Former FDNY Firefighter, Rudy Dent: "Incontrovertible fact (WTC) buildings were brought down."

and? no reporter will ever be 'allowed' to confront tptb with any of this information, and if by some miracle they were 'allowed' to do so, the question will just be dismissed/ignored..nobody will be punished for this #, the official story of 'the crazy muslims who hate us for our freedom blew up the towers' will remain the official story, and no one will ever really do anything about it..just beating a dead horse at this point

a reply to: _BoneZ_

I liked the dude, but it was a well rehearsed speech. He delivered his message and it's good to hear it from someone with a pseudo-official position (I did hear him say he was a chauffeur, right?).

Now I'm off to read what other folks think of this.

S&F

a reply to: liejunkie01

But where is the resistance from the rest of the undamaged tower? It goes down like a hot knife thru butter.
Why does 30 floors not just take out 30 more floors, why does it never seem like nothing gets in its way?

The core of the building is still intact in majority of the building but yet it is falling right along with the tower.
Every one always talks about the trusses, and the outside, what about the core??? What is damaging that?

And how does the free fall get explained in 7?
What caused there to be absolutely no resistance in the collapse of 7 for 2.3 seconds??
Fire?? Fire severed the supports to allow that?

"Incontrovertible fact (WTC) buildings were brought down."

Thats a statement, not proof of anything.

All the proponents then line up like ducks with the same old never before heard :

"nano-thermitic-demo-freefall-footyprints".

None of that is proof of anything either.

Here's my two cents. No matter how you want to argue about the distribution of energy, nothing breaks evenly. There are always unpredictable weaknesses in construction and in the material used for the construction. The idea that a single weight at the top of the tower, would lead to an almost implosive reaction, is preposterous. The weight would not be evenly distributed across the entire floor. One side is heavier and therefore that side is going to be the weakest and fall the soonest, creating a chain reaction which would cripple the side bearing the most load, faster. I'm not even going to go into the unpredictable nature of the fire (should be obvious). Human engineering isn't precise enough to balance load to the nth degree, to accommodate unforeseen factors in the potential energy of an impact. Don't get me wrong, we do an adequate job, but we're far from perfection.

Case and point, build a miniature wood house and ram a heavy object into it from different angles and see how it breaks apart. I guarantee it will never EVER, fall perfectly, straight, down into itself without outside interference. This is just simple common sense in my opinion, as there are no absolute variables.

My conclusion is, either the attack was a pre-planned false flag or we all witnessed a miracle that day.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: stirling
the reason being that there have NEVER been any steel framed buildings such as these which fell due to fire....

Funny how you ignore the fact that every very tall building that has been hit by a high speed jet airliner has collapsed.... so it looks like a high speed jet airliner hitting a building will cause it to collapse!

Yes it's amazing that after all this time and even on this first page people seem to forget about the aircraft it WASN'T just fire that brought them down it was a combination of things !!!!

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: liejunkie01

But where is the resistance from the rest of the undamaged tower? It goes down like a hot knife thru butter.
Why does 30 floors not just take out 30 more floors, why does it never seem like nothing gets in its way?

The core of the building is still intact in majority of the building but yet it is falling right along with the tower.
Every one always talks about the trusses, and the outside, what about the core??? What is damaging that?

And how does the free fall get explained in 7?
What caused there to be absolutely no resistance in the collapse of 7 for 2.3 seconds??
Fire?? Fire severed the supports to allow that?

Guess what thousands of tons of building materials falling could have that effect REMEMBER each floor was suspended between the outer wall and the core and all floor connections from top to bottom were the SAME (apart from service floors)

Any material IMPACTING on a floorslab would only repeat only be resisted by the connections on that floor, this building was a system that relied on the structural integrity of it's components just because people like yourself can't UNDERSTAND the MASSIVE forces in that situation leads to all this conspiracy BS.

originally posted by: liejunkie01
Include yourself in the masses that really do have no logic, no separation of lies from reality...

No logic, no separation of lies from reality?

Have you even read what you posted?

Do you mind telling me where my logic is flawed?

Or are you going to continue on posting illegible posts that contradict themselves.

"Cobbler, stick to your last."

Your logic is flawed fundementally. I doubt you have "excellent" degrees in engineering, but ok, it doesnt matter.

