Controlled Demolitions in Action

Unless you can offer the NIST's proof, as I've been asking, then you're just calling the kettle black.

Originally posted by esdad71
Where is your proof that the official stories are not true?

How can I have proof when the government has systematically supressed the evidence?
7,000 Photos, 6,000+ Video segments, physical evidence... ALL have been requested via FOIA and NONE have been turne over.

YOUR QUESTION IS A PARADOX AND YOU KNOW IT. I am done explaining that all we have to go on is what is publicly available AT THIS TIME and none of it will EVER amount ot PROOF in your mind so ENOUGH with this stupid question I have answer TEN TIMES.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
That is what I am looking for, not pictures, text or the same rehashed BS we have all seen, and it has still not been presented 5 years later.

What do you expect? Cheney is going to come on this site and say "I ORDERED NORAD TO STAND DOWN" or We will find a Mossad document with demolition plans? You are being ridiculoius.

What I/we are calling for is a release of the evidence and a full, impartial, nongovernment investigation. GET IT DAD? Only THEN, when we have the evidence, can we have PROOF

Originally posted by LeftBehind
What is your basis for believing the official story is not true?

Errors, omissions, lies, supression of evidence, evasiveness, global agendas, muzzeled witnesses... shall I continue?

What makes you believe that everything that comes out of the NIST or CBS is treu and that these people have no agenda? Are you naive?

[edit on 24-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Incorrect, the only way to get the information NIST has is to ask for it through legal channels, which I believe many people have, or take a trip to St. Louis.

www.firstcoastnews.com...

Here is 20 tons of steel from the WTC. Go find some proof. You see, it is not that is hard to find. Some was used for a US warship, and some was sent to China who is one of the largest consumers of steel in the world right now. I do not see conspiracy here.

I am using NIST as one example, and I do not believe everything I read or see, especially from shock media like CNN and Fox. This is to scare soccer moms and gay hairdressers who nmeed something to talk about over expressos.

However, Nat'l geo or even the history channel or PBS, even though owned by Neocons can actually provide some insight to both sides of a story allowing you to make an informed decision. I have no agenda, and do not allow one to be forced upon me. All TV is not evil.

However, you continue to strike me for using documented information, when you can provide nothing but conjecture. You can point to nothing but opinion. If you disagree with 5 seperate investigations, so be it. But where is the evidence to prove one, just one squib. Honestly, take the trip to St Louis, there is all the evidence you need.

Originally posted by esdad71
Incorrect, the only way to get the information NIST has is to ask for it through legal channels, which I believe many people have

WHAT is incorrect? People have, the process is a FOIA request... None of the photos, videos or original steel has been released.

Originally posted by esdad71
Here is 20 tons of steel from the WTC. Go find some proof.

There are samples that have already been analyzed, but of course the authenticiy of the samples is the Official Line Towers argument against this. The samples were taken from a memorial and from the WTC site.

www.physics.byu.edu...

Start at page 71...

Here is a testament from your OWN ARTICLE as to how horrible the investigation was at the WTC site:

"When we received the steel, it's my understanding, I think a sweater was wrapped up in the twisted steel and their were some insurance cards, things like that. Those we returned, put into evidence bags and sent back to New York."

What a farce.

Originally posted by esdad71
However, Nat'l geo or even the history channel or PBS, even though owned by Neocons

can actually provide some insight to both sides of a story allowing you to make an informed decision. I have no agenda, and do not allow one to be forced upon me. All TV is not evil.

I am done arguing with you. You avoid the real issues and obviously have little sense as to how the media, etc. function.

PBS... NOVA? The NOVA specail has many GLARING ERRORS in it. But you trust that crap? (Search or the thread here yourself... I am done working for you.)

You continue to ignore my posts as to the LOGIC of investigation and SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

You are trying to talk me in circles with junk logic. If "PBS and the NIST said it is tru, then it is fact. (even though they provide no PROOF which you demand of me)" is your stance... FINE. You stance is that of a sheep. Please stop posting "at me" as I find your posts to be worthless drivel and if I want your POV I can just watch NOVA and re-read the NIST reports.

I am not ignoring anything, I think you are just pissed because I make sense and am not talking in circles. I am giving examples of actual facts, and you still do not believe them. I stated already I do not believe everything, but there are levels of seperation. I am far from a sheep, I am an educated individual who can digest information, talk it at face value and move on.



Now, the Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating and acquiring knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning.

There are steps..

1. Define the question - Did the WTC fall by EOD/implosion?

2. Gather information and resources - 'Years' of reading, searching for alternative theories and collecting as much objective information as possible

3. Form hypothesis - As a result of thermite, steel was destroyed to cause collapse of WTC

4. Perform experiment and collect data - Take all data, peer reviews of official stories and official publications. They have more than enough documents, pictures and computer simulation

5. Analyze data - OK

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses - Did the towers fall due to fires after impact?

