Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

is this a joke?

we've been discussing these very issues for years, litterally and it's kind of hard if not impossible to reconcile a 500kt building being blown to bits by its own weight with a natual collapse. the same can be said about ejection of material, preceding 'jets' coming out of the building in regular patterns, way before the 'collapse wave' arrives. or seismic data, pretty much everything, including standstill photos which show the cores of both towers standing alone for several seconds before their final collapse. please explain a plausible mechanism, Fowl Play this forum is chock full with elaborate posts on the WTC collapses, complete with external links, videoes and photo footage, amassed through years. some links might be dead now, seeing as more useful material seems to have a habit of being 'pulled' but there's still the wayback machine if you're lucky.

speaking of videos, what do you think is a single, video at extreme zoom going to prove? that the collapse started gradually? well this was never in dispute, was it? how does this preclude demolition?

how do you explain that the lower part of WTC simply gave way, pulling the heavily listing top section straight down, as opposed to tumbling down, leaving the major parts of the lower portion standing?


reference to jets of debris, often misnamed 'squibs':

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

standing cores:

(scroll down to see pics)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


what are you trying to prove? that you believe recently joined members are a lazy lot and don't search for a minute? from my personal experience, it's quite the opposite: you join this site only after extensive searches. you might be the exception, of course.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So their had to be another source to cause the collapse of the towers, we know the incidenct commander decided to demo building 7.

wow, i feel like i missed a memo somewhere...

thats a pretty harsh indictment ultima...care to share your reseach on that one with us?

Ultima...you sound like a broken record. Please show me where ANYONE ordered the demolition of WTC7. Please show me in the NIST report where it states that FIRE caused the collapse.

Also, I would like to hear from these so call witnesses that can PROVE there were BOMBS that caused the so called explosions that they heard.

Also, could someone please show me a peer reviewed paper that proves that the WTC towers collapsed due to somethign other than what was outlined in the NIST report.

One more thing. Please explain in detail how thermite/ mate could have been used as cutting charges. (without being spotted)

[edit on 013030p://0419 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Also, could someone please show me a peer reviewed paper that proves that the WTC towers collapsed due to somethign other than what was outlined in the NIST report.

Could someone please show me an independant peer review for the NIST report. I'd like to see it. And by definition, a peer review HAS to be independant...not in-house.

Not just engineers and such agreeing with the report. I'm talking about research that collaborates their conclusions. Reproducable computer simulations. Reproducable fire tests. And the biggest one of all....how can ANY engineer agree with them when none have seen the structural drawings or specifications?

One more thing. Please explain in detail how thermite/ mate could have been used as cutting charges. (without being spotted)

I could speculate all day. Unless we know EXACTLY what is out there that could have been used, we can't.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Also, could someone please show me a peer reviewed paper that proves that the WTC towers collapsed due to somethign other than what was outlined in the NIST report.

Could someone please show me an independant peer review for the NIST report. I'd like to see it. And by definition, a peer review HAS to be independant...not in-house.

Not just engineers and such agreeing with the report. I'm talking about research that collaborates their conclusions. Reproducable computer simulations. Reproducable fire tests. And the biggest one of all....how can ANY engineer agree with them when none have seen the structural drawings or specifications?

One more thing. Please explain in detail how thermite/ mate could have been used as cutting charges. (without being spotted)

I could speculate all day. Unless we know EXACTLY what is out there that could have been used, we can't.

Hi Griff ~

Well, to be honest, the NIST report has been out for sometime now. So far of all the engineers that have read it in detail, not one has come up with a peer reviewed challange to that of NIST's.

NIST was in fact hired by the government. BUT the majority of those that worked on the WTC Towers collaspe were that of the private sector.

I won't speculate on the thermate hypothisis because quite frankly, I have yet to read one realistic explination as to how ALL of it would be planted, and how you would harness it to make the cuts that would be desired.

Ouch, that is a painful video. I would challenge anyone to use math and science and try to explain how that could have been a controlled demolition.

Notice this video is unedited as well. The audio seems relativley untouched and the video does not CUT back and forth every second.

This is reasonable evidence there was no controlled demolition.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Well, to be honest, the NIST report has been out for sometime now. So far of all the engineers that have read it in detail, not one has come up with a peer reviewed challange to that of NIST's.

