Interesting development..
People informing each other at occupy Wall street..
DEMAND an investigation into the demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers
Occupy Building 7 - November 19-20
12PM march from Liberty Plaza to WTC 7.
Occupy WTC 7 park until 6pm each day.
September 11, 2001: the day the 1% hijacked our country from the 99% and launched a permanent war that will not end in our lifetimes unless we stop it. Ten years later the War on Terrorism has diverted trillions of dollars from more important uses and sunken our country into debt. Building 7, which most people don’t know about, came crashing to the ground at 5:20pm on September 11th. Today, millions of citizens and 1,600 courageous architects and engineers are demanding an investigation into the obvious demolition of this skyscraper.
The government's absurd story that "normal office fires" felled this 47-story skyscraper is only the tip of the iceberg of the lies we’ve been fed about 9/11. Today we are taking our country back. We will not rest until the perpetrators who demolished World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers, killing 3,000 innocent people, are brought to justice, and the war dollars are brought home.
occupybuilding7.org/
Wow, look at the overwhelming response you are getting from the OWS supporters on this tribe, LOL!
aren't you the asshole always complaining about tandy writing "hahaha", and how it's antagonistic and takes the discussion to the "gutter"?
Seriously, do you completely lack anything resembling self awareness and/or criticism?
We will see if you will still lol when these mass protest take place..
Here is another interesting initiative...
Video: Senator Gravel and Rep. McKinney at Massachusetts 9/11 Ballot Initiative Press Conference
Rep. Cynthia McKinney at the 9/11 Ballot Initiative Press Conference
On the steps of the Massachusetts State House—9/13/11
www.youtube.com/watch
Senator Mike Gravel at the 9/11 Ballot Initiative Press Conference
On the steps of the Massachusetts State House—9/13/11
www.youtube.com/watch
Along with Massachusetts 9/11 truth activists, Senator Mike Gravel—
a native of Massachusetts—launched our campaign for a 2012 ballot initiative
which seeks the creation of a Citizens’ 9/11 Commission, by holding a press
conference held on September 13, 2011 on the steps of the Massachusetts
State House in Boston. The ballot question was submitted in August and was
certified by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley on September 7.
According to the Massachusetts initiative law, supporters must collect a
minimum of nearly 70,000 valid signatures from registered voters by early
December of 2011.
.............
9-11cc.org/index.php/vi...s-conference/
<<aren't you the asshole
And so it begins, Dustin' losing his temper and spiraling downard until he is once again kicked off this tribe. Name calling is against the rules. And might I add, "LOL" is rather tame compared to "asshole", I suggest you stop if you would like to continue your fake Jewish Alt here on this tribe.
That said, LOL is a rather innocuous and typical way of expressing laughter via the internet or by text. "Haha" is a childish playground taunt.
"And so it begins, Dustin' losing his temper"
not really losing my temper, just pointing out that you constantly whine about behavior that you are notorious for engaging in
"That said, LOL is a rather innocuous and typical way of expressing laughter via the internet or by text. "Haha" is a childish playground taunt."
right, and in no way does your original post resemble "a childish playground taunt". Again, it's clear you lack any ability at self criticism
<<not really losing my temper
Hence the reason you you called me an "asshole", thereby breaking the rules of this tribe and endangering your own participation. No loss of temper there, no siree....*dripping sarcasm*.
<<just pointing out that you constantly whine about behavior that you are notorious for engaging in
And now I am "notorious" for using the the common and innocuous term "LOL"? Wow, yet another non-point from Dustin. What a surprise....
"HaHa" is a childish playground taunt, LOL is common and innocuous shorthand for laughing. LOL is common among adults, "haha" is common among children. This is a simple fact. But feel free to continue this idiotic non-point while calling me an "asshole", LMAO!!
<<We will see if you will still lol when these mass protest take place..
How many people will = a "mass protest" in your opinion? Will you count truthers busing in just for this event and then leaving as OWS protestors? Or are they just truthers trying to coopt the moniker?
"Hence the reason you you called me an "asshole", thereby breaking the rules of this tribe and endangering your own participation. No loss of temper there, no siree....*dripping sarcasm*."
not really too concerned about my participation in this tribe, to be honest.
"And now I am "notorious" for using the the common and innocuous term "LOL"? Wow, yet another non-point from Dustin. What a surprise...."
is that what I wrote? No, I wrote that you are notorious for whining, especially about behavior you regularly engage in
<<not really too concerned about my participation in this tribe, to be honest.
If that is the case you would be free to call me an asshole at least two or three more times. Which direction will you choose?
<< No, I wrote that you are notorious for whining
Wow, you can't even keep track of your own sentences.
"not really losing my temper, just pointing out that you constantly whine about behavior that you are notorious for engaging in"
According to your own sentence, what "behavior" am I "notorious for engaging in" ? My use of the term "LOL" of course. Wow dude, this one really takes the cake. I am completely and utterly flabbergasted that you think you hav a point with ANY of this. Your capacity for arguing a non-point seems to have no bounds, unbelievable!
>>Wow dude, this one really takes the cake.
>>Your capacity for arguing a non-point seems to have no bounds, unbelievable!
I agree. Actually trying to debate that there's some kind of substantial difference between "haha" and "LOL" really does take the cake.
And then, OF COURSE, running off on some "put words in someone's mouth" straw man bullshit.
He said your behavior, not your verbiage, toolbag.
But you knew that.
And oooooooh... I called a name. If you've got such a problem with it, then you'd better advocate for banning Brent (probably the biggest offender), and a number of others, including yourself (you called someone "Einstein" in a derogatory fashion. Doesn't need to be vulgar to be insulting or name-calling).
"And the firefighter that took us down, kept saying, 'Do not look down!' And I kept saying, 'Why not look down?' And we were stepping over people. And you know you can feel when you're stepping on people." ~Barry Jennings talking about WTC7 lobby
www.youtube.com/watch
"Your capacity for arguing a non-point seems to have no bounds, unbelievable!"
indeed~!!!
<<I agree. Actually trying to debate that there's some kind of substantial difference between "haha" and "LOL" really does take the cake.
Is "haha" a childish playground taunt? Yes. Is "LOL" a common way of expressing laughter via text? Yes. Simple.
<<And then, OF COURSE, running off on some "put words in someone's mouth" straw man bullshit.
Ummm....nothing like this happened in this thread. What are you even talking about?
<<He said your behavior, not your verbiage, toolbag.
Again, what specifically are you talking about? Anger clouds your vision, as it obviously did for Dustin.
<<And oooooooh... I called a name. If you've got such a problem with it, then you'd better advocate for banning Brent (probably the biggest offender), and a number of others, including yourself (you called someone "Einstein" in a derogatory fashion. Doesn't need to be vulgar to be insulting or name-calling).
Wow, you anger really is clouding your vision. This has really got to be the most idiotic conversation I have had on this tribe, I am embarrassed for even indulging either of you. I will just let your spittle filled rant speak for itself.
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php
what is "haha" if not actually "LOL"ing? instead of telling someone you are laughing out loud, you ARE laughing out loud. what a ridiculous argument. haha.
I explained the difference, you are simply choosing to ignore it. Seriously the dumbest conversation I have ever beend dragged in to.
Jeff, you claiming a difference isn't the same as an actual difference existing (the same is true of the majority of the moronic arguments you make here). You would probably benefit from recognizing the difference
>>Seriously the dumbest conversation I have ever instigated.
There... fixed.
"There... fixed."
actually rather mundane compared to some of the one's he's instigated
Sorry, but an idiotic argument over "haha" vs "LOL" was instigated by Dustin, not me.
It is certainly not surprising that you instigated this conversation Dustin.
"aren't you the asshole always complaining about tandy writing "hahaha", and how it's antagonistic and takes the discussion to the "gutter"? Seriously, do you completely lack anything resembling self awareness and/or criticism?
reply to this post "
Or maybe you are not familiar with what "instigate" means?
Just about every one of your posts today has been a lame-ass attempt at personal denigration aimed at me, I am embarrassed that I have even indulged your little obsession Dustin. Hit me up when you are ready to discuss something real.
in·sti·gate (nst-gt)
tr.v. in·sti·gat·ed, in·sti·gat·ing, in·sti·gates
1. To urge on; goad.
2. To stir up; foment.
www.thefreedictionary.com/instigate
since when has "haha" been exclusively a childish playground taunt? it's interchangeable with "LOL". both are expressions of laughter. you have a fancy way of changing the meanings of things to suit your arguments. in the case of this argument, i'm going to use another childish playground taunt and say: FAIL.
I often wonder if he actually believes his own arguments, or if he just think s everyone else is stupid
we've already established jenning's timeline was wrong
and he wasn't happy with how Avery mis-quoted him
911blogger.com/node/16505
Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/progr...7434230.stm
"The writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery, told The Conspiracy Files: "The amount of detail that Barry gave us in this interview was unreal. He says he was stepping over dead bodies in the lobby."
Barry Jennings himself disagrees with their interpretation of his words. Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I didn't like the way you know I was portrayed. They portrayed me as seeing dead bodies. I never saw dead bodies"
Dylan Avery is adamant that he didn't take anything out of context. He played The Conspiracy Files a recording of Barry Jennings words: "The fire fighter who took us down kept saying do not look down. And I kept saying why.
"He said do not look down. And we're stepping over people and you know you could feel when you're stepping over people."
However, Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I said it felt like I was stepping over them but I never saw any.
"And you know that's the way they portrayed me and I didn't appreciate that so I told them to pull my interview."
-- of course the conspiranoid will simply say that the illuminati brainwashed/threatened/paid him off
How did Jennings mis-quote *himself*?
Again: "And the firefighter that took us down, kept saying, 'Do not look down!' And I kept saying, 'Why not look down?' And we were stepping over people. And you know you can feel when you're stepping on people." ~Barry Jennings talking about WTC7 lobby
And you didn't "establish" anything. You just made a baseless claim.
What you fail to mention (or more likely fail to understand, being the dullard that you are) is that Jennings was trapped with Hess in WTC7 before WTC1 and 2 collapsed (trapped about 9:00am), but that he wasn't rescued until after both WTC1 and 2 had collapsed, so your shot of Hess in the window after the collapses really doesn't mean squat.
And Jennings did report various threats prior to is mysterious death two days before the release of NIST's WTC7 report.
But whatever... jokes at the expense of dead public servants sure are funny, no?
stepping on people is the same as bodies now?
forums.randi.org/showthread.php
well you obviously believe jennings was murdered. I guess it was the illuminati?
That might be relevant if Jennings' account didn't specifically say they were trapped before the collapse of either tower.
Spin it all you want, people can listen to the words from Jennings' own mouth in the linked clip.
It is shocking to see that so few people know about Building 7..
Bob Tuskin: Occupy Building 7
NotForSale2NWO 12 nov 2011
www.youtube.com/watch
<,t is shocking to see that so few people know about Building 7..>>
what that it collapsed after suffering structural damage and uncontrolled fires for over 7 hours?
or building 4?
Why don't you demand an investigation into building 4?????????
>>How about Building 3 or 6? or building 4?
Did any of those other buildings collapse on 9/11? Erm... no.
>>what that it collapsed after suffering structural damage and uncontrolled fires for over 7 hours?
That it even existed, or collapsed, at all. The entire video in Harmen's link is people saying they'd never even heard of building 7.
Here's to hoping that some day Brent pulls his head out of his ass and actually reads the NIST reports, so at least his gross ignorance of the "official" explanation he's intent on supporting won't be quite so obvious.
Some video of the occupy building 7 action ..enjoy..
www.youtube.com/watch
<<We will see if you will still lol when these mass protest take place..
So do you consider 30 people, if that to = "massive" Harmen?
Here is part2
www.youtube.com/watch
more video here
www.youtube.com/watch
and here
Occupy Building 7 @ Occupy Wall Street: 911 Truth Mic Check in Zuccotti Park!
whatzgoodstudios123
www.youtube.com/watch
Where did Harmen "predict" a "massive" crowd? You even put "massive" in quotes in your prior post, even though you're the only one that's even used that word.
Once again: i79.photobucket.com/albums/j...super.jpg
Harmen: "We will see if you will still lol when these mass protest take place.. "
"Mass" /= "massive."
Regardless, your posts are little more than a not-so-subtle "nyah nyah," and that = 2.bp.blogspot.com/-PQa2Exi-...2B1986.jpg
Maybe you're just bitter that the only group chanting something more specific than "we are the 99%" or "banks got bailed out, we got sold out" is 9/11 Truth.
You are of course ignoring the most likely answer, ie, I disagree with the notion that the 9-11 truther movement is growing and/or gaining traction with the general public. Whereas your own "ha fucking ha" is much more congruent with "nya nya" type language.
Hmmm........ no, the most likely answer is that you're trolling. You may claim otherwise, but you certainly express your "disagreement" with the trolliest of posts. (well, maybe not the "trolliEST"... I guess Brent has you beat there... but at least he's up front about it, without some backhanded sissy shit masquerade)
And my "Haw fucking Haw" was more of a "your hypocrisy and 'research' is SO beyond laughable," as opposed to a "nyah nyah."
<<Wow, look at the overwhelming response you are getting from the OWS supporters on this tribe, LOL!
I really don't think good natured sarcasm regarding the lack of response could be categorized as "trolling". Whereas "ha fucking ha" most certainly can.
<<And my "Haw fucking Haw" was more of a "your hypocrisy and 'research' is SO beyond laughable," as opposed to a "nyah nyah."
Keep telling yourself that.
>>I really don't think good natured sarcasm regarding the lack of response could be categorized as "trolling". Whereas "ha fucking ha" most certainly can.
troll.me/images/y-u-no...t-troll-is.jpg
You obviously have absolutely NO idea what trolling is.
...or more likely, you just like to pretend that only *other* people troll. Jeff would never troll. Perish the thought.
Face facts -- most conspiracy theories are little more the politically themed gossip; it is entertainment pure and simple. The events of 9/11 combined with the stupidity of the US government invasion of Iraq, only fuels this manner of verbatim...
Please point to an instance in which I have referenced "gossip." Just keeping to what's in this thread, did Jennings, or did he not, make the above statements? Do those statements, or do they not, directly contradict the official explanation of events? Is Jennings, or is he not, a credible witness? Answers to these questions are simple and require no "theorizing," however the answers do point to a cover-up.
Of course, the "OBL and his flying circus" concept is a conspiracy theory, but it's best not to think about that.
P.S. Just as a simple example, Halliburton had $3.6billion in revenue in 2003. It was $6.5billion last month. Tell me again how "stupid" the invasion of Iraq was. Oops... there I go again with my "conspiracy theories."
P.P.S. I realize all of Halliburton's revenue doesn't come from Iraq, but the point is clear. The invasion was not done out of "stupidity."
"These men are not incompetent or stupid. They are crafty and brilliant. Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If they were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor." ~James Forrestal, first Secretary of Defense
<<You obviously have absolutely NO idea what trolling is.
How ironic, LOL~ troll.me/images/y-u-no...t-troll-is.jpg You spend WAY too much time discussing me and excercising your own personal grudge.
Um... okay... so that's two words for which you don't know the definition. "Trolling" and "ironic."
The fact that you don't get the irony speaks volumes. Now, do you want to discuss the actual lack of support for this truther march? Or are you going to continue obsessing over me?
Jeff also likes to accuse other people of his behavior. Think of it as his version version of "i got your nose", but lacking the ability to recognize that everyone knows that it's just his thumb
<<Jeff also likes to accuse other people of his behavior
And you like to pretend you are Jewish so you can call others anti-semitic, even though they had not uttered one anti-semitic word. sometimes you just resort to a simple "asshole" comment. Be that as it may, I will put my record up against your nasty and vitriolic behavior any day. There is a reason I have never been kicked off this tribe, and there is a reason you have been repeatedly kicked off.
That mental image is chuckle-worthy.
"HA! I've got your nose!"
<group of people> "Uh... wtf?"
"Ha HA! Look everyone! I've got his nose! It's right here in my hand! How does it feel to not have a nose, Mr. No-Nose?!"
<group of people> "Uh... wft?"
"I have triumphed in the battle of the nose! Stop being so bitter over your lack of a nose! As everyone can see, it is now in my possession, and it is mine as a spoil of war! Muahahaha!"
<group of people> "Uh... seriously... wft?"
"Wow, look at the overwhelming response you are getting from the OWS supporters on this tribe, LOL!"
Wow 63 replies..
This important topic is finally getting some of the attention it deserves..
Here is some more video of the people at Occupy building 7..
Occupy Building 7 @ OWS wall street NYC 11/19/2011 AE911 Truth part 1
subprimitive op 22 nov 2011
Occupy Building 7 @ OWS wall street NYC 11/19/2011 AE911 Truth part 1
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
www.youtube.com/watch
<<Wow 63 replies..
Almost none of these replies actually have to do with the truther movement or the march you were promoting Harmen. Dustin and Abraxas have a bad habit of discussing me rather than the subject of the thread, it is bordering on obsessive.
"Please point to an instance in which I have referenced "gossip." Just keeping to what's in this thread, did Jennings, or did he not, make the above statements? Do those statements, or do they not, directly contradict the official explanation of events? Is Jennings, or is he not, a credible witness? Answers to these questions are simple and require no "theorizing," however the answers do point to a cover-up."
Profiteering off misfortune is as old as the human race, one needs only to look though history to see that.
The conspiracy questions raised always have a circular-logical about them that descends into pseudo science, where objective thought is usurped in favor of theory. This is the specter of Lysenkoism (www.skepdic.com/lysenko.html) in our hyper media driven media. People see what they want to see to fit their political conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy minded individuals, will establish and distort their own conspiracy minded theories (social and/or scientific) with whatever is at hand...
Of course what if WTC-7 did not collapse despite all the damage to took? Then we would be dealing with the conspiracy theories about how it was spared because of the CIA / FBI government presence there?
>>Keep up that preschool humor, it is fitting! :)~
Oh shit! Now he's got *my* nose!
So you'd rather play wanna-be-psychologist than address facts. Noted.
By the way, even NIST's report states that debris damage was not a factor in the collapse, aside from ignition of fires (and then we could go into a *lengthy* discussion of the misrepresentations presented in NIST's fire models and conclusions, but once my plane boards and I'm back home, I probably won't be on over the holiday, so that will have to wait).
And if you think the CIA and FBI were the only government agencies with offices in WTC7, well... you need to do some research.
Why do we nutty "conspiracy theorists" know more about the official story than those that actually defend it? -sigh-
>>>By the way, even NIST's report states that debris damage was not a factor in the collapse, aside from ignition of fires (and then we could go into a *lengthy* discussion of the misrepresentations presented in NIST's fire models and conclusions, but once my plane boards and I'm back home, I probably won't be on over the holiday, so that will have to wait).<<<
I'm not a metallurgist, however, I suspect to any in the long term theories supporting conspiracy would not hold well under peer review.
>>>And if you think the CIA and FBI were the only government agencies with offices in WTC7, well... you need to do some research.<<<
That is irrelevant, it is a frequent trait for offices of any building to be shared by that agency of the many branches of Government.
>>>Why do we nutty "conspiracy theorists" know more about the official story than those that actually defend it? -sigh- <<<
The Seven Signs of Pseudoscience (www.quackwatch.org/01Quacke...ns.html):
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.
One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that they had discovered cold fusion—a way to produce nuclear fusion without expensive equipment. Scientists did not learn of the claim until they read reports of a news conference. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery and was devoid of the sort of details that might have enabled other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or to repeat the experiment. (Ian Wilmut's announcement that he had successfully cloned a sheep was just as public as Pons and Fleischmann's claim, but in the case of cloning, abundant scientific details allowed scientists to judge the work's validity.)
Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney. In the case of cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists who were protecting their own research in hot fusion.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.
Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.
Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.
I began this list of warning signs to help federal judges detect scientific nonsense. But as I finished the list, I realized that in our increasingly technological society, spotting voodoo science is a skill that every citizen should develop.
Lysenkoism, bounds in these conspiracy theories; the methodologies of ideological biased science abounds in 9/11 theories...
<<Oh shit! Now he's got *my* nose!
Sorry, just wiping the shit off of it for you. :)~
Today a hero of the resistence died..
Lynn Margulis: 1938-2011
submitted by jkeogh on wed, 11/23/2011
The family of Lynn Margulis has announced that she died at home on Tuesday, November 22, at the age of 73. She had suffered a serious hemorrhagic stroke on Friday, November 18 - so serious that there was no chance of recovery.
Having authored dozens of books and scientific papers, Margulis was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1999.
...............
In early 2010, she wrote an article on WTC 7 entitled “Two Hit, Three Down – The Biggest Lie.” Asking: “Why did three World Trade Center buildings (#1,#2 and #7) collapse on 9/11, after two (and only two) of them were hit by ‘hijacked airplanes’?”, she gave the scientific answer:
“Because . . . the steel columns were selectively melted in a brilliantly-timed controlled demolition. Two 110-story buildings (towers 1&2), plus one 47-floor building (WTC 7), were induced to collapse at gravitationally accelerated rates in an operation planned and carried out by insiders. The apparent hijacking of airliners and the crashing of them into the Twin Towers were intrinsic parts of the operation, which together provided a basis for claiming that the buildings were brought down by Muslim terrorists. The buildings’ steel columns, which would have provided irrefutable physical evidence of the use of explosives, were quickly removed from the scene of the crime.”
But much more difficult than the scientific question, she said, is the “science-education problem”:
“The persistent problem is how to wake up public awareness, especially in the global scientifically literate public, of the overwhelming evidence that the three buildings collapsed by controlled demolition. . . . We, on the basis of hard evidence, must conclude that the petroleum fires related to the aircraft crashes were irrelevant (except perhaps as a cover story).”
The scientific world, including the 9/11 Truth Community – she was a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth - has lost one of our noblest, most courageous fighters for the Earth and the Truth.
-David Ray Griffin
911blogger.com/news/2011-...s-1938-2011
<<Because . . . the steel columns were selectively melted in a brilliantly-timed controlled demolition>>
roflmao
they weren't melted. Not even NIST claimed that
Here is her testimony in 9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out..
Lynn Margulis (PhD - Scientist) - 9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out (AE911TRUTH)
WAHRHEITSBEWEGUNG911 16 mei 2011
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW!
Famed scientist, Lynn Margulis, provides crucial rules and elements within an investigative scientific analysis to procure an accepted hypotheses vs. what's depicted in the NIST report.
...............
www.youtube.com/watch
You know as I stated before, if it were not the opportunism of the Bush Administration to use 9/11 as a catalyst to invade Iraq... most of three conspiracy theories would not have one-tenth the tolling value it has. Let alone provoking the refusal of the 9/11 Truth movement to trust anything other then their per-concieved conspiracy theories that MUST be true to them?!
I'm thinking of the Lusitania, and the cover up of the munitions that were possessed by the British Government of WWI. Now, while that clearly was case where shipping place in danger (with a dangerous cargo) of attack by the Germans. It has far more weight in the real world then any conspiracy theory has taken hold in respect to 9/11.
Ironically, the sinking of that vessel made had been a case the German torpedo hitting the Achilles Heel
of the Lusitania; causing a chain reaction of events that sunk the ship, without the need for the munitions to be there in the first place?!
Your use of the term "conspiracy theory" already shows your bias..
Organisations like Architects and Engineers for 911 truth
www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html
and Scientist for 911 truth
scientistsfor911truth.org/
Do not speculate about conspiracy theories..
They show us the evidence that proofs the original conspiracy theory can not be true..
They demonstrate that they are not serious scientific organizations and in fact are just paranoid, delusional cult mouthpieces, since they say absurd things like pools of molten metal that stayed molten for over six weeks somehow point to controlled demolition or thermite, when neither has ever produced molten metal pools that stayed molten for even hours (CDs have never produced pools of molten metal at all), much less over six weeks. Or when they seriously suggest that the mass murdering conspirators were thoughtful enough to give a heads up of their plans to the BBC!
"Experts speak out..
Lynn Margulis"
Lynn Margulis is a biologist. Such relevant expertise regarding building collapse dynamics! Classic appeal to authority fallacy.