-How many hours have you spend analyzing health effects arising from 9-11 attacks?
en.wikipedia.org...

-How many hours have you spend analyzing rest material after the drama?
www.benthamscience.com...

Conspiracy? It doesnt matter anymore whats the standpoint of building engineers. Undoubtly some # was used during the 9-11 attacks and it appears al qaida was only a part of the criminal group behind this disaster.

To me it appears you are a paid troll, and i rather believe offical studies made by provable "excellent" researchers .

Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA
9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA

originally posted by: charles1952
Again, I'm speaking as an outsider who has thought about 9/11, maybe twice in the last 10 years.

On one side, there is the government story. Apparently, people know pretty much what it is and the story has some supporters.

On the other side, we have "It was caused by nukes." It was caused by thermite." "It was caused by planes flown by remote control." "It was caused by the Jews." "It was caused by the United States under Bush to start a war for oil." "The planning went on for a long time, it was started under Clinton."

Before I try to figure out whether the government story is true, or the conspiracy story is true, would someone tell me, finally, what the conspiracy story actually is? In the meantime, I'll just go down to the beach and find a pile of sand I can stick my head into while I wait for you to sort this out a little better.

You are rediculus man

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: liejunkie01

So after all this talk about your creds and your passion, grades and what not, what did happen to those towers?

As far as building number 7. It was not a small building. It was subjected to stresses also, such as massive skyscrapers collapsing right next to it, massive fires raging for hours uncontrollably. It also has design specifications which if the are exceeded, will cause the structural integrity to fail.

(

thank you man i laughed so hard reading this bahahahaha and you are such an expert at Construction ahahah it gives me shivers lol.So a building collapses controlled demo like cause of stresses and massive fires?

originally posted by: Aedaeum
Here's my two cents. No matter how you want to argue about the distribution of energy, nothing breaks evenly. There are always unpredictable weaknesses in construction and in the material used for the construction. The idea that a single weight at the top of the tower, would lead to an almost implosive reaction, is preposterous. The weight would not be evenly distributed across the entire floor. One side is heavier and therefore that side is going to be the weakest and fall the soonest, creating a chain reaction which would cripple the side bearing the most load, faster. I'm not even going to go into the unpredictable nature of the fire (should be obvious). Human engineering isn't precise enough to balance load to the nth degree, to accommodate unforeseen factors in the potential energy of an impact. Don't get me wrong, we do an adequate job, but we're far from perfection.

Case and point, build a miniature wood house and ram a heavy object into it from different angles and see how it breaks apart. I guarantee it will never EVER, fall perfectly, straight, down into itself without outside interference. This is just simple common sense in my opinion, as there are no absolute variables.

My conclusion is, either the attack was a pre-planned false flag or we all witnessed a miracle that day.

to add smthing to the things u said,even if it could happen it is impossible it would happen 3 times at the same day in the exact same way...I thing nobody can disagree with that

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: stirling
the reason being that there have NEVER been any steel framed buildings such as these which fell due to fire....

Funny how you ignore the fact that every very tall building that has been hit by a high speed jet airliner has collapsed.... so it looks like a high speed jet airliner hitting a building will cause it to collapse!

Yes it's amazing that after all this time and even on this first page people seem to forget about the aircraft it WASN'T just fire that brought them down it was a combination of things !!!!

It is amazing that after all this time you and many people ignore building 7..how did it collapse?oh it got scared cause it saw the other two falling ok ok.Think and Research a little before u post or are u some disinfo troll ?then ok its cool

The "clean" mini nuke theory seems a lot more likely than thermite IMO.

Wouldnt require weeks of preparation, would explain the "nano particles" caused by a supposed molecular disassociation typical of a nuclear weapon and would also explain the peculiar tritium levels and strange effect of many things being "melted" (parked cars with door handles melted off) yet bits of paper (Passports etc) seemingly escaping unharmed.

The problem with this situation is that there is no expert qualified to talk about what happened as, to my knowledge, we don't have a similar scenario (Planes, Steel framed buildings and Aviation fuel) to reference against.

a reply to: Jukiodone

How does that work there was NO heat blast,emp or radiation so that theory is utter BS!

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Jukiodone

How does that work there was NO heat blast,emp or radiation so that theory is utter BS!