Publish results - I think you know where I stand. So, I used Scientific Method, now what?

Originally posted by esdad71
I am giving examples of actual facts,

What facts? Please be specific.

Originally posted by esdad71So, I used Scientific Method, now what?

Everything you reference did NOT use the method you just Googled. They had a PREDRAWN CONCLUSION and framed their "evidence" around it. BACKWARDS "SCIENCE".

9/11 Comission chairs admit their report is unreliable as they were lied to by Dod, NORAD and FAA.

NIST GUESSES at what happened to WTC 7

FEMA... LOL

These are your facts?

This has gotten so far off topic, go start a new thread entitled "MY Proof that 9/11 Went Down EXACTLY as the NIST, FEMA and 9/11 Commission said it did."

Present your PROOF and enjoy being eaten for breakfast by the actual critical thinkers on this site.

Also, how come you did not respond to Steven Jones' PROOF of explosive/incendary residue in the sample he obtained? YOU ASKED FOR PROOF... THERE IT IS... TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP dad.

Good day.

[edit on 24-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Chill out Slap Nuts.

esdad.. NIST did a great job pointing out obvious signs of controlled demolition.

In controlled demolition, in order to keep the building from falling outward onto other surrounding buildings, they first destroy a column somewhere in the center of the building, so the outer edges of the building fall inward.

According to the NIST report, they noticed this behavior of controlled demolition:



Now, compare that to this controlled demolition example:

No, the thread is controlled demolitions in action and I am asking for your evidence. I read the Jones evidence and just as you do not believe NIST, FEMA, etc, I don't go along with his views. His scientific method is worse than the hodge podge hilarity I posted recently.

I read the Jones articles, and he mentions that his observation of someones quote is that thermite could have been used, and continued to assist in the melting of the steel that was visible in pools days later. This is his conclusion. No proof, just a sentence on a website anyone can google.

I'll stick with the scholars I have read.

Originally posted by esdad71
No, the thread is controlled demolitions in action and I am asking for your evidence. I read the Jones evidence and just as you do not believe NIST, FEMA, etc, I don't go along with his views. His scientific method is worse than the hodge podge hilarity I posted recently.

I read the Jones articles, and he mentions that his observation of someones quote is that thermite could have been used, and continued to assist in the melting of the steel that was visible in pools days later. This is his conclusion. No proof, just a sentence on a website anyone can google.

I'll stick with the scholars I have read.

You are straight ignoring this evidence??

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You claim to be a "structural engineer", but almost ALL structural engineers will tell you:
- Vertical steel buildings do NOT collapse straight down!
- No steel building in the history of man kind has ever collapsed as the result of fire.!

You sir are going on my ignore list, you are an ignorant, lying, close minded, disinformation spreading, brainwashed, sheep.



[edit on 24-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Originally posted by esdad71
No, the thread is controlled demolitions in action and I am asking for your evidence. I read the Jones evidence and just as you do not believe NIST, FEMA, etc, I don't go along with his views. His scientific method is worse than the hodge podge hilarity I posted recently.

I read the Jones articles, and he mentions that his observation of someones quote is that thermite could have been used, and continued to assist in the melting of the steel that was visible in pools days later. This is his conclusion. No proof, just a sentence on a website anyone can google.

I'll stick with the scholars I have read.

At the risk of being put on WARN...

See, this is proof that you did not even read the pdf I posted above...

I even gave you the page number where they did Electron Microbe scanning of the samples and show why it is not what it should be.

They did x-ray flouresence analysis... but you apparently didn't read it.

They reference FEMA, NIST, etc... but you apparently didn't read it.

They show the linera thermite based apparatus for cutting thick steel.

You asked for proof... I give you the scientific analysis of the steel and you respond as if you read the paper... however, you appear to only have skimmed ONE of the papers.

It is not just a sentence on a website... that is a lie.

You say "I'll stick with the scholars I have read"... This PROVES that you do not seek to even LOOK at any "proof" or evidence we will provide to you, so again I ask... why do you post here?

Please explain to me what is wrong with Dr. Jones' scientific method.

Please refute ANYTHING on a scientific basisi in the PDF I provided above.

Originally posted by esdad71
I am not ignoring anything, I think you are just pissed because I make sense and am not talking in circles.

I doubt it, dude. If I tried to respond to you post for post, you would start getting on my nerves, too.

I have seen nothing of substance from you, but just arm waving about this-or-that official reports and "experts" (which I contest -- these structural engineers that you claim to be experts also bought the melted steel theory, hook line and sinker, right after 9/11... go figure).


From the NIST Report, again, where is the buckling? I asked you once, asking showing a picture of WTC2, and you directed me to WTC1, showing just how much research you've put behind this topic.