"most of three conspiracy theories would not have one-tenth the tolling value it has."
Oh, so you mean that rather than a whopping 20 people showing up for Occupy Building 7, only 2 would have shown up?
The Towers' primary structural supports were the central core columns and the perimeter columns. Video of the Towers' collapses clearly show the central core columns being the last things to collapse, and hence obviously they weren't severed by explosives to facilitate collapse (causes of events don't follow the events). That leaves the perimeter columns. But planes crashed right through the perimeter columns, which would have destroyed any planted explosives. Hence, controlled demolition of the Towers was impossible.
Margulis and Griffin. Biologist and theologian. Such relevant experts the truthers are able to parade regarding building collapse dynamics and demolition.
Lynn Margulis was a top notch scientist who was perfectly qualified to explain the scientific method and why the 911 cover ups defy science..
The New York times is completely ignoring her important work for Scientist for 911 truth..
www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25...-at-73.html
What is wrong with your media?
"Oh, so you mean that rather than a whopping 20 people showing up for Occupy Building 7, only 2 would have shown up?"
Well, if that were the case -- then I'd be a hell of a lot pleased if instead of a 100%, one 10 percent of those who passed away did on 9/ll.
What is, is -- my passionate dislike of the Bush White House did because of 9/11, as well as what Congress allowed to so transpire; does not change the fact that 9/11 is an terrorist event not progenerating from the US Government...
"does not change the fact that 9/11 is an terrorist event not progenerating from the US Government..."
That is not a fact but a hypothesis that should be fact checked..
You should look at the facts first and not argue from prejudice....
Read this for example..
A response
Published: November 25, 2011 1:00 AM
As the designer of the "Science of 9/11" display graciously hosted at the Vernon library this September, I was surprised by Mr. Polnicky's recent letter.
The display in question made references to documented scientific facts of the 9/11 building collapses, elementary physics concepts taught to high school students and simple scientific analysis that proves the official story of 9/11 is false. Nowhere in Mr. Polnicky's letter are these facts and analysis discussed.
I assure you all that I am not a "crackpot."
I am trained in the scientific method, have university science degrees and am a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. Crackpots reject science. I embrace science.
How is the science in the display incorrect? If the display contained errors, someone competent in science must know why and can easily explain why without cutting themselves on Occam's razor. I will gladly publicly debate any scientist, science teacher or structural engineer in the Vernon area (or all of Canada for that matter) about the scientific topics contained in the display. Crackpots on the other hand run away from focused rational debate.
Do the majority of scientists really disagree with what was in the display? I have not been able to find one scientist who will debate me on this matter. Perhaps you will have better luck. Not one scientist anywhere is the world has ever been able to explain the free-fall period of building seven. Additionally, not one scientist has ever been able to counter the observation that the official theory of how WTC 7 came down violates basic laws of physics. The display used science alone to attack the official 9/11 myth. Crackpots in comparison attack others instead of their arguments.
I urge everyone to visit www.vernon911truth.org site to see the "offending" display for themselves and not rely on emotional arguments to decide what constitutes truth.
I am sorry that some people are offended by science. People that believed the sun revolved around the Earth were offended by Galileo's evidence to the contrary.
Those who believed the Earth was flat were undoubtedly offended by the evidence from seafarers that showed it was in fact round. I am not offended by science but do find political pandering and censorship to be exceptionally offensive.
Michael Fullerton, founder,
Vernon 9/11 Truth
truthers have yet to have any of their idiotic "theories" published in a scientific peer reviewed journal - not surprising since they are so ridiculous
"Lynn Margulis was a top notch scientist"
Appeal to authority. She's a biologist. She obviously has less relevant expertise than a structural engineer when addressing a structural engineering issue.
Oh my gosh! Molten metal! Too bad that in no way points to either controlled demolition nor thermite since neither has ever in history created pools of molten metal that stayed molten for even hours, much less six weeks. So what's the relevance then of molten metal for the controlled demolition theory?
None. This is one of many Appeal to Ignorance fallacies employed by truthers ("I don't understand this! Therefore it must support my theory somehow!")
Crackpot.
Crackpots also misuse and distort science, and ignore evidence that contradicts their fantasies of what they'd like to believe was true.
Truthers are thus crackpots.
Truth seekers like Lynn Margulis, Steven Jones or Niels Harrit have written more peer reviewed articles than you will ever read.....
Biology is a science...
Her argument is purely based on the scientific method..
As an MSc i am very aware of the scientific method that is valid for all sciences..
www.youtube.com/watch
Thousands of tons of aluminum clad the exterior ot the building, aluminum melts at a low temp. Why do you guys continue to ignore this simple fact?
Architects and electricians are not experts in structural engineering, subsequently the majority of your AE for 9-11 truth are not experts in the appropriate field.
<<Biology is a science...
A Biologies is not either a metallurgist nor a structural engineer, she has no relevant expertise.
The scientific method is very relevant for 911 since the official conspiracy story has been succesfully falsified and therefore can not be true..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
I would not expect you to understand Jeff..
9/11 Skeptopathy: Pathological Skepticism In Support of the Falsified Official Story
Posted on August 20, 2011
by Michael Fullerton
Foreign Policy Journal
July 18, 2011
True skepticism is vitally important to real science. Skepticism involves meticulously questioning beliefs or facts. Ideally, every scientist then is a true skeptic. To the scientist, all theories can never be proven true, only proven to be false. All observations must be rigorously verified before they are accepted as fact. All hypotheses must be supported by sound observations. Any one observation that a hypothesis does not predict results in the rejection of that hypothesis. Skeptopathy, or pathological skepticism, on the other hand is not a logical rational pursuit. Skeptopathy is the irrational belief that a theory or a piece evidence is false merely because it is unusual, goes against conventional wisdom, or is simply too difficult to imagine.[1] Skeptopathy then involves an irrational unsupported belief that something is untrue. Skeptopathy involves not fact and scientific rigor but blind faith that an unpleasant notion is false.
In particular, we can see that skeptopathy is rampant in relation to the events of September 11, 2001. Perhaps, the most salient example of this pathological skepticism can be seen in proponents of the official story on how WTC 7 collapsed. 7 World Trade Center (WTC 7) was a 47-story building that fell on 9/11 despite not being hit by a plane. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) attempted to officially explain how WTC 7 fell. Their explanation is documented in the report entitled Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7.[2] This report states that WTC 7 fell solely due to the effects of ordinary office fires. The most dumb-founding aspect of NIST’s theory is that it actually explains absolutely nothing about the WTC 7 collapse, from a purely scientific standpoint. The pronouncements contained within their report are completely unsupported by any facts or legitimate experiments. In fact, NIST’s own analysis actually refutes their own theory. The only experiment they performed supports this refutation. To understand this we need to examine their work under the microscope of falsifiability.
Since Karl Popper, falsifiability is seen as the most important and necessary criteria for determining the scientific validity of a theory. The physicist Steven Hawking gives a good explanation of falsifiability: “A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions which can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proven to be correct. On the other hand, if the observations disagree with the predictions, one has to discard or modify that theory. (At least that is what is supposed to happen. In practice we often question the accuracy of the observations and the reliability and moral character of those making the observations.)”[3] According to Popper: “If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted.”[4]
Does the NIST theory pass the falsification test? Well, due to the law of conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics), the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) and the law of conservation of momentum, the NIST theory predicts that there can be no free fall at any time if WTC 7 fell solely due to the damage caused by the slow or non-simultaneous effects of fire. A slowly damaged steel-framed building will always have lower resisting structure to slow the rate of acceleration. Free fall however, requires negligible resisting structure. There is neither energy nor momentum available to both remove the considerable structure in the way and to accelerate downward at the rate of gravity. Energy and momentum must be conserved. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Now, think how fast a cast-iron frying pan’s handle heats up. This is entropy, the second law of thermodynamics in action. Slowly heated steel will result in dispersement of the heat throughout a skyscraper’s interconnected steel skeleton since heat always moves from the hotter region to the colder region. Heat does not move towards itself. It will only move away from itself, resulting in cooling. This dispersement will prevent major localized and simultaneous heat-related failures due to normal office fires.
By the notion of falsifiability, then, the fact that free fall occurred for at least 2.25 seconds[5] shows that the NIST theory has been completely refuted by this single observation of free fall alone. In fact, the only experiment NIST performed to validate their hypothesis, a 22-million dollar computer simulation of the WTC 7 fall, also shows no free fall period. NIST’s own experiments support the prediction that there will be no free fall period in a fire-initiated skyscraper collapse. So the NIST theory is obviously falsified or refuted. It is just plain wrong. Basic high school-level science concepts are telling us the NIST WTC 7 theory is false.
...............
theglobalrealm.com/2011/08/...al-story/
Steven Jones publishing his own crap in a website he created does not constitute "peer review" even if he decides to call it a "journal."
Any intelligent person with a decent science education is familiar with the scientific method. What distinguishes someone like Margulis is that she is very educated in and has researched and written extensively on biology, which obviously has no relevance to building collapse dynamics.
Of the hundreds of thousands of civil engineers in the world, it's telling how credible trutherdumb is taken by relevant experts when to back up their structural engineering theory, truthers like Harmen have to appeal to the authority of a retired theologian and a biologist.
Controlled demolition of the Towers was impossible, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.
"Her argument is purely based on the scientific method.. "
Shows what little you know about the scientific method. It's a method, not an argument. No scientific method is based "purely" on the scientific method. One also needs verified evidence, knowledge of principles and regularities relevant to the field, familiarity with relevant literature in the field regarding the subject, knowledge of relevant properties of various materials involved in the subject, etc.
Margulis studied plants and animals. Last I checked, the Towers were made of neither, nor am I aware of the necessity in biology to study the effects of fire on the structure of a building.
This is so typical of the abject scientific illiteracy in the truther crowd. Fullerton's claims are nonsense. Truthers routinely throw around scientific terms like "the scientific method" and toss out some references to Newtonian laws to make them sound "scientific" but without the slightest understanding of what they're talking about, and without the slightest effort to produce a remotely serious argument showing the relevance of what they're referring to.
"" the NIST theory predicts that there can be no free fall at any time if WTC 7 fell solely due to the damage caused by the slow or non-simultaneous effects of fire. A slowly damaged steel-framed building will always have lower resisting structure to slow the rate of acceleration. Free fall however, requires negligible resisting structure."
False. Free fall of a part of a structure will occur when supports beneath it are no longer there. Simple as that. Anyone who says anything to the contrary doesn't know what he's talking about. Lower supports had already collapsed within WTC7 allowing the North face to free fall for 2.25 seconds SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING THERE ANY LONGER TO HOLD IT UP.
If a fire fighter is on a roof of a burning building and the roof beneath him gives way, he'll free fall down. It's tragically happened before. Look at the sides of the collapsing Towers and you see debris free falling down the sides of the building BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING BENEATH IT TO SLOW IT DOWN.
Michael Fullerton is a software developer and has zero expertise in building collapse dynamics. So far to make your structural engineering case Harmen, even though there are hundreds of thousands of civil engineers around the world, you've appealed to a retired theologian, a biologist, and a software designer. That speaks volumes of the abject inability of the truther crowd to get people with actual expertise to take their ridiculous, dishonest and ignorant theories seriously.
Controlled demolition of any of the three buildings ranges from wildly unlikely (WTC7) to the impossible (the Towers).
It's just wonderful that you people lavish such an inordinate amount of time and energy on ''crackpots'', I hope it pays well. ;]
Leave poor Ron alone. Just think of the psychological toll it must take to spend ten years saying there was no free fall at WTC7, and then have to turn around and say "of *course* there was free fall." ... as if there were some magical interior collapse wherein support structures failed, but the supportED structures weren't pulled down, didn't collapse, and hovered in place, only to later "free fall" due to lack of support.
Of course, being that Ron isn't "an expert in building collapse dynamics," and none of his "research" is "published in peer-reviewed journals," it could be understood why he would fail to comprehend this simple contradiction (within his current and past positions, with the NIST explanation, and with basic laws of physics). Any hey, even NIST denied any free fall for years in their draft reports, and claimed it couldn't be possible, until they were confronted by the detailed evidence and research of high school physics teacher David Chandler, at which point they finally admitted the free fall period in their final report (without ever giving an adequate explanation).
I agree: Poor Ron, and Jeff. It must be very difficult. I admire you guys, Abraxas and Harmen, for keeping with it.
<<I agree: Poor Ron, and Jeff.
Nothing "poor" about it, I had previouswly destroyed Abraxas false premise that the entire aluminum facade of the WTC buildings would have collapsed in a neat pile around the outside, and subsequently could not have been the melted metal in the center of the debris pile. Of course thousands of tons of aluminum would be jumbled and mixed up throughout the entire debris pile, making it very likely that any melted metal would have been aluminum being that it has a low melting point and was at the site in abundance.
And now Abraxas has a grudge against me for his humiliating defeat! :)~
Thank you Dave...
But most admiration should go to the many scientist that gave such a strong scientific basis to the 911 truth seekers.....
Seminar on science of Trade Center disasters raises questions
Written by Perla Trevizo, Chattanooga Times Free Press
Tuesday, 06 December 2011 17:44
By Perla Trevizo, Chattanooga Times Free Press, 11/16/11
Editor’s Note: The "The Science of 9/11 Truth” symposium at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga drew over 300 attendees and the support of many University faculty. Journalist Perla Trevizo provided an unbiased and accurate report of the event for the Times Free Press. We applaud Trevizo and the Times Free Press for covering this important news story in a fair and balanced manner, and we encourage other mainstream news outlets to follow their lead.
An audience of over 300 looks on as University faculty and technical experts discuss the science behind the destruction of the three WTC high-rises
Questions should be asked about the science behind the falling of the World Trade Center buildings 10 years ago, panelists agreed Tuesday night.
The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga hosted the event, "The Science of 9/11," which began with a moment of silence for the families who lost loved ones.
The discussion "is an opportunity to illustrate the application of the scientific method to a real life event that most Americans remember exactly where they were," said UTC professor of anthropology Lyn Miles, one of the event's coordinators.
There are also more than 1,500 architects and engineers who have raised scientific questions over the collapse of the World Trade Center and are calling for a full investigation of 9/11, and it's worthwhile to discuss why, she added.
The school showed the documentary "Architects & Engineers 9/11 Truth," also the name of the nonprofit that says the collapse of the buildings was not caused by the impact of the planes but by explosives or controlled demolition.
ABOUT AE911Truth
• Architects & Engineers 9/11 Truth is a nonprofit, nonpartisan association of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the collapses of the three World Trade Center high-rises on Sept. 11, 2001.
• The group believes there is sufficient evidence to conclude that three World Trade Center buildings No. 1 (North Tower), No. 2 (South Tower), and No. 7 (the 47-story high-rise across Vesey Street) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives.
Close to 300 people attended the event, many university students, who often cheered the comments made from one of the panelists, David Johnson, a University of Tennessee at Knoxville urban planning professor emeritus and urban engineering expert, who also calls for a new investigation of what happened on that day when almost 3,000 people were killed.
.........................
www.ae911truth.org/en/news-...ions.html
<<It must be very difficult. I admire you guys, Abraxas and Harmen, for keeping with it. >>
True it must difficult be for the failed cause of 9/11 trutherism. But hey as long as your supreme leader AJ is at it you will continue to enjoy the Kool Aid
it certainly would be a first for a building to burn uncontrollably for 7 hours while somehow the detonation charges/thermite/magic nano thermite didn't go off prematurely - and of course the perps would also inform the BBC of their plans beforehand
great logic
Wow Fullerton has a degree in Psychology and Computer Science
Relevant to 9/11 how?
oh it's not
Again a reply totally lacking content..
Try this..
$10,000 - 25,000: WTC7 9/11 Scientific Theory Challenge
Michael Fullerton, founder of Vernon 9/11 Truth, is offering a $10,000 reward to the first person anywhere in the world who can show that the official NIST theory of the WTC Building 7 collapse is a more scientific theory than the controlled demolition theory. Until further notice, a Canadian resident can receive a $25,000 reward for submitting the first valid entry.
Applicants must explain precisely, using sound scientific terminology, how the official theory of the WTC 7 collapse, as supported by NIST (The National Institute of Standards and Technology), better conforms to basic principles of science than the controlled demolition theory. All explanations must be backed up with valid scientific evidence.
An article explaining the glaring scientific problems of the official NIST theory in detail can be read here: A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse.
Answers can be submitted to info@vernon911truth.org and will be published on the www.vernon911truth.org site. Any others wishing to also offer pledges of money to sweeten the pot are more than welcome to.
Here you will find the details of NIST's faith-based pseudo-science theory: NIST NCSTAR 1A
So far the challenge was sent to the science departments at the following most prestigious Canadian Universities: McGill University, University of Toronto, University of British Columbia, University of Alberta, Queens University, University of Waterloo, McMaster University, University of Calgary, University of Western Ontario, Simon Fraser University, Dalhousie University, University of Ottawa, University of Victoria, York University, Carleton University, University of Manitoba and Concordia University.
The challenge has also been sent to the science departments at the following prestigious Universities: Harvard, MIT, Yale, Oxford, Stanford, Columbia, Cornell and Princeton
www.vernon911truth.org/wtc7ch...ry.html
<<Michael Fullerton, founder of Vernon 9/11 Truth, is offering a $10,000 reward to the first person anywhere in the world who can show that the official NIST theory of the WTC Building 7 collapse is a more scientific theory than the controlled demolition theory.>>
Actually the onus is on him to prove that it was a controlled demo. So far the truthers have jack squat
I'll personally wire Michael the money if he can prove it is
Brent admits he can't do it..No surprise...
Anyone else?
A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse
by Michael Fullerton
February 14, 2011
...............
A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact. However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories. The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model. While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NIST’s theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data.
..............
www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201...pse/
Heartwarming video...
San Diego 9-11 Truth Outreach ~Ten Year Anniv ~ USS Midway
ae911truth 15 dec 2011
www.youtube.com/watch
There is an interesting new group called 911 Consensus..
This expert panel does not look at alternative theories but finds consensus on the best evidence for flaws in the official story...
These flaws are presented in 13 consensus Points..
Check out the interview..
Consensus 9/11: Challenging the Official Story
by grtv
This week our guest is retired medical librarian Elizabeth Woodworth, who coordinates a newly formed panel calling itself "Consensus 9/11" -- which recently announced the release of statements constituting 13 Consensus Points challenging the official government account of the events of September 11, 2001. Co-chaired by Elizabeth and scholar David Ray Griffin, the points were produced using a version of a methodology designed to identify best evidence known as the Delphi method.
...............
tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/12...al-story
"A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact."
Uh, yes they do. They say that supports beneath the north face collapsed so that there was nothing there to hold up the north face for 2.25 seconds. When there's nothing supporting something, it free falls.
"However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories"
Unsupported assumption. The north face, which free fell for 2.25 seconds, did not represent the entire building. It was the last part to collapse after key supports had already collapsed.
"The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model."
What's wrong with computer models? Science is done with computer models all the time. Buildings are built using computer models. Are truthers Luddites?
23 QUESTIONS FOR TRUTHERS
Here's some questions that I've posed to truthers that I have had a hell of a time getting answered. If truthers sincerely just want an investigation so that others can answer their questions, then it's perfectly legitimate to ask them questions. If they refuse to answer, then that speaks volumes about their sincerity in pursuing the truth and just wanting questions answered. Take them one at a time if you'd like. By the way, I can provide support for any factual premise underlying any of the questions if anyone cars to challenge me.
1. Alex Jones and then David Griffin (citing Jones) claimed that "pull" or "pull it" is controlled demo jargon meaning to take a building down with explosives (to back their claim that Larry Silverstein, WTC leaseholder, acknowledged demolition of WTC7 when he used the expression “pull it” in reference to the building). Can anyone cite a single controlled demo authority (industry lexicon of any sort, demo website or text, demo expert, etc.) that or who defines the expression as demolishing a building by explosives? If not (and no one has ever been able to do so), then why do truthers continue to repeat that fabrication?
2. Regarding building 7 and reports of explosions, is it anyone's contention that there could not possibly be any other kinds of explosions other than cutter (controlled demo) explosions in an office building burning for seven hours and containing tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel, as well as other things in office buildings that can explode when on fire (such as transformers – the building straddled a substation)? Regarding reports of explosions in the Towers, is it anyone's contention that there could not possibly be any other kinds of explosions other than cutter explosions in massive office buildings on fire and about to collapse? If there are alternate sources for the reports of explosions (and I can post a half dozen links to building fires with explosions), then why should anyone assume those explosions were cutter explosions?
3. Since every controlled demolition recorded with audio is accompanied by the sound of a series of rapid , clearly audible explosions immediately prior to and beginning the collapse, apart from hearsay references to folks hearing explosions that can’t be heard in any video of the collapses, can anyone link a single audio recording of the collapse of any WTC building where you could clearly hear the very loud sequence of explosions going off immediately before or as the building was collapsing that one can always hear in controlled demolitions (answer is no by the way)?
4. Regarding Kevin McPadden, someone many truthers claim reported hearing a countdown prior to WTC7’s collapse, in an earlier talk to truthers he said he couldn't hear what was being said on the radio but it was "pulsed" and "most likely a countdown", whereas later he claims that he could clearly hear a countdown. So which version do you accept and why, since obviously the other version was a lie? Either he could hear the countdown or he couldn't.
5. Truthers like citing fire fighter comments about WTC7 about to collapse and the BBC reporter erroneously reporting that 7 had come down before it actually did. Is it your belief that a massive criminal conspiracy was hatched and the conspirators, who would be on death row for mass murder and treason if caught, actually gave reporters and fire fighters (many of whom died on 9/11) a heads up about their continuing criminal plans? Really? How does that make any sense?
6. Truthers have cited pools of molten metal found weeks after the collapse as evidence of a controlled demolition. Can anyone cite a single case of either thermite use or a controlled demolition leaving pools of molten metal that stayed molten for weeks? If not (and no one has been able to), then how can such molten metal support either controlled demolition (which never leaves pools of molten metal at all) or thermite (which burns off quickly and never leaves metal molten for even hours, much less over six weeks)?
7. Can anyone find any controlled demolitions of buildings using explosives that collapsed from the top down, like the Twin Towers?
8. Steven Jones claims that he's found trace elements of thermate in dust samples. Thermite is made of aluminum dust and iron oxide (rust). Thermate adds sulfur and possibly other chemicals. Is anyone maintaining that the only possible sources of aluminum rust or sulphur in a steel structured office building with aluminum facades and hit by an aluminum bodied aircraft is thermate, particularly when gypsum, one of the most common substances in office buildings contains sulfur?
9. Why do truthers still maintain that any of the WTC buildings free fell when visual evidence clearly demonstrates that none of them did, which is even acknowledged by Architects and Engineers for Truth? Entire free fall of WTC7 would have been 6 seconds or so. But video shows that the entire collapse sequence was no shorter than 12 seconds at the absolutely minimum (not counting initial internal collapse prior to external collapse and collapse time after the north face falls behind foreground buildings). How is a minimum 12 second collapse anywhere near 6 seconds? Free fall of the North Tower from roofline to the ground would have been 9.22 seconds. Yet video of the North Tower collapse shows that the collapse wave, which began below the roofline, was above the 47 story Solomon building by the ten second mark, and major sections of the building still collapsing over 30 seconds into the collapse. How is that even “near” free fall speed?
10. Fire fighters pointed out that the structural integrity of WTC7 was so weak that it looked like it was going to collapse. Can anyone cite any previous controlled demolitions that looked like they were about to collapse BEFORE the cutter explosions went off?
11. William Rodriguez's reports of basement explosions has been cited as evidence of a controlled demolition, as opposed to the prevailing opinion that the explosions he heard were from a massive amount of jet fuel exploding down elevator shafts, as well as possibly the sound of elevators crashing after their cables were severed when the plane struck. The explosions were cited by Rodriguez as occurring within seconds of the plane crash over an hour and a half before the collapse. Can anyone cite any previous examples of controlled demolitions where cutter explosions went off over an hour and a half before the actual collapse, and then the delayed effects of the explosions were somehow projected nearly a thousand feet up in the building, since the building collapsed from the top down?
