Is the 9/11 Forum Dying?

a reply to: samkent

You are drawing conclusions based on your own lack of experience in any of the fields needed.

so you all say...yet can't show this to be true...

you are DELIBERATELY posting I AM WRONG...yet offer NOTHING to show, but state I am ignorant in what I was taught.....lol!

If there were any merit to your personal beliefs there would be a ground swell of experts coming forth.

oh there is......and anyone whom believes the initial official claims does so based on TRUST, that the ones involved will do the right thing....

people do NOT even know there was a 2008 NIST webcast technical briefing let alone a claims of NEW physics phenomenon.
.....put it this way, no one WANTS to believe it UNTIL they actually hear it coming out of their own mouths.....
btw, my posting were discussed with me by a structural engineer whom wished to remain working in his field with no prejudice...when ya have the stigma of GB stating in a speech NOT to believe the 'conspiracy theories'....it takes a while to show that is the lie...but as you see, it does not take much to convince someone there is something seriously wrong with the OS.

so please do respond again when you have ACTUAL supporting evidence that shows me wrong

originally posted by: hgfbob

The Delft school of Architecture partially collapsed from fire several years ago. Witnesses reported hearing loud explosions.

really.....wow.......were the people at that collapse 1400 feet away, and did they HEAR the explosion BEFORE the building collapsed as in ALL they quotes I supplied state occurred???

Eyewitnesses report explosions. Unless you can use science to disprove those EYEWITNESS reports you must accept that all YOUR IDEAS whom you have have had about explosions at the world trade center are WRONG.

Why can't you do that with SCIENCES?

a reply to: JuniorDisco

Why can't you do that with SCIENCES?

why can't you...that is all I quote....

ALL science tells us that light is FASTER than sound through air at sea level....there is no debating that fact...

LIEUTENANT PATRICK SCARINGELLO EMS
WTC2
"I heard the explosion from up above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower tilt, start to twist and lean".

cept on 9-11 when they are told what they hear is NOT explosions, but just the building collapse.....

since the SOUND already took about 2 seconds to reach them being 1400+ feet away from the source, THEN, they react, looking up to SEE the building START to collapse, AFTER the sound that gets their attention to look up...


so, lets see your science that makes that sound , just the sound of collapse.

if the sound is the collapse, they would have NEVER seen the start if it...because the initial sound wont reach them for two more seconds.....

that all YOUR IDEAS

where are these "ideas"?....I am posting facts and demanding an answer......how do ya like that idea!

why don't you list what YOU think are my ideas....

if one is asking questions and DEMANDING the supporting evidence of the ALREADY in-place claims pushed as truth.....then yer right......[WOW!...an OS pusher that can still get some things right]

originally posted by: hgfbob

since the SOUND already took about 2 seconds to reach them being 1400+ feet away from the source,

You are obviously incapable of doing the math, so I will do the math for you.

Lieutenant Patrick Scaringello location Fulton and Church.

Distance from center of WTC2 to center of Fulton and Church: 722ft

Hight of collapse zone: 960ft

Resulting distance between collapse zone and Fulton/Church: 1201ft

Speed of sound at 70 deg F : 1128 feet per second.

Time it took sound to reach Patricks ear : 1.06 seconds

Distance top of tower would have fallen in that amount of time at 60% G : 9.8ft

In other words Patrick Missed observing about 10ft of a 1,362 ft collapse due to light/sound speed difference.

....I am posting facts

Obviously not.

a reply to: hgfbob


It has been shown to you over and over just where you were wrong, and you refuse to accept it or even acknowledge it. You dont even bother clicking on any of the links provided that also explain why you are wrong, and you refuse to listen to anyone that disagrees with you and offers solid evidence disproving you.

For the umpteenth time, what the described was the sound of the building collapsing. The "explosion" they describe is how the described the collapse. You have to learn a thing or two on human reaction and recalling of events. The way they describe events is in their view. Did you know people described the plane crashes as explosions too? Did you know they also described the people bodies hitting the ground as explosions? Again, people describe any loud sudden sound as an explosion. I can give you a list of events that were non-explosive in nature that were described as sounding like an explosion or thought to have been explosions, from car wrecks and train derailments to building collapses and tornadoes.

a reply to: waypastvne

Lieutenant Patrick Scaringello location Fulton and Church.

that was just one of many....

FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BOERI WTC2
"We had our backs to the tower and under that pedestrian bridge walking south, myself, Eddie Kennedy and the officer, when you heard the crackling. You looked up and you saw the one floor explode on itself and the top start to slide"

FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS
WTC2-
"I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down"

Distance from center of WTC2 to center of Fulton and Church: 722ft

the sound was not from the center, neither was the start of the collapse.....it was up near the top...now why would you say that?

Time it took sound to reach Patricks ear : 1.06 seconds

only by your own math claiming the origin of the sound they hear to get their attention was from the center of the building...it was not.....or are you claiming it was?

Distance top of tower would have fallen in that amount of time at 60% G : 9.8ft

uhm...WHOA!!!!......60%G !?!?!?!?!?!?

how does that happen....NOT from impact damage...2005 NIST found 14.5% asymmetrical damage and that did not effect collapse.

there are still 240 INTACT FIREPROOFED load bearing vertical support there.....and NO supporting evidence the FIRES PRESENT failed any.

so YOU using the collapse to EXPLAIN the collapse does ya no good.....

....and guess how much space is in between the floor slabs.....around 12 feet.

and regardless...WTF did you prove??????

I'll tell ya....the math STILL PROVES the sound they hear is NOT collapse, it DOES NOT START until AFTER they look up...AFTER they hear the sound......the building is STATIC...NO dynamics to make the noise.


that was the ENTIRE point of my post , and you TOTALLY FAILED with the pathetic few tenths YOU are ATTEMPTING to distract with from your false starting point.....lmao!!!!!!!!

originally posted by: hgfbob

WTF did you prove??????

Patrick Missed observing about 10ft of a 1,362 ft collapse due to light/sound speed difference.

Is the math too difficult for you to understand ?

a reply to: waypastvne

Patrick Missed observing about 10ft of a 1,362 ft collapse due to light/sound speed difference.

Is the math too difficult for you to understand ?

did my post reflect that....no, I acknowledged your correction, TOLD you that you started your 'math' from a false point, but it DID NOT ALTER what I post ONE IOTA!!!!!...did it...because they STILL HEAR the sound of collapse BEFORE seeing the actual collapse occurring....the a few seconds later, THEY HEAR THAT!!!

now how bout we try this again and FOCUS on the point of the post.

remember the cartoons when characters got hit, they saw starz.....you have starz around that comment.....lol

a reply to: hgfbob

You mean they heard a loud sound they took as an explosion. That is a big difference. They heard the floors start to collapse internally prior to the exterior visible collapse. Also, you had so many chemical reactions going on inside the fires, including flammable gases being formed from the combustion of the items burning inside, to hydrogen explosions from the molten aluminum coming into contact with water from broken water pipes.

Also, thermal expansion does not require super high temps. Steel can expand at far lower fire temps. Didnt you know this? When steel expands at different rates, the steel loses its ability to remain in a rigid shape. Add external forces on it, extra weight, and the steel will deform. Once rigidity is lost, the steel behaves in a more plastic way, the steel will fail and cause collapse. In fact, every firefighter knows this is simple adage: Never trust a truss. Trusses are THE MOST SUSCEPTIBLE to collapse from fires. And they fail RAPIDLY when exposed to fire temps. Plenty of examples are recorded in history, most famous being the McCormick Place fire in Chicago back in 1967. A large heavy steel trussed roof collapsed within 20 minutes of fire exposure. They thought it was impossible because it was large steel trusses, but they are dangerous in fires. Fireproofing helps but not if it is damaged, destroyed or never put on in the first place. this is what happened to the WTC Towers. The trusses were what helped bring down the buildings, due to damage and fires out of control. The trusses holding up the floors are the same kind you see holding up roofs of many of todays small single story businesses. Firefighters NEVER enter buildings like this due to the roof collapse that is inevitable.

You really need to get a little more educated in these things before making such ignorant claims and assumptions. I used to be a "truther" myself and thought Loose Change and all those Truther websites were amazing............... till I did my own research and noticed a lot of basic logic errors, lies, half truths, and just misinformation. Idiotic misinformation. It only took a couple days.

