.[/quote]

So, if only a few companies can do it, how long do you think they spent planning and rigging both towers?

I don't want to sound rude here, but do you believe that planes went into the towers? It wasn't like there were a few small fires that happened in those towers. A jet plane with an awful lot of fuel went into the building. The impact and the fuel caused huge explosions! When the buildings fell, not everything (the building) went straight down. There was huge damage all around. The towers were hit towards the top, buckled from explosions and continued to pancake down. Part of the building went into its own footprint (due to gravity I would of guessed) but the building also destroyed several buildings around it.

Light a fire in the top of high rised building. Fly a jet plane with a lot of fuel into the same building. Do you think the results would be the same? Look at the building in Madrid that burned and burned (often quoted in support for CD), but was there a plane that flew into it? Would this be considered a fair scientific comparison? The only way to truly know is to repeat the same again, which is not what I want to see and God forbid, anyone would do!

Last point of yours, anti-semitism. I'm asking to look into the TERM anti-semitism, the way it is used in modern day as a term coined by Wilhelm Marr, not the single words 'anti' and 'semite'. If you look at the history and meaning of the TERM anti-semitism, you'd notice a big difference. There is also a big difference between terminology and etymology. I believe that it is understanding the difference between the two when using as people do today.

I'm sorry that this is long but I hope you understand where I'm coming from. By the way, did you watch the vid I gave the link for?

Tina

[quote post="3838"]I began to see flaws in the theory, and thats where I am at now. [/quote]

I thought that was what we were doing here, you were telling me what you saw as flaws and I was looking at them and trying to provide reasons (as I see it) that your flaws do not necessarily rule out CD. If any of my suggestions have been implausible please could you point them out to me so that I can either defend them or retract them? If you have any flaws that you’ve not mentioned up until this point, well now’s your chance (not that I can guarantee to be able to explain them away, but I’ll try)

[quote post="3838"]I’ve not made my mind up and to be honest, I don’t think I ever will.[/quote]

whereas in your previous post you said:-

[quote post="3838"]You believe that CD were used on 9/11, I do not. (I hope I have your opinion correct there). [/quote]

OK it’s decision time, are you taking the money or opening the box?

[quote post="3838"]I have thought “well, 9/11 has been and gone. Whatever happened on that day, happened, regardless of how, if, why, what…There are far more important things going on in the world RIGHT NOW that we should be focusing our engergies on imo….civil liberties, illegal wars, formation of the EU, etc” Yes, some (maybe all) can be argued that this happened or was pushed forward by the events of 9/11, but we can’t turn back the clock and stop 9/11. We can stop (or at least attempt to stop) an illegal war, people unfairly imprisoned, the destruction of Iraq and the Iraqi people, etc. [/quote]

I can kind of see where you are coming from with this, but if the US government was complicit in this and the fact they have used it to erode civil liberties protected by the constitution and wage 2 illegal wars, then they should be held to account (the murder of 3,000 people, plus victims of the dust plus the victims of 2 illegal wars, puts lying about WMD in to a very distant second place!)

[quote post="3838"]If you could point me to (or explain in more detail) how heretically sealed explosves work, how they are fitted, where they would be fitted, pros and cons, etc, then I’m more than willing to look at it. How can I pass judgement on something that I have little knowledge of?[/quote]

As I said this idea came from the top of my head, hermetically sealed basically means airtight. I’m no expert but if you seal something airtight and clean the outside well enough then a sniffer dog isn’t going to smell it (if you had access to a sniffer dog you could even check each one prior to trying to get them in to the building). Other than that they’d be the same as the packages that CDI and their like use I guess. They would probably need a radio device of some sort and whatever else would be required (I’ve never worked for a CD company so sorry if this sounds a bit vague ;) As for how they are mounted I don’t know, pros and cons – none I’d guess (other than being able to walk them past sniffer dogs) as the only difference is that the explosive is in an airtight container of some sort. Which brings us on to: -

So, if only a few companies can do it, how long do you think they spent planning and rigging both towers?

As long as they liked to plan it, I’m guessing they’d do a lot of that off plans/blueprints. As far as rigging the building, if the charges couldn’t be found by sniffer dogs, as long as they liked. We have seen from the CDI website that they can rig a building very quickly (they could probably do it even quicker if they were pre-packaged charges that just needed to be attached in the right places).

[quote post="3838"]I don’t want to sound rude here, but do you believe that planes went into the towers? It wasn’t like there were a few small fires that happened in those towers. A jet plane with an awful lot of fuel went into the building. The impact and the fuel caused huge explosions![/quote]

Are you trying to imply that I’m a no-planer? Yes planes did go in to the buildings. IIRC I’m sure I read somewhere that the buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from a 707 (a very similar sized and specification aircraft to the 767). You can go on about ‘huge explosions’ and ‘awful lots of fuel’ as much as you like, the buildings were still designed to withstand it.

Edit – Actually I’d like to reconsider my last comment, I am a no-planer (at least when it comes to WTC7)

With regards questions of mine that you haven’t answered: -

[quote post="3838"]I am Welsh, if I coined the term anti-celt and unilaterally decided that it meant anti-welsh, do you think the Bretons, Cornish, Irish, Manx and Scots would have something to say?[/quote]

[quote post="3838"]If these other groups were seen in an unfavourable light by the Welsh could this behaviour be seen as devisive?[/quote]

[quote post="3838"]Arabs, Assyrians and Aramæans are semitic peoples, sticking ‘anti’ in front of the word does not change the meaning of the word does it?[/quote]

[quote post="3838"]Do you have any theory whatsoever as to how an 8 storey building can take slightly less than 6 seconds to drop using controlled demolition and a 47 storey steel framed building that collapsed due to fire damage could take only one second more?[/quote]

[quote post="3838"]Thanks for the link to the video, it does appear that the debris on the one tower does overtake the collapse, would this be consistent with the higher storeys being wired with explosives and the lower floors relying on gravity to do the work? (as per the link you put earlier, this could explain how it was ‘almost’ free fall speed rather than exactly free fall speed). [/quote]

Sorry this is so long too ;)

Ok, back again.

Firstly, 3 year old kid – it is sad to say that I do not think I can communicate or respond to you any longer. My reasons for this are simply that you do not respond to me. Your talk, I answer you…I talk, you ignore it. I’m sure that most people will see how this is frustrating to me. How can you talk to someone when they don’t listen in the first place? IF 3 year old kid is willing to listen and respond, fair enough, but if not, well, all the best to you.

Ashley – [quote post="3838"]I thought that was what we were doing here, you were telling me what you saw as flaws and I was looking at them and trying to provide reasons (as I see it) that your flaws do not necessarily rule out CD. If any of my suggestions have been implausible please could you point them out to me so that I can either defend them or retract them? If you have any flaws that you’ve not mentioned up until this point, well now’s your chance (not that I can guarantee to be able to explain them away, but I’ll try)[/quote]

I think you’ve touched on something here. Like I said, I used to agree with the CD theory, it makes a very compelling argument. I don’t claim to know everything, but I do know the CD argument, I know the theories, the ‘evidence’ to support it and so on. But over the last 6 months or so, I’ve had a change of heart. I’m afraid that after knowing what I already know and heard about (which is what you suggest Ashley – with explosives, free fall, etc) I can’t see anything new that is going to change my mind in the near future. I can never say never, but everything so far that has been said here, I already know about and the simple answer is, I just don’t buy it anymore!

Carry on doing your own research if you want. Carry on telling people about. What is important to one person may not be important to another, but does that mean we can’t say what we feel and think to be true? No. The crucial element is HOW we do it, and this is what I believe the radio programme which started this debate here implies and focuses on.

[quote post="3838"]I can kind of see where you are coming from with this, but if the US government was complicit in this and the fact they have used it to erode civil liberties protected by the constitution and wage 2 illegal wars, then they should be held to account (the murder of 3,000 people, plus victims of the dust plus the victims of 2 illegal wars, puts lying about WMD in to a very distant second place!)[/quote]

I agree with what you are saying, they should and MUST be held accountable for any wrong doing. My issue is people who just let the outcomes (war, civil liberties, etc) carry on! Now, I’m not saying that Ashley, 3 year old kid or anyone else reading this does this….but I know an awful lot of people from the truth community who sit around and question all day about something that has been and gone, where all the crap is going outside their window! Do you understand my frustration?