12. Controlled demo expert Danny Jowenko has been cited in support of a controlled demolition of building 7. Yet Jowenko also said that he thought the Twin Towers were definitely not taken down by controlled demolition. If his expertise was support for his opinion on building 7, then why wasn't it also support for his opinion that the Twin Towers didn't collapse by controlled demolition? And if truthers accepted his opinion because of his expertise, why did they reject the opinions of other controlled demo experts like at Implosionworld who reject a controlled demolition of any building? Other than cherry picking expert opinions.
13. Puffs seen coming out of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers as they were collapsing are cited as evidence of cutter explosions, as opposed to dust and air escaping the building as the floors pancaked on one another, as well as other breaks in the building resulting from the collapse. Yet all the photos and videos show the puffs happening AFTER the buildings have already started to collapse. Can anyone either cite either video or photos of such visible puffs happening right BEFORE the collapses began, rather than after they already began? Otherwise, can anyone cite previous examples of controlled demolitions where the explosions only happen after the building has already started to collapse? In what other case in history have the causes of an event happened after the event already started?
14. Truthers (such as at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) have claimed that the collapses were implosions, where the buildings collapsed into themselves, and that's evidence of a controlled demolition. Architects and Engineers for Truth have also cited evidence of large amounts of material ejecting far from the towers as evidence of explosives. So which is it? Were they implosions where the collapsing material fell in on itself, or explosions where a lot of material ejected outwards? And how does contradictory evidence pointing in opposite directions both support the same theory?
15. It is claimed that 9/11 was planned to justify a war on Iraq. If the government manufactured 9/11, then they planted phony stories of Arab hijackers. But the government didn't identify any of the hijackers as Iraqi. If the government created 9/11 to justify war on Iraq, wouldn't they have claimed that at least one or more of the hijackers was Iraqi?
16. If the government could effectively orchestrate this elaborate, massive conspiracy on American soil to justify war in Iraq, then why couldn't they have, under cover of war and where they completely controlled media access, planted a few chemical weapons in Iraq thousands of miles away to vindicate the invasion?
17. Why do truthers still claim that there was no plane debris at the Pentagon when there are plenty of photos of plane debris at the Pentagon easily found with a quick Internet search?
18. If the consensus opinion of how the buildings collapsed violates basic rules of science as truthers routinely claim, then why can they only find a relative handful of relevant experts (civil engineers) of the hundreds of thousands of civil engineers in the world to back up their structural engineering claims, and more importantly, why have they been completely unable to get a single paper attempting to show that the consensus opinion is scientifically faulty published in a single established, peer reviewed science or engineering journal anywhere in the world, including in nations hostile to the Bush administration (or even hostile to the US government in general)?
19. Why do truthers still refer to jet fuel being unable to melt steel when by now they should know that you don’t need to melt steel to weaken it, and that the consensus case for how the buildings collapsed never claimed that steel melted but rather that it weakened sufficiently for collapse?
20. The vertical loads of the Towers were supported by two support systems: interior core columns and perimeter columns surrounding the structures. Video of the North Tower collapse clearly shows the core columns being the last to collapse (standing over 30 seconds after the collapse began). Thus, severing of the core columns could not have been the cause of initiation of the collapse, as causes don’t follow their effects. If it was controlled demolition, that leaves planting explosives (or thermite, as many truthers claim) on the perimeter columns. However, the collapses of the Towers began precisely at the points of plane impacts. How could planted explosives possibly survive large jetliners crashing through them at 450-550 miles per hour? And if it was thermite that was planted, how could the thermite sever columns if the impacting planes would have dispersed the thermite to uselessness (particularly as jet fuel would not have been hot enough to ignite any thermite)?
21. Truthers like David Griffin claim that it was a violation of the laws of physics for the Towers to gravitationally collapse straight down and so rapidly without explosives weakening the lower floors to eliminate resistance. How can they then reconcile that claim with the fact that Verinage collapses are gravitational collapse that happen rapidly and straight down, and involve no explosives and simply the weakening of as little as a single floor (with no weakening of lower floors), leading the upper block of floors to crush down the lower floors, similar to what the consensus opinion says happened to the Towers? Truthers have responded to Verinage collapses by saying that there is no known case of Verinage being used in steel structured high rises. But the truther argument against straight down gravitational collapse is purportedly based on the laws of physics. Is it the contention of truthers that the laws of physics only apply to steel structured buildings?
22. Regarding reports of witnesses having seen "molten steel." How can a nonmetallurgist on sight alone identify molten metal as being steel rather than some other molten metal? Are there telltale signs of a molten metal being steel that your average amateur is aware of? If you can't explain how, then how is such labeling by nonmetallurgist witnesses any more than unfounded speculation, which thus isn't evidence?
23. Truthers claim that the fires at WTC7 were minor. Does that mean that the multiple fire fighters on the scene who described the fires as major were lying? Are fire fighters not experts on the severity of building fires?
I'll give $5,000 to anyone who can prove that the WTC buildings were collapsed by controlled demolition. The difference between me and your person is that if anyone proves their case, your guy will just deny they ever proved it and will just hold onto the money. But I'm make this additional offer. If you think you made a persuasive case and you think I reneged on payout, then sue me. I promise I won't try to get the case dismissed, so you can make your case to a court and even subpoena witnesses. Offer goes to the first person who sends me a message accepting the offer. If they fail to make their case, I'll reopen the offer to someone else. Come on Harmen. Here's your chance to subpoena witnesses and make history. You can have your own investigation with subpoena power, just what you guys have been clamoring for.
"as if there were some magical interior collapse wherein support structures failed, but the supportED structures weren't pulled down, didn't collapse, and hovered in place, only to later "free fall" due to lack of support. "
Oh good grief you truthers are scientific illiterates. The north face came down after supports beneath it had collapsed. No one's saying that it hovered in place. The collapse was progressive and the north face was the last part to fall. And you're not a structural engineer either, but I know I can find far more structural engineers who agree with me, and I know of actual structural and civil engineers supporting the consensus account who have had their accounts of 9/11 supporting the consensus opinion published in established, peer, reviewed science and engineering journals. The best you cultist sheeple can do is get some guy in his mom's basement to make a Youtube video. Pathetic. But if believing in whack job theories to get attention because your lives are otherwise too pathetic, then far be in from me to yank out your pacifiers.
"professor of anthropology Lyn Miles"
"David Johnson, a University of Tennessee at Knoxville urban planning professor"
The continuing parade of laughable truther "experts" on building collapse dynamics. Ranks right up there with their retired theologians and biologists.
LMAO
Ron now also admits he can't do it..No surprise... That makes 2..
So the challenge remains open..
"Applicants must explain precisely, using sound scientific terminology, how the official theory of the WTC 7 collapse, as supported by NIST (The National Institute of Standards and Technology), does not violate the laws of physics."
www.vernon911truth.org/wtc7ch...ge.html
btw
The Controlled demolition theory does not violate the laws of physics..
Here is the consensus 911 website..
www.consensus911.org/
Here are the Panel Members
www.consensus911.org/panel-members/
Here are the 13 consensus points..
Point 1: A Claim Regarding Osama Bin Laden
The Official Account
Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
The Best Evidence
The FBI did not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which Osama bin Laden is wanted.
When asked why, Rex Tomb, when he was the head of investigative publicity for the FBI, stated that the FBI had no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Also, although Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the 9/11 Commission promised to provide evidence of Bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, they also failed.
Point 2: A Claim about the Destruction of the Twin Towers: Impact, Jet Fuel, and Fire Only
The Official Account
The Twin Towers were brought down by airplane impacts, jet fuel, and office fires.
The Best Evidence
Experience, based on physical observation and scientific knowledge, shows that office fires, even with the aid of jet fuel, could not have reached temperatures greater than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 degrees Celsius).
But multiple scientific reports show that metals in the Twin Towers melted. These metals included steel, iron, and molybdenum – which normally do not melt until they reach 2,700˚F (1482˚C), 2,800˚F (1538˚ C), and 4,753˚F (2,623˚C), respectively.
Point 3: A Claim about the Destruction of the Twin Towers: Impact, Fire, and Gravity Only
The Official Account
The Twin Towers were destroyed by three and only three causes: the impacts of the airliners, the resulting fires, and gravity.
The Best Evidence
During the destruction of the Twin Towers, huge sections of the perimeter steel columns, weighing many tons, were ejected horizontally as far as 500 to 600 feet, as seen in multiple photographs and maps. These high-speed ejections of heavy structural members cannot be explained by the fires, the pull of gravity, or the airplane impacts (which had occurred about an hour earlier).
Human bone fragments approximately 1 cm long were found in abundance on the roof of the Deutsche Bank following the Towers’ destruction, which further points to the use of explosives. Pancaking or tamping of floors from above would tend to trap bodies, not hurl splintered bones over 500 feet horizontally.
Point 4: A Claim Excluding Explosions in the Twin Towers
The Official Account
NIST wrote as if no one – including members of the Fire Department of New York – gave evidence of explosions in the Twin Towers.
The Best Evidence
Over 100 of the roughly 500 members of the FDNY who were at the site that day reported what they described as explosions in the Twin Towers. Similar reports were given by journalists, police officers, and WTC employees.
Point 5: A Second Claim Excluding Explosions in the Twin Towers
The Official Account
On 9/11, the Twin Towers came down because of damage produced by the impact of the planes combined with fires ignited by the jet fuel. After burning for 101 and 56 minutes, respectively, the north and south towers came down rapidly but without the aid of explosives.
The Best Evidence
The Twin Towers were built to withstand the impacts of airliners having approximately the size and speed of those that struck them. And office fires, even if fed by jet fuel (which is essentially kerosene), could not have weakened the steel structure of these buildings sufficiently to collapse as suddenly as they did.
Only the top sections of these buildings were damaged by the impacts and the resulting fires, whereas their steel structures, much heavier towards the base, were like pyramids in terms of strength. So the official account, which ruled out explosives, cannot explain why these buildings completely collapsed.
Point 6: The Claim that WTC 7 Collapsed from Fire Alone
The Official Account
NIST originally suggested that WTC 7 was brought down by structural damage combined with a raging fire fed by diesel fuel. However, in its Final Report (of November 2008), NIST declared that neither diesel fuel nor structural damage played a role in this building’s collapse, and that this building, which was not struck by a plane, was brought down by fire alone.
The Best Evidence
Before or after 9/11, no steel-frame high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire. If fire were to cause such a building to collapse, the onset would be gradual, whereas the videos show that WTC 7, after being completely stable, suddenly came down in virtual free fall. This building’s straight-down, symmetrical collapse, with the roofline remaining essentially horizontal, shows that all 82 of WTC 7’s support columns had been eliminated by the time the top started down.
Point 7: The Claim in NIST’s Draft Report that WTC 7 Did
Not Come Down at Free Fall Acceleration
The Official Account
Having denied for years that WTC 7 came down at free fall acceleration, NIST repeated this position in August 2008, when it issued a report on WTC 7 in the form of a Draft for Public Comment.
Shyam Sunder, the head of NIST’s WTC project, said – speaking within the framework of its claim that the building was brought down by fire – that free fall would have been physically impossible.
The Best Evidence
Scientific analysis by mathematician David Chandler shows that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for a period of about 2.25 seconds. NIST’s Draft for Public Comment had been challenged by Chandler and Dr. Steven Jones in a public review, and NIST then re-analyzed the fall of WTC 7.
In its Final Report, NIST provided a detailed analysis and graph that conceded that WTC 7 came down at free-fall acceleration for over 100 feet, or about 2.25 seconds, consistent with the findings of Chandler and Jones.
Point 8: The Claim in NIST’s Final Report that WTC 7 Came
Down in Free Fall Without Explosives
The Official Account
In its Final Report on WTC 7, issued in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged that WTC 7 had entered into free fall for more than two seconds. NIST continued to say, however, that WTC 7 was brought down by fire, with no aid from explosives.
The Best Evidence
Scientific analysis shows that a free-fall collapse of a steel-framed building could not be produced by fire, that is, without explosives (a fact that NIST’s lead investigator, Shyam Sunder acknowledged in his discussions of NIST’s Draft Report for Public Comment in August 2008).
Point 9: The Claim that the World Trade Center Dust
Contained no Thermitic Materials
The Official Account
Although NIST did not perform any tests to determine whether there were incendiaries (such as thermite) or explosives (such as RDX and nanothermite) in the WTC dust, it claimed that such materials were not present.
The Best Evidence
Unreacted nanothermitic material, “which can be tailored to behave as an incendiary (like ordinary thermite), or as an explosive,” was found in four independently collected samples of the WTC dust (as reported in a multi-author paper in a peer-reviewed journal).
Point 10: A Claim Regarding Hijacked Passenger Jets
The Official Account
The 9/11 Commission Report holds that four airplanes (American Airlines flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines flights 93 and 175) were hijacked on 9/11.
The Best Evidence
Pilots are trained to “squawk” the universal hijack code (7500) on a transponder if they receive evidence of an attempted hijacking, thereby notifying FAA controllers on the ground. But leading newspapers and the 9/11 Commission pointed out that FAA controllers were not notified.
A CNN story said that pilots are trained to send the hijack code “if possible.” But entering the code takes only two or three seconds, whereas it took hijackers, according to the official story, more than 30 seconds to break into the pilots’ cabin of Flight 93.
The fact that not one of the eight pilots performed this required action casts serious doubt on the hijacker story.
Point 11: The Claim that Flight 93 Crashed Near Shanksville, Pennsylvania
The Official Account
The 9/11 Commission reported that United Flight 93, having been taken over by an al-Qaeda pilot, was flown at a high speed and steep angle into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
In response to claims that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, the US military and the FBI said that United 93 was not shot down.
The Best Evidence
Residents, the mayor, and journalists near Shanksville reported that no airliner was visible at the designated crash site; that contents were found as far as eight miles from the designated crash site; and that parts – including a thousand-pound engine piece – were found over a mile away.
Point 12: The Claim Regarding Hani Hanjour as Flight 77
Pilot
The Official Account
The 911 Commission Report holds that American Flight 77, a Boeing 757, was flown by al-Qaeda pilot Hani Hanjour into the Pentagon. After disengaging the autopilot, he executed a 330-degree downward spiral through 7000 feet in about three minutes, then flew into Wedge 1 of the Pentagon between the first and second floors at 530 mph.
The Best Evidence
Several former airliner pilots have stated that Hanjour could not possibly have maneuvered a large airliner through the trajectory allegedly taken by Flight 77 and then hit the Pentagon between the first and second floors without touching the lawn.
Point 13: The Claim About the Time of Dick Cheney’s Entry
into the White House Bunker
The Official Account
Vice President Dick Cheney took charge of the government’s response to the 9/11 attacks after he entered the PEOC (the Presidential Emergency Operations Center), a.k.a. “the bunker”.
The 9/11 Commission Report said that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until almost 10:00 AM, which was at least 20 minutes after the violent event at the Pentagon that killed more than 100 people.
The Best Evidence
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta told the 9/11 Commission that, after he joined Cheney and others in the bunker at approximately 9:20 AM, he listened to an ongoing conversation between Cheney and a young man, which took place when “the airplane was coming into the Pentagon.”
After the young man, having reported for the third time that the plane was coming closer, asked whether “the orders still stand,” Cheney emphatically said they did. The 9/11 Commission Report, by claiming that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until long after the Pentagon was damaged, implies that this exchange between Cheney and the young man – which can most naturally be understood as Cheney’s confirmation of a stand-down order – could not have occurred.
However, testimony that Cheney was in the PEOC by 9:20 was reported not only by Mineta but also by Richard Clarke and White House photographer David Bohrer. Cheney himself, speaking on “Meet the Press” five days after 9/11, reported that he had entered the PEOC before the Pentagon was damaged.
The 9/11 Commission’s attempt to bury the exchange between Cheney and the young man confirms the importance of Mineta’s report of this conversation.
www.consensus911.org/the-911...-points/
lol this thread is hilarious. looks like no one wants to make $25,000
Looks like no truther wants to make $5000. I've seen offers from truthers like that that have simply been denied because the truther still (what a surprise) wasn't convinced.
If a truther isn't going to be convinced by NIST and the multiple papers published by eminent experts in respected, peer reviewed science and engineering journals supporting the consensus view, he isn't going to accept anything.
Oooh. Co-chaired by a retired medial librarian and a retired theologian. You guys really pull out the stops with your building collapse experts. LMAO
I've done it countless time. It's not my fault you're obtuse.
It's not my fault 9/11 was an inside job. This isn't about *me* *or* *you*
But it is your fault you can't remotely defend your fairy tales.
Fairy tales, huh? That actually applies to what you said happened on that day.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
This is how to be Ron. Swallow up the government's story about 9/11 and then be a dick for 10 years (20, 30? We'll see) to anyone who doesn't buy that bullshit.
This is how to be Stickboy. Swallow Alex Jones' lies like a mindless sheeple without exerting an ounce of independent critical thought and then respond with nothing more than personal attacks when his cherished fantasies are threatened by facts he doesn't have the intellectual ability to address.
Difference between my position and yours: My position is supported by relevant experts who can get their accounts published in respected science journals. Your account is supported by amateurs who can't do better than Youtube.
New 9/11 Eyewitness Evidence of Bombs at WTC www.youtube.com/watch
911truthnews.com/salon-ins...911-story/
Salon: Insiders Voice Doubts About CIA’s 9/11 Story
>>Here's some questions that I've posed to truthers that I have had a hell of a time getting answered.
Yeah right… more like the asinine questions you like to keep throwing out, and whose answers you repeatedly ignore.
>>1. Alex Jones and then David Griffin (citing Jones) claimed that "pull" or "pull it" is controlled demo jargon meaning to take a building down with explosives (to back their claim that Larry Silverstein, WTC leaseholder, acknowledged demolition of WTC7 when he used the expression “pull it” in reference to the building). Can anyone cite a single controlled demo authority (industry lexicon of any sort, demo website or text, demo expert, etc.) that or who defines the expression as demolishing a building by explosives? If not (and no one has ever been able to do so), then why do truthers continue to repeat that fabrication?
Being that Larry Silverstein is not in the demolition industry, one should not necessarily consider his comments in the context of professional terminology, but should analyze the phrase in layman’s terms, in the context of his own statement. “I said, there’s already been such a terrible loss of life, maybe the best thing to do is just pull IT. And they made that decision, to pull, and we watched the building collapse.” As any fifth grade English teacher will tell you, in this context “it” obviously refers to “the building.” While the wanna-be debunkers will claim this refers to the firefighter contingent, it known that the firefighting and rescue operations had already been “pulled” much earlier in the day. Personally, I don’t actually think Silverstein was making an admission or telling the truth, so much as he was giving a narrative that he thought would provide cover for the events, which ultimately ended up raising more questions than it answered.
>>2. Regarding building 7 and reports of explosions, is it anyone's contention that there could not possibly be any other kinds of explosions other than cutter (controlled demo) explosions in an office building burning for seven hours and containing tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel, as well as other things in office buildings that can explode when on fire (such as transformers – the building straddled a substation)?
Barry Jennings reported explosions in WTC7 before the collapse of either towers. Being that it was the debris from WTC1 that supposedly started the fires in WTC7, how could Jennings’ reported explosions be caused by “an office building burning for seven hours?”
And once again, without fail, Ron’s back to the old diesel fuel, which neither FEMA nor NIST claim as a factor for the collapse.
>>Regarding reports of explosions in the Towers, is it anyone's contention that there could not possibly be any other kinds of explosions other than cutter explosions in massive office buildings on fire and about to collapse? If there are alternate sources for the reports of explosions (and I can post a half dozen links to building fires with explosions), then why should anyone assume those explosions were cutter explosions?
There were explosions reported throughout the building, far from the fire zone. Firefighters outside reported chains of explosions going around the building “like a belt.”
>>3. Since every controlled demolition recorded with audio is accompanied by the sound of a series of rapid , clearly audible explosions immediately prior to and beginning the collapse, apart from hearsay references to folks hearing explosions that can’t be heard in any video of the collapses, can anyone link a single audio recording of the collapse of any WTC building where you could clearly hear the very loud sequence of explosions going off immediately before or as the building was collapsing that one can always hear in controlled demolitions (answer is no by the way)?
Translation: dozens upon dozens of eyewitness accounts should be ignored. And there are a number of videos that include blast audio and eyewitness accounts. A couple are montaged here: www.youtube.com/watch
>>4. Regarding Kevin McPadden, someone many truthers claim reported hearing a countdown prior to WTC7’s collapse, in an earlier talk to truthers he said he couldn't hear what was being said on the radio but it was "pulsed" and "most likely a countdown", whereas later he claims that he could clearly hear a countdown. So which version do you accept and why, since obviously the other version was a lie? Either he could hear the countdown or he couldn't.
I’ve never referenced McPadden personally, so I don’t really care what he said. We’ve got cops saying “that building is going to blow up.”
>>5. Truthers like citing fire fighter comments about WTC7 about to collapse and the BBC reporter erroneously reporting that 7 had come down before it actually did. Is it your belief that a massive criminal conspiracy was hatched and the conspirators, who would be on death row for mass murder and treason if caught, actually gave reporters and fire fighters (many of whom died on 9/11) a heads up about their continuing criminal plans? Really? How does that make any sense?
Debunkers like to forget that both BBC and CNN reported the “collapse” hours before it occurred. I believe BBC said their source was Reuters. Of course, BBC also claims that their 9/11 tapes were “accidentally” lost or destroyed or something. My *belief* is that WTC7 was supposed to come down in the cloud of the second collapse (or very shortly thereafter), and that all did not go “as planned.” The “collapse” cover story had already been concocted and prepared, but also was not properly broadcast “as planned.” While Ron wants to portray some idiocy about “giving a heads up about their continuing criminal plans,” the alternative to my proposition is either that Reuters/CNN/BBC have some damn good psychics on their newsteams, or they’re in the wrong business, and should all be professional gamblers, being that they just accidentally “misreported” (“guessed,” apparently) that the building would come down hours before it did.
>>6. Truthers have cited pools of molten metal found weeks after the collapse as evidence of a controlled demolition. Can anyone cite a single case of either thermite use or a controlled demolition leaving pools of molten metal that stayed molten for weeks? If not (and no one has been able to), then how can such molten metal support either controlled demolition (which never leaves pools of molten metal at all) or thermite (which burns off quickly and never leaves metal molten for even hours, much less over six weeks)?
When you can cite an example of buildings of this size being brought down by thermite and/or other military-grade explosives, then we can debate parallels. Unless you can point to another example of a couple hundred pounds (or more) of thermites/incendiaries being used under these conditions, comparisons are pointless. Can you point to another example of a building collapse that resulted in persistent pools of molten metal? If not, I guess that means the towers never even collapsed at all.
Can you point to another instance of a modern steel-framed highrise being brought down by office fires? Because that is exactly what NIST claims in regard to WTC7.
>>7. Can anyone find any controlled demolitions of buildings using explosives that collapsed from the top down, like the Twin Towers?
If you can point to another demolition that was disguised to look like the result of a plane hitting the top of the building, then we can debate parallels. If not, the point is moot.
>>8. Steven Jones claims that he's found trace elements of thermate in dust samples. Thermite is made of aluminum dust and iron oxide (rust). Thermate adds sulfur and possibly other chemicals. Is anyone maintaining that the only possible sources of aluminum rust or sulphur in a steel structured office building with aluminum facades and hit by an aluminum bodied aircraft is thermate, particularly when gypsum, one of the most common substances in office buildings contains sulfur?
Actually, what is claimed by FEMA, is that there was “sulfidation” of steel, which means that the sulfur penetrated into the intra-granular structure of the steel. Also, while gypsum wallboard (which incidentally, is a fire retardant) is commonly offered as the source of the sulfur, drywall in fact contains calcium sulfate, which is not reactive, unlike elemental sulfur. Additionally, were the source of the sulfur from the drywall, then calcium concentrations (from the calcium sulfate) would be present in roughly equal proportion to sulfur concentrations, which they were not. Another toxic element sometimes used in thermate compounds, barium nitrate, was also found in unusually high concentrations.