I love how you selectively use NIST to prop up your argument, but then totally ignore everything else that disproves your argument.

a reply to: GenRadek

You mean they heard a loud sound they took as an explosion.

no, they hear a NOISE they equate to an 'explosion'....their own words, NOT structural collapse....."EXPLOSION".

and you ...[people]....are CONTINUALLY ignoring the point of the post....HOW is that the building collapse when the collapse DOES NOT START till after they look up to SEE it start BEFORE it makes the noise/sound/EXPLOSION that gets their attention to look up...

they are PROFESSIONALS and know what is there and what is NOT to explode.

You really need to get a little more educated in these things before making such ignorant claims and assumptions.

YOU are the one making assumptions....I am posting their own words and asking HOW can that be.....the only assumption is YOU stating that that sound is just the collapse....when it did not start yet till after they look up..

I love how you selectively use NIST to prop up your argument

and I love that you can not quote ANYTHING from within that same 10,000+ page report from the NIST 2005 SCIENTIFIC investigation bestowed by Congress to find out how and why three buildings fell on 9-11....you use duhbunker sites that ESPLAIN what the report REALLY mean ....lol.

but then totally ignore everything else that disproves your argument.

that has yet to be done.....

and thought Loose Change and all those Truther websites were amazing.

well good for you!!!!!

too bad I use NONE of them.....I quote taught science, FACTS from the initial NIST 2005 scientific investigation, and the LIES of the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew....

do something about that mr. "I once was a truther"....oh yea....btw...'truthers ask questions and DEMAND the supporting evidence of the ALREADY in-place claims PUSHED as truth....they have no theories or claims...nor do we need any.

why don't ya venture on over to a thread that discuss that and show me wrong in what I post...instead of the constant telling.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

ok, I didn't read all the pages, but I think this may be of some importance:




in short: g w bush made 28 pages of the 9/11 report classified

why would he do that?

a reply to: donhuangenaro

why would he do that?

There's an old term for his reason.
It's called circling the wagons.
He had his supporters in high positions (military and otherwise) that could have put two and two together.
But since the infrastructure didn't exist to ferret out the plot beforehand, there's no reason to expose the 'supporters' to public ridicule for lack of responsibility.

But that's a long way from saying they wired the buildings for demo.

a reply to: hgfbob

ah so they hear something goes boom, look up and the building is coming down. So based on these two guys accounts, this 100% means that there were explosives inside!!

You may want to read up on exactly what I am talking about here in regards to hearing explosions:

sites.google.com...

sites.google.com...

forums.randi.org...
read through the pages.

You only use two accounts that fit your fantasy. You ignore everyone elses that better explain what they heard. Why is that? They described hearing a large and loud sound and attributed it to an explosion. So? They heard it before the collapses. Ok? So? This sound is NOT picked up on any audio/visual recorders at all. None. So these must have been those special types of explosives that mask themselves from any recording devices.

As for NIST, you quote and quote and quote but still have no idea what they said. You cherry pick what you want and ignore the rest, stop denying it. Do you know NIST said? That the WTC collapsed from a COMBINATION of impact and subsequent fires from the airliners, which burned unfought for over an hour and spread to multiple floors. The trusses sagged from the heat causing a pull on the exterior columns, which threw off the center of mass of the top section of the buildings and they collapsed when the supports snapped and floors started to come down. I am paraphrasing that whole part. What part of NIST's explanation are you having issues with? That they did not find any explosives caused collapse? You know how they didnt? The same way everyone here in the real world has figured it out: NO SOUND OF DEMOLITION CHARGES HEARD AT ANY POINT. No itty bitty firecracker explosives that did quite serious damage to the building, no thermites, no nukes, no TNT, C4, PETN, nitroglyceryn, gunpowder, dynamite, C2, etc etc etc.

What lies are you talking about in regards to the NIST? Because you obviously have not bothered to read NIST reports thoroughly or at all, just clipping quotes from other truther sites that cherry pick the same things.

a reply to: samkent

ok, so why is this rep. saying he had to: "re-arrange my understanding of history"

we all know people in power have lack of responsibility, it's common knowledge, everybody knows that...