Ashley, no I wasn’t implying that you are a no-planer. Thats why I asked that you DO believe planes went into the towers.

You posted a series questions for me address, but I’ve addressed these twice already. I’ll do it again but this time I won’t group my answers, I’ll divide them up like you did with the questions.

Firstly, lets put the questions into context. You asked me a series of questions when discussing the term ‘anti-semitism’.

Ok, lets go through this again and then I will answer your question.

I orginally asked if people knew the history of the TERM anti-semitism. The TERM not the word. There is a difference between something in terminology and the origin of the word. The WORD ‘Semite’ means as Ashley has previously stated. So by putting the prefix ‘anti’ before it gives the meaning ‘against’ something. So, anti- anything means against. I’ll come to this again in a few minutes when looking at the questions.

On to the TERM ‘anti-Semitism’ which, as I have said before, was coined by Wilhelm Marr in 1880. You can look this up. This TERM is to mean (as defined by Marr) as “prejudice and hostility toward Jews”.

PLEASE note there is a difference between the WORD and TERM. Do some research into if you really don’t get it.

So, if you can remember that I refer the meaning of the TERM anti-Semitism….this has a different defintion to the words.

This will now allow be to go on to questions….

[quote post="3838"]I am Welsh, if I coined the term anti-celt and unilaterally decided that it meant anti-welsh, do you think the Bretons, Cornish, Irish, Manx and Scots would have something to say?[/quote]

Sure, but isn’t interesting that the person who coined the term anti-Semitism wasn’t Jewish and he himself hated the Jews! Again, I don’t think you did go and look at the historical background of the term. It is not a term originally coined by Jewish people.

[quote post="3838"]If these other groups were seen in an unfavourable light by the Welsh could this behaviour be seen as devisive?[/quote]

Did you mean divisive or derisive? Again, this is all based on the issue if a Welsh person coined a phrase for their ‘people’ – this is not the case for the term I refer to. If we follow your argument here, then the answer is yes, but this differs from what I am saying.

[quote post="3838"]Arabs, Assyrians and Aramæans are semitic peoples, sticking ‘anti’ in front of the word does not change the meaning of the word does it?[/quote]

Not if you look at the meaning of the WORD. But I am talking about the TERM. Again, theres a difference.

[quote post="3838"]Do you have any theory whatsoever as to how an 8 storey building can take slightly less than 6 seconds to drop using controlled demolition and a 47 storey steel framed building that collapsed due to fire damage could take only one second more?[/quote]

You are talking about WTC7 here. For this, I could go on for a while. I know that you would of seen video footage and photos of the north side of the building, but have you seen video footage and photos of the south side? The firefighters have already been quoted as saying that the building was already insecure, there were big fires inside, they had no water to put out the fires. The damage on the south side was intense. When the building fell, the north side ended up almost on top of the rubble as it was the south side that had given way.

No theory, just using the facts from firefighters and footage from the day.

[quote post="3838"]Thanks for the link to the video, it does appear that the debris on the one tower does overtake the collapse, would this be consistent with the higher storeys being wired with explosives and the lower floors relying on gravity to do the work? (as per the link you put earlier, this could explain how it was ‘almost’ free fall speed rather than exactly free fall speed). [/quote]

I thought I had already explained about the fact that fuelled planes went into the towers. I know the argument for CD but I still do not believe that was the cause. How can I argue in support of explosives being used when I simply didn’t think it happened that way. Plane hits tower with a lot fuel towards top of tower. Big explosion. Weakens structure. Begins to fall around area of impact. Force of gravity on other floors – pancake effect.

Ok…I feel like I’m going around in circles here. I don’t mean to sound rude Ashley, you will not convince me about CD with arguments I’ve already heard, once believed in and now believe to be false.

I mean this with sincerity, please, just at least look at counter-evidence….even if you find flaws in it, even if it doesn’t sit right with you. It is so important to see both sides of a picture before coming to a conclusion.

Tina

Thanks for the reply

You have gone from: -

[quote post="3838"]You believe that CD were used on 9/11, I do not. (I hope I have your opinion correct there).[/quote]

to: -[quote post="3838"]I’ve not made my mind up and to be honest, I don’t think I ever will.[/quote]

to: -

[quote post="3838"]I think you’ve touched on something here. Like I said, I used to agree with the CD theory, it makes a very compelling argument. I don’t claim to know everything, but I do know the CD argument, I know the theories, the ‘evidence’ to support it and so on. But over the last 6 months or so, I’ve had a change of heart. I’m afraid that after knowing what I already know and heard about (which is what you suggest Ashley – with explosives, free fall, etc) I can’t see anything new that is going to change my mind in the near future. I can never say never, but everything so far that has been said here, I already know about and the simple answer is, I just don’t buy it anymore![/quote]

That’s more flip flopping than the Bush administration ;)

For arguments sake we’ll take your majority decision and go with you not believing the CD theory.

‘A change of heart?’ – sorry if this sounds rude but that makes it sound like you are basing this on a gut feeling or intuition. I have heard your arguments against CD and I have proposed counter arguments that I believe to be plausible. As I asked before, if any are’t then please could you point them out to me? If you believed in CD up until 6 months ago, what vital evidence did you garner that made you jump to the diametrically opposite POV? (please let me know what it is, you never know you may get a new convert ;)

If you ‘just don’t buy it anymore’, what precisely changed your purchasing preference?

I thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, we’ll get to those in a minute.

You have not said if you think the idea of ‘sniffer dog proofing’ the charges prior to taking them in to the building could be a possible solution to your ‘lack of time argument’. Now being that none of this theory relies on anything that is remotely unbelievable can we assume that you have no problem with this suggestion? (I mean it’s only the equivalent of what drug smugglers have been doing for years’

[quote post="3838"]Carry on doing your own research if you want. Carry on telling people about. What is important to one person may not be important to another, but does that mean we can’t say what we feel and think to be true? No. The crucial element is HOW we do it, and this is what I believe the radio programme which started this debate here implies and focuses on.[/quote]

I completely agree, how we do this is vital, but rather than it being based on ‘what we feel and think’, imo it should be based on logical deductions based on the available evidence.

You haven’t made a comment about the towers being designed to withstand the impact of a plane that is, to all intents and purposes, the same as the one that did hit it (after comments of huge explosions and awful lots of fuel).

I think this arguing about the word anti-semite is immaterial, if you look at the etymology of the word it quickly becomes obvious that the usage of the compound word is misleading. At the very least it could mean two different things to two different people, I’m sure I’m not the only person who thinks that the Semitic peoples doesn’t just mean the Jewish people. I’m probably not the only one who sees the adding of a prefix to a word as not altering the meaning of said word. Perhaps judeophobia might be a better word to use so as to avoid any confusion. I understand the common usage of the word but my logic says that as it was clearly created and used in error by someone ignorant of the facts then why carry on using an erroneous term? Aren’t we continuing the ignorance? (wiki claims – The word antisemitic (antisemitisch in German) was probably first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase “antisemitic prejudices”.)

I asked you the following question: -

[quote post="3838"]Do you have any theory whatsoever as to how an 8 storey building can take slightly less than 6 seconds to drop using controlled demolition and a 47 storey steel framed building that collapsed due to fire damage could take only one second more?[/quote]

You didn’t really address the issue, it is probably because I didn’t make myself clear. My question isn’t why WTC7 collapsed it was about how long it took in comparison to a CD. Let me put it another way, if an 8 storey building took 6 seconds with explosives (1.3 storeys per second), how on earth could a 47 storey building collapse in under 7 seconds due to fire damage(over 6.5 storeys per second)? This is less of a ‘physics question’ than a ‘how on earth do you explain that question’ ;)

[quote post="3838"]Ok…I feel like I’m going around in circles here. I don’t mean to sound rude Ashley, you will not convince me about CD with arguments I’ve already heard, once believed in and now believe to be false.[/quote]

As I asked earlier what was the vital piece of evidence that clinched it for you?

[quote post="3838"]I mean this with sincerity, please, just at least look at counter-evidence….even if you find flaws in it, even if it doesn’t sit right with you. It is so important to see both sides of a picture before coming to a conclusion.[/quote]

With due respect I know the official story, planes hit, fires weakened steel, buildings collapse (that’s the short and tall of it). I know 12 year olds who can blow that out of the water.