Also contrary to your implication, thermite cannot be made by mixing random exploded bits of aluminum and rust, and the research on the chemistry relating to the air and dust is far more extensive than you’d like to imply, but it is generally part of the debunker’s credo to build oversimplified straw men and then stomp them down in some haughty display of intellectual insecurity.
>>9. Why do truthers still maintain that any of the WTC buildings free fell when visual evidence clearly demonstrates that none of them did, which is even acknowledged by Architects and Engineers for Truth?
So you’re saying that AE911Truth.org are not “truthers?” Otherwise your statement reads “why do truthers still maintain that which truthers deny?” The fact is that you’re trying to conflate the statements of some with the statements of all, and in a most incredulous fashion, considering you then admit that “all” are not making that statement.
And WTC7 free fell. So… yeah.
>>Entire free fall of WTC7 would have been 6 seconds or so. But video shows that the entire collapse sequence was no shorter than 12 seconds at the absolutely minimum (not counting initial internal collapse prior to external collapse and collapse time after the north face falls behind foreground buildings). How is a minimum 12 second collapse anywhere near 6 seconds? Free fall of the North Tower from roofline to the ground would have been 9.22 seconds. Yet video of the North Tower collapse shows that the collapse wave, which began below the roofline, was above the 47 story Solomon building by the ten second mark, and major sections of the building still collapsing over 30 seconds into the collapse. How is that even “near” free fall speed?
Why do wanna-be debunkers try to 1) ignore WTC7’s free fall, and then when confronted with it in the NIST report, 2) try to act like it’s totally normal, even though it contradicts the basic principle of conservation of energy?
>>10. Fire fighters pointed out that the structural integrity of WTC7 was so weak that it looked like it was going to collapse. Can anyone cite any previous controlled demolitions that looked like they were about to collapse BEFORE the cutter explosions went off?
Logical fallacy being that structural integrity (or third-party impressions thereof) prior to demolition does not preclude the possibility of demolition.
>>11. William Rodriguez's reports of basement explosions has been cited as evidence of a controlled demolition, as opposed to the prevailing opinion that the explosions he heard were from a massive amount of jet fuel exploding down elevator shafts, as well as possibly the sound of elevators crashing after their cables were severed when the plane struck. The explosions were cited by Rodriguez as occurring within seconds of the plane crash over an hour and a half before the collapse. Can anyone cite any previous examples of controlled demolitions where cutter explosions went off over an hour and a half before the actual collapse, and then the delayed effects of the explosions were somehow projected nearly a thousand feet up in the building, since the building collapsed from the top down?
Being that Rodriguez’s reported explosions occurred prior to impact, it’s odd how they could be caused *by* the impact. There’s also the fact that the WTC elevators were staggered and did not run the height of the building from the basement to the 80+th floor, and that damage reported by other WTC personnel was inconsistent with a kerosene fireball (that managed to go down a quarter-mile of incongruous elevator shaft).
>>12. Controlled demo expert Danny Jowenko has been cited in support of a controlled demolition of building 7. Yet Jowenko also said that he thought the Twin Towers were definitely not taken down by controlled demolition. If his expertise was support for his opinion on building 7, then why wasn't it also support for his opinion that the Twin Towers didn't collapse by controlled demolition? And if truthers accepted his opinion because of his expertise, why did they reject the opinions of other controlled demo experts like at Implosionworld who reject a controlled demolition of any building? Other than cherry picking expert opinions.
You mean like you’re cherry-picking his opinion that the towers weren’t CD, and ignoring that he *emphatically* insisted that WTC7 *was* a CD, even after further reviewing the video and structural drawings?
>>13. Puffs seen coming out of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers as they were collapsing are cited as evidence of cutter explosions, as opposed to dust and air escaping the building as the floors pancaked on one another, as well as other breaks in the building resulting from the collapse. Yet all the photos and videos show the puffs happening AFTER the buildings have already started to collapse. Can anyone either cite either video or photos of such visible puffs happening right BEFORE the collapses began, rather than after they already began? Otherwise, can anyone cite previous examples of controlled demolitions where the explosions only happen after the building has already started to collapse? In what other case in history have the causes of an event happened after the event already started?
The “puffs” *did* happen prior to the collapse of the region in which they were observed. Can you cite an example of a natural collapse in which such “puffs” occurred at regular intervals 20 stories ahead of the collapse wave? If these were “puffs of dust” from the collapse, how did they occur 20 stories ahead of the wave? If the area of the “puff” wasn’t collapsed, what created the “dust?” How could “dust” be forced down the elevator shafts at a speed faster than the collapse itself?
>>14. Truthers (such as at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) have claimed that the collapses were implosions, where the buildings collapsed into themselves, and that's evidence of a controlled demolition. Architects and Engineers for Truth have also cited evidence of large amounts of material ejecting far from the towers as evidence of explosives. So which is it? Were they implosions where the collapsing material fell in on itself, or explosions where a lot of material ejected outwards? And how does contradictory evidence pointing in opposite directions both support the same theory?
Considering you had two different types of demolition in the towers and in WTC7, having two different sets of evidence shouldn’t be that difficult to comprehend.
>>15. It is claimed that 9/11 was planned to justify a war on Iraq. If the government manufactured 9/11, then they planted phony stories of Arab hijackers. But the government didn't identify any of the hijackers as Iraqi. If the government created 9/11 to justify war on Iraq, wouldn't they have claimed that at least one or more of the hijackers was Iraqi?
And if they highjackings were real, why didn’t we attack Saudi Arabia, where they all came from? However, by painting them as the shadowy and nebulous “al Qaeda,” you have carte blanche to attack whomever you wish. Also, the threat of “al Qaeda” was used as one of the Iraq justifications. Personally, I find “justification for a war on Iraq” to be a gross oversimplification. But again, that’s to be expected.
>>16. If the government could effectively orchestrate this elaborate, massive conspiracy on American soil to justify war in Iraq, then why couldn't they have, under cover of war and where they completely controlled media access, planted a few chemical weapons in Iraq thousands of miles away to vindicate the invasion?
1) Even though all the “Iraq WMD” bullshit turned out to be lies, there were no reprocussions for anyone involved. Why should they give a fuck? As stated by the Project for a New American Century, what was needed was a “catalyzing event.” Once the trigger is pulled and the ball is rolling, it’ll take more than some missing WMDs to stop it (as history has made obvious).
2) Considering there was already a strong consensus that Iraq did *not* have WMDs, any “found” WMDs would likely have undergone a fair amount of third-party scrutiny.
Of course, these are just speculations as to various motives, but debunkers like to steer debates toward speculative theoreticals. Claiming that lack of WMDs is somehow proof against 9/11 being an inside job is a pretty weak stretch of logic by any measure.
>> 17. Why do truthers still claim that there was no plane debris at the Pentagon when there are plenty of photos of plane debris at the Pentagon easily found with a quick Internet search?
Why does the hole in the Pentagon not match the three holes that should have been left by a jet (body and two engines)? Where is all the luggage? Why are all the plane parts in such tiny shreds, yet something punched all the way through to the center ring? Why have so many pilots stated that there’s no way Hani Hanjour could never have pulled off the maneuver that’s claimed? What did Cheney mean by “the order still stands?” (and why did he lie about the timeframes that he was in the command center?) Why did the Pentagon confiscate all surrounding surveillance footage? Why is their one released video so inconclusive? Why did Pentagon personnel report the smell of cordite (high explosives)?
I’ve never hung my hat on the “no plane at the Pentagon” stuff, but there’s obviously something fishy there.
>> 18. If the consensus opinion of how the buildings collapsed violates basic rules of science as truthers routinely claim, then why can they only find a relative handful of relevant experts (civil engineers) of the hundreds of thousands of civil engineers in the world to back up their structural engineering claims, and more importantly, why have they been completely unable to get a single paper attempting to show that the consensus opinion is scientifically faulty published in a single established, peer reviewed science or engineering journal anywhere in the world, including in nations hostile to the Bush administration (or even hostile to the US government in general)?
I do love this “nations hostile to the Bush administration” crap. Because I’m sure if there were a “peer reviewed” paper put out in an Iranian or North Korean publication, Ron would change his tune in a second.
NIST and its supporters won’t even *debate* the AE911Truth representatives. If their case is so solid and the “truthers” are so wacky, why the repeated denial of the opportunity to put these nutjobs in their place?
All one has to do is punch “peer review article retracted” into google to find numerous examples of information that Ron would have apparently considered as gospel, despite its ultimate lack of validity. The debunkers prattle on about all their “peer reviewed studies,” but can never seem to understand that these studies contradict each other, and the implications of that simply cannot be grasped. If two “peer reviewed” papers propose different mechanisms for collapse, *at least* one of them has to be wrong, or an explanation must be made to reconcile their divergences.
At the beginning, the dubunkers mocked 9/11 Truth for not having experts. As more and more experts and legitimate academics come out, on the one hand those referencing their work are rebuked as making an “appeal to authority,” while at the same time attempting to discredit the researcher (without ever discussing the research) by making their own “appeals to authority.” They haven’t been published somewhere the debunker considers “authoritative,” or they don’t have the very narrow vocational classification that they consider “authoritative.” If David Ray Griffin told Ron the sky was blue, Ron would say he doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he’s not an astrophysicist. They would rather play “shoot the messenger” than actually debate their arguments. Yet they’ll point to Popular Mechanics as some kind of “authority,” whose lead 9/11 spokestwit, James Meigs, just has a BA in philosophy, and wrote for Hollywood pop culture rags before working for NatGeo “Adventure” in 2001.
>> 19. Why do truthers still refer to jet fuel being unable to melt steel when by now they should know that you don’t need to melt steel to weaken it, and that the consensus case for how the buildings collapsed never claimed that steel melted but rather that it weakened sufficiently for collapse?
And yet steel was melted. They have the samples. What an odd contradiction.
>> 20. The vertical loads of the Towers were supported by two support systems: interior core columns and perimeter columns surrounding the structures. Video of the North Tower collapse clearly shows the core columns being the last to collapse (standing over 30 seconds after the collapse began).
This was only well below the collapse zone that any core remained standing, and the fact that the core was cut is pretty obvious by the fact that the antenna on top of the north tower came straight down at the same time as the onset of the top section's collapse.
>>If it was controlled demolition, that leaves planting explosives (or thermite, as many truthers claim) on the perimeter columns. However, the collapses of the Towers began precisely at the points of plane impacts. How could planted explosives possibly survive large jetliners crashing through them at 450-550 miles per hour? And if it was thermite that was planted, how could the thermite sever columns if the impacting planes would have dispersed the thermite to uselessness (particularly as jet fuel would not have been hot enough to ignite any thermite)?
Even if we take into account your incorrect assumption that only perimeter columns would have explosives, your argument employs some rather bizarre logic. How could they survive being hit by the plane? Well if they were hit by the plane, then the plane probably would have severed whatever member they were attached to, so the explosive wouldn’t really be necessary. Your second point simply illustrates an ignorance of the various properties of numerous thermitic compounds. And of course we come to the fact that, according to *your* hypothetical situation, all of the columns (or at least the majority) that were *not* severed would still have their explosives/incendiaries in place.
>> 21. Truthers like David Griffin claim that it was a violation of the laws of physics for the Towers to gravitationally collapse straight down and so rapidly without explosives weakening the lower floors to eliminate resistance. How can they then reconcile that claim with the fact that Verinage collapses are gravitational collapse that happen rapidly and straight down, and involve no explosives and simply the weakening of as little as a single floor (with no weakening of lower floors), leading the upper block of floors to crush down the lower floors, similar to what the consensus opinion says happened to the Towers?
So you’re saying the NIST opinion isn’t the “consensus opinion?” Because NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse.
>>Truthers have responded to Verinage collapses by saying that there is no known case of Verinage being used in steel structured high rises. But the truther argument against straight down gravitational collapse is purportedly based on the laws of physics. Is it the contention of truthers that the laws of physics only apply to steel structured buildings?
Is it the contention of Ron that steel-framed and non-steel-framed structures have identical structural integrities and limitations? In accordance with the laws of physics, I can kick down a sandcastle with my foot. Yet I cannot kick down a brick building. Is it Ron’s contention that the laws of physics only apply to sandcastles?
>> 22. Regarding reports of witnesses having seen "molten steel." How can a nonmetallurgist on sight alone identify molten metal as being steel rather than some other molten metal? Are there telltale signs of a molten metal being steel that your average amateur is aware of? If you can't explain how, then how is such labeling by nonmetallurgist witnesses any more than unfounded speculation, which thus isn't evidence?
Is that another “appeal to authority” I smell? Hmmm…. Anyway. Yeah, I’m sure firefighters never see molten metals. Fuckin’ amateurs. When they pulled those steel girders out with the ends melted and dripping, it was probably molybdenum. Same with the collected samples. We all know that all molten metals have identical viscosities, emmissivities, reflectances, etc. But hey, if that’s your best “uhhhhh…. It was *another* molten metal*, you need to account for the source of that metal in the locations it was found, the source of the heat for it to be melted (and a source that is consistent throughout the rubble, if you want to buy into this “aluminum from all over the place collected seven stories underground”), and a fuel/oxidizer source for the heat. Maybe you can go climb a burning landfill and tell me how it’s the same thing as being 100 feet under a half-million-ton pile of steel and concrete.
>> 23. Truthers claim that the fires at WTC7 were minor. Does that mean that the multiple fire fighters on the scene who described the fires as major were lying? Are fire fighters not experts on the severity of building fires?
Instead of quibbling about the subjective terms *some* people may use, perhaps we should look at NIST’s fire figures.
NIST states that there were fires on 10 floors (about 21% of the building), while only six or seven of those floors had sustained fires (about 14% of the building). However, those fires generally did not cover the entire floor at any one time, so those percentages are actually high in regard to the percentage of the building actually burning.
While it’s repeatedly claimed that these fires burned “out of control” for seven hours, NIST’s cited evidence does not paint that picture. NIST cites photographic evidence for fires on the following floors beginning at the following times (video and photo crews were on the scene at about 11am, shortly after collapse of the north tower at 10:28). Also note that NIST claims that there was no fire spread *between* floors, and that there is no evidence of fires above the 14th floor after 1pm.
Floor 22: first fires photographed at 12:10
Floors 29 and 30: fires first photographed at 12:28
Floors 7, 11, and 12: fires first photographed at 2:08
Floor 13: fire first photographed at 2:30
Floor 8: fire first photographed at 3:40
Floor 9: fire first photographed at 4:00
Floor 14: fire first photographed at 5:00
So in the range of floors upon which the collapse-initiating damage was blamed, we have a maximum fire duration of about 3-4 hours (yet the fire was constantly moving, and no single area of those floors burned continuously anywhere near those 3-4 hours).
If you can cite another example of a steel framed building that collapsed on itself after %14 of it burned for four hours, I’d love to see it.
"as if there were some magical interior collapse wherein support structures failed, but the supportED structures weren't pulled down, didn't collapse, and hovered in place, only to later "free fall" due to lack of support. "
>>Oh good grief you truthers are scientific illiterates. The north face came down after supports beneath it had collapsed. No one's saying that it hovered in place. The collapse was progressive and the north face was the last part to fall.
As a “scientific illiterate,” I at least know that for free fall collapse to occur, all supporting members must be removed simultanteously, which is counter to claims of “progressive collapse.”
>>And you're not a structural engineer either, but I know I can find far more structural engineers who agree with me, and I know of actual structural and civil engineers supporting the consensus account who have had their accounts of 9/11 supporting the consensus opinion published in established, peer, reviewed science and engineering journals.
And you can’t point to two of those “peer reviewed” accounts that are in agreement with each other, or in agreement with the NIST report. If I can find a “peer reviewed account” that says it was brought down by debris damage, and another that says it was brought down by fire damage, which is correct? For these “peer reviewed accounts” to have any validity, they should be in agreement on the causes.
>>Uh, yes they do. They say that supports beneath the north face collapsed so that there was nothing there to hold up the north face for 2.25 seconds. When there's nothing supporting something, it free falls.
Talk about scientifically illiterate. If the supports collapsed, then the supported structures would collapse with them, with the potential gravitational force of the supported structure being converted into vertical force, a portion of which would be required to bend/break/collapse the supporting structure, and therefore the full gravitational force would not be available to reach free fall accelleration.
This is perhaps one of the most basic principles of “collapse dynamics,” and which is why the wanna-be debunkers from day one until NIST’s free-fall admission (and often beyond that) denied any claim of freefall whatsoever.
>>What's wrong with computer models? Science is done with computer models all the time. Buildings are built using computer models. Are truthers Luddites?
For computer models to have any validity, they should conform to verifiable, observed physical phenomena. Among other aberrations, NIST’s models do not account for free fall. They also admit within their own report that their models are innaccurate.
“The burning time near the north face [12th flr] was longer in the simulation than in the visual evidence.” –NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 pg 381
“The floor 11 fires were represented by the floor 12 fires delayed by 1h. This resulted in a westward fire spread rate along the north face that was faster and a burn duration that was longer than observed in the photographs.” –NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 pg 382
“The floor 13 fires were represented by the floor 12 fires delayed by one-half hour. The westward fire rate along the north face was moderately faster, and the burn duration was longer than in the visual evidence.” .” –NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 pg 382
And we’re not talking “oh the sim just burned five or ten minutes longer.” NIST’s modeled diagram of 12th floor heat patterns (upon which other floor models were based), indicates 1000degC fires along the north face at 4pm and 5pm [NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 pg 383] Yet according to NIST’s own 2004 interim report, “Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.”[NIST SP 1000-5 pg 18]
Here we have an out and out demonstration of the proven significant inaccuracy of NIST's models. Of course, the significance of this self-contradiction within the NIST reports, if not its entire existence, will be ignored by the wanna-be debunkers.
Another problem with their models is that they should also be made available for third party review (or “peer review” if you like). NIST’s models and the breadth of their input data are not available for public review (and they in fact fight FOIA requests for the info), only the results (animations, etc) arrived at by those models. Without the totality of the input data, the models cannot be replicated or verified.
P.S. >>Nothing "poor" about it, I had previouswly destroyed Abraxas false premise that the entire aluminum facade of the WTC buildings would have collapsed in a neat pile around the outside, and subsequently could not have been the melted metal in the center of the debris pile.
Right... because when I said the facade had been obliterated and scattered about a 500 foot radius, I mean that it "would have collapsed in a neat pile." You guys are hilarious.
9/11 truth = fail
you will soon see trutherism in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
The above specifics are almost superfluous, as simply viewing NIST's collapse model animations demonstrates their disconnect from reality. www.youtube.com/watch
There is a very good article on Occupy Building 7 at AEtruth...
Occupy Building 7 March Impacts Manhattan: Police, OWS Protesters Informed About Explosive 9/11 Evidence
Written by Wayne Coste
Wednesday, 21 December 2011 20:52
AE911Truth Congressional Outreach Team leader Wayne Coste and other 9/11 Truth activists prepare to engage the public about the destruction of WTC Building 7. Coste used the AE911Truth “human microphone speech” developed by his Congressional Outreach Team to inform the crowd.
With assistance provided by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the Remember Building 7 campaign and NYC CAN organized Occupy Building 7, a two-day protest designed to raise awareness about the destruction of Building 7, the third World Trade Center skyscraper to fall on 9/11. On November 19 and 20, the marches and vigils were held from Zuccotti Park in the Wall Street District of Manhattan along the sidewalks for several blocks to the site of the rebuilt WTC Building 7.
“ I was told afterward that some of the police quietly asked us for information about the 9/11 evidence ”
Zuccotti Park, which is the heart of the Occupy Wall Street movement, lies in the figurative shadow of the Twin Towers and in the literal shadow of their replacement tower that is currently under construction and now reaches over 20 stories into the air.
Over the last two months, AE911Truth supporters and others have provided “occupiers” across the country with information about the explosive 9/11 evidence. The occupiers are becoming informed about the logical and scientific fallacies in the official accounts that make those versions not just implausible, but impossible.
Coste helped carry massive banners like this one as Occupy Building 7 brought the WTC truth to the streets of Manhattan
Each day of our Occupy Building 7 demonstration started with an assembly in front of Zuccotti Park along Broadway, where we held the Occupy Building 7 and AE911Truth banners. When we arrived at the park, there were about two dozen occupiers inside the fenced-in area that now defines the park’s perimeter.
While most of the police were friendly, these officers asked the WTC7 protesters to move to a “free speech zone”
During the next hour, the crowds grew and pedestrians clogged the sidewalks on Church and Broadway. From there, Occupy Building 7 volunteers handed out the 9/11 Investigator newspaper and other materials to the pedestrians and other onlookers. The approach that seemed to draw the most attention was, “Did you know? Did you know that over 1600 architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center Building Seven? Here! Take a copy of our newspaper!" We were able to pass out copies to about a third of the groups that walked by.
At one point during the event, I told a bystander that AE911Truth does not speculate about "who did it” or “why", we are technical and building professionals, and all we are asking for is a real investigation. A police officer jumped toward me and said, "I thought you guys said the government did it!" After I explained the position of AE911Truth to him, however, his personal hostility melted away.
..........
www.ae911truth.org/en/news-...ttan.html
How many people could you guys muster at your Building 7 "Occupy?" About 20? In the nation's largest city where the terrorist attacks occurred? Real snowballing movement after 10 year your got there.
LMAO
Typical truther. Repeat truther claims they've been repeating for years and claim it's "new evidence." We've all known about reports of explosions for years. Apparently truthers are the only people in the world who think that the only possible source for explosions in a building fire is controlled demolition explosives, particularly when the building was hit by an airplane at 500 miles per hour and about to collapse. Apparently the government is doing secret controlled demolitions all over the country, given how common it is to hear explosions in building fires.
Regarding reports of a lobby explosion immediately after the plane impact: When a B-25 hit the Empire State Building 80 floors up in 1945, some of its 800 gallons of airplane fuel managed to fall down elevator shafts and do serious damage to the building’s lobby. The planes that hit the Towers carried 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. One of the witnesses in that video of yours had soot on his face from the smoke (other witnesses of the basement and lobby explosions reported the smell of jet fuel or kerosene – jet fuel is basically kerosene; also, a fire ball was witnessed in the basement). That’s consistent with a fuel explosion. If he had a cutter explosion in his face, he wouldn’t have had a head. As for explosive sounds on other floors below the fire. Elevator shafts, through which the fuel explosion would have traveled, stop on many floors.
But it’s apparently more logical to truthers that demolition experts planted fuel explosives in the lobby and basement of a 110 story building, set them off immediately after the plane impacted, and the demolitions effects of the explosives (even though fuel explosions aren’t used to demolish buildings) managed to wait for over an hour, and then magically projected themselves a thousand feet up into the air, since the collapse started at the point of plane impact, not the basement or lobby.
LMAO
I hope the people find the time to check out this interview with Professor Niels Harrit...
"The NIST report is a scientific fraud"
May 2011 BBC Interview with Dr. Niels Harrit.
webjakob op 4 okt 2011
This May 10, 2011 interview of Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, was conducted by Michael Rudin of the BBC.
The occasion was the making of a new BBC production in the Conspiracy Files series for the tenth anniversary of 9/11.
Copyright Niels Harrit.
www.youtube.com/watch
In the end the tenets of the 9/11 Truethers, is the tenets of a religion; since in order to work requires paranormal catalyst for them to be in effect.
And thus it explains the devotion to the point of denial of logic...
There was a video released very recently that shows additional evidence of molten metal at ground zero..
Molten steel beams - 9/11
DrVresig op 1 nov 2011
FOIA 27
42A0179 - G26D38
www.youtube.com/watch
And Jeff..
Again..
It is not aluminium..
<<And Jeff.. Again.. It is not aluminium..
Beams heated up until they bend does not = "molten". Molten = liquid metal that certainly would not cool down in to a basic beam shape.
Again..Why not watch the video before you comment?
"This is one of the beams that obviously took a lot of heat damage and actually started to MELT..Because it BURNED RIGHT THROUGH..there is a BURNHOLE..and it actually kind of collapsed onto itself..clearly due to the heat..and it is significantly corroded and MELTED..The backside of it is gone..Intense heat that they have been talking about ..you know..1500 to 2000 degrees"
Some remarks..