But in regards to either Tower, once again, the redundancy more than made up for the alleged truss failures that would be associated with the buckling.

• Perimeter columns -- (according to NIST) -- Safety Factor Rating of 5; 5 times redundant in their load-bearing capacity
  
• Core columns -- (also according to NIST) SF of around 3.35; Over 3 times redundant in their load-bearing capacity

Substantial questions now, Esdad:

Where is the evidence of failures equivalent to 4/5 of the perimeter columns (completely severed), to allow perimeter failure, pre-collapse? How many buckled columns are equivalent to 4/5 totally severed? And how many buckled columns did we see on any given floor, pre collapse?

NIST could only get an absolute maximum of 22 impact-damaged core columns out of 47, and only after drastically changing Flight 175's impact angle. Therefore, why should we believe that as much as

Originally posted by esdad71
I read the Jones articles, and he mentions that his observation of someones quote is that thermite could have been used, and continued to assist in the melting of the steel that was visible in pools days later. This is his conclusion. No proof, just a sentence on a website anyone can google.

Yup, melting steel that was visible in pools days later. During the clean up of the buildings, a tractor picked up this solid metal that was glowing red, dripping thermite.



This piece of metal should have cooled after the fire was put out. But because it was sitting in a pool of thermite, it stayed hot. Estimated to be 1550 - 1900 degrees fahrenheit.

Leslie E. Robertson (born 1928) is a structural engineer who has designed hundreds of buildings around the world including the World Trade Center in New York, the United States Steel Headquarters in Pittsburgh, the Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong, Puerta de Europa in Madrid and the Continental Airlines Arena in the New Jersey Meadowlands, as well as museums in Berlin, Portland (Maine) and Seattle, and the Miho Museum Bridge in Japan.

Robertson's engineering career began in 1952, when he graduated from the Berkeley school of civil engineering. Robertson and his business partner [John Skilling] were the original structural engineers for the Twin Towers.





In 1966, Robertson designed the structural elements of the WTC towers to withstand the impact of the largest airliner then in service, the Boeing 707.





www.emporis.com...

The designer himself said he made the buildings to withstand a jet impact.

I believe him over everyone.

In addition, a Boeing 707 while smaller than a 757/767 has GREATER MASS.

FORCE = MASS x ACCELERATION

So, the buildings were designed to take a hit of greater FORCE than they took on 9/11.

And while cherrypicking for what to respond to, Esdad, remember that I'd like some technical addressal of the information presented above, in this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you're familiar with structural engineering then you should be able to answer those questions easily, if the Towers really collapsed from the impacts and resulting fires.

First, glowing termite removed from WTC

Second, I have read the entire Jones article, and I am well aware

of the facts that he presents. However, I do not agree and you

do. It is a difference of belief.

Third. almost all SE's will not agree, and I gave links to

Industry standard articles were SE's explain it very simply what

happened. You didn't read it though, did you. No, because it does

not fit your theory.


Now, let me try to answer this nice guys questions....

Where is the evidence of failures equivalent to 4/5 of the

perimeter columns (completely severed), to allow perimeter

failure, pre-collapse? How many buckled columns are equivalent to

4/5 totally severed? And how many buckled columns did we see on

any given floor, pre collapse?

First, did I state 4/5 of something, or can you give me the link

that states this so I can investigate it. Thanks.

NIST could only get an absolute maximum of 22 impact-damaged core

columns out of 47, and only after drastically changing Flight

175's impact angle. Therefore, why should we believe that as much

as

Originally posted by esdad71
First, glowing termite removed from WTC

That's all you had to say? You "Laugh Out Loud"? Is that because you can't think of anything to counter the picture evidence with? I'm sure it is.

Originally posted by esdad71
Second, I have read the entire Jones article, and I am well aware
of the facts that he presents. However, I do not agree and you
do. It is a difference of belief.

You see I underlined and made bold the word FACTS that is quoted from you. In that quote you say "I do not agree".

fact
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:

So what you are saying is, you do not agree with something that actually exists, that is the reality, and complete truth. You sir are truly lost.

Originally posted by esdad71
Third. almost all SE's will not agree, and I gave links to
Industry standard articles were SE's explain it very simply what
happened. You didn't read it though, did you. No, because it does
not fit your theory.

Exactly what links are you pointing to? NIST, FEMA, and ASCE? I've read them all, and they are all INCONCLUSIVE. They are estimated guesses, based on a theory that the steel columns melted from fire. Which has never happened in the history of the world.



You have done nothing but post NIST, FEMA, and ASCE explanations. All three companies are funded, and operated by the government. I dare you to post any information supporting your "belief" that is from an INDEPENDANT RESEARCH GROUP, not affiliated with the government in any way. I bet you can't.



B.T.W. Can you explain your academic achievements in engineering? Please state the schools you attended please.



[edit on 24-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]