I don’t care what you believe, it’s fairly obvious that if two non-scientific people like you and me can argue for this long, it makes it even clearer to me that a new inquiry is warranted.

Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntz7SWm-xWo

Is there any wonder we have so many problems to solve with crud like this peddling HATE against women & children?

Instead of attacking tree huggers like the truth movement "CULT WATCHERS" should spend at least some of their time keeping an eye on these characters.

Go and ask Ashley.

I simply cannot help you understand that steel girders can do some things and not others, and going through other steel girder structures without encountering stiff resistance is something steel girders cannot do.

Now if you cant grasp that concept there is no hope in trying to tell you gravity, which is a warp in the fabric of space-time can not be exceeded unless there is another source of input energy.

The drop was in 10 seconds, the top of the top bit hit the ground in that 10 seconds. So how can a body fall through another heavier body as though it was just falling through air?

Timed Controlled Demolition to blow out any support so that it is only falling through air.

Even videos show squibs 20 floors below the demolition wave.

How can debris fall faster than gravity permits if not explosives?

Paul w

Can you let me know which of your questions I have not tried to answer?

btw don't feel compelled to apologise for being so rude earlier in this thread.

As I see it this rudeness when disagreed with is exactly what truthers are accused of. Just because I disagree with you, do you think that gives you the right to be insulting? As far as I'm concerned you are living proof that this problem occurs on both sides ;)

It seems that a few people have read the 9/11 conspiracy books written by David Ray Griffin, but apparently not anyone in the establishment news media or the government.

This is going to be shorter than others as I feel that what I've been saying has not really been understood.

Let me make something clear. I did not start off talking on this thread wanting to dicuss theories nor have I expressed my own belief in CD. Far from it. I thought I had explained my background that once I did and now I don't. When entering into this 'debate' I did not ask for someone to convince me about CD….I've been there in the past.

Isn't it simple to understand? I used to believe CD. Now I don't. But I still have some doubts about 9/11, not about theories and 'how it happened', but how there was intelligence that at the least, seems to be ignored. There are many questions about 9/11 that many people have and I can't pretend to have the answers.

It feels like Ashley is trying to twist my words.

Ashley, if your intention is to convince me about CD, you might as well stop. Thats not what I came here for, although it seems like Ashley and 3 year old kid have made it into this. Read my first comments on here – nothing about CD.

It is interesting that Ashley uses the word "convert".

I am not here to "convert".

Ashley, may reasoning for changing my thoughts on 9/11 comes from reading the counter-evidence. I thought I had made this clear. There isn't one piece, there are so many! Thats the point. So much other evidence out there that I had ignored. Again, I suggest repectfully that you look at some counter-evidence.

Ashley mentions WTC7 and says I didn't properly address it. Did you read the part when I said I don't believe it fell with 7 seconds?

Then to finish it all off, I invertedly get told that my reasonings can be disputed by a 12 year old. Nice. Comparing my intellect to a 12 year old?

I'm going around in circles here. Some are not reading everything and avoiding points. Whats the point?

Is it just me when I think some people have their head buried in the sand?

As far as 3 year old kid goes, you simply don't get what I am talking about and referring to. Maybe if you enter into a debate, you should be prepared to listen to others and respond. If not, you are simply talking to yourself.

"Ashley is much better at explaining concepts to simpletons than I am, probably because I have had my brains scrambled learning high level Physics, Mathematics & Engineering Concepts and applications." Ahhhh, I see! We are simpletons! So because we aren't obviously at your superior level we just wouldn't be able to understand. I guess you class Ashley as a simpleton too? I hope I have taken this the wrong way, otherwise you are rude and arrogant.

Greetings Tina & others,

Its not a matter of believing this that or the other like some sort of religion.

Experimentation has developed laws of Physics over hundreds of years. The acceleration due to gravity is one of the best physical phenomenon understood by science and has been understood since Newton.

It would help if you stopped reading physics which was fundamentally flawed for a start, like the stuff you posted up. (no I don't want to go there)

Assumptions are key here, don't assume anything. Only use hard known facts.

The proof I gave you assumes nothing and only uses hard provable facts, and when you do that it proves the towers did not come down due to Gravity alone. Period.

If the CIA have never wanted Osmar Binladen for 911, yet we were all told by the US & UK government "it was him wot dun it".

Then we have been lied to big time.

Can anyone else see a problem here?

As far as I'm concerned, we've gone as far as we can.

Ashley – You say that I apparently won't tell you about my counter-evidence. I've mentioned a fair amount in previous threads. I've said that it isn't one single piece but many. Too many to list. In the same way, would you like to offer all your arguments for CD? I'm sure you have a lot and I'm sure it would take you a while. Same here. There isn't one thing but several, a fair amount that I have already discussed here. If you want to find out more, look it up as I feel that if I post it here 1 – this debate would go on for weeks (literally) and 2 – you wouldn't properly look at it ('m suggesting this as you have already said that you have no interest in reading things like the Commission Report).

I've answered your questions, sorry if I haven't provided the answers you are looking for or wanting to hear from me.

As far as 3 year old kid goes…they say that they'd respond and then don't. Then they suggest that they are reading from a 'script', or that we are 'simpletons' so wouldn't get it anywhere, or simply that they 'don't want to go there'…I mean, if they can't answer some simple questions or answer half and miss out my key point, whats the point? Wouldn't you feel the same vice versa?

I'm interested in your wife teaching 9/11 conspiracies in school. I'm aware of teachers being fired or issued severe warnings about doing this. I hope she isn't teaching this as fact.

If I have the following wrong, I apologise. You seem to suggest that 12 year old kids (who are hugely influential) can disprove my arguments IS an insult. It is basically saying "come on, even a kid knows the arguments/evidence better than you". This coming from someone who was quick to point out to me that they had been insulted and never retalliated.

Anyway, like I said, I can't see this going anywhere. I'm finding the comments on here getting towards more of a condescending attitude. I'm not interested in that.

Can anyone confirm as fact one way or the other please, is or has Osmar Binladen ever been wanted by the CIA for 911?

Thanks for that EVIDENCE Xior.

So, THE EVIDENCE is clear, Osmar Binladen is NOT wanted by FBI or the CIA FOR 911.

He is wanted for other crimes but NOT 911 of which he is only a suspect, of which is because there is next to ZERO Evidence and even that is dodgy video footage with dubbed over speaking.

Here are the key points of the official CIA notices:-

MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

CAUTION
USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
also

MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH
USAMA BIN LADEN

CAUTION
Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

"a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world"

So here we have a SUSPECT being peddled by Governments as ACTUAL Attacker.

There is NO MENTION OF 911.

HENCE we have been deceived by those media and Governments who state as fact Binladen did it.

In fact two of the FBI/CIA 19 Muslim Hijackers still fly for Saudi airlines and are suing the US government.

Xior

There are some problems with the links you put up.

As 3yo kid says, it does not say that he is wanted for 9-11. In fact if you look at this link -> http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html you'll see that the FBI admit they have 'no hard evidence' linking Bin Laden to 9-11. They don't have enough evidence to accuse him of 9-11 but they had enough evidence linking him with it to bomb the cr*p out of Afghanistan. Hmmmm

The links you put up state that Bin Laden is left handed, the tape where Bin Laden claims responsibility shows the 'Osamalike' writing a note with his right hand, see -> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-20657441…

The 'Osamalike' does not look very much like any picture of Bin Laden that I've ever seen (this is also mentioned on the video above, it's from Loose Change which a lot of people slag off but the video evidence is there for you to see).

In this video -> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=164176004… You can clearly see Bin Laden wearing a gold ring and a gold or gold plated watch, this is not something the real Bin Laden would be likely to do as it is forbidden by his faith (for evidence of this see -> http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?page….

How can all of this be I ask myself? These problems defy rational explaination, other than 'it wasn't Bin Laden'. If it wasn't Bin Laden either the intelligence agencies don't have as much intelligence as we thought, or we were knowingly deceived as to the veracity of this claim of responsibility. The former (whilst pretty unbelievable) is the less worrying of the two options. If the US government lied about this then what else have they lied about?

Thanks for that SuperNova, but before I take their lies to pieces for you do you want to admit now that you simply would not know if they were telling you the truth or not?