The man in the video is probably talking degrees celcius because it would take at least 2500 degrees fahrenheit to melt steel..
This recently released video is on top of the pile of evidence of molten steel...
This important video (evidence) has been withheld from the public for more than a decade..
<<This is one of the beams that obviously took a lot of heat damage and actually started to MELT..Because it BURNED RIGHT THROUGH..there is a BURNHOLE
Starting to melt does not = molten, subsequently this video is not of one of molten steel. As a matter of fact, there are a number of reasons for this kind of oxidizing to happen, something we have already went over and you have summarily ignored, as is your M.O. A couple of oxidization holes are not going to create pools of molten steel as you have claimed existed in the WTC debris pile.
"and it is significantly corroded and MELTED."
His statements are clear..and you are desperatly grasping at straws by cherrypicking his quotes...
To melt steel you need at least 2700F degrees..Jet fuel ànd office furniture reach 1500F max..
The simple facts of temperatures:
1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.
The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.
911review.com/coverup/fan...melting.html
STARTING to melt on the surface is minor, not significant Harmen, and it certainly does not rise to the level of "molten". In addition, we are not discussing the building as it was standing, we are discussing temps reached by the forge-like conditions created in a giant burning debris pile, so your 800c is a dishonest number.
"and it is SIGNIFICANTLY corroded and MELTED..The backside of it is gone."
This is what the eye witness said..Talk to him..
Molten steel beams - 9/11
DrVresig
www.youtube.com/watch
I don't care what he says, surface melting does not = significant and certainly does not rise to the level of being "molten". Not one instance of "molten steel" has been demonstrated, ever. By the way, your "occupy building 7" was a flop! :)
So..
You don't care about relevant new evidence but you do want to keep hammering your completely irrelevant strawman..
okay....Please keep bumping my thread..:)
btw..
Here is a good overview of some of the other older evidence for molten steel..
9-11 Molten Steel Forensic Evidence & Eyewitness Accounts
drtmiguel 11 apr 2010
www.youtube.com/watch
<<You don't care about relevant new evidence
This is not new evidence, we have seen evidence of slight melting and corrosion at the molecular level before. As a matter of fact, I debated this very subject months ago.
<<but you do want to keep hammering your completely irrelevant strawman..
And what straw man is that? Please be specific.
<<9-11 Molten Steel Forensic Evidence & Eyewitness Accounts
I stopped watching your video after the first piece falsely indicated that Melted Aluminum can't glow orange, that it only gives off a silvery sheen. And as I have repeatedly demonstrated, melted aluminum most certainly can glow orange when in a molten state. This is a perfect example of typical truther falsehoods.
images.search.yahoo.com/images...GsDaW1n
As you can see in this experiment even at 1800F (far hotter than any office fire) aluminium appears silvery grey...
www.youtube.com/watch
even NIST admits this..
The orange you see on the photo you show is probably the reflection of the container that glows orange during the melting process..
There is simply no way that the metal pooring from WTC 2 could be aluminium..
You present falsehoods...
now
watch the rest of the video..
www.youtube.com/watch
<<<As you can see in this experiment even at 1800F (far hotter than any office fire) aluminium appears silvery grey...
And yet your own video shows that it poured orange but turned to silver once it hit the pan. In addition, this was no simple office fire, we are speaking of a giant burning debris pile that created forge-like conditions. Thermite can't make anything burn for weeks on end, it goes against the very nature of the substance. Whereas we know that burning debris piles can burn for weeks or months because of the forge-like conditions created.
<<he orange you see on the photo you show is probably the reflection of the container that glows orange during the melting process..
Bullshit, I can show you aluminum being poured orange, it is no reflection, as the following proves.
images.search.yahoo.com/images...GsDaW1n
images.search.yahoo.com/images...GsDaW1n
images.search.yahoo.com/images...GsDaW1n
<<There is simply no way that the metal pooring from WTC 2 could be aluminium..
And what makes you think there is "no way"? I have shown that aluminum can and does pour orange, so that theory of yours is shot.
P.S. There is no such thing as an incindiary device that explodes but then somehow creates molten metal weeks later. Your entire premise is based on an impossibility.
lol @ The description of the third photo..
"In Newton's footsteps, Bill Newman cooked up a molten alloy of copper and star-regulus in his crucible."
You are making a fool of yourself again..
If people want more debunking of the far fetched molten aluminium claims..
911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/...m.html
9/11 trutherism will be but a footnote in history - along the likes of flat earthers, ufo abuductees, etc
That is what you said 5 years ago..
You were wrong then and i think you are wrong now..
Here is some video to proof that 911 investigating is very much alive..
Chertoff Gets Pounded By 911 Truth During C-Span Interview
johnfilax 28 dec 2011
www.youtube.com/watch
Oh man, Jeff, you're priceless. Let's look at Jeff's links:
images.search.yahoo.com/images...GsDaW1n
Yahoo/BBC image caption: "Molten METAL, Bilston STEELworks, 1972"
images.search.yahoo.com/images...GsDaW1n
Yahoo image caption: "MELTING METAL" (image page: a stock photo site: "Stock Image: Melting metal")
images.search.yahoo.com/images...GsDaW1n
Yahoo image caption: "Pouring molten METAL" (and the site caption Harmen mentioned)
Now let's look at one of the pics Jeff decided not to link, which is actually labeled "molten aluminum pours from a crucible."
images.search.yahoo.com/images...GsDaW1n
This is almost as good as Jeff arguing that there are numerous sources for the YouTube claim that 10,000 civilians were killed in Syria, and then posting a dozen links, NONE of which supported his claim, but just had "10000" and "Syria" somewhere on the page. Great examples of Jeff's "research" capabilities, where just because something comes up on a Google/Yahoo search, it MUST support his argument. Talk about not bothering to read your links.
I'd ask for your opinion on the fact that the NIST computer models are demonstrably *wrong,* but twenty bucks says you've never actually read their reports either. (And where's Ron? He wanted to know "what's wrong with computer models," and I proved to him that they can, as in this instance, be *flat out wrong.* Though computers can be rather accurate at calculating the results from given inputs, models are designed by humans, and are therefore only as good, or bad, as the data the humans use to build the models.)
>>And what makes you think there is "no way"? I have shown that aluminum can and does pour orange, so that theory of yours is shot.
You have shown that you know how to put words into a search engine and hit 'enter.' That's about it.
Again, from *NIST*: "Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery"
www.nist.gov/el/disaster...tctowers.cfm
>>P.S. There is no such thing as an incindiary device that explodes but then somehow creates molten metal weeks later. Your entire premise is based on an impossibility.
And your entire premise is based on an unknown quantity, namely the presumption that all incendiaries were consumed in the initial demolition (not to mention that you're now also essentially claiming to be an expert on explosives/incendiaries). But hey, keep repeating "forge-like conditions" like you're some kind of authority, and ignore that Harmen's recent link showed someone looking at beams on *top* of the pile (while also claiming that the melting does not "= significant," except for the fact that the wanna-be debunkers keep claiming the steel was just weakened, and not melted).
My mistake on one photo does absolutely nothing to change the fact that Aluminum can and does pour as an orange color. Your very own video showed it pouring orange, it only turned silver once it hit the pan and instantly cooled down. Your claim that aluminum can't glow orange is not supported by science champ.
This demonstrates that one can melt aluminum in a simple camp fire, notice it does not turn silver until after it cools.
video.search.yahoo.com/search...lmJzbkF
<<You were wrong then and i think you are wrong now..
Show me a scientific study indicating that molten aluminum can't give off an orange glow, or admit your error.
I googled molten aluminum and these are the pictures that came up, my bad for not vetting them properly. This must be the 20th time I have had to demonstrate this case, primarily because you and Harmen ignore evidence that is contrary to your truther cult. The fact still remains that neither of you have proven Aluminum can't glow orange. As a matter of fact, Harmen's own video shows the molten aluminum pouring as an orange color and only turning silver once it hit the pan and cooled. Here is a another, notice that it pours as an orange color and cools as a silver color. www.youtube.com/watch If you have a scientific study that indicates Aluminum can't glow orange I would love to see it, but thusfar that case is shattered.
<<This is almost as good as Jeff arguing that there are numerous sources for the YouTube claim that 10,000 civilians were killed in Syria
You have me confused with someone else there champ.
I would also like to bring back up the fact that the aluminum facade would not have just collapsed in a nice neat pile on the perimeter of the debris pile as you had previously claimed. The aluminum would have been jumbled throughout being that the building collapsed from the top down.
<<Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery
Aluminum can and does appear silvery. What it does not say is that it can't possibly appear orange.
<<And your entire premise is based on an unknown quantity, namely the presumption that all incendiaries were consumed in the initial demolition
Let's say some were left. Is there any such thing as an explosive device that then creates a chemical reaction, causing melting, lasting for weeks and weeks?
<<not to mention that you're now also essentially claiming to be an expert on explosives/incendiaries
One need not be an expert to understand that thermite burns quickly like gun powder and can't possibly do what truthers are saying it did.
<<But hey, keep repeating "forge-like conditions" like you're some kind of authority
But hey, keep ignoring the forge-like conditions that are PROVEN to happen in burning debris piles, as is demonstrated by burning land fills. And yes, I work with experts in this area being that the Environmental Engineering company I work for works on landfills.
The problem here is that truthers come to their conclusions and then try to fit the evidence around that conclusion, so you ignore the fact that the entire facade of the WTC buildings were clad in aluminum, and you are ignoring the forge-like conditions created in a burning debris pile.
And no, surface melting at the molecular level does not = moltent or "significant". Significant melting would have actually resulted in the steel becoming molten and losing it's basic shape as it cooled. And as we can see, these steel pieces are still in their basic form. Hardly proof of anything.
Looks like you cherry picked the NIST quote. Either you just googled and did not read the information provided, or you are being purposefully dishonest Abraxas. Cherry picking is NOT a scientific method, and in reality demonstrates that you are trying to fit the evidence around your conclusion. Let's read the ENTIRE NIST quote shall we?
"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."
You also missed the following from the same report: "NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius (900 degrees Fahrenheit) and 640 degrees Celsius (1,200 degrees Fahrenheit)—depending on the particular alloy—well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the vicinity of the fires. "
And you missed the part where NIST discusses the conditions created by a burning debris pile: "Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."
Check Mate.
Your youtube video is suspect from the get go, claiming the picture is of "molten steel" when in reality it is red hot but still in a solid state. Molten = liquid.
>>I googled molten aluminum and these are the pictures that came up, my bad for not vetting them properly.
Right... you didn't "vet" them properly because you seize on any "evidence" that you think supports your wanna-be debunker cult.
>>Here is a another, notice that it pours as an orange color and cools as a silver color. www.youtube.com/watch
Um... except that it doesn't pour orange. There is however a nice bright orange fire right behind the highly reflective silvery aluminum.
Funny how you think a campfire is making the aluminum "pour orange," yet none of the below videos show any “pouring orange,” and they actually use furnaces that would create higher temperatures than a campfire.
video.search.yahoo.com/video/play
video.search.yahoo.com/video/play
video.search.yahoo.com/video/play
video.search.yahoo.com/video/play
>><<This is almost as good as Jeff arguing that there are numerous sources for the YouTube claim that 10,000 civilians were killed in Syria
>>You have me confused with someone else there champ.
-sigh- Don't you wish.
Jeff: ”Be that as it may, there are many and varied sources for this 10,000 number. www.google.com/cse "
uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...6873afa5
And my “debunking” of every “source” in your link:
uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...82c6522f
>>I would also like to bring back up the fact that the aluminum facade would not have just collapsed in a nice neat pile on the perimeter of the debris pile as you had previously claimed.
I highlight more of your failed "research," and you try to deflect by bringing up this lie again? Show me where I made that claim. "You have me confused with someone else there," chump.
>>Aluminum can and does appear silvery. What it does not say is that it can't possibly appear orange.
At what temperature, Jeff? Far above the temperature at which it becomes liquid, which is the point that it would have flowed out of the tower. And if it were aluminum that was “flowing down the channel rails” (as the firefighters said of the “molten steel”), it would also have been silver as the heat would be conducted away to the rails, and it too would have begun to flow away from the heat source at the point of becoming liquid, at which point it would still have been silvery. But hey, all molten metals look the same, right? Only a “metallurgist” can tell the difference. Or something.
>>Is there any such thing as an explosive device that then creates a chemical reaction, causing melting, lasting for weeks and weeks?
1) I’m not the explosives expert you imply yourself to be, so I can’t answer that firmly in the negative or the positive.
2) There wouldn’t need to be if remnants of thermitic materials were igniting over a prolonged period (and no, I’m not saying a single deposit burning continually over weeks). Alternatively (or consecutively), a large deposit of high-temp molten iron/steel from the demolition being buried under the collapse would be insulated and could retain its heat and molten state for a prolonged period.
>>One need not be an expert to understand that thermite burns quickly like gun powder and can't possibly do what truthers are saying it did.
Thank you for demonstrating how little you know about thermitics.
>>But hey, keep ignoring the forge-like conditions that are PROVEN to happen in burning debris piles, as is demonstrated by burning land fills. And yes, I work with experts in this area being that the Environmental Engineering company I work for works on landfills.
Right. Because landfills and collapsed hundred-story skyscrapers are the same thing. Since it’s been “proven,” I assume you can point to an example of a burning debris pile or landfill with persistent (or even sporadic) deposits of molten metals, or even heat capable of wilting multi-ton I-beams.
And I don’t give a rat crap about your anecdotal “landfill experts” or that you work for an “environmental engineering company,” as you so often like to remind everyone (btw, you still need to learn to use caps properly). I work with mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, materials engineers, physicists, and lab technicians quite often. So what?
But thanks for following through on the second half of my sentence that you chopped off: "But hey, keep repeating "forge-like conditions" like you're some kind of authority, **and ignore that Harmen's recent link showed someone looking at beams on *top* of the pile** (while also claiming that the melting does not "= significant," except for the fact that the wanna-be debunkers keep claiming the steel was just weakened, and not melted)."
>>And no, surface melting at the molecular level does not = moltent or "significant".
1) Melting at the molecular level is significant, even moreso when taking the sulfidation into account.
2) The guy in Harmen’s above linked video isn’t talking about melting at the molecular level.
>>Significant melting would have actually resulted in the steel becoming molten and losing it's basic shape as it cooled. And as we can see, these steel pieces are still in their basic form.
www.youtube.com/watch
img486.imageshack.us/img486/...ofe7.jpg
Also note the beams that were basically “wilted” and curled over without the surface cracking that would result from a stress-induced bend.
>>Looks like you cherry picked the NIST quote. Either you just googled and did not read the information provided, or you are being purposefully dishonest Abraxas. Cherry picking is NOT a scientific method, and in reality demonstrates that you are trying to fit the evidence around your conclusion. Let's read the ENTIRE NIST quote shall we?
I’ll give you this, you’ve gotta have some brass balls (or just be an arrogant twit) to link to random pictures of unidentified molten metals (or in one case, identified as a copper alloy) and state that they “prove” your molten aluminum claims, and then once it’s proven what a total fraud they are (and after posting another cherry-picked "glowing aluminum in campfire" video), you come back and try to lecture *me* about cherry picking and the scientific method and trying to fit evidence around my conclusion.
In short, bite me, ya arrogant twit.
>>"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."
Using phrases like “very likely mixed” and pointing to other combustibles that “can display an orange glow” is hardly proper application of the scientific method. Organic materials would in fact not “mix in” with molten aluminum, but would float to the top and burn off, as their density would be less than that of the aluminum, and their ignition temperature would be far below the melting point. This would not match the consistent and persistent orange color of the flow from the south tower, nor would it match the consistent and persistent orange glow of "molten steel" that firefighters reported was flowing "like lava."
Of course, NIST could have performed a very simple experiment involving heating aluminum to the proposed temperatures and adding combustible organic debris, and then pouring it out to see if it exhibited the same properties as that which flowed from WTC2 or which was reported in all the accounts of “molten steel,” but they couldn’t be bothered. Apparently assumption was all the “scientific method” they needed.
>>You also missed the following from the same report: "NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius (900 degrees Fahrenheit) and 640 degrees Celsius (1,200 degrees Fahrenheit)—depending on the particular alloy—well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the vicinity of the fires. "
I didn’t “miss” any of this, as I have, unlike you, actually read the whole report. Years ago. Unfortunately, NIST’s “conclusion” as to the source of the material does not match the visibly observable evidence.
NIST’s “conclusions” regarding the cause of the collapse was based on their computer models, computer models which are demonstrably *wrong* when compared to observable phenomena, so they’re already lacking credibility if you’re trying to reference their other conclusions, especially other conclusions that are founded upon baseless assumption.
>>And you missed the part where NIST discusses the conditions created by a burning debris pile: "Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."
Again, I didn’t “miss” anything, and my statements from above regarding the credibility of their “conclusions” apply here as well. “*Under certain circumstances* it is *conceivable*…” is nowhere near scientifically definitive. They don't elaborate on what kind of "certain circumstances" would allow it to happen, and don't provide an explanation for the "combustion within the pile" that would reach sufficient temperatures. It’s basically making an assumption or an excuse without conducting any actual experimentation or investigation. (NIST's theories about the cause of the molten steel also do little to bolster your claims that it was aluminum)
>>Check Mate.
Apparently this is yet another concept for which you didn’t actually read the definition after you googled it.
Maybe if you ever get around to actually reading the NIST studies and looking at their animations (which are already a few years old), you can try to explain away the fact that their models (and therefore the conclusions that were based on said models) are irreconcilable with the evidentiary record.
Go fish!
P.S.
>>Your youtube video is suspect from the get go, claiming the picture is of "molten steel" when in reality it is red hot but still in a solid state. Molten = liquid.
What was that about "cherry picking?" Jeffy didn't like the implied description of a photo 10 seconds in, so he decided to play semantics with that instead of addressing (more likely, without watching) other significant points in the video. Such as:
1) 1:00: NIST's "lead engineer" John Gross claims of molten steel: "I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses that said so," which is either A) a flat out LIE, or B) an admission of gross negligence to actually review witness accounts.
2) 1:20: Chunk of fused concrete and previously molten steel.
3) 1:45: 6" thick I-beam bent over without tearing or cracking from stress. Attending construction worker: "It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this."
4) 4:00: "Ground Zero Cross," two previously unconnected pieces of steel fused together (aka, melted together), with another piece of unidentified, previously melted metal draped over it.
And the pic with which Jeff takes so much umbrage is a still photo, so one can't tell whether or not it is molten, although its color at the brightest point (which is more accurately described as bright yellow/white-hot, not red-hot) is in the tempature range at which steel melts. And then there's the imageshack photo I linked above, with splattered yellow/white-hot molten "metal," and the video of it pouring out the corner of WTC2.
Interestingly, Gross also mentions that "steel melts at around 2600degF. I think it's probably pretty difficult to get that kind of temperature in a fire." No mention of "forge-like conditions."
P.P.S.
Just to reiterate the fallacy of Ron's whole "elevator shafts, through which the fuel explosion would have traveled, stop on many floors" nonsense:
The WTC elevators were staggered, and on the impact zone floors, only two elevators actually serviced floors below the impact zones, and they were express elevators that *only* went to the ground floor or below (in the WTC1 impact zone, there was only *1* express elevator), and they did *not* "stop on many floors."
media.photobucket.com/image/w...ent1.jpg
Never mind that explosions were reported on lower floors well after the impacts and any potential "fuel explosions" (except of course for witness accounts of explosions *before* impact). Just another example of wanna-be debunkers not having a grasp of basic facts.
The following pictures demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that aluminum can and does glow orange, and I have made certain that the pictures are indeed aluminum.
www.metalwebnews.com/howto/f...ing.html
And yes, landfill fires are much akin to giant debris fires being that they create the same forge-like conditions.
Take note that the one in Hawaii was burning 15 to 20 feet underground and burned for 4 months
"Each year, an average of 8,300 landfill fires causes up to $8 million in propertly loss."
"On January 26, 1998, an employee at Richard DeCoite’s construction and demolition (C&D) landfill in Ma’alaea, Maui, noticed an odd odor, which led to the discovery of a fire 15 to 20 feet underground. Attempts were made to smother it with injections of more than 1,000 pounds of liquid carbon dioxide. The fire was eventually deemed to be extinguished in a matter of weeks, although it continued to smolder for 4 months."
"An underground landfill fire that was discovered in December of 1996 in Dan-bury, New Jersey, caused an unpleasant odor (which smelled like rotton eggs due to the high concentration of hydrogen sulfide in landfills). The odor spread into two surrounding neighborhoods. The fire lasted for weeks and the town was forced to install a gas recovery system, whose cost exceeded $1 million."
www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads...18-508.pdf
More from Waste Management World explaining the science behind these kinds of fires:
Deep-seated landfill fires do not ‘burn’ in the accepted sense. These fires are a form of combustion, known as pyrolysis, where the thermal reaction takes place in an oxygen-starved environment. The combusting material is consumed very slowly and at low temperature. As the waste is heated it begins to devolatalize (you might visualize volatiles as the vapor given off by a candle at the instant it is blown out).
The volatiles are either incompletely combusted into other species for example carbon monoxide, dioxin from PVC, hydrogen sulfide from gypsum drywall board, or re-deposited on the surface of cold wastes lying in front of the advancing temperature front. Once devolatalization is complete the remaining fuel, in the form of fixed carbon (visualize this as the charred wick on a candle after it is blown out) can remain hot, under starved oxygen conditions, for years. Mattresses and children’s toys are designed to smolder in a fire and for this reason some operators now refuse to accept them.
Deep-seated landfill fires can expand in two different ways known as ‘confined’ and ‘unconfined’ progression:
Confined landfills: are formed from multiple layers of waste deposited in thin strata which are compacted by a landfill compactor fitted with sheep’s foot rollers. The rollers tend to re-align the waste into a form which is more permeable horizontally than vertically. These layers are sandwiched between layers of daily cover. In this case, a fire will tend to expand horizontally rather than vertically. A confined fire might be indicated by a shallow collapse, surrounded by tension cracks, at the surface.
Unconfined landfill: fires occur in Construction and Demolition (C&D) sites. In this case there are no horizontal constraints and a fire will progress vertically upwards producing a dangerous sinkhole at the surface. In Bedfordshire (UK) in 1981 a landfill compactor operator was lucky to escape with his life when he noticed that the cab had gone dark except for bright sparks soaring past the windows. He reported that his descent into a sinkhole was like descending in an elevator. The burned-out compactor remains a permanent feature of the landfill.
www.waste-management-world.com/in...tml
Conclusion: Landfill and debris fires can burn underground for weeks and even months. Aluminum can and does glow orange.
<<a large deposit of high-temp molten iron/steel from the demolition being buried under the collapse would be insulated and could retain its heat and molten state for a prolonged period.
I have to comment on this being that it is the exact point I am making regarding the properties of debris/landfill fires. Yes, those conditions can and do create heat that can last for long periods. Glad you are on board. :)
Also, office buildings have carpet and tons of other contaminating factors that are most certainly likely to be mixed in with any melting aluminum. The idea that it would be uncontaminated and pure is ludicrous.
In addition, the followign scientific study from the Journal of materials science clearly indicates that aluminum can and does glow orange
and yellow.
Various kinds of coloration were observed on a surface of metallic aluminium heated above its melting temperature under seven different atmospheres with different po2. Similar distributions of the coloration on a diagram of temperature (600–1400 °C) and time (1–90 min) were found among these atmospheres. Yellowish colours (beige, gold, yellow, blonde, camel and sand) appeared over a fairly wide range of the diagram. From estimated thicknesses determined by weight increases and the order of appearance of the colours, it was concluded that the colour is caused by interference by the oxidized thin film produced on the smooth surface of the molten aluminium.
resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd
Molten aluminum also reacts with other metals and and can have corrosive properties, which would explain the corrosion found on the steel structures.