"re-arranging understanding of history" does not fit in to this category

a reply to: hgfbob

and I love that you can not quote ANYTHING from within that same 10,000+ page report from the NIST 2005 SCIENTIFIC investigation bestowed by Congress to find out how and why three buildings fell on 9-11....you use duhbunker sites that ESPLAIN what the report REALLY mean ....lol.

It only took me 10 seconds to find this:

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

www.nist.gov...

well its pretty cut and dry. Im surprised you could not figure this out after going through the report itself. And the best part, is that we've been talking about this and saying this everytime and YOU ignored it. The debunking sites all said the same thing. Isn't it odd that you still cannot comprehend what the NIST report says, ridicule what debunking sites say (even though they totally affirm the NIST findings) and insist that somehow NIST is wrong? I find that very odd.

of yeah what else did NIST say about the collapses?

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

It is sad that people dont bother to do some actual research.

a reply to: GenRadek

so, what is your excuse for wtc7?

the damage was low and in the worst case scenario the building should flip over like this:



but it didn't, all of the supporting columns suddenly failed although they were untouched

it must be some kind of magic

when you watch this, the first part that collapsed was on the roof, and the fire was on the bottom of the building:

a reply to: donhuangenaro

id say to read NIST WTC7.

Fires throughout the structure for five hours with no water and some damage from the collapses. There you go.

Same issue as before with claiming it was bombs. There were no series of detonations heard prior to collapse. None whatsoever. The reason why it didnt just tip over was because it was not a solid rigid structure, like a concrete apartment building. Steel columned buildings collapse down because the connections of the steel columns snap and fail, steel bends, and the structure folds in on itself. Completely different from a rigid concrete and brick structure.

a reply to: GenRadek

sorry,

the building collapsed in a few seconds, like there is no friction... and by all of the sacred physics laws there should be friction in untouched steel

also I don't care about NIST, the science is very corrupted lately (it is funded by all sorts of greedy corporations) so you cannot sell me your
ilogical stuff




edited to add the link: www.ucsusa.org...

Federal decision makers need access to the best available science in order to craft policies that protect our health, safety, and environment. Unfortunately, censorship of scientists and the manipulation, distortion, and suppression of scientific information have threatened federal science in recent years.

a reply to: donhuangenaro

It took over 18 seconds to collapse. I wouldnt call that a couple seconds.

how exactly is the science corrupted or illogical? Where exactly can you show me this in the NIST reports? Please I would love to see!

See, this is a problem with many that believe something sinister happened to the three WTCs. Rather than debate the facts, create a blanket false assertion that everyone is in on it, people were paid off, corrupt, and in this way avoid any debate because one cannot back up their erroneous stance. In layman terms: Since you cannot argue against the facts, claim that everyone is wrong and corrupt, therefore anything they say is wrong and lies, and this way you dont have to make any sort of argument to counter. Way to go!

FYI, there were hundreds and thousands of scientists that assisted or worked directly to come to the conclusions in the NIST reports. You mean every one of them has been paid off to lie? wow, this rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

a reply to: GenRadek

(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns

yet YOU nor ANYONE ELSE can point to WITHIN the 10,000+ page scientific report where it states that.....

we can ALL see 33 of the perimeter are damaged....that's 33 outer columns were damaged out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%.....the 2005 NIST did three scenarios of core damage...I use the middle since the second impact ALL BUT MISSED the core....7 out of 47 comes out to 15% of the core columns were damaged leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged....

Show me ANY other building for ANY REASON that collapsed symmetrically from asymmetrical damage, if it's possible there should be examples of this occurring BEFORE or AFTER 9-11...???....?????

dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns

only on the 14.5% steel structural member INVOLVED with impacts......

NIST 1-6A Appendix C Passive Fire Protection p.274..."within the debris fields created by the aircraft impact into WTC 1 &2...thermal insulation was damaged and dislodged"

not the ones remaining...

you quoting a pathetic FAQ from the ONES whom are HIDING the pathetic science...why are you not quoting the ACTUAL SCIENCE from the 2005 scientific investigation from within the report including the nomenclature WHERE it states what YOU SPEW.

t is sad that people don't bother to do some actual research, and just accept words to settle their own conscience.