Come clean now please, would you know for example that number 04 is total none sense? Would you even know why number 04 is none sence?

Greetings fellow GM Earthlings,

Absolutely SteveH, to swallow the official 911 Balderdash and Piffle one must believe in an absolutely ridiculously improbable coincidence theory.

Take a peek at the construction of WTC001, everything about these buildings was massive. Check out the 300,000 tonnes of reinforced concrete, particularly the flooring. Also check out the multi directional cross bracing too.
http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=building+…

Does anyone seriously think burning jet fuel could weaken any of those massive core columns evenly so they would all fail simultaneously – what do you suppose the probability of that happening without Controlled Demolition?

Just about infinitely impossible that what.

Hi everybody,

This should explain things for Supernova and others who have not yet realized the US BUSH Government are crooks.

What we already know as provable facts:

We are almost certain that jet crashes followed by structural damage & fire damaged,weakened both twin towers, and falling debris damaged building 007 more on one side than the other. In each case there was more damage on one side of every building on 911 i.e asymmetrical damage..

Let us first take the situation were we have at least 80 lower undamaged floors.

What is the probability of the initial floor collapse being symmetrical and almost instantaneous on all 47 massive core columns and the hundreds of outer columns despite the damage being far more prevalent on one side and considering the massive cross bracing supporting those columns laterally?

Structures always, without exception, gives at the weakest point first.

So this probability is almost infinitely improbable. It is almost infinitely improbable that all cross-braced columns gave instantaneously and symmetrically due to asymmetrical damage..

Then we have to consider the next floor collapse due to gravity alone. What is the probability that all of those core and outer columns will give simultaneously and symmetrically despite the initial damage being far more prevalent on one side?

Again this is almost infinitely improbable.

And so the scenario continues down to ground level.

So the probability that gravity alone could NOT bring down All 3 WTC buildings on 911 symmetrically.

3 * (almost infinity) *80 *(almost infinity) *80 * (almost infinity) *47 = more than almost infinity cubed.

So what is the probability that gravity alone could bring down the 3 buildings on 911 = near ZERO

And all because we know that structures break first at their weakest point ALWAYS.

Example, a chain always breaks at its weakest link every single time.

Hi Vilume,

Firstly its not theory, its Hypothesis, secondly who said anything about Explosives?

And I for one do not do hearsay, I only do Physics.

And the Physics shows the towers were not gravity collapse therefore another investigation is needed as to find out the details you seek.

A few quotes from 3 year old kid:

[quote post="3838"]because it is SO Obviously a Controlled Demolition…..

Would anyone like me to explain in easy steps as to why 911 was a controlled Demolition?…..

a simple equation H=1/2gt^2 absolutely proves 911 could be nothing but Controlled Demolition……

the 911 destruction was controlled demolition.[/quote]

So, with you recently saying:

[quote post="3838"]secondly who said anything about Explosives?[/quote]

Was it not you who said:

[quote post="3838"]Re the CD I suspect the Explosives were already set prior to the jet crashes…..

This again is yet more evidence of Demolition Explosives, as some parts are blown up and out and some are blown out and down……

So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each – what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges?[/quote]

I am now confused.

Are you saying it is controlled demolition or not?

If not controlled demolition, what do you think happened?

If you believe it was controlled demolition, I thought they would have to use explosives. Am I wrong?

PS Volume

“Why would you expect me to speculate and know the detailed answers without first detailed scientific investigation?”
3 year old kid

You’re dealing with an idiot.

Ahh its Mr paul W – hope you are well. Did you have a good sleep?

So,

Is there anyone who disagrees that a chain always breaks at its weakest link every single time?

Hello Paul

Lovely to see you are still in top form when it comes to insulting people. I would dearly love to know where I can learn debating skills like yours. Now we are f*ckwits – tremendous, you are a shining wit aren’t you ;) Just as an aside is this insulting behaviour exactly what troofers are accussed of when people don’t believe them?

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]For example, Ashley (I think) moaned that steel could not be melted by jet fuel. This was never suggested by NIST, or any other official report, and no-one else for that matter because it’s nonsense, and everyone knows it. Even the NIST said it was nonsense.[/quote]

First off I would like to point out that I did not ‘moan’ about this, I pointed it out. You are using loaded terms in order to try and discredit me and give yourself a headstart on trying to convince others. Please don’t use emotive language like that Paul, it’s almost cheating ;)

If the steel did not melt then where did the pools of molten steel in the clean up site come from? Don’t skirt around this, don’t ignore it, don’t hide from it, just try and debunk it. As per the link that Toby put up ->

[quote post="3838"]http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf[/quote]

and as per the reports of many of the people involved in the clean up, the thermal images of the clean up site and the video of it. Also would you be good enough to tell me what the bright orange molten metal in this video -> http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc+collapse&sitesearch=# comes from? Please do not reply that it is molten aluminium as that would vapourise before reaching that colour (one debunking theory says it is a UPS situated on the 81st floor – and you say we clutch at straws lol). So the statement ‘jet fuel cannot melt steel’ is true and in this case a reasonable statement to put forward (due to the fact there were pools of molten metal!).

Your blind faith in the official documents is hilarious Paul, do you believe everything you read? You say that troofers discount anything official – not true, I have quoted from the Kean report in this thread. Earlier in this thread you were under the impression that the NIST report had details of: -

[quote post="3838"]the shocking lack of communication between the different services…between NORAD, the civilian flight controllers, pilots, etc.[/quote]

Now to the best of my knowledge the NIST report had no such information in it, these areas would have been covered by the Kean report (the 9/11 Commission report). Either, you made a mistake or you are trying to use evidence that you have no knowledge of, which is it Paul? (to quote you ‘Have you even read the NIST report?’)

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]A prime example of their ignoring reality is the Windsor (or was it Madrid?) fire. They say the building didn’t collapse after a huge, lengthy fire. [/quote]

It’s actually both Paul, it is the Windsor building in Madrid. Yes this is often cited by SOME troofers, but if you look on this thread you’ll find the only people to have mentioned it are you and Tina (both arguing against us). I would thank you to try and stick to debunking things that the people on this thread have mentioned, otherwise you might as well debunk holograms and space weapons which no-one on here has mentioned either (mind you, you’ve debunked the no-plane theory at the Pentagon and no-one proposed that particular theory either, so I suppose there is precedent for this illogical and irrational behaviour on your part). There are several steel framed skyscrapers that have burnt for a long time without collapsing, namely: -

The One Meridian Plaza Fire (Philadelphia) – Burnt for 18 hours over 8 floors, did not collapse

The First Interstate Bank Fire (Los Angeles) – Burnt for 3.5 hours over 4 floors, did not collapse

The 1 New York Plaza Fire (New York) – Burnt for 6 hours, did not collapse

Caracas Tower Fire (Caracas Venezuela) – Burnt for 17 hours over 40 floors, did not collapse.

If I was to argue this point (which I don’t believe I have) I would use one of these examples instead :)

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]most troofers believe a missile (not a plane) hit the Pentagon[/quote]

Do you know this as a fact? Have you done some kind of scientific survey? Or is it true because Paul says? Do me a favour Paul, don’t try and tell us what we believe. I personally do think a plane hit the Pentagon and the no plane theories are a straw man argument that can be used at some point in the future to persuade people that all 9-11 conspiracy theories are not worthy of consideration.

Yes Paul I did mention Jenga, basically this was just in case some people didn’t understand the theory of entropy (something you failed to mention that I brought up – obviously this was omitted by accident rather than purposefully to try and discredit me).

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]I just re-read my first replies to Ashley and 3 Year old kid. I debunked quite a few of their comments (all?) yet neither of them made any real effort to debate the points I made. This is how they operate. They ignore the comments you make and simply ask more (ignorant) questions.[/quote]

IIRC you resorted to calling me a moron rather than answering half of one of my posts, I think what you are describing it the way YOU operate. I think any impartial observer of this thread can see that you have been more interested in ad-hominem attacks rather than debating what happened that day. It is absolutely obvious that you fail to be able to entertain that the US government could in any way shape or form have had a hand in this (and then you have the bare faced cheeck to say that we are close minded!).

I have another question that I would dearly love you to answer. Do you believe that Western Governments have ever planned and carried out ‘false flag’ events to further their own agendas? Before answering you might like to google ‘Operation Northwoods’ and ‘Operation Gladio’.