Molten aluminium corrosion is one of the major problems in the aluminium production industry since the molten aluminium reacts with nearly all metals and metal oxides [1]. These days the most frequently used die materials are hot work tool steels such as AISI H11 and AISI H13 grades [2]. Moreover, aluminum casting dies fail due to the following reasons: (a) fatigue cracking of the die surface induced by thermal cycling or heat chocking; (b) molten aluminum corrosion or soldering; (c) erosion wear by molten aluminum; or (d) catastrophic failure [2, 3]. The corrosion wear originates by dissolution of the tool material into the liquid metal and the formation of intermetallic phases.
www.isrn.com/journals/ms/2011/273706/
>>The following pictures demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that aluminum can and does glow orange, and I have made certain that the pictures are indeed aluminum.
Oh did you? Did you notice that there are two different furnaces in those pics, and the pic labeled "Testing the Temperature of the Aluminum" is a different furnace than the ones that are pouring glowing metal? Did you notice that the furnace in the "Testing the Temperature" pic is the same furnace that's pouring *silver* aluminum in the lower right picture?
Did you notice that the author of the book, from which your linked chapter is an exerpt, also has a book called "IRON MELTING Cupola Furnaces?"
Did you notice the cover of his "IRON MELTING Cupola Furnaces" book? Something tells me the answer is "no," so let me help:
stephenchastain.com/images/b...thumb.jpg
Huh... that IRON MELTING Cupola furnace looks an awful lot like the furnace at your link that you say is pouring glowing "aluminum". Probably because it's the same picture.
But hey, I'll give you an "E" for Effort (yeah... right between "D" and "F").
>>More from Waste Management World explaining the science behind these kinds of fires:
Amusing that you can copy/paste essays in an attempt to look authorative, yet seemingly managed to miss this in your own reference:
"The combusting material is consumed very slowly and AT LOW TEMPERATURE."
I wasn't aware forges used "low temperatures."
And of course "15 to 20 feet underground" isn't quite the 70+ feet underground of the WTC basements, nor are landfills compacted to the degree of the WTC debris pile, nor are landfills composed mostly of concrete and steel.
But they're still the same thing, right?
But hey, thanks for providing a reference for examples of landfill fires melting or wilting steel (or other metals).
Oh wait... you didn't.
>>Also, office buildings have carpet and tons of other contaminating factors that are most certainly likely to be mixed in with any melting aluminum. The idea that it would be uncontaminated and pure is ludicrous
Yeah, and carpets would burn off if it were "mixed" with molten aluminum, and would be consumed, not just floating around continuously burning, nor would it give it the consistent permeating glow of molten steel. Again: This would not match the consistent and persistent orange color of the flow from the south tower, nor would it match the consistent and persistent orange glow of "molten steel" that firefighters reported was flowing "like lava."
>>In addition, the followign scientific study from the Journal of materials science clearly indicates that aluminum can and does glow orange and yellow.
In addition, you apparently missed where I said: "At what temperature, Jeff?"
Your link doesn't even show the whole study, just the first page, so that information isn't available at your link. Nor does the first page indicate the conditions aside from temperature (experiment was conducted "under seven different atmospheres with different po2") at which coloration is observed. So until you can produce the rest of the study, your single-page link is essentially worthless.
>>Molten aluminum also reacts with other metals and and can have corrosive properties, which would explain the corrosion found on the steel structures.
"Can have corrosive properties"... very definitive.
Note that "the most frequently used die materials are hot work tool STEELS such as AISI H11 and AISI H13 grades." However, I do not know the grades of the WTC steels, so that's hardly conclusive. However, referencing die failure is basically irrelevant, considering that the extreme and repeated stresses endured by casting dies are not analogous to conditions within the debris pile.
Water can corrode as well. You sure it wasn't water that caused the "corrosion found on the steel structures?" I know, I know... all "corrosion" is the same, all molten metals look the same, concrete/steel debris piles and landfills are the same, etc.
P.S. Nice (read: "pathetic") work ignoring all my other points. Or maybe you did address them, and I just have you "confused with someone else."
Abraxas
"Organic materials would in fact not “mix in” with molten aluminum, but would float to the top and burn off, as their density would be less than that of the aluminum, and their ignition temperature would be far below the melting point. This would not match the consistent and persistent orange color of the flow from the south tower, nor would it match the consistent and persistent orange glow of "molten steel" that firefighters reported was flowing "like lava." "
Professor Steven Jones conducted several experiments to test the NIST "orange glow by organic material mix in" hypothesis.
His conclusions seem to match your theory..
Experiments to test NIST "orange glow" hypothesis...
by Steven E. Jones, August 31, 2006
"We melted aluminum in a steel pan using an oxy-acetylene torch.
Then we added plastic shavings -- which immediately burned with a dark smoke, as the plastic floated on top of the hot molten aluminum. Next, we added wood chips (pine, oak and compressed fiber board chips) to the liquid aluminum. Again, we had fire and smoke, and again, the hydrocarbons floated on top as they burned. We poured out the aluminum and all three of us observed that it appeared silvery, not orange! We took photos and videos, so we will have the recorded evidence as these are processed. (I have now attached two videos showing clearly the silvery appearance of the flowing aluminum.) Of course, we saw a few burning embers, but this did not alter the silvery appearance of the flowing, falling aluminum.
We decided to repeat the experiment, with the same aluminum re-melted. This time when we added fresh wood chips to the hot molten aluminum, we poured the aluminum-wood concoction out while the fire was still burning. And as before, the wood floated on top of the liquid aluminum. While we could see embers of burning wood, we observed the bulk of the flowing aluminum to be silvery as always, as it falls through the air.
This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not "glow orange" due to partially-burned organics "mixed" in (per NIST theory) - because they do NOT mix in!"
911review.com/articles/jo...othesis.html
More than five years later i have not seen any experiment that managed molten aluminium to glow orange by mixing in organic material..
truthers forget that you can't tell if it's molten by looking at it
There is an interesting new way of 911 investigation communication..
A few weeks ago the cool short movie "Blindfold" was released on the net..
Blindfold
by Teace Snyder
19 days ago
Blindfold is a short film about the strained relationship between Tim, a widower father, and Eve, his pre-teen daughter, as they try to reconcile the emotional devastation 9/11 has caused their family.
vimeo.com/34497756
Now there is also full feature movie planned based on the findings of Architects & Engineers for truth..
A New 9/11 Investigation - Coming to a Theater Near You? Hollywood Stars Seek to Make Feature Film Focused on WTC Demolitions
Written by Howard Cohen
Friday, 20 January 2012 15:11
“A Violation of Trust” (formerly titled “Confession of a 9/11 Conspirator”) is a feature film project that is willing to do what the world’s governments and legal bodies are unwilling to do – open a real investigation of 9/11 for the entire world to see. It dramatizes the first day of “The President’s New Investigation of 9/11”, with actors performing from a tightly-written, factually-accurate script that pits the 9/11 Commission Report and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Reports against the work of 9/11 researcher Dr. David Ray Griffin and the scientific research highlighted by leading 9/11 truth organizations, including Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
www.ae911truth.org/en/news-...ons-.html
here is the website..
A Violation of Trust
actorsandartistsfor911truth.com/co...htm
first off, I don't buy the truther nonsense, but the red in your video looks to be from the container. Also took a manufacturing technologies class in high school where we had to design an aluminum item and build it from scratch, and recall the molten aluminum looking silver (though it was a long time ago and went through high school rather dazed)
But here's a video of molten aluminum and the set up is designed in away that you're not going to receive the glare from the smelter container
www.youtube.com/watch
looks silver there, as well
www.youtube.com/watch
here's another
not sure if it eventually does glow red, if heated to a certain degree though, but despite your earlier declaration, it would seem the burden was on you (you're making the positive claim)
THere is a new video pointing out important inconsisties in the NIST WTC 7 report
Check out the evidence..
Shear Ignorance - NIST and WTC7
71gerry 4 feb 2012
Help us research and produce more videos like this at express.paltalk.com/index.html . We need researchers and activists to help us. Even if you can just send the odd email, do something about the social injustice and the lies of 911. It is simply the right thing to do. Thanks.
www.youtube.com/watch
The 911 false flag is so busted now. Look at NatGeo and The History Channel frantically running little mini docs trying to keep the Official Story afloat. It is getting hilarious to watch them thrash about. Just about everyone I know now has figured 911 out. It is gratifying to see that a decades' worth of investigation shared on the net has paid off in the end. Thanks to everyone out there who kept the drums beating.
I see too that after my long absence from Tribe the same coven of Absorption Ministry shills still mans the desks here 24/7 in an attempt to cover up this terrible false flag op that has directly and indirectly killed hundreds of thousands of people and which was used as an excuse to destroy the US Constitution. Their handlers have every reason to be fearful now.
The elephant in the room just so happens to be the subject of this thread. Occupy Building 7 was a huge flop, it is the last cries of a dying movement.
Architects and Engineers brings a brand new monthly series that focuses on the Popular Mechanics propaganda..
An interesting read that makes you think..
DEBUNKING THE REAL 9/11 MYTHS: WHY POPULAR MECHANICS CAN’T FACE UP TO REALITY – PART 1
Written by Adam Taylor
Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:41
Introduction
The revised version of Popular Mechanics’ book Debunking 9/11 Myths continues to defend myths that are scientifically impossible
A decade has passed since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and many people feel that we have still not had a real investigation into what really happened that day. Many believe that the investigations into the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) were either fraudulent or incomplete, and have joined the 1600+ architects and engineers at AE911Truth in calling for a real, independent investigation into the attacks. However, Popular Mechanics (PM) has been the primary cheerleader in the mainstream media in defense of the NIST reports ever since its book, Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up To the Facts, was published in 2006.
For the ten-year anniversary of 9/11, PM put out a second version of its book, which was updated in an attempt to dismiss new findings that corroborate the controlled demolition hypothesis. The main sections of the book that were revised are on the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7. This report demonstrates that PM has still not adequately explained the numerous anomalies surrounding the collapse of these three buildings that prove they were destroyed with explosives.
.............
ae911truth.org/en/news-se...part-1.html
There is also a promotional video..
Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality
citizenfor911truth1 15 feb 2012
My extensive, point-by-point refutation of Popular Mechanics' weak arguments regarding the controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings. Think 9/11 "conspiracy theories" have been debunked by Popular Mechanics' new 2011 book? Think again.
www.youtube.com/watch
No comment on the fact that your prediction of a massive protest for "Occupy Building 7" was going to happen and it never happened? No comment on the fact that it was a huge flop? Your movement is dying a slow death.
I don't think that the truth can die..
You can try to hide the truth..And you can fool some people sometimes..
But science is stubborn and wins in the end....You can not fool all the people all the time..
And science is with the fact seekers..
www.youtube.com/watch
This thread is a massive succes! ..It is still active after three months..
Huh, I thought the elephant in *this* room (thread) was the fact that your "evidence" has been repeatedly smacked down as fraudulent and contradictory, and that when confronted with the facts of these failures, you choose to ignore them and instead attempt to shift the topic by misrepresenting my statements, most likely because "it does not fit in with your narrative, which = coming to a conclusion and then fitting the so called facts around that conclusion."
But hey... keep on trollin'
There is a brand brand new video out on NIST and WTC7...
NIST and WTC7 - The Expanding Lie
71gerry 18 feb 2012
www.youtube.com/watch
The topic of this thread was "Occuply Building 7", which turned out to be a huge flop. So tell me exactly how this ON-TOPIC point could be considered trolling by any definition? I will be anxiously awaiting your tortured logic. :)~
-sigh- Just another indication that you either don't know, or are pretending to not know, what trolling is. Trolling can be on-topic and still be trolling.
If someone posts a thread titled "Who else went to John Mayer's awesome show last night?" and someone replies "John Mayer sucks balls and no one went because it's a dying fanbase," that is still considered trolling.
But hey... whatever... no big surprise. Your whole presence in this thread is pretty much trolling right from the get go. One only needs to read the first 20 posts to see that. Posting false and erroneous information to try to get a rise out of someone is also often considered trolling, and goodness knows you've certainly provided a wide selection of "false and erroneous" information in this thread.
Not to mention: "1) Personal attacks, threats, insults, name-calling, racist or homophobic remarks - really anything that is mean spirited or intended to degrade or antagonize, directed at members of the tribe, may have you removed."
But I'm sure there's nothing "mean spirited" in your babbling about "huge flops" and "dying movements," right? I'm sure you can mount a rock solid defense along the lines of your "LOL is not a childish taunt" argument.
Now that that's out of the way, perhaps you can help me understand why I should believe NIST's conclusions when their models are admittedly and obviously so divergent from the recorded evidence. Or maybe you can educate me some more on how "combusting material [being] consumed very slowly and at low temperature" constitutes "forge-like conditions." I work in high technology manufacturing, and I'd be fascinated to learn more about these techniques of low-temperature metalworking.
<<If someone posts a thread titled "Who else went to John Mayer's awesome show last night?" and someone replies "John Mayer sucks balls and no one went because it's a dying fanbase," that is still considered trolling.
Yours is a piss poor analogy, let me adjust it so that it is more appropriate to compare to this thread.
"The John Mayer's concert is happening tonight, it is going to be a massive event!" The next day "turns out the John Mayer concert was a flop, only 20 people showed up". Is that trolling? Is it inflammatory? Extraneous? Off-topic?
Internet Troll: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
The subject and message of this thread was that there was going to be a massive Occupy Building 7 protest, the protest gathered maybe 20 people, if that. This simple fact is being ignored by the people who indicated that the protest was going to be massive. So tell me bud, what exactly is your problem with that?
<<Not to mention: "1) Personal attacks, threats, insults, name-calling, racist or homophobic remarks - really anything that is mean spirited or intended to degrade or antagonize, directed at members of the tribe, may have you removed."
Then I would suggest you read this rule repeatedly being that you are pushing it with your desecration of my personal photograph. Drop you stupid grudge and join the rest of us in a debate about the issues, stop constantly focusing on me personally.
There is a brand new DVD coming out on the Toronto hearings on 911..
Here is the trailer...
The Toronto Hearings on 9/11: Uncovering 10 Years of Deception - Preview
weavingspider op 29 feb 2012
Ten years have passed since the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001, and there are still many unanswered questions surrounding that fateful day.
In 2011, experts and scientists from around the world gathered in Toronto, Canada to present new and established evidence that questions the official story of 9/11. This evidence was presented to a distinguished panel of experts over a 4 day period.
Through their analysis and scientific investigations, they hope to spark a new investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Press For Truth and The International Center for 9/11 Studies Present:
"The Toronto Hearings on 9/11: Uncovering 10 Years of Deception"
Produced by:
Steven Davies
Dan Dicks
Bryan Law
www.youtube.com/watch
>>Internet Troll: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Thanks Bubbala, but I've been using the internet and posting on forums long enough to know what a troll is without needing Wiki to explain it for me.
>>Then I would suggest you read this rule repeatedly being that you are pushing it with your desecration of my personal photograph.
Bwahahahahahaha..... "desecration," huh?
Hilarious.
Either you've got a seriously overinflated sense of self importance, or you're once again using words for which you don't know the definition.
>>Drop you stupid grudge and join the rest of us in a debate about the issues, stop constantly focusing on me personally.
Keep your lies and disinfo out of these threads, and I won't need to keep smacking them down.
And one has to chuckle when they get reprimanded for not discussing "real issues" by people that bypass topics on staged terrorism so they can mentally masturbate over Rush Limbaugh.
<<Thanks Bubbala, but I've been using the internet and posting on forums long enough to know what a troll is without needing Wiki to explain it for me.
Then maybe you should try to use it in a more honest manner.
<<Bwahahahahahaha..... "desecration," huh?
I meant 'defaced". Regardless, rather immature of you to say the least.
<<and I won't need to keep smacking them down.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but defacing a members personal photo is not smacking anything down.
<<And one has to chuckle when they get reprimanded for not discussing "real issues" by people that bypass topics on staged terrorism
I have been discussing your so called "staged terrorism" with truthers for over 10 years, I think I have put in my time. The movement is dying a slow death, I am moving on, deal with it.
>>Then maybe you should try to use it in a more honest manner.
I use it quite honestly and properly. Don't troll and it won't be an issue.
>>I meant 'defaced".
"Learn to write with accuracy."
>>Sorry to burst your bubble, but defacing a members personal photo is not smacking anything down.
No, the above extensive smacking down of your false claims are what constitute the smacking down. Unfortunately, once you've been sufficiently smacked down, you pretend like it never happened and switch over to condescending "I'm too good for this topic" douchery. Once that point has been reached, I see little else of value to do (entertainment or otherwise) in the thread than mock your lack of intellectual honesty.
>>I have been discussing your so called "staged terrorism" with truthers for over 10 years, I think I have put in my time. The movement is dying a slow death,
Actually, I was referring to Lt. Col. Schaffer's statements that Awlaki was a double agent and that NATO special ops are in Syria engaged in a covert destabilization campaign, but I guess I forgot to account for your tunnel vision.
>> I am moving on, deal with it.
And yet... here you are.
<<>>Then maybe you should try to use it in a more honest manner.
I use it quite honestly and properly.<<
I think you really believe that, but it is an emotional rather than logical or factual response. Case in point, this thread was about a massive Occupy Wallstreet protest in solidarity with the 9-11 conspiracy theories. Is correctly pointing out that only a few people showed up "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic"? Obviously not.
<<>>I meant 'defaced".
"Learn to write with accuracy." <<
I use the above phrase when people try to blame me for the mistakes in their own writing, mistakes that cause confusion as to the intention of that persons words. In thise case I took full responsibility for using the incorrect word, and I certainly did not try to blame you for my mistake.
<<No, the above extensive smacking down of your false claims
I don't see anything "above" other than you trying to attack me. If you are speaking of truther B.S., I have many people that can verify that I have been weaning myself off of this subject, so your lame attempts at trying to paint me as being afraid of the subject won't hold water. TEN YEARS is enough, I deleted all my links and years of research for a reason, I am not going to waste anymore time on the subject regardless of being temporarily drawn back in.
<<Actually, I was referring to Lt. Col. Schaffer's statements that Awlaki was a double agent and that NATO special ops are in Syria engaged in a covert destabilization campaign, but I guess I forgot to account for your tunnel vision.
Too busy fending off your idiotic personal attacks. Back off and maybe I might give your subjects the attention you are so obviously begging for. Post the topic in a new thread and I will find it and discuss it with you.
There is a brand new video series on NIST and WTC7..
A new study study of the recently released building specifications shows many flaws in the (already falsified) NIST hypothesis..
Here is part 3 of the series..check it out..
Tangled Webs - NIST and WTC7
71gerry 10 mrt 2012
www.youtube.com/watch
>>I think you really believe that, but it is an emotional rather than logical or factual response.
No, it's quite factual: you love to troll.
>>I use the above phrase when people try to blame me for the mistakes in their own writing, mistakes that cause confusion as to the intention of that persons words. In thise case I took full responsibility for using the incorrect word, and I certainly did not try to blame you for my mistake.
Huh... I coulda sworn you just use it to be a condescending jerk, because that's the general context in which it's used.
>>I don't see anything "above" other than you trying to attack me.
Oh no? Perhaps you need to "learn to read with accuracy."
uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...f4cf52af
uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...f4135e58
uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...af5e0974
>>If you are speaking of truther B.S., I have many people that can verify that I have been weaning myself off of this subject, so your lame attempts at trying to paint me as being afraid of the subject won't hold water.
Yeah right... odd and convenient "weaning..." I smack down all your crap "research," and suddenly you've got nothing to say for a couple weeks. Then Solari makes a post, and suddenly you find the wherewithal to chime in again with your little dig. Seems like when your crap "research" gets shown up as a fraud, you'd rather just let the thread die and fall off the bottom of the page, but if someone dares reply with a tone of support, you've got to be sure the "last word" is one of derision and/or disinfo.
>>TEN YEARS is enough, I deleted all my links and years of research for a reason,
-chuckle- Uh huh. Excuses excuses.
The really ridiculous thing about this excuse, of course, is that after "TEN YEARS" of research and following 9/11 developments, I don't need to save any of it. I actually know WTF I'm talking about, so I can pull up the references in pretty short order on the fly. If you're speaking truth, it shouldn't be so difficult to find references to back it up.
>>I am not going to waste anymore time on the subject regardless of being temporarily drawn back in.
And yet... here you are.
>>Too busy fending off your idiotic personal attacks.
Ah yes, I understand my once/twice a week posting habits can be quite overwhelming.
<<No, it's quite factual: you love to troll.
The idea that I "love to troll" is a bit different than your claim that the specific post we are discussing equaled trolling. It did not fit the definition by any stretch of the imagination, which is why you avoided my specific questions and are now pretending that we were speaking about me generally, rather than a specific post. A bit disingenuous to say the least.
That said, the idea that I "love to troll" is not supported by the way I conduct myself on this tribe. As a matter of fact, I am quite certain that your own trolling activities exceed my own being that a large portion of posts directed at me involve some form of personal denigration or another. You are quite happy to make the conversation about me personally, I am quite happy debating with people that can disagree without being disagreeable, a skill it seems that is quite lost on you.
<<Huh... I coulda sworn you just use it to be a condescending jerk
When and where? Please be specific. By the way, see again how you are once again making it personal? The above most definately = trolling on your part, as did your defacing of my photograph. So it seems you are projecting being that your own posts indciate that you clearly have a problem with trolling.
<<>>If you are speaking of truther B.S., I have many people that can verify that I have been weaning myself off of this subject, so your lame attempts at trying to paint me as being afraid of the subject won't hold water.
Yeah right... odd and convenient "weaning..." <<
Nothing odd about it, it is a simple and verifiable fact.
<< I smack down all your crap "research," and suddenly you've got nothing to say for a couple weeks.
You smacked down a quick googling effort, my "research" would not have been so easy. But again, I delted all of those links I spent years collecting as I have went through the process of purging this time wasting subject. Again, ten years is plenty. But feel free to inflate your own ego if that makes you feel good about yourself, I need no such artificial boost and will move forward debating people that can disagree without engaging in personal attacks. As a matter of fact, I am quite please with the fact that Gerbil has cracked down on the personal attacks on this tribe, you would do well to listen to his request if you want to keep posting here.
This thread was about a massive Occupy Wallstreet protest in solidarity with the 9-11 conspiracy theories. Is correctly pointing out that only a few people showed up "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic"? Please stop dodging the question.
>>which is why you avoided my specific questions and are now pretending that we were speaking about me generally, rather than a specific post. A bit disingenuous to say the least.
Perhaps you can tell me why *you've* avoided so many specific questions, and suddenly felt like jumping back in (again... odd for someone "weaning" themselves) with your derisive "dying movement" posts.
>>You are quite happy to make the conversation about me personally,
Aside from actual news, issues, and references, and my opinions thereon, I don't discuss anything that's not read on the pages of this tribe. I don't talk about your music, your job (outside of when you specifically bring it into the conversation), your family, etc... the picture that you keep whining about is pretty much the only remotely "personal" angle I've used, and the actual "personal information" was redacted. Your established pattern of behavior exhibited through public posts on this tribe is fair game.
Perhaps if you actually addressed my rebuttal questions two months ago, instead of pretending they don't exist and just chiming in to poke Solari (whom you backhandedly called "dishonest" in the Eric Margolis thread), these things would be avoided.
>>When and where? Please be specific.
Here are a number of questions/issues that have been put to you just in the three linked posts from my last message, which you have ignored entirely.
- the fact that the NIST models are demonstrably (and somewhat admittedly) *wrong*
- the fact that there is a difference between 110 stories of concrete and steel collapsing onto itself seven stories underground and a landfill full of garbage
- the fact that your own Waste Management reference states that in reference to subterranean landfill fires, "the combusting material is consumed very slowly and at low temperature," directly contradicting your oft-repeated claims about "forge-like conditions."
