The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

a reply to: Jesushere

By the why? How is that bought Architects and Engineers WTC 7 evaluation study coming along? AE boasts about haveing something like 2,000 professional members?
But for the WTC 7 evaluation, they get the head of a civil engineering department and a few interns to do the study? When is the release date again? Long past you say? With no study released for public debate? Like Harrit’s thermite samples and lab results?

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: LaBTop

Europhysics News, it concludes that all three of the World Trade Center buildings collapsed due to demolitions. It is noted

“It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST [U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology] reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.” Read More: www.trueactivist.com...

Read More: www.trueactivist.com...

So impact damage done to the structure didn't contribute to the collpase it wasn't just fire

neutronflux Since you're a fan of Metabunk please read this thread and notice and keep an open mind reading Jay Howard comments. He debated the Skeptics on there and I think he did not look foolish he argued his points brilliantly.

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: InhaleExhale


Correct--research is not watching YouTube videos, and it is not listening to the sophistry and propaganda advanced by Dyslexic George and NIST.

Research consists of examining all material and analyzing it. Reaching conclusions consists of assigning values to the statements of various individuals, understanding that some individuals are prone to telling lies.

In this case, research also consists of reading the statements and testimony of certain individuals with expert knowledge of the details, men like William Rodriguez or Kevin Ryan. Research consists of analyzing the report from the government commission on the matter. In this case, that commission noted 63 times that "we found no evidence" to support various elements of the story. The commission took the controversial testimony of Rodriguez behind closed doors, and then did not include any reference to it in the report.

Why? Because the testimony of Rodriguez blew a very large hole in the official story. One it never recovered from.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: InhaleExhale


Correct--research is not watching YouTube videos, and it is not listening to the sophistry and propaganda advanced by Dyslexic George and NIST.

Research consists of examining all material and analyzing it. Reaching conclusions consists of assigning values to the statements of various individuals, understanding that some individuals are prone to telling lies.

In this case, research also consists of reading the statements and testimony of certain individuals with expert knowledge of the details, men like William Rodriguez or Kevin Ryan. Research consists of analyzing the report from the government commission on the matter. In this case, that commission noted 63 times that "we found no evidence" to support various elements of the story. The commission took the controversial testimony of Rodriguez behind closed doors, and then did not include any reference to it in the report.

Why? Because the testimony of Rodriguez blew a very large hole in the official story. One it never recovered from.

This has been covered before.

Yes, William Rodriguez is to be commended for Surviving 9/11.

However...

truthersaresanitychallenged.wordpress.com...

“Truthers” often use the accounts given by William Rodriguez to “prove” their assertions that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. However, the problem with that, as we see here, is that William Rodriguez has changed his story more times than most people change their underwear.

I think your pet theory for the WTC was nukes? How does Rodriguez support nukes? Why does he not have signs of radiation poisoning? What truther narrative does his changing accounts back? Is this just you using innuendo and items out of context again?

a reply to: neutronflux


Yes, it has been covered before. Zelikow saw to it that the testimony of WR was excluded from the final report because that testimony was fatal to the official story in several ways.

Censors exist to "keep the story straight", and that's what happened.

a reply to: Salander

Is Rodriguez under a gag order?

a reply to: neutronflux


That's a pretty dumb question for such a smart guy.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


Yes, it has been covered before. Zelikow saw to it that the testimony of WR was excluded from the final report because that testimony was fatal to the official story in several ways.

Censors exist to "keep the story straight", and that's what happened.

What testimony? Can you quote how it contradicts that impact damage, thermal stress, and fire damage lead to collapse?

How does this support your pet theory of nukes? Why don’t they have radiation poisoning?

Or you just got innuendo, and more out of context narratives?

a reply to: neutronflux


No, but I'm pretty sure Sibel Edmonds still is.

a reply to: Salander

Then why is Rodriguez still publicly giving his account?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


No, but I'm pretty sure Sibel Edmonds still is.

Got proof? Like to cite evidence?

neutronflux Ask yourself this how did people have foreknowledge one floor on the 13th floor would suddenly collapse? This what NIST claims occurred. How could anyone know this would happen prior to it happening? In my mind that's a smoking gun they knew this building was rigged. There no way hell you can predict one-floor collapse ahead of time.

a reply to: Salander

Find it odd you invoke all these names, but don’t cite actual quotes? And you imply facts without ever citing actual facts? It’s like you are more worried about spun narratives than actual truth?

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux Ask yourself this how did people have foreknowledge one floor on the 13th floor would suddenly collapse? This what NIST claims occurred. How could anyone know this would happen prior to it happening? In my mind that's a smoking gun they knew this building was rigged. There no way hell you can predict one-floor collapse ahead of time.

More info that you don’t provide a source for? Or cite a source? With no context. And what does “ how did people have foreknowledge one floor on the 13th floor would suddenly collapse” have to do with there is no video, audio, seismic and physical evidence of WTC planted explosives?

neutronflux The building would not have collapsed if floor 13 did not fall down. Just maybe you not familiar to what NIST claims took place?. So they predicted one floor (13 floor) would experience thermal expansion and steam beam (girder) would be pushed off its seat you truly believe that could have been predicted a hour in advance?

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux The building would not have collapsed if floor 13 did not fall down. Just maybe you not familiar to what NIST claims took place?. So they predicted one floor (13 floor) would experience thermal expansion and steam beam (girder) would be pushed off its seat you truly believe that could have been predicted a hour in advance?

No, because you give no explanation, name of the building, and no context?

Can you cite video evidence of an explosion that had the power to cut steel? People injured by demolition shrapnel?

Is the claim by the truth movement the resistance of every floor for each WTC building had to be removed by explosives false.

Just a morbid though to leave you with in the false narrative of planted explosives at the WTC in the context the buildings were not prep to contain an implosions...

Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

www.canberratimes.com.au...
The public's attendance was encouraged by the then ACT Liberal Government. Katie was standing more than 400m away from the explosion but killed instantly when she was hit by a piece of flying steel.

And how is “ how did people have foreknowledge one floor on the 13th floor would suddenly collapse” actual video, audio, seismic, physical evidence of planted explosives?

neutronflux WTC7

NIST description of why the building collapsed 7 years after the event.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor.

How can anyone predict this event ahead of time on Sep 11 2001 You need a crystal ball to know the girder would come of its seat and bring the building down on that day. There would be no tell-tale signs this was going to happen and an event like this is sudden. The only logical explanation the building came down another way as people were fully convinced it was going to fall. If you believe in crystal balls that fine.

NIST claims free fall in symmetrical collapse. This is impossible because the building has 47 floors each floor has column beams and attached shear studs when it fell there going to be crashing of each floor onto the next, and this would have slow freefall acceleration down. But NIST is claiming the top every corner of the building experienced no resistance when started to fall from floor to ground.

a reply to: Jesushere

Predict what? Can you cite the prediction, and it’s context?

Something like WTC 7 having indications the build would fail? Like experts noting a bulging outer wall, and other structural failures? Indications that caused them to place a perimeter around WTC 7 because it showed signs it would fail?

a reply to: neutronflux


Read her book "Classified Woman", and speculate to your heart's content.

What she saw in her months with the FBI makes Comey look like an altar boy.