You say: -

[quote post="3838"]“Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.”
This is the opinion of some of the best engineers in the world, and after months of hard, painstaking work. But Ashley and 3 Year Old Kid know better! Hilarious.[/quote]

If this took ‘months of hard painstaking work’ then it’s hardly any wonder they didn’t find time to answer any of the questions that are still outstanding.

Paul, I do believe I asked you this before, would you have any objections to a new inquiry?

I let the first one slide, but please don’t insinuate that I smoke drugs Paul, as I don’t. Whilst I see what you are trying to do with this comment I would remind you that it is in fact libellous and there is no need for it.

Toodle-pip :)

Oh dear. Have I been unkind? Poor things, calling you horrible names!

I’ll try and stop, okay?

Ashley
“If the steel did not melt then where did the pools of molten steel in the clean up site come from?”

You really are a fuckwit, aren’t you?

This one idiotic comment proves you have done NO research other than checking out the moronic troofer sites.

Now, some time ago one you morons moaned about me ‘just posting links’ and not evidence…so, ignoring the idiocy of that comment (er, the link IS the evidence), here is a link:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

This is 9-11 Myths last word on the ‘molten steel’:
“To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There’s no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming “molten steel” have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire.”

Okay, now I know opening a link is hard work for you cretins, so here is the full comment from another debunking site, Internet Detectives;

“(Dylan) Avery quotes the aforementioned American Free Press article again, highlighting these sections of it in a way that makes it appear to be actual newsprint:

In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of “literally molten steel” were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.

These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

First, Mark Loizeaux never saw the molten steel:

Mr. Bryan:

I didn’t personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being “dipped” out by the buckets of excavators.
I’m not sure where you can get a copy.
Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.
Regards,

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman’s Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-6610
Fax: 1-410-667-6624
http://www.controlled-demolition.com

Second, there is no evidence that the molten metal was actually steel, or that any tests were performed on it to determine its composition. It could have easily been another metal with a lower melting point, such as aluminum, which was used on the WTC’s facade. Furthermore, are explosives used in demolition supposed to leave molten metal that smolders for weeks?

Avery continues quoting the AFP article, and states that highest temperature was in the east corner of the South Tower, where a temperature of 1377 °F was recorded, and that the molten steel in the basement was more than double that temperature. However, no indication is given that the temperature of the molten metal was ever actually measured. Additionally, the highest recorded temperature exceeds the melting point of aluminum, 1220 °F, making molten aluminum a distinct possibility.”

Any comments on this, gentlemen? Come on, I’m sure you have some foolish thing to say, sure you have!

Re:

The One Meridian Plaza Fire (Philadelphia) – Burnt for 18 hours over 8 floors, did not collapse

The First Interstate Bank Fire (Los Angeles) – Burnt for 3.5 hours over 4 floors, did not collapse

The 1 New York Plaza Fire (New York) – Burnt for 6 hours, did not collapse

Caracas Tower Fire (Caracas Venezuela) – Burnt for 17 hours over 40 floors, did not collapse.

Sigh. You utter, utter moron. Go and research these fires (and NOT by using troofer sites you lazy imbecile) and you will find these relevant facts: firefighters fought fire/fire proofing intact/no plane impact damage/fire went out/etc.

And by the way, I remember when researching these that for two of the buildings the firefighters feared a collapse and so cleared the area and removed all fire-fighting operations.

And 3 year old kid, you really don’t get it, do you?
Riiiiiiiiiiiight…okay then, just for you…the fires did not stay in one area but covered the WHOLE floors, moving around as more fuel was available (office furnishings, etc), as fires do.

So, the WHOLE area was weakened. Also, did you note how each of the top towers tilted slightly before they fell, one quite noticeable? Yes? Good. And did you note the initial tilt was over the areas damaged by the plane impacts? Yes? Good.

Okay, as are we both clear on that…now I suggest you read this very, very slowly so you understand the point I’m trying to make…and re-read it if you have to…as the fires were quite savage and gutted most of the floor area and weakened the core supports, the first section to fail was still that area damaged by the plane…got that? Okay, as this area went down the remainder of the structure, having been weakened by fire, followed suit.

Do you understand? You’re sure? Are you you’re re sure?
No? okay, go back and read it a few more times. get out some Jenga blocks if need be…

So, to continue, as the engineers of the NIST report made quite clear, because the building was designed the way it was, i.e. the floors did not support the building, the core and outer skin did, once that top section came down, there was no stopping it.

From the moment the top section slipped those few floors down, gravity took hold and the only direction was straight down. Not sideways. Not up. No a step to the left then a step to the right…but straight down.

As for the rest of the inane garbage you two fuckwits, morons, cretins, tosspots and dicks-for-brains spout and moan about…sorry, but its paranoid, ignorant rubbish.

There. Was that better? Did I keep the insults to a minimum?

PS. Yes, a chain does break at its weakest link…

PPS. om my god, INSIDE JOB!!!!

By the way boys, go and debate at screwloosechange.blogspot
If you dare…no? Thought not.

Dear Mr paul W, welcome to my Elephant trap.

Quote paul W

"And 3 year old kid, you really don’t get it, do you?

Riiiiiiiiiiiight…okay then, just for you…the fires did not stay in

one area but covered the WHOLE floors, moving around as

more fuel was available (office furnishings, etc), as fires do.

So, the WHOLE area was weakened. Also, did you note how

each of the top towers tilted slightly before they fell, one quite

noticeable? Yes? Good. And did you note the initial tilt was

over the areas damaged by the plane impacts? Yes? Good."

End Quote

Thank you indeed for that information Paul W.

And I hardly call nearly 45 degrees slight tilting old chap.

Can you now write to Dr Keith Seffen of Cambridge University and ask them to correct his ludicrous paper as they claim there was symmetrical instantaneous collapse. Yes, despite there being images to the contrary.

Is this not the very same paper you were peddling as being correct only a few posts ago, but now have contradicted?

So why was it good then and not now? Did it not suit your purpose to be truthful back then?

OR, Are you confused Paul W?

So, How can there be symmetrical collapse at nearly freefall speed through the path of most resistance, despite both the tops toppling over at initial collapse due to asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical collapse initiation?

Physics states the toppled tops should have fallen off and followed the path of least resistance had there been no Controlled Demolition.

Your statement has now proved the Controlled Demolition hypothesis is valid old chap.

WELL DONE!!!

Jolly Good show!!!!

Ashely and 3 Year old kid

I’ve just read your latest posts and realize I’m wasting my time. It’s obvious neither of you two clowns have a clue.

I could pick any number of idiotic comments, but I’ll pick this (it’s as good as any):

“Now you mention the plane hitting the building, the plane which hit is almost identical to the one the towers were designed to survive. Now you can harp on about the fuel and the damage and the blah blah blah, but that does not detract from the fact the towers were designed to withstand the direct impact of these planes.”

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who can post such drivel simply has not done any research other than scouring the troofer sites. This has been debunked so many times, but I’ll mention it for those who are reading this.

I’ll put this simply…the buildings DID survive the impact. What caused them to collapse was the damage combined with the fires combined with the loss of insulation from some of the core structure combined with the design of the building.

And by the way, it’s debatable they were even deigned with an aircraft impact in mind. There was an informal study done during the design/building that considered a plane landing at the nearby airport, getting lost in fog and hitting one of the towers – low speed, not much fuel.

The report cannot be found (although some of the official 9-11 reports thought it did exist), but one of the building’s designers said it was done, and he said the report suggested (note that word) the building should (note that word) survive an impact from a low speed jet liner.

He also said the report DID NOT consider fire damage, so therefore we can only conclude the report was only interested in the integrity of the structural design and a plane impact.

As I said, the towers DID survive the initial massive impact, thanks to the great work by the designers, resulting in many thousands of people escaping. Naturally, the troofers twist and distort this so it can support their own inane concepts that it should not have fallen as it ‘was designed to withstand plane impacts’.

Don’t believe me? Then get off your lazy backsides and go do some work.

For anyone reading this, Ashley and 3 year old kid are pretty typical of the mentality of troofers I’ve wasted my time trying to debate.