- the fact that there are other examples of molten metal, such as the Ground Zero Cross or the fused steel/concrete "meteorites," as well as wilting I-beams without stress cracks, which requires extreme heat beyond that accounted for in the official explanation
- the fact that organic materials would burn off, and not "mix in" with molten aluminum
- the fact that NIST's John Gross claims ignorance of eyewitness accounts of molten metal
- the fact that you claimed there were "many and varied sources for this 10,000 number" in the Syria thread, and now claim that you never said that (aka "lying")
- the fact that you keep claiming that I said the aluminum facade "collapsed in a nice neat pile on the perimeter of the debris pile," yet I *never* said that, and despite my repeated statements to that effect, you have continued to "misquote" me (aka "lying")
So tell you what... you answer the "whens and wheres" of those ("please be specific"), and I'll consider wading through old posts to answer yours.
>>By the way, see again how you are once again making it personal?
So outright lying or deliberately misquoting someone or baselessly calling them dishonest is okay, but calling them a condescending jerk is "making it personal?" Oh well.
>>Nothing odd about it, it is a simple and verifiable fact.
Claiming "I have many people that can verify that I have been weaning myself off of this subject" hardly constitutes a "verfiable fact." I don't even think that qualifies as "anecdotal."
>>You smacked down a quick googling effort,
"A quick googling effort," hm? More like numerous googling efforts. And you were certainly adament about the legitimacy of some of these "quickly googled" pics.
"...as the following proves."
"The following pictures demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt ... and I have made certain that the pictures are indeed aluminum."
>>my "research" would not have been so easy.
Considering that photos you claimed to have "made certain" were legitimate were so easily proven to be inapplicable, I fail to see why one should place any value in your claims about other "research" you have done, but seem unable to even produce.
>>you would do well to listen to his request if you want to keep posting here.
OH NOES!!!
gifsoup.com/view5/270964...-biting-o.gif
<<>>which is why you avoided my specific questions and are now pretending that we were speaking about me generally, rather than a specific post. A bit disingenuous to say the least.
Perhaps you can tell me why *you've* avoided so many specific questions<<
You are diverting from the questions yet again, you made a very specific accusation and are now unable to defend it.
<<and suddenly felt like jumping back in
I have already answered you. Or do you not understand what the word "wean" means?
<<again... odd for someone "weaning" themselves
I guess I was right, you don't know what it means. As an example, I am currently weaning myself off of cigarettes, but it does not mean I have yet completely kicked the habit. So obviously there is nothing "odd" about falling off the wagon, it is often part of the process of kicking any habit.
<<I don't discuss anything that's not read on the pages of this tribe.
Big deal, that does not excuse your habit of focusing on me personally and engaging in personal attacks.
<<I don't talk about your music, your job (outside of when you specifically bring it into the conversation), your family, etc..
Are you under the mistaken impression that personal attacks are only comprised of speaking about my family, hobbies, and job?
<<Perhaps if you actually addressed my rebuttal questions two months ago, instead of pretending they don't exist and just chiming in to poke Solari (whom you backhandedly called "dishonest" in the Eric Margolis thread), these things would be avoided.
So now your personal attacks are my fault. Do you have no sense of personal responsibility?
Abraxas: "Huh... I coulda sworn you just use it to be a condescending jerk"
Jeff: "When and where? Please be specific."
Abraxas: "Here are a number of questions/issues that have been put to you just in the three linked posts from my last message, which you have ignored entirely. "
How is the above a proper response to my question? When and where did I use the phrase to be a "condescending jerk"? Seems to me you are making yet another accusation you are unable to back up. Strike two.
<<So outright lying or deliberately misquoting someone or baselessly calling them dishonest is okay, but calling them a condescending jerk is "making it personal?"
You need to refresh your memory and read the rules Abraxas, there is a clear difference between indicating something is false and engaging in name calling.
<<Claiming "I have many people that can verify that I have been weaning myself off of this subject" hardly constitutes a "verfiable fact." I don't even think that qualifies as "anecdotal."
I have witnesses to my words both here on this tribe and via personal messages. If you want to reject their testimony then there is not much I can do to help you bud.
Here is part two of the architects and engineers series on the false propaganda of popular mechanics..
enjoy!
Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face up to Reality - Part 2
Plane Impacts, Fire Damage & Melted Steel
Written by Adam Taylor
Plane Impacts and Fire Damage
PM next turns to the issue of the plane impacts and fire damage and their roles in the WTC event. Though PM acknowledges that the fires in the buildings could not have become hot enough to melt steel, they nonetheless rehash the constantly heard argument from other defenders of the official story that the steel did not need to melt to cause collapse. According to PM, it only had to be weakened by the fires enough to cause collapse.
PM argues that “When the planes hit the buildings and plowed into their centers, a large section of the exterior load-bearing columns as well as some crucial core columns were severed.” (pg. 37-38) Though this may be true, the collapse of the Towers appears to have actually started at floors that had minimal structural damage.1 PM also discusses the theory from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that “the impact stripped fireproofing insulation from the trusses that supported 80,000 square feet of floor space.” (pg. 38) This assertion, however, is greatly flawed, as noted by UL whistleblower Kevin Ryan:
[NIST’s] test for fireproofing loss, never inserted in the draft reports, involved shooting a total of fifteen rounds from a shotgun at non-representative [structural steel] samples… it’s not hard to see that these tests actually disproved their findings. One reason is that there is no evidence that a Boeing 767 could transform into any number of shotgun blasts. Nearly 100,000 blasts would be needed based on NIST’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides. However, it is much more likely that the aircraft debris was a distribution of sizes from very large chunks to a few smaller ones, and that it was directed asymmetrically.2
Photo from Ground Zero shows a portion of the airplane fuselage, which contradicts the framework of NIST’s “shotgun test” for fireproofing loss in the Twin Towers
Ryan’s assertion that “…aircraft debris was a distribution of sizes from very large chunks to a few smaller ones” is well grounded, as photographs show that large portions of the planes exited the Towers, and eyewitnesses who escaped from the Towers reported seeing intact portions of the plane in the building.3
PM next goes on to discuss NIST’s assertions that the fires in the buildings were sufficient to weaken the steel to the failure point. However, NIST’s own tests show no evidence of this. While PM asserts in their book that “[steel] loses roughly 50 percent of its strength at approximately 600 degrees Celsius (1,100 Fahrenheit)” (pg. 38), NIST cites no evidence that the steel in the Towers sustained temperatures anywhere near this range. The highest temperatures NIST estimated for the steel samples was only 250 °C (482 °F), according to the metallographic paint tests they performed on WTC core column specimens.4
........................
In fact, both the USGS and RJ Lee, an environmental consulting firm, found ubiquitous previously molten iron microspheres in all of the WTC dust samples. These also can only be the result of temperatures reaching 2,800°F. Up to 6% of some of the dust samples recovered in the nearby skyscraper, the Deutsche Bank building, are composed of these iron spheres – most of which are only the size of the diameter of a human hair.
It is quite evident that PM has failed to explain away the extreme heat and molten metal that clearly existed at Ground Zero. They have also failed to show the temperatures inside the buildings were sufficient to cause collapse.
www.ae911truth.org/en/news-...rt-2.html
>>Seems to me you are making yet another accusation you are unable to back up. Strike two.
You've made a number of very specific claims and accusations in this thread, and when confronted on them, have been unable to defend them. You've "struck out" a dozen times over.
>>You are diverting from the questions yet again
Jeff's idea of "honest debate:"
Abraxas: "You claim (repeatedly) that I said X... please show me where I said X."
Jeff <ignoring Abraxas's question>: "You need to show me where *I* said Y."
Abraxas: "Answer my question first, and then I'll answer yours."
Jeff: "You're diverting from my question!"
You're a joke. The only person you fool with this bullshit is yourself.
I will take this as close to an admission of your error as your ego will allow you. You allowed your emotions to overtake you and that resulted in an illogical personal attack, one you can't back up. You can't just fling out the term "troll" whenever your emotions overtake you, use it in a proper manner and you will save yourself a bit of face. Beyond that, I am going to do my best not to be baited in to yet another conspiracy discussion, as you already know. But feel free to use that as an excuse for not being able to back up your baseless personal attack, it really comes as no surpise. : )
You go ahead and take it whatever way your "ego will allow," but again, you're not fooling anyone except yourself.
Specifically, what are you asserting that I am "fooling" people about? Is this going to be strike three in regards to your personalized claims against me?
You're not fooling "people" about anything. Only fooling yourself.
If you'd like something more "specific," go back and answer the questions/points that were highlighted in my 8:30 post, which were previously posed to you months ago, and you've failed to address. You don't just get to ignore your opponent's points and questions while repeatedly demanding answers to your own. That's not "honest debate." That's just douchery.
In other words this = strike 3 being that you can't even articulate what I am supposedly fooling people about.
<<You don't just get to ignore your opponent's points and questions while repeatedly demanding answers to your own.
As you know, I am trying to give up 9-11 conspiracy theories for lent, a process that began long before your questions (as a number of people here can verify). Whereas you are engaging in baseless personal attacks that you are unable to back up, apples and oranges.
<<That's not "honest debate." That's just douchery.
You are conflating baseless personal attacks with "debate". If you are going to attack someone at least have the guts to back it up.
You are conflating baseless personal attacks with "debate". If you are going to attack someone at least have the guts to back it up.
I read this posting about 9/11 and I have a question
WHY ? Good Jewish people like Jeff and Brent feel under attack ? when another people try to debate the controversiality of the subject ?
WHY ? every time the Jewish feel under accusation ?
Is something there that make the Jewish guilt ?
only Jeff and Brent can give the answer !
....not Jesus !
<<WHY ? Good Jewish people like Jeff and Brent feel under attack ?
Umm......I am not Jewish. What would my religion have to do with it anyway?
Here is a nice video of the very succesful translation project of the Architects & Engineers..
Enjoy!
The International Translation Team of AE911Truth Speaks Out
ae911truth 19 apr 2012
The International Translations Team of AE911Truth would like people all over the world to know about the evidence of explosive demolition of the 3 high-rises on September 11th 2001.
www.youtube.com/watch
What the 9/11 Truthers' practice and practice, is political entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.
All this is just another form of gossip, it is just the Government instead of the Neighbors you happen to dislike...
they're not even entertaining anymore. Madness and stupidity only go so far. 10+ years on and they still have nothing coherent
They are so marginal, pathetic and ridiculous that continuing to try to beat reason into their heads starts to feel like trying to prove to a stubborn five year old that Santa doesn't exist.
lol @ Richard gage being a source of anything other than stupidity
and we can put "thermite" to rest too
aneta.org/911Experiment...aper/index.htm
Conclusions
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.
You wish ..
However..
The Toronto hearings showed a very different reality..
Toronto Hearings DVD -- Introduction
DavidChandler911
21 apr 2012 DavidChandler911
This is the introduction to "The Toronto Hearings on 9/11: Uncovering Ten Years of Deception", uploaded here by permission, available from pressfortruth.ca/dvd_dtls.php The DVD contains about 5 hours of material condensed from 4 days of hearings. The quality of the presentations and the quality of the video are excellent.
www.youtube.com/watch
Right. Truthers telling truthers what truthers want to hear is such an objective source.
ron that's what truthers call "peer review" in their world
lmao
toronto "hearings" --roflmao - yes some moronic twoofers bleating about magic nano thermite..
"We will see if you will still lol when these mass protest take place.."
BWAHAHAHAHA!
<<<Here's to hoping that some day Brent pulls his head out of his ass and actually reads the NIST reports, so at least his gross ignorance of the "official" explanation he's intent on supporting won't be quite so obvious>>>
lmao. I have. I can tell that truthers have never glanced at it but instead rely on the truther version
LOL @ "normal office fires" canard
No one claimed such. Harmen have you actually ever read any of the number of scientific reports written? Of course not
Oh Ron... I must say I'm a touch disappointed. You put so much effort into your adorably self-important "23 Questions for Truthers," and after I go to the trouble to explicitly address each and every point, instead of a measured response to my rebuttals, I find you down here engaging in yet another circle-jerk with the usual coterie of wanna-be debunkers.
Just be sure to tickle Brent's balls... Frozenstars told me he likes that.
Now, instead of rehashing the whole 23, I'll proffer just a few highlights...
>>2. Regarding building 7 and reports of explosions, is it anyone's contention that there could not possibly be any other kinds of explosions other than cutter (controlled demo) explosions in an office building burning for seven hours and containing tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel, as well as other things in office buildings that can explode when on fire (such as transformers – the building straddled a substation)?
Barry Jennings reported explosions in WTC7 before the collapse of either towers. Being that it was the debris from WTC1 that supposedly started the fires in WTC7, how could Jennings’ reported explosions be caused by “an office building burning for seven hours?”
>> 23. Truthers claim that the fires at WTC7 were minor. Does that mean that the multiple fire fighters on the scene who described the fires as major were lying? Are fire fighters not experts on the severity of building fires?
Instead of quibbling about the subjective terms *some* people may use, perhaps we should look at NIST’s fire figures.
NIST states that there were fires on 10 floors (about 21% of the building), while only six or seven of those floors had sustained fires (about 14% of the building). However, those fires generally did not cover the entire floor at any one time, so those percentages are actually high in regard to the percentage of the building actually burning.
While it’s repeatedly claimed that these fires burned “out of control” for seven hours, NIST’s cited evidence does not paint that picture. NIST cites photographic evidence for fires on the following floors beginning at the following times (video and photo crews were on the scene at about 11am, shortly after collapse of the north tower at 10:28). Also note that NIST claims that there was no fire spread *between* floors, and that there is no evidence of fires above the 14th floor after 1pm.
Floor 22: first fires photographed at 12:10
Floors 29 and 30: fires first photographed at 12:28
Floors 7, 11, and 12: fires first photographed at 2:08
Floor 13: fire first photographed at 2:30
Floor 8: fire first photographed at 3:40
Floor 9: fire first photographed at 4:00
Floor 14: fire first photographed at 5:00
So in the range of floors upon which the collapse-initiating damage was blamed, we have a maximum fire duration of about 3-4 hours (yet the fire was constantly moving, and no single area of those floors burned continuously anywhere near those 3-4 hours).
If you can cite another example of a steel framed building that collapsed on itself after %14 of it burned for four hours, I’d love to see it.
>>What's wrong with computer models? Science is done with computer models all the time. Buildings are built using computer models. Are truthers Luddites?
For computer models to have any validity, they should conform to verifiable, observed physical phenomena. Among other aberrations, NIST’s models do not account for free fall. They also admit within their own report that their models are innaccurate.
“The burning time near the north face [12th flr] was longer in the simulation than in the visual evidence.” –NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 pg 381
“The floor 11 fires were represented by the floor 12 fires delayed by 1h. This resulted in a westward fire spread rate along the north face that was faster and a burn duration that was longer than observed in the photographs.” –NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 pg 382
“The floor 13 fires were represented by the floor 12 fires delayed by one-half hour. The westward fire rate along the north face was moderately faster, and the burn duration was longer than in the visual evidence.” .” –NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 pg 382
And we’re not talking “oh the sim just burned five or ten minutes longer.” NIST’s modeled diagram of 12th floor heat patterns (upon which other floor models were based), indicates 1000degC fires along the north face at 4pm and 5pm [NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 pg 383] Yet according to NIST’s own 2004 interim report, “Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.”[NIST SP 1000-5 pg 18]
Here we have an out and out demonstration of the proven significant inaccuracy of NIST's models. Of course, the significance of this self-contradiction within the NIST reports, if not its entire existence, will be ignored by the wanna-be debunkers.
Another problem with their models is that they should also be made available for third party review (or “peer review” if you like). NIST’s models and the breadth of their input data are not available for public review (and they in fact fight FOIA requests for the info), only the results (animations, etc) arrived at by those models. Without the totality of the input data, the models cannot be replicated or verified.
>>Mr. Playschool Cardboard Box Science
Which is more nefarious... a private citizen spending ten dollars on a model that doesn't accurately represent reality, or a government agency spending millions upon millions of dollars on a model that doesn't accurately represent reality, and then fights requests to release their input data for said model? Which of these two faulty models do you think actually have a greater influence on the public?
How exactly do the wanna-be debunkers reconcile the fact that NIST's models, the culmination of their millions of dollars and years of "research," and upon which their widely accepted and vaunted report is based (essentially being THE authoritative "official explanation"), do not at all represent the plainly observable characteristics of WTC7's collapse?
www.youtube.com/watch
ONE person not finding aluminium certainly does not put the entire nano thermite hypothesis to rest..
In fact the evidence for nano thermite has grown thanks to peer reviewed studies of first responders lung samples ..
9/11: More Evidence for Nanothermite in First Responders' Lungs
MoreGovernmentLies 25 apr 2012
Case Report: Lung Disease in World Trade Center Responders
Exposed to Dust and Smoke: Carbon Nanotubes Found in the Lungs
of World Trade Center Patients and Dust Samples
ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/...p.0901159
Kevin Ryan: Experiments with nanothermite
www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/watch
oh yes the barry jennings canard. We've already went over that. He wasn't impressed with the way he was portrayed by the loose change idiots. Perhaps you need to come to the realization that the sound of "explosions" doesn't equal "bombs" or any such shit.
and nice youtube clip comparing a computer model with the edited version of wtc 7 collapse.
laughable
<<<Here's to hoping that some day Brent pulls his head out of his ass and actually reads the NIST reports, so at least his gross ignorance of the "official" explanation he's intent on supporting won't be quite so obvious>>>
>>>lmao. I have.
Rarely have I seen a more obvious lie on this board. NIST says debris damage didn't cause the collapse (aside from starting the fires), and their data does not indicate fires burning for over seven hours. So I don't know where you're getting your information, but it sure ain't the NIST reports.
>>I can tell that truthers have never glanced at it but instead rely on the truther version
Right... I've never glanced at it... which is why I quote it numerous times in this thread.
>>oh yes the barry jennings canard. We've already went over that. He wasn't impressed with the way he was portrayed by the loose change idiots.
Yes, we have already gone over that. Unfortunately you've never produced anything that actually disproved Jennings' own account in his interview.
You keep talking about this "he wasn't impressed with the way he was portrayed" stuff... You mean he wasn't "impressed" with his own words from their interview with them? Because the LC guys didn't do anything except publicize Jennings' own words.
>>Perhaps you need to come to the realization that the sound of "explosions" doesn't equal "bombs" or any such shit.
And what was it again that caused the explosions reported by Jennings? The explosions that he reported as having occured before the collapse of either WTC1 or WTC2?
>>and nice youtube clip comparing a computer model with the edited version of wtc 7 collapse.
How was it "edited?" Do you even realize that what you're calling "a computer model" is in fact "THE NIST computer model?"
"toronto hearings --roflmao - yes some moronic twoofers bleating about magic nano thermite.. "
"Truthers telling truthers what truthers want to hear is such an objective source"
Again..
Your poor research is destroying your credibility..
The Toronto hearings contained many lines of evidence presented to an independent committee..
If people want to learn more about these landmark hearings check out this Playlist..
9/11 - The Toronto Hearings - 10 year anniversary
The Camera Is Mightier
The Toronto Hearings were held at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada, during the 10th anniversary weekend of 9/11.
September 11, 2011 marks the 10th anniversary of the events in New York and Washington that have played a dramatic role in modern history. These events have provided a pretext for a War on Terror that has replaced the Cold War as a global conflict framework within which military invasions and occupations have taken place, as well as violations of international law and human rights and a widespread assault on the civil rights crucial to democracies. Global military spending, which began a rapid downswing after the end of the Cold War, has, with the help of the official account of the 9/11 attacks, risen to Cold War levels and continues to rise. The focus on military solutions to complex human problems has sidetracked humanity at the very moment when international cooperation is most required to address genuine challenges that humanity faces.
In the meantime, the credibility of the official reports on the 9/11 attacks (by the 9/11 Commission, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other government or government-appointed agencies) has been questioned by millions of citizens in the United States and abroad, including victim family members, expert witnesses and international legal experts.
The International Center for 9/11 Studies has therefore decided to sponsor four days of International Hearings in the city of Toronto, Canada on the 10th anniversary of the events of September 11, 2001. During these Hearings, which will be broadcasted via the Internet, various expert witnesses will present the best available evidence into the case, discovered in the ten years since the 9/11 events occurred.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
www.youtube.com/playlist
"to an independent committee.. "
BWAHAHAHAH! Independent!
You guys are a laugh riot. To think you actually believe that!
"The International Center for 9/11 Studies has therefore decided to sponsor four days of International Hearings"
Right. Independent. ROFLMAO
I sense pain in your laughter..
In either case..
Here is the conclusion of the independent Toronto Hearings committee read by Professor Herbert Jenkins....
911 This is just the beginning
WTFaboutWTC7
25 apr 2012
Be informed.
Order the DVD: The Toronto Hearings on 9/11: Uncovering Ten Years of Deception
pressfortruth.ca
These people need our support.
Donate!
www.youtube.com/watch
That was inspirational and interesting Robin!
thank you..
Did you know I found tribe in 2006 by googling the words "anti television"?
www.google.nl/#hl=nl&outp...=800&bih=509
anti-television.tribe.net/
True story
"9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out- Final edition" is going to premiere soon..
Check it out..
“9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” – WORLD PREMIERE TOUR – Order Tickets Now!
The “Final Edition” – DVD ships 5/29/12
“Discover Why 43 Technical & Building Professionals are Calling for a New Investigation into the Events of 9/11! Watch 9/11, Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out and Learn Why You Should Too!”
Just a mere utterance of the word, 9/11, or September 11th, or any other various related terms can stir up a cauldron of emotion – and it runs the entire spectrum. From steadfast defenders of the government’s official explanation of what happened on 9/11 to those arguing theories of a deep, dark, evil conspiracy. There is no shortage of passion.
Regardless of your personal beliefs about what happened on 9/11 we can all agree (as we’ve been told over and over again) that 9/11 has indeed fundamentally changed the world we all live in and experience every day.
However the official government reports and the media stories have been proven to be false and have censored critical evidence. 1,700 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are calling for a new investigation based on the evidence laid out clearly in this powerful groundbreaking and graphically rich documentary. More than 40 highly trained and skilled technical and building professionals who, after having examined the evidence, not only have a reasonable doubt about the official story, say that there is absolutely no way that that the three World Trade Center Skyscrapers could have been destroyed the way they were without the use of explosive controlled demolition.
........
911expertsspeakout.org/911-ex...ion-12/
It is sad..But science always win in the long term..
You can sign a petition here..
Revise the U.S. government final report on the collapse of Building 7
www.avaaz.org/en/petition..._Building_7/
For all those who want to see this world premiere..
Here is the 30 city tour schedule..
www.ae911truth.org/en/event..._Speaking
www.ae911truth.org/en/news-...tion.html
There is a live stream of the World Premiere..
LIVE STREAM WORLD PREMIERE "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"
submitted by President Ford on tue, 05/22/2012 - 7:55am
911 AE911Truth Tour
Join us as we live stream the WORLD PREMIERE "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"
The webcast begins at 7pm PST with a press conference and will go up until the screening starts, and perhaps after as well. Let's get this hashtag trending on Twitter > #911experts
911blogger.com/news/2012-...s-speak-out
Some excellent speeches during the world premiere..
AE911Truth LA Press Conference w/ Ed Asner at Premiere of 9/11: Experts Speak Out; 5-22-12
ae911truth 29 mei 2012
This is the major press conference that AE911Truth held at the occasion of the World Premiere of their powerful myth-shattering documentary "9/11: Explosive Evidence -- Experts Speak Out" on May 22, 2012 in Beverly Hills, CA.
.............
www.youtube.com/watch
Thanks, Harmen, for the info on the tour. I will definitely attend in July when it comes to San Francisco.
And your steadfast, informational and unflinchingly respectful attention to this topic is very much appreciated. Keep up the good work.
You are welcome Dave...Please inform us updated on your experience visiting this even in July..
Steadfastness is important..
You can also read that in this telling story about a censored petition..
Censorship reversed - Avaaz community members support restoration of Building 7 petition
submitted by MarkGraham on fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:44pm
In a surprising reversal the managers of the petition website Avaaz.org have restored a petition asking NIST, Congress and President Obama to acknowledge what the free fall descent of WTC Building 7 means. This was due to a poll of randomly selected Avaaz members, the majority saying they wanted the petition to be restored.