How can we when the construction documents are hidden from us?

NIST was in fact hired by the government. BUT the majority of those that worked on the WTC Towers collaspe were that of the private sector.

This is where I differ in opinion with some. Yes, there were private sector engineers that worked on some of it. The key word is some of it. All those hundreds of engineers didn't all work on one subject then go to the next subject. It was compartmentalized and finally approved by the...yes, government. I wonder what was said if a person's findings contradicted the pre-concieved conclusion? My guess would be "go back and try again". But, that's total speculation on my part.

Bottom line is that noone can peer review the NIST report because they are hiding the documents. I also wonder how many of those private sector engineers got to study the construction documents in whole or were just given what their specific compartment was asigned to do.

Just things to think about.

Griff,

I hear what your saying and yes it is pure specualtion. You don't know nor can you prove that engineers were not allowed or allowed to view certain evidence. Nor can you prove that only government workers were allowed to work on the "sensative" areas.

I appreciate your hesitance with NIST not releasing said documents. If I were a truther I guess I would hold that against them as well. I am sure there have been many FOI's filed. Are you aware if there has been a response to any of them?

Originally posted by Spawwwn
I would challenge anyone to use math and science and try to explain how that could have been a controlled demolition.

Challenge accepted.

Let's assume that the factor of safety is 2 for arguments sake. I have heard higher numbers actually.

ok. This might take me awhile.

Let's say that the weight that the impact floors had to hold would be 100 tons.

That means those floors columns could hold 100x2=200 tons

The core and the exteriors basically shared the load.

So core could hold 100 tons and exterior could hold 100 tons.

Let's also assume that both exterior and core were damaged by 15%.

That brings us down to 85 tons of support for each. So, together they are still able to hold 170 tons.

Now, take out the core in anyway possible and that leaves you with only 85 tons of support. This is not enough to hold the original 100 ton design weight. So, failure occurs. And like I said before, the failure would occur at the weakest point (the impact zones).

Is that good enough for you or will you ignore it?

Notice this video is unedited as well. The audio seems relativley untouched and the video does not CUT back and forth every second.

Yes, unedited is nice.

This is reasonable evidence there was no controlled demolition.

The only evidence is that it was not a CONVENTIONAL controlled demolition.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
You don't know nor can you prove that engineers were not allowed or allowed to view certain evidence. Nor can you prove that only government workers were allowed to work on the "sensative" areas.

Correct. But, I do know that engineers from around the world have NOT been able to see those documents. The only people who possibly could would have been the ones working for NIST. That is my point. By definition, a peer review can not be in-house reviewed. And by the fact no other engineer has seen these documents proves that there has been no peer review for the NIST report.

I appreciate your hesitance with NIST not releasing said documents. If I were a truther I guess I would hold that against them as well. I am sure there have been many FOI's filed. Are you aware if there has been a response to any of them?

It's not because I'm a truther. It's because I'm an engineer that is interested in the build up to collapse, collapse and global collapse.

Edit: No, I haven't heard of anything yet.

[edit on 6/13/2007 by Griff]

I'd also like to point out the different organizations that made up NIST. menaing the following groups were ALL involved in the NIST investigation:


Construction:
CII,IAI,CERF,FIATECH,NIBS

Fire & Emergency:
IAFC,NASFM,IAFF,FDNY,NYPD

Academics:

IAFSS, ASME,LANL,MIT,Princeton,Northwesterm,UT,Austin,Georgia Tech,
Penn State, Drexel, Wharton, Columbia, Lehigh, UMd, WPI

Codes & Standards Organizations:

ASCE, AISC, ACI, ICC, NFPA, ASHRAE, ASTM, ANSI, ISO

Structural Engineering And Design:

AIA, Council on Tall Buildingsand Urban Habitat, SEAoNY, TMS, NCSEA,CASE, NYC/DDC, NYNJ Port Authoirty

Fire Safety Engineering:

Private Consultants, SFPE

Industry Suppliers:

W.R. Grace, United Technologies,Sensors,Controls

Government Agencies:

FEMA, ATF,FBI,DOD,USACE,DOE,DTRA,NIOSH,CDC,GSA,State NTSB,NRC,IRC/NRCC, NCSBCS

We have over 60 different agencies and Universities that contributed to the NIST report. Can they all be in on it? We they ALL told what their finding should be?