I became interested many years ago when I first heard the questions of the troofers: The pilots were not skilled enough to fly the planes? (they were); the fighter planes were stood down (they weren’t); there were unusually few people aboard thew planes (the numbers were low but abou average); government people were told not to fly (they weren’t); the pilots should have been able to fight off the hijackers (while strapped to a seat and trying to fly the plane?); no plane hit the Pentagon (hundreds saw the thing and one ‘thought’ they saw a small jet – guess which view the troofers took?); no wreckage etc at the Pentagon (tons of it, and including the bodies and the black box – all photographed and collected); the damage to the Pentagon didn’t ‘fit’ a plane impact (it did); 85 videos of the Pentagon (the inquiry viewed all but only two were of the Pentagon and this, unsurprisingly, was aimed more at the car entry than the building – and its low frame rate meant the chance of capturing the plane was very low); the pilot had to do a skilled turn and skilfully fly the plane to impact the building (he didn’t do a ‘skilled turn’ it was a big, lazy turn and he nearly missed the fucking thing and smacked into the lawn); the towers were brought down by explosives (completely demolished by numerous debunking sites and, not the least, by the hundreds of experts in the official reports); explosions were heard (quite normal in big fires, especially in buildings – firefighters are quite aware of the danger from things going bang); ‘squibs’ (none present in any of the videos); it was a ‘typical’ controlled demolition collapse (no it wasn’t); Thermitre found (Thermite is never used in CD and none was found, other than in the mind of Stephen Jones, idiot troofer – whose paper, incidentally, has not been peer-reviewed by any independent experts or authority); melted steel found (no it wasn’t. Pools of molten ‘metal’ were found in the debris days later, which the NIST report and others consider not unusual considering the massive amount of debris, the fires and mix if combustible materials); WTC7 was CD (no, it wasn’t, the report is out soon); Silverstein said ‘pull it’ (he was talking about the firefighters operation to ‘save’ WTC7 and ‘pull it’ is not an industry term in CD); BBC knew the building was going to fall beforehand (yes, along with everyone else…it had massive fire and structural damage from the tower debris, and was starting to tilt)…what else, oh yes, the other air defense excerises made sure no planes were in the sky that day (the air force did this all the time, it wasn’t unusual and is called training)…what else…oh, fuck it.

Ladies and gentlemen, you will find heaps of ‘anomalies’ in that. Such is the nature of any disaster. The difference between normal people and toss-pots like Ashely and 3 year old kid, is they do not have the cognitive skills to separate fact from fiction.

That, or they’re just dickwads…

As I said earlier, if you have any question, go to 9-11 Myths, Internet detectives, Screwloosechange.blogspot, the NIST report and all manner of other sites.

The truth is out there.

Thank you for that paul W,

or should one say

Mr Mu Pit.

Controlled Demolition Hypothesis Confirmed!

Confirmed!

Confirmed!

Confirmed!

For anyone reading this, and interested in the reality behind the question from Ashley about other high-rise fires did not cause collapse, check this out from Internet Detectives, ‘Skyscraper Fires’

“…a 38-story skyscraper in Philadelphia burned for over 19 hours with the fire spreading to 8 floors, and did not collapse. The building was One Meridian Plaza, and structural damage indicated the possibility of a collapse:

Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted — some as much as three feet –under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage

All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors.

…a 56-story skyscraper in Venezuela burned for over 17 hours with the fire spreading to 26 floors and reaching the roof, but did not collapse. This was the east tower of the Parque Central Complex in Caracas, and firefighters in the building were evacuated after fears it would collapse:

At 7 a.m., some of the booster pumps started to malfunction, and the fire regained intensity, spreading vertically at a rate of about one floor per hour until approximately 10 a.m. Around 11 a.m., the fire breeched the fifth macroslab, below the 39th floor, and around noon, the stairwells’ fire enclosure started to fail. Concerned that the building might collapse, the fire chief immediately ordered that interior firefighting operations be abandoned.

…Madrid’s Windsor Building, a steel-reinforced concrete building which burned for nearly 24 hours, destroying its upper 10 floors without causing the building itself to collapse.

…the Windsor Building had a concrete core with a concrete frame supporting the first 16 stories and steel perimeter columns for the upper floors, which collapsed while leaving the concrete core standing. Further collapse was prevented by the 17th floor, a concrete “technical floor” used to strengthen the building.

This is from 9-11 Myths:

“The Madrid Windsor fire is sometimes cited as being relevant to the WTC collapse, but in reality there are major differences between the two situations.

No plane flew into the Madrid Windsor Tower, for instance. It didn’t sustain any structural damage prior to the fire beginning.

The Madrid Windsor Tower was much smaller than the WTC, too, at 32 storeys. More significantly, the design of the Madrid Windsor Tower was entirely different to that of the WTC.

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two ‘technical floors’ – concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

No reliance on steel frames here, the core was mostly concrete. And what happened to the steel that it did include?

The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.

Yes, it failed. Other photos reveal how the concrete was all that was left on the upper floors.

The same story suggests it’s only the key design differences from the WTC that kept the Madrid Windsor Tower standing.

An investigation is underway between Spanish technical agency Intemac and UK authorities including Arup Fire, the University of Edinburgh and the concrete industry including Cembureau, BCA and The Concrete Centre. Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of the upper technical floor and the excellent passive fire resistance of the tower’s concrete columns and core prevented total building collapse

The fire is significant in terms of its potential similarities between the collapse of the building’s steel frame above the 17th floor and the experience seen at the World Trade Center. Notably, one of the recommendations of NIST’s interim report on the World Trade Center disaster is for tall building design to incorporate ‘strong points’ within the frame.

Others confirm the advantages offered by the Windsor Tower design.

Dr. Pal Chana of the British Cement Association demonstrated the relative likelihood of floor collapse in a steel versus concrete framed building, using the vivid example of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire which raged over 26 hours on 14-15 February 2005. This former landmark office block of 30 storeys featured a concrete core throughout, but with concrete columns up to the 21st floor and steel columns between the 22nd and 30th floors. Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed.

So what does the Madrid Windsor Tower fire show? That steel columns will collapse in a fire, that concrete is more fire-resistant, and, uh, that’s about it. It’s hard to see how any of this, especially in such a different building design, can have much meaning for the WTC case.”

Hope you all enjoyed reading that. Now, on a personal note, I first thought Ashely was more of an idiot that 3 year old kid…but then changed my mind….then changed it again…but got so confused between the two that from now on I’m calling them Bill and Ben.

Interesting the way it was presented. Just name the buildings and use this as ‘proof’ that steel-framed buildings don’t (cannot?) fall down due to fire. Like much of the troofers, it’s all smoke and mirrors; once you look at the details, and it isn’t difficult, it all falls apart.

Also, much of it is supposition; other buildings didn’t collapse, so why the towers, etc. This is another troofer method and works really well with the likes of Bill and Ben, for those who do not have a reasonable questioning ability or are easy led to ue anything to support their own fantasy.

After reading the above, check this out from Ashley in an earlier post:
“Regarding the building fires that you claim make me an utter, utter moron. I’ll concentrate on just one (to make it easier for you to hold the information in RAM), now if you can remember this fact ‘The WTC South Tower had a fire for just over one hour on 6 floors and it then collapsed’, the Caracas Tower Fire (Caracas Venezuela) – Burnt for *17 hours* over *40 floors* and did not collapse. Just to simplify it for you further:
1 hour fire on 6 floors = collapse
17 hour fire on 40 floors = no collapse”

It all sounds so plausible, eh? And so simple. Yet look behind a little and it all changes. This is how troofers like Bill and Ben operate and why it’s impossible to hold any form of reasonable debate as there just ‘aint much backing them up. Sad, really.

For access to the 911 Controlled Demolition Evidence and open source video lectures from a veteran high rise steel frame architect go here:-

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Also be aware we now have the blueprints which were denied us by the US Government, which clearly show there were in fact 47 massive steel core columns with 300,000 tonnes of reinforced concrete in the core and on top of every floor pan.

The core was described as "indestructible" at the time of construction.

Paul W, some unsolicited advice:

Never argue with an idiot, as passers by won't be able to tell the difference.