In late April I started a petition asking NIST to come clean about the implications of free fall in Building 7. Avaaz removed it after 89 people had signed it and sent me a message claiming that my petition had violated their community petitions agreement / terms of use. It did not. Despite multiple efforts to reach Avaaz via their website, phone and even a paper letter they never replied.
On May 7 I rewrote the petition and gave it a new title: "Revise the U.S. government final report on the collapse of Building 7".
avaaz.org/en/petition/R...of_Building_7/
844 people signed the petition by the evening of May 22. (One friend told me he had seen 883.) Avaaz did not help AT ALL with this petition. They never featured it or made it available on their website. Every one of those 844 individuals who signed it found out about it through a friend. Hundreds of people shared it via facebook, twitter or email.
Unfortunately that night at 6:30 Avaaz removed my petition. Once again they sent me a message claiming that my petition violated their community petitions agreement / terms of use. Once again this was a false claim. Once again they refused to respond to my messages and phone calls.
I will leave out some details here. Suffice it to say that I wrote to the Avaaz Executive Director, Ricken Patel, and to as many members as I could find. These were from messages that Avaaz had sent to me in the name of a particular person, like Joe.Smith@avaaz.org. I told them that they had broken the expectation that their website had created - that a person could create a petition, others could sign it, and that it would be treated fairly and according to their own rules. They had diminished their own credibility and violated the trust that 844 people had placed in them.
I continued to write to them even though I felt it was a lost cause. Michelle Shackleton from Avaaz in Australia sent me an email with generic information a few days ago and included her Skype name and phone number. I tried to add her as a friend on Skype but she didn't accept. This morning Alex from Avaaz in the UK called me. He apologized for the huge delay in responding to me. He said they got some complaints about the petition and took it down. They did a poll of some randomly selected Avaaz community members to get their opinion on whether to leave my petition up. The poll was inconclusive: 1/3 each said yes, no and maybe. Then they did another poll and this time the majority (he did not tell me the percentage) said yes this petition should be allowed. So they restored it.
.................
Although there will always be those who cannot handle 9/11 Truth and claim that they are offended by references to explosive controlled demolition and free fall acceleration (among the hundreds of other facts) those people are uninformed or badly misinformed by 10 years of mass media propaganda. If they knew better they might do better. They must not be allowed to censor the fact based message and our calls in the 9/11 Truth movement for the government to acknowledge the meaning of the fact that they have already admitted - that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds.
www.911blogger.com/news/201...#comments
The worldpremiere is making local news in some cases like here in Buffalo..
Group questions official story of 9/11
Posted: Friday, June 8, 2012 12:23 pm
By Daniel Koch | 5 comments
Has anyone ever wondered why so many people do not believe the “official” 9/11 narrative? Well 1,700 reasons are coming to Buffalo today, at 9 p.m. at the Market Arcade Cinema in the form of a 90-minute documentary by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org). See 911expertsspeakout.org for venue information or view it online.
Ae911truth is a organization of of 1,700 licensed and/or degreed professionals who petition for a new investigation, into the destruction of all three World Trade Center buildings that fell that day. Yes, that’s right, I said three, and those reading this who did not know three buildings fell that day need to be there the most. WTC 7 was a 47-story steel-and-concrete building that free-falls through itself for over 100 feet. It drops like a stone accelerating at the same rate as gravity. Many have never seen the destruction of WTC Building 7 and those who have, never see 9/11 the same again. They can suspend the Constitution but not the laws of physics. The official story is easily falsifiable. We must begin viewing 9/11 and the “war on terror” in a new context. These highly respected professionals in the fields of structural/mechanical engineering, architecture, physics, chemistry, and more risk everything by speaking out publicly about the glaring flaws in the NIST reports and the vast evidence ignored by investigators. See the facts and join the discussion.
Daniel Koch
Batavia
thedailynewsonline.com/opinio...7a.html
However we are still waiting for the New York Times and CNN to do their job..
How corrupt is your media?
until then ..
I will keep you informed here at the politics tribe
An update on the world premier tour from Boston..
check it out..
Richard Gage - 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Boston premier, 6/19/12
21 jun 2012 apollo304
Richard Gage at the Boston premier of the film, "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out", West Newton Cinema, 6/19/12.
www.youtube.com/watch
There is a brand new video from 911 facts which features WTC7...
No theories ..just the facts..
Inside 9/11 - 7 Facts (English version)
19 jun 2012 door inside911films
7 facts about 9/11 in 12 minutes
More information and sources: www.911-facts.info
www.youtube.com/watch
Truthers are reduced to talking to themselves. Again, sad.
"No theories ..just the facts.. "
And apparently comedy!
What is really sad..
One of the great pioneers of 911 science passed away recently..
Jeff King 1946-2012
submitted by davidschandler on wed, 06/27/2012 - 11:36am
Jeff King MIT Plague Puppy Pyroclastic Flow
Jeff King, an early scientific voice in the 9/11 Truth Movement, died on June 19 after a lengthy battle with amyloidosis and multple myeloma. He studied physics and engineering at MIT, left for a number of years, then re-enrolled, finished with a degree in Biology (with a combined course of study later labeled Biomedical Engineering), then went on to medical school and became a physician.
.........
www.911blogger.com/news/201...1946-2012
Check out his pionering work from 8 years ago,
Long before the Controlled Demolition hypothesis became the leading scientific theory on the collapse of the WTC buildings..
Jeff King 9/11/04 NYC Talk on Collapse Forensics
plaguepuppy op 14 jul 2008
www.youtube.com/watch
thank you Jeff for your important contribution..
Sad for his family, but Jeff King was one of the most egregious examples of resume inflation within the fraud known as the ":truth movement" (the most oxymoronically named "movement" in history). Over and over again in Youtube videos King was described as an "MIT engineer", which to most people meant that he must have been some engineering professor at MIT. Well he wasn't, and never worked for MIT in any capacity. He was a family physician and never taught engineering anywhere in his life. As Harmen points out, he got an undergraduate mechanical engineering degree in combination with an undergraduate biology degree decades prior from MIT but subsequently practiced medicine. That no more made him an "MIT engineer" than the fact that I got a law degree from American university makes me an "American University attorney" or professor of law at AU.
If a family physician is regarded by truthers as one of the "great pioneers of 911 science", then that speaks volumes about the sad lack of scientific support for truther delusions.
Lots of attacks on Jeff Kings credentials..
More important for science..
His hypothesis has not been falsified and there is lots of new evidence that points towards controlled demolition..
The Controlled Demolition theory has gained a lot of scientific credibility..
Over 1700 Architects & Engineers signed...and the list is still growing..
www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html
Wwrong on every point. Yes his hyoitheses have been falsified, particularly when his hypotheses were based on false premises. No, there's paltry scientific support for your fantasies. No, there's no new evidence. And no, support for truther delusions is not increasing. Support for the truther cult became moribund years ago and is declining.
For some people it is still hard to accept the scientific facts of 911..
In "9/11: Explosive Evidence- Experts Speak Out" there is a special section on this issue..
It has been released on the internet..
9/11: Explosive Evidence - Psychologists Speak Out
23 jun 2012 ae911truth
.....
Why is it so difficult for people to hear the truth about 9/11?
With their expert understanding of psychology and their extensive experience in counseling working with trauma patients, these professional psychologists explain some of the reasons why.
"When we hear information that contradicts our world view, social psychologists call the resulting insecurity 'cognitive dissonance.' " - Frances Shure, 20-Year Licensed Professional Counselor, Psychotherapist
..
www.youtube.com/watch
Just another "delusional truther" in the "declining" 9/11 Truth movement...
7/7 Whistleblower Fired For Exposing False Flag
www.youtube.com/watch
Tony Farrell served as a high-level intelligent analyst for South Yorkshire Police in Britain from 1998 to July 2010. In the days preceding the fifth anniversary of the 7/7 bombings Farrell discovered that the 9/11 attacks and the 7/7 attacks were acts of state terrorism by the secret intelligence agencies of the United States, Israel, and England, not acts of Islamic terrorism by non-state terrorist organizations.
disquietreservations.blogspot.com/2...ml
And yet another conspiracy: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-...ada-18692830
Brand new interviews with Professor Niels Harrit and Pernille Grumme about the reality of the Controlled demolitions on 911..
Check it out..
911 controlled demolition? Nano-thermitic material found in dust of WTC - Dr. Neils Harrit, Denmark
2 jul 2012 door liloumace
"The truth hurts! But the lies are killing us!" - Niels Harrit
Lilou Macé interviews Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen Denmark, Friday 29th of June 2012.
.............
www.youtube.com/watch
No peace without truth! - Pernille Grumme, Denmark
6 jul 2012 liloumace
..........
Pernille Grumme is Niels Harrit wife. email: pgrumme@get2net.dk
After completing her studies at the Danish National School of Theater in 1969, Pernille Grumme appeared in several stage productions in the 1970s, including shows at the Danish Theater, Gladsaxe Theater and Boldhus Theater.
..........
Her starring roles and appearances in television include En by i Provinsen / A city in the province (1977-1980), Strandvaskeren / Beach washer (1978), and Taxa (1997-1999), Taxi (1997-1999). She is married to chemist Niels Harrit, one of the founders of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. Statement to AA911Truth: "No peace without truth!"
from www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org/signatories.htm
..............
www.youtube.com/watch
There is an interesting new article on Architects and engineers for truth about Nano thermite..
What Is Nanothermite? Could It Have Been Used To Demolish The WTC Skyscrapers?
Written by Adam Taylor
Thursday, 19 July 2012 15:49
As shown above, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) created nano-thermite composite materials with explosive properties by adding gas-releasing components
In order to understand what nanothermite is, we first must understand what ordinary commercial thermite is. Thermite is a mixture of a metal and the oxide of another metal, usually aluminum (Al) and iron oxide (Fe2O3), in a granular or powder form. When ignited, the energetic Al-Fe thermite reaction produces molten iron and aluminum oxide, with the molten iron reaching temperatures well in excess of 4000° F. These temperatures are certainly high enough to allow cuts through structural steel, which generally has a melting point of around 2750° F.
There is also a variant of thermite known as thermate, which is a combination of thermite and sulfur, and is more efficient at cutting through steel. This form of thermite is believed to have been used in the demolition of World Trade Center Building 7. Although conventional thermite has the capability to cut through structural steel, it is technically an incendiary and not an explosive.
Nanothermite (also known as superthermite), simply put, is an ultra-fine-grained (UFG) variant of thermite that can be formulated to be explosive by adding gas-releasing substances. A general rule in chemistry is that the smaller the particles of the reactants, the faster the reaction. Nanothermite, as the name suggests, is thermite in which the particles are so small that they are measured in nanometers (one billionth of a meter). The authors of the peer-reviewed Active Thermitic Materials paper, which documents the discovery of these materials in the WTC dust, explain:
Available papers [by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and others] describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to form pyrotechnics or explosives. The thermite reaction involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical reaction with iron oxide:
2Al + Fe2O3 ? Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), ?H = -853.5 kJ/mole.
According to Randy Simpson, director of the Energetic Materials Center at LLNL, “since these ‘nanostructures’ are formed with particles on the nanometer scale, the performance can be improved over materials with particles the size of grains of sand or of powdered sugar”
The public announcements of the development of nanothermite composite materials as explosives date back several years before 9/11. As Dr. Frank Legge points out , “ researchers were describing methods of preparing nano-sized particles, using them in superthermite, and calling such material ‘explosive’ in 1997. It would therefore not be correct to assert that by 2001, four years later, they would be unable to utilize the material in demolition.”
In additon, 911research.wtc7.net notes the following:
One of the critiques of theories that thermite was used to destroy the World Trade Center skyscrapers asserts that thermite preparations don’t have sufficient explosive power to account for the observed features of the buildings’ destruction. This criticism seems to be uninformed by knowledge of some of the aluminothermic preparations known to exist – particularly those being researched for military applications.
.............
However, we find that thermite has in fact been used to demolish steel structures in the past. For example, Popular Mechanics itself documents that thermite was used in the demolition of structures such as the Skyride Tower in Chicago and the dome of the German Reichstag. Furthermore, experiments conducted by civil engineer Jonathan Cole have shown that ordinary thermate can be used to effectively cut through steel columns. And as described earlier, the effectiveness of nanothermite is much higher than that of ordinary thermate.
..............
www.ae911truth.org/en/news-...h-the-wtc
Here is the discussion in a free country where these topics can be openly discussed on main stream television..
We can only wish that the US will have a free media again some day...
Swiss and Austrian experts speak out in mainstream television show
submitted by 911_bavaria on wed, 07/25/2012
www.911blogger.com/news/201...sion-show
Until your journalist will do their job we will rely on grass roots action in the US..
Like the Journey for 911 truth..
9/11 Journey for Truth - blog
Welcome to our 9/11 Journey for Truth blog!
We are riding our bicycles from the west coast of Washington State to the World Trade Center site in NYC to raise awareness and funds for AE911Truth.
Our route will take us through rural areas and small towns across the country, everywhere we go introducing people to the expert petition signers at AE911Truth. While wish we could ride through every city and town, and visit in person with all our friends along the way, but this is just not possible. Taking advantage of the cooler northern temperatures, for the first part of the ride we'll cross Washington, Idaho and Montana. We would love to meet with as many AE911Truth petition signers and supporters as possible along the way. We welcome you to come ride with us for any portion of the journey.
.........
www.911journeyfortruth.org/
AE911Truth Action Group Leaders Embark
on Cross-Country Bike Ride
Editor’s Note: This article introduces the 3-month-long bicycle tour that AE911Truth Action Group leaders Rena Patty and Pam Senzee are taking across America in order to bring nationwide awareness to our new documentary, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out. You can learn more about the tour and contribute to their effort at www.911journeyfortruth.org.
Rena Patty will be educating Americans about the 9/11 evidence as she treks from coast to coast
Orcas Island resident Rena Patty embarks today on the journey of lifetime – a bicycle ride across America. Patty, with traveling companion Pamela Senzee from Phoenix, AZ, expects to take 90 days to reach their destination New York City. Both women are Action Group Team Leaders for the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth).
...............
ae911truth.org/en/news-se...-truth.html
I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...36fc6482
There is excellent mini documentary about the truth movement in Danmark that few have seen in the US..
With subtitles..
9/11: THE SENSIBLE DOUBT - Documentary about 9/11
1 aug 2012 door bellamondo
What happened September 11, 2001?
All over the world, people question the official story and explanation about the events that took place in USA more than 10 years ago. In this Danish documentary you will meet architect Jan Utzon, MP Benny Engelbrecht, professor Niels Harrit, airline captain Niels Studstrup, journalist Tommy Hansen and artist Jacob Fuglsang. They will talk about their doubt and skepticism and explain why they have come to feel and think this way.
www.youtube.com/watch
Here is a video diairy of the journey for 911 truth..
Enjoy!
9/11 Journey for Truth - Day Two - Burlington Fire Dept.
20 aug 2012 freeseattle
► Links mentioned in this video:
9/11 Journey for Truth:
► 911journeyfortruth.org
9/11: Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Out (DVD):
► 911expertsspeakout.org
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe:
► www.benthamscience.com/open/t...CPJ.pdf
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
► ae911truth.org
www.youtube.com/watch
coming up is the 8th 911 truth festival...
9/11 Truth Film Festival 2012
— An Exploration of Deep Events
Grand Lake Theater
3200 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610
Tuesday, September 11
2:00 PM – 11:00 PM
we will feature the latest 9/11 films, including highlights from The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 – Uncovering Ten Years of Deception a DVD that documents the speakers from last year’s historic event; and the most recent, shorter version of AE 9/11 Truth‘s remarkable new film 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out.
sf911truth.org/
Looking forward to this event at the University of Toronto..
9/11
Are Our Universities Failing Us?
presented by
UW 9/11 Research Group & Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Steering Committee
September 11 TUESDAY 7pm
Koffler House Room 108
- University of Toronto
- 569 Spadina Avenue (on the East side)
~~~~~~~~~~
Tickets
$12 general admission
~~~~~~~~~~
World Premiere of the Documentary Film 9/11 in the Academic Community - Winner, University of Toronto Film Festival (2011), Directed by Adnan Zuberi (UofT Alumnus)
Discussion on critical perspectives on 9/11 with Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Participants:
- Professor Richard B. Lee (U. Toronto)
- Professor Graeme MacQueen
- Professor Herb Jenkins (McMaster U.)
University of Waterloo 9/11 Research Group Encouraging our professors, students, & members of general public to research 9/11
www.uofttix.ca/view.php
More info on this new documentary here..
9/11 in the Academic Community
Academia's Treatment of Critical Perspectives on 9/11 – Documentary
February 13, 2011 by 911inAcademia
A winner of the 2011 University of Toronto Film Festival, “9/11 in the Academic Community” is a unique documentary that consists of interviews of recognized professors discussing their experiences regarding academia’s treatment of critical perspectives on 9/11. The documentary approaches this topic by analyzing three aspects: the nature and the dimensions of the taboo of researching and expressing critical perspectives of the events of 9/11 in academia, scholarly scrutiny and the official 9/11 narrative, and solutions for the future of academic institutions to overcome barriers in examining this subject. This documentary explores these issues through the experiences of university professors and a former university president.
..........
911inacademia.wordpress.com/
There is news on the nano thermite discovery including remarks on the Millette paper..
Letter regarding red/gray chip analyses
ProfJones on sat, 09/08/2012
The following letter (with minor edits) has been sent to a scientist who recently contacted me regarding his intention to perform a study of the WTC dust, particularly the red/gray chips that we found in WTC dust samples. Included are some comments on a report by James R. Millette on red material which he found in WTC dust.
Dear [Interested Scientist],
Yes, I would encourage you to do a follow-up study on the World Trade Center dust, after you have carefully read our “Active Thermitic Materials...” paper. [Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, et al. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", THE OPEN CHEMICAL PHYSICS JOURNAL, April 2009.]
Among the most salient observations in that paper are these:
1. the observation of elemental-iron-rich spheres in the ash following ignition of the red/gray chips in the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC),
2. the sharp peaking of the heat-traces in each case for the ignition of red/gray chips in the DSC (Figure 19).
Therefore, I am pleased that you propose to do DSC analyses along the lines that we preformed; as you noted, James Millette did NOT do DSC analyses at all for his report MVA9119. What a shame, really, and I hope you will do better as you propose.
.............
You say that the exothermic peaks we observed in the DSC (our Figure 19) could be due to burning of epoxy paint. Not according to our experiments -- that is, when Dr Farrer burned epoxy paint in the DSC, it gave a very broad thermal trace, NOT at all like the spiked exothermic DSC peaks in Fig 19. Igniting paint in the same DSC is one of many tests performed to double-check our experiments, and I urge you to do similar tests.
Please keep these facts in mind as you undertake DSC studies – which I welcome! Yes, I was surprised that James Millette did not even perform DSC studies.
..........
Millette report: "TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of a thin section of the red layer showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigments and plates of kaolin clay (Figures 20 and 21). The matrix material of the red coating layer was carbon-based. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment and some calcium particles were also found (Appendix F).”
We did TEM analysis also, years ago now, but we did not see any titanium in the red/gray chips! (Referring specifically to the clean-surface chips; see Figs. 6 and 7 in our published paper.) More and more, it appears that Millette was simply not looking at the same material that we studied.
...........
www.911blogger.com/news/201...-analyses
I will keep you informed on this..
There is been a very large international 911 conference in Kuala Lumpur this month with some great scientific speeches..
International Conference on "9/11 Revisited -- Seeking the Truth" (19.11.2012)
Joe on sun, 11/25/2012 - 6:24pm
Kuala Lumpur
Published on Nov 24, 2012 by WAHRHEITSBEWEGUNG911
www.perdana4peace.org/events/...visited/
You can check them on video here..
911blogger.com/news/2012-...th-19112012
Interesting interview with Professor Graeme MacQueen after the international 911 Seeking the truth conference..
9/11 and How to Proceed - Graeme MacQueen on GRTV
Nov 28, 2012 by GlobalResearchTV
Professor Graeme MacQueen has been an active scholar and peace activist for three decades, helping to found the McMaster's Centre for Peace Studies in 1989. Now, as an editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies and member of the Toronto Hearings committee and the 9/11 Consensus panel, MacQueen is looking for ways to go beyond the collection of 9/11 evidence into prosecution for the crimes of 9/11.
www.youtube.com/watch
From Christopher Hitchens on "There Is No 'Eastern' Solution..."
"Make me one with everything." So goes the Buddhist's humble request to the hot-dog vendor. But when the Buddhist hands over a twenty-dollar bill to the vendor, in return for his slathered bun, he waits a long time for his change. Finally asking for it, he is informed that 'change comes only from within.'
And like other faiths the 9/11 Truther's scions goes on calling on the devoutness to pass on their money...
Oh wow, what a shocker. Frozenstars pops in on a 9/11 thread with his usual wishes-he-was-witty white noise.
Ah well, you've never had the stones to actually address the facts, so no point in starting now, I suppose.
uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...36fc6482
Go on... tell me again who's operating on "faith."
Richard Gage has a new showcase video to promote his new college speaking tour..
9/11 Truth - Richard Gage New 10-minute Showcase Video
TheMediaCorruption· Dec 26, 2012
The showcase was pre--recorded for this third of three APCA conferences attended by AE911Truth because Gage was invited to testify concurrently at a pre--hearing for an international crimes
www.youtube.com/watch
The College Speaking Project Takes Off
Written by Laura Katleman & Richard Gage, AIA
Friday, 14 December 2012 16:43
Hope for Public Awareness of 9/11 Truth May Lie With the Youth
www.ae911truth.org/en/news-...-off.html
Interesting court case coming up against BBC's role in the cover up..
Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage
Written by Peter Drew
Thursday, 14 February 2013 17:20
AE911Truth Evidence Goes to Court Feb 25, 2013
Can 9/11 truth history be made in a simple building like the Horsham Magistrates’ Court?
On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.
Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST's 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.
As a continuation of this process with BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.
Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.
Rooke has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV Licence Fee. However, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court, where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:
Professor Niels HarritProfessor Niels Harrit, Ph.D, led the team of scientists that discovered thermitic material in the WTC dust
Dr. Niels Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and is one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit's team of scientists in Copenhagen proved that there was nano-engineered thermitic residue, both ignited and unignited, throughout the dust of the three WTC towers. He led the team and published the peer-reviewed study in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers.
Professor Harrit was interviewed for a major documentary with BBC in 2011 where BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit him rather than look at the scientific evidence, which was devastating to the official story of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Professor Harrit's team took the precautionary step of recording this interview, as well as the interaction before and after the interview, which clearly shows the harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by BBC
Tony FarrellFormer UK intelligence official Tony Farrell has publicly questioned the official 9/11 story, and has been granted 3 hours to present the 9/11 evidence in a UK court of law.
Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for the South Yorkshire Police Department. He was fired in 2010 because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that, due to his extensive analysis of the events of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, he considered that the greatest terrorist threat to the public did not come from Islamic extremists but from internal sources within the US and British establishment. He is now dedicating his life to helping to expose the evidence and he is challenging his dismissal through international court.
.........
www.ae911truth.org/en/news-...rage.html
Here is an updaste on the 911 court case in the UK...(with video)
Small But Significant Triumph for 9/11 Truth Activist in UK Court
Thursday, 28 February 2013 15:15
By Victoria N. Alexander, Digital Journal
In an act of civil disobedience, Tony Rooke refused to pay a £130 TV license fee, alleging that the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks. Facing a judge Monday, Rooke was not convicted and did not have to pay the fine.
Rooke, a documentary maker who made his protest against the BBC in Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex, claims the BBC reported that World Trade Center 7 collapsed “due to an office fire, which, even the NIST Report says, fell at free-fall speed for eight floors in 2.5 seconds. That is absolutely impossible without a controlled demolition being involved.”
www.ae911truth.org/en/news-...ourt.html
WTC7 is still the elephant in the room...
The Architects and Engineers present a brand new 5 part article on building 7...
Here is part 1..
Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports - Part 1
Written by Chris Sarns
1. BURNED-OUT FIRE
The timing of the fire on floor 12 exposes NIST's false claim that fire led to the collapse.
www.ae911truth.org/en/news-...rt-1.html