They were obviously holographic nuclear weapons! With patented hushaboom noise cancelling covering to muffler the noise!

a reply to: ChiefD

I don't believe what this man is saying is true. There have been many books out that have debunked these conspiracy theories on 9/11

too bad the science doesn't.
this is not about about duhbunking books, this is about the INABILITY for those to prove what they claim and push as truth.

EVERYTHING else is a distraction from that fact.

a reply to: wmd_2008

A good example of why a mini nuke (3rd or 4th generation neutron munition) would be a good choice is that it does not behave like a conventional nuke (which you or I have only ever seen on newsreel so we wouldn't know what to look for anyway) and is classified top secret.

Anyway, here's the Department of the Environment report highlighting out of place chemistry at the WTC post 911:

e-reports-ext.llnl.gov...



Barium, Strontium Thorium ,Uranium, Lithium, Lanthanum, Yttrium, Chromium and importantly Tritium (which was found at levels 55 times normal) were all detected at the WTC in OFFICIAL reports.

A residual heat signature, pyroclastic flow ( as seen in nukes or volcanoes) and "molten concrete- as witnessed by NYPD" were all documented as well...much more evidence than "Nano thermite".

Edit " They were obviously holographic nuclear weapons! With patented hushaboom noise cancelling covering to muffler the noise! "

To whoever said the above...yes that's exactly what I mean..to the un-trained observer (such as you or I) witnessing a mini neutron detonation under a building might cause a similar descriptive response to over characterised natives in the B&W Tarzan calling a rifle "the white-mans magic boomstick".

a reply to: Jukiodone

First of all the people engulfed by the DUST cloud would have been COOKED if it were a pyroclastic cloud.

As for tritium have a look at were it is usef in EVERYDAY products and have a think about these products being used in office buildings.

Look also at were the collapse start that rules out a bomb low in the building.

a reply to: hellobruce

They were obviously holographic nuclear weapons! With patented hushaboom noise cancelling covering to muffler the noise!

no Einstein......just "BRAND NEW NEVER BEFORE SEEN physics phenomenon", as claimed by the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew at the 2008 NIST WTC7 tech briefing held between the rough draft, [where there is NO mention of global unified acceleration EQUAL to g.], to the final report where....

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


The NIST WTC7 report has a Fig 3-15 that shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

so-bruce.....what does SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL"....that NONE of the gravitational energy is available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!


to further it down.....any bending, crushing, breaking the connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

and in WTC7, it does so UNIFIED, and GLOBALLY.

'unified = moving as one = a single unit = everything moving together
'global' = symmetrical = encompassing all

now where else ON EARTH do we see those SAME numbers seen in that global unified accelerated event in WTC7, 9.8m/s^2 ????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass regardless of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and unified in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

so, 2005 NIST ends with NO scientific reason for collapse so they stall 3 years till the end of the presidential term to claim this occurred from a "new never before seen physics phenomenon", so says the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew IGNORING their initial 2005 findings.....to follow the agenda since day one.


the 2005 NIST found NO scientific reason why these three fell on 9-11...

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm

btw bruce....some one putting words on a cover-sheet also listing the NIST volumes claiming the NIST report shows how planes and fire fell the buildings on 9-11....is worthless when there is NO SCIENCE within that report that supports this...ONLY that preface and cover-sheet...

2005 NIST found minimal asymmetrical damage from each impact, 14.5%, and NO supporting evidence the fires preset allowed the collapse to ensue.
there is nothing within those 10,000+ pages that show fire and impacts did this.

and no one can show this......not even those duhbunking sites that ...'tell' us what the reports mean....lol!

so....ENTER 2008 NIST and their fanciful claim that LOW TEMP steel did this.

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at the 2008 NIST technical briefing

they refuse to prove outside the authors.
straight to OFFICIAL STORY!
no peer review.
now why would one refuse to prove that claim....[obviously]


so-bruce, an official pushed claim new science that only occurred that day to surreptitiously remove 105 vertical feet of mass globally to allow unified acceleration EQUAL to g. in a steel framed building within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse...

from fire we can't see creating 'WARM STEEL"...to clear the path either ahead of the collapse wave or all at once.

official claims that refuse proper peer review through science.

the ONLY reason why we are here.

a reply to: wmd_2008

proving fire as claimed nullified everything else brought to the table........why can't the official story simply prove fire.

oh yea.....NO supporting evidence.