What you need to know about 3 Year Old Kid, and many other truthers is that, for them, 9/11 was an inside job because they WANT it to be an inside job. Nothing you or anyone else says will persuade them otherwise. Ever

3 Year Old Kid – I'd be interested to see how many of the "architects, engineers and physicists" you hold dear in the truth movement have looked, objectively, at evidence from both sides, and aren't just getting their information from YouTube videos.

Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you're not allowed to be a nutcase.

[quote post="3838"]can see 3 CDs on 911[/quote]

Don't believe everything you see.

[quote post="3838"]shut up[/quote]

Translation = "LALALALA can't hear you. 9/11 was an inside job LALALALALA. Muslims in caves couldn't do this."

Were are your Qualifications to make the claims you do?

I'm finding this "debate" very insensitive to those who lost their lives on 9/11 or from the effects of 9/11, including family members and friends who have lost loved ones.

Please remember that thousands of people lost their lives that day, regardless of what you think happened.

WTC 001 and WTC 002 were top down demolitions and building 007 was bottom down conventional demolition.

"You are absolutely impossible to debate with. Your idea of reasoned debate is pasting pages and pages of information from debunking sites, that half the time I don’t think you’ve even read." Ashley (Ben)

Geez, this is like shooting fish in a barrel…

Ashley, you ask simple questions then whine if the answers aren't simple and quick. Life's not like that, son. For example, the question 'what is love' can sometimes take a lifetime to answer.

You don't understand that, do you? You want a quick, witty reply like the quick, idiotic comments you troofers so love…'the buildings were designed for a plane impact', 'WTC7 was not hit by a plane', etc. All easy to say, and completely inaccurate, yet to reply ACCURATELY (note that word) it takes more than a 'no, it's not'.

But I'm not really doing it for you, Ben. Just like the other tosspot, Bill, neither of you want to slog through the NIST report, and all the other reports. You much prefer the troofer nonsense that sounds great and requires nothing more than repetition. Maybe it's the TV generation thing; you want jingles and logos.

It's amazing that one of you morons complained that I just put in links to my evidence, now you're moaning there's too much!

Sigh. READ the stuff I posted, and go to the links and READ them.

But that's not gonna happen, is it?

3 Year Old Kid, I have no science or engineering background, I'll admit that.

However, I do know that everything that the "truth" movement offers has either been debunked or is based on a false premise.

Where are the people who planted the demolitions? Who are they? Why has nobody involved come forward?

Louise – One of the reasons the "truth" movement annoys me so much is because they spend their lives sitting in front of their computer screens playing parlour games with the deaths of 3000 people, all the time talking about how much they "respect" them, before, in the next breath, sneering at them or their loved ones.

Paul

The 'troofer' sites I put forward are not space weapon/hologram sites. The sites are reputable and are written by professionals (architects, pilots, civil engineers etc etc). You STILL haven't answered my questions, are you being deliberately evasive or are you just stupid?

As for my age (what that has to do with it I do not know), I am 40 in 3 weeks, as far as my qualifications are concerned I hold a Bachelor of Science with Honours (2:1), although not in a related field. If I was young (which I unfortunately am no longer), I'm guessing you were planning on being condescending (I guess now you will do the 'you're old enough to know better'). I have taken the liberty of quoting my qualifications before you start down that road.

Paul I'll quote my main questions again that you seem either unable or unwilling to answer, please add one to the number of times you have been asked: -

[quote post="3838"]

Paul have you read the NIST report in its entirity? (as I’ve asked you 3 times prior)

Paul can you find an explaination for the spherical particles of iron? (as I’ve asked you two times prior)

Paul do you have a problem with a new inquiry? (as I’ve asked you two times prior)

Paul do you believe that Western governments have planned and carried out ‘false flag’ events in the past? (as I’ve asked you two times prior)[/quote]

Here's an interesting link: – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fis… this is authored by Robert Fisk, a very well respected reporter for the independent, this guy checks his facts and his sources impeccably. The headline for the story is 'Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11'.

Thanks for your post Neil.

Thanks for confessing you are not Science or Engineering literate.

How would you know if in fact it was debunked if you are not qualified to judge so?

Do you even know what moments of inertia are?

Go here to see what all the fuss is about, put the link together in your browser:

http://www.

ae911truth.net/omnitv_interview.htm

Learn what questions still need answers.

Neil,

You said this:

"However, I do know that everything that the “truth” movement offers has either been debunked or is based on a false premise."

I'm impressed. Where is this "debunking" information you claim to know about. Popular Mechanics, perhaps?? No, that can't be. They've been shown to be complete idiots on the subject. The 9/11 Commission's Report?? Nope, not there either. They give no logical explanation for WTC7 nor many other anomalies of the day. Perhaps Walt Disney's movie, Fantasia. Yes, you might be right there.

You wrote this:

Where are the people who planted the demolitions? Who are they? Why has nobody involved come forward?

You sound like a lot of Americans in the 60s and 70s. "Commumism can't exist. I have never seen a Communist therefore they can't exist." That type of illogical thinking is not only nonscientific, it's irrational. Do you really believe that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed Kennedy?? No one else has come forward claiming to be the actual hitman so we have no choice but to believe the Warren Report and not our own eyes. Such logic is good for appeasing the masses, but it fails in any scientific study of 9/11.

Ahhh, now we come to the crux of the issue. The real reason you spent hours, days, weeks, months creating your special little project:

Louise – One of the reasons the “truth” movement annoys me so much is because they spend their lives sitting in front of their computer screens playing parlour games with the deaths of 3000 people, all the time talking about how much they “respect” them, before, in the next breath, sneering at them or their loved ones.

The above is a rather blatant racist remark which shows what your real motives are. You state that 100% of ALL those who question the events of 9/11 "sneer at [the deaths of 3,000 people]." You should look in the mirror and ask yourself why you hate people going after the truth. Such racist remarks are better left for radicals to spew forth, not someone who "supposedly" is looking to solve the mystery of 9/11. I completely resent the fact that you say I "sneer at them." I am looking for the truth, not slander. I think it's become obvious which path you took.

A 20 year Architect tells it how it is, here are some of the questions which require answers re 911:

http://www.ae911truth.net/omnitv_interview.htm

"If you like the laws of physics then you could explain to a wondering world why all three building collapses to the PATH OF GREATEST RESISTENCE. There is no other event in known history where objects took the path of greatest resistence. Perhaps you care to explain this abnormality." Toeg

Here, dear reader, is an example of why it is impossible to debate a troofer – they have no idea. None. Zero. Zilch.

"No other event in known history where objects took the path of greatest resistance."

Sigh. How many times does it have to be explained? Let me try, one more time, but with a question none of you morons have, or will, answer: where else, in god's name, were the buildings going to go?

Maybe a shuffle to the left? Maybe a shimmy to the right? Maybe up and little, hover for a moment, then settle back down?

Try and grasp, if that is remotely possible, the concept of gravity, but before we go there, let's make clear what you mean by the 'path of greatest resistance'…you mean the lower section of the towers?

Are we all agreed on that? Good.

Now, here's the bit you fuckwits don't understand – the top section had enough mass and force to overcome the resistance of the lower section.

In other words, the top section went straight down (as gravity dictated), and because the lower section of the towers were unable to resist (as explained in the NIST report), it ALL went down.

Had the top section fell onto a granite outcrop the same size of the lower section, then things would be different.

But, it didn't. It fell on the lower section, which was unable to resist.

What, in the name of all things sane and normal, do you dickheads not understand about that?

And for all this garbage about me not answering questions, I asked the following at the very beginning, right at the start, which neither Bill and Ben, nor any other troofer posting here has ever answered, and which I will repeat again: where else was the building going to go?

And your answer is…?

For those who have questions about 9-11, here's another site answering (and debunking) most questions posed by the troofers:

http://www.debunking911.com

Paul

Are you going to answer my questions? For your benefit here they are again: -

Paul have you read the NIST report in its entirity? (for the 5th time of asking)

Paul can you find an explaination for the spherical particles of iron? (for the 4th time of asking)

Paul do you have a problem with a new inquiry? (for the 4th time of asking)

Paul do you believe that Western governments have planned and carried out ‘false flag’ events in the past? (for the 4th time of asking).

Name me another steel framed building that has collapsed due to fire damage.

Also I'd like you to provide me with the details of the plane that you claim crashed in to WTC7.

btw the Bill and Ben thing makes you look like a child Paul. As for either of us not answering the question that you posed at the beginning (where else was the building going to go?), I have answered that question a number of times (just not with the answer that you claim is true, that involves ignoring the law of entropy). Now you can try answering some of mine, like the ones above, like the questions I brought up about the bin Laden responsibility video. I'm quite sure you'll ignore these AGAIN, as there are no answers, there is no debunking of them.

You are hilarious, it's like trying to argue with a fish. Try answering my questions Paul..

Thanks for your posts Neil & Paul W.

As I have stated before, this media diatribe was a Cretins Guide to 911 – by CRETINS – for CRETINS.

What has a UFO specialist got to do with 911? Yet out they wheeled this former MOD mouthpiece turned UFO authority to spew fourth his balderdash & piffle.

Then of course there are the "Cult Watchers" LOL. I mean, who the heck are these characters?

Well it turns out they are a rabble band of discredited Commies and Socialists. Now please don't get me wrong, I have no problem with any of these Commies & Socialists per-say, but what do these CRETINS know about the 911 Physics and Engineering I ask?

For all these MU PITS knows the WTC was made up of a “COMMMMMUUUUNITY” of racially different GIRDERS all glued together in a flimsy construction because it was in need of some “REAL Social Cohesion”!

What the heck do ANY of these FOOLS know about ANY of the 911 Physics or Engineering issues?

Absolutely ZERO, and they have ADMITTED SO!

Well done!

Neil

I love downloading mp3 interviews about politics, sport, culture, etc. You know, interesting stuff. Got any recommendations?

Cheers

We ARE on the brink of total destruction, and the corporate media are reporting nothing but Euro 2008 and other irrelevant nonsense.

If BUSH attacks Iran it will be another illegal attack on a sovereign nation, just like Afghanistan & Iraq & just like Hitler did in 1939.

Iran, although they are not my cup of tea, are perfectly entitled to have nuclear power. Indeed it was the USA who sold them their first nuclear reactor.

Quote Wikipedia:

Nuclear program of Iran

The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program.[1] The support, encouragement and participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.[2]

End quote

This is not paranoia, this is for real.

If the Gulf oil is cut off, even in part, what will happen to our food prices?

If Iran does retaliate as it has promised, what do you suppose the USA will do to counter that?

If China losses its oil supply for its industry, what will it do to protects its economic infrastructure and prevent starvation & unrest of its population?

If you can not see this Paul W & Neil, then you need to realize one thing – Corporations in the USA and elsewhere will gladly profit from both of your deaths and give you absolutely nothing in return.

Continue peddling your filthy lies and distortions of the 911 facts. Watch as your planet turns to blood and mud. But don't bother to come asking me for solutions once it all kicks off because there will be only one outcome, the total inhalation of at least 80% of the world population including many of your family members. PERIOD.

Nobody listened to those who warned about Hitler & his Nazis, and today nobody is listening to the warnings about Bush and the NEOCON adgender.

911 was an inside job, a pretext for starting World War 3.

[quote post="3838"]I am trying to stay neutral but I have to admit the Physics posted by “3 year old kid” does make a lot of sense.[/quote]

NO IT DOES NOT!

An A Level student could tell you the errors in his workings.

Dear Victor E,

Thanks for your post.

I will try and be more polite to other posters even if they are MU PITS.

Chill out Paul W, Ashley is talking a lot of sense.

So building 007 was hit and damaged by falling debris. OK.

But that damage was asymmetric damage, yet building 007 came down symmetrically at almost freefall speed into its footprint.

It should have toppled over, not straight down its footprint.

Also, the fires were over 20 floors below the penthouse on the roof, yet the penthouse collapsed first.

How did fire damage 20 floors below collapse the Penthouse 20 floors above?

Come on Paul Wake up!!!

[quote post="3838"]I love downloading mp3 interviews about politics, sport, culture, etc. You know, interesting stuff. Got any recommendations?[/quote]

radiophonic.org.uk is where it's at, then!

Seriously – there is a series of podcasts out there called the Sceptics Guide which may interest you, as may maximumfun.org.

Timesonline do some good ones, as do The Guardian.

Hi Neil,

Is that honestly skeptical or Irrationally skeptical?

When you have any spare time between your Yellow journalism perhaps you could look at these skeptics too –

Here are a group of 400 + qualified Architects and Engineers who are deeply skeptical of the US governments 911 account, indeed they explain why the official story defies the known laws of Physics and is a great big dump of smelly lies:-

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Dr. Spalding come in Dr. Spalding are you real or a FAKE Dr Spaulding?

Can you now confirm the Science please, were is the science incorrect as you claim in your post of Jun 30th, 2008 at 2:22 pm.

Quote Dr. Spaulding: NO IT DOES NOT!

An A Level student could tell you the errors in his workings. End post

10.00 – 9.22 = 0.78 seconds

How could a massive building with a 1 square acre footprint offer only 0.78 seconds worth of resistance to quarter mile of steel and concrete building 200,000 + tonnes?

How is this even physically possible?

And for the south tower it was even less resistance, the top 10 or so floors fell 90+ floors and they offered next to zero resistance.

And As these two buildings were constructed identically, should these different masses falling through different resistances have had significantly different times?

So why both just under 10 seconds Dr Spaulding, its not like both of these pile drivers were the same weight is it as one was half the weight of the other.

Controlled Demolition Proved. PERIOD!!!!

Now either come clean and post the Physics or withdraw your 911 LIES DR Spaulding.

Dr, your not even a MU PIT!

What are you on about Sprite?

[quote post="3838"]Interesting. I have a macro which shows me everyones comment ID handler. 1 person here is having a conversation with him/her self, paying himself/herself compliments and trying to make it look like there is more support for the conspiracy theories then there actually is. What a dirty troofer trick.

To the person posing as multiple people; come clean and admit it or I will do it for you.

There’s only 2 people here who believe in a conspiracy theory. The majorioty of people on here do not believe in conspiracy theories. Just 2 of them.[/quote]

The comment ID is the unique ID of the comment, it's got nowt to do with the poster.

OK you've got me, I'm really Paul w too, can't you tell from the similarities in our writing?

Bill and Ben

What a laugh. I go away for a couple of days working and come back to see you two idiots frothing at the mouth. You are so funny.

Bill – "the building (WTC7) should have toppled over"

You are an idiot

Ben – Not only will I ask Neil about any decent mp3 downloads, but anyone else who is reading this, even you, dipshit. Why? Well, I figure 'Neil' might have similar interests as me, and as he's involved in the internet media, so to speak, I'll ask. It would be nice if he answered with some hot shit sites, but he doesn't have to. Not sure about me wanting a signed photo of him, though. If he was a hot chickky babe, then hello pussycat, but I doubt it. Sigh)

I'm wondering why you mentioned it. Do you feel you're missing out? A bit upset I didn't ask you? Oh, poor thing. The reason I'm asking you this that from I can gather, the average troofer is male, single, and without many friends (and I don't mean 'colleagues', I mean friends). Not every troofer, but most.

And gee, you're impatient, eh? "Where's my reply?" It's coming, dick-for-brains, you just have to wait – been very, very busy with work. Don't worry – you'll notice it, you moron.

It will also be my last major effort with you, Ben. You're a bit dim and monotonous, but have been lots of fun to rattle. The only real question I have is whether this is a piss-take. If it is, well done, you got me! If not, you poor, sad, lonely bastard. You must feel very isolated in life. Believe me when I say I hope you recover and reconnect with life; no-one should suffer, and life is short.

You know, I do wonder how many people are reading this. Any chance of a hands-up?

Hey its Paul as his usual self – bitter and twisted with a topping of Cretin.

Are you not pretending to be Dr. MU PIT Spalding today paul?

Are you Dr. Jeckle and Mr hyde – 2 in 1?

Can you just change back to Dr. Spalding and answer the Physics question Paul please?

What is

10.00 – 9.22 =

How can a 1 square acre, 200,000 + tonne quarter of a mile of building offer almost absolute zero resistance?

Come on Paul, were is your Answer?

Your answer is Gravity, can anyone see a big fat problem with Paul's answer?

You sure do make a good SLAVE paul.

All I know is 911 and 7/7 were both inside jobs and the science prove it.

In the July prior to 911 Alex Jones warned that 911 was going to happen because he had a tipoff by CIA insiders – check this out:-

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=alex+jone…