I say watch the video again.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
We have over 60 different agencies and Universities that contributed to the NIST report.

What does that have to do with the report not being peer reviewed?

Can they all be in on it?

Of course not. Have you ever been in a design team? Sometimes I'll draw parts and pieces of a building that I have no idea what it is until we all put our designs and drawings together. That's compartmentalization.

We they ALL told what their finding should be?

Don't know but seeing how any dissent would get you fired, I'm assumming. Look into the guy from Underwriter's Laboratories.

I say watch the video again.

Don't need to. I know what I'm saying is correct.

Griff,

You have ZERO proof that ANYONE was fired from the NIST investigation for any reason. Again you are speculating.

As far as the "Water Boy" from UL. If you are up to date on the current law suit he had filed against UL.... It was DISMISSED. He was fired for probable cause. He was on company time using the UL LOGO to send e-mails to conspiracy theory sites.

[edit on 023030p://3219 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Griff,

You have ZERO proof that ANYONE was fired from the NIST investigation for any reason. Again you are speculating.

Yes I am. As I stated, "I'm assumming". That is a speculation by definition.

As far as the "Water Boy" from UL. If you are up to date on the current law suit he had filed against UL.... It was DISMISSED. He was fired for probable cause. He was on company time using the UL LOGO to send e-mails to conspiracy theory sites.

So, because he was fired for using the UL logo, what he says is all debunk? OK. I guess if I get fired for comming to this site, all my years of experience and school are worthless? And nothing I say is worth while to listen to? See how easy it is for "them" to discredit someone? I'm not saying this is fact but only speculation.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Fowl Play
M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering Eduardo Kausel states:

I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements--floor trusses and columns--so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse.

Professor Shi Yongjiu, director of civil engineering department of Qinghua University and an expert on steel structure, guesses that the lower part of the WTC twin towers may got seriously damaged.

According to steel structure's mechanical nature, the towers shouldn't collapse as late as an hour later after the planes slammed into. What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. It looks more like a directional blast in doing the job of destruction, so he feels that huge damages must have been done at the lower part of the towers.

As seen on TV, the big fire, climbing higher and higher, is still more than 300 meters away from the base of the towers, not big enough to destroy the steels of the lower part.

He was surprised that a 40-storied supportive building beside the towers should collapse 6 hours later, for at that time the blast force by main towers should have been lost for a long time.

I second this...wtf were we doing shipping the steel to china all fast, that in itself is suspicious and illegal as it was a crime scene.

i still see orange dripping, you cant convince it wasnt controlled, theres the 911 eyewitness video with explosions heard, and the reports from the ground. Theres still too much to investigate and decide upon, it wont matter whether or not it was an inside job or not, im pretty positive those being blamed will still burn in hell for other crimes. Scum rises to the top.

Griff,

First of all let me correct myself. UL's attorneys filed for a motion to dismiss with prejudice. I'm not sure if there has been a ruling on it.

Mr. Ryan was Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana. EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

What he violated was using his title and the corporate name as representative or indicative of his authority. He sent his letter to CT sites and NIST. This is part of UL's motion to dismiss:

"UL then terminated Plaintiff's employment because his letter (1) clearly created the impression that the outrageous opinions contained therein were those of the company and (2) commented on testing performed by UL for a client, thereby harming the company’s relationship with that client."

Does this debunk what he stated? The lawsuit does NOT....but the fact that he is not qualified in steel production/etc and such should lead most to take what he states with a grain of salt. Have you read his letter to NIST?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Does this debunk what he stated? The lawsuit does NOT....but the fact that he is not qualified in steel production/etc and such should lead most to take what he states with a grain of salt. Have you read his letter to NIST?

I agree. And actually didn't know he was not in the steel end of it. It just sucks that most everyone has an agenda. Even I do. But, my agenda is to find the truth. If that leads me to the official story, so be it.

So, does anyone want to comment on this?

Challenge accepted.

Let's assume that the factor of safety is 2 for arguments sake. I have heard higher numbers actually.

ok. This might take me awhile.

Let's say that the weight that the impact floors had to hold would be 100 tons.

That means those floors columns could hold 100x2=200 tons

The core and the exteriors basically shared the load.

So core could hold 100 tons and exterior could hold 100 tons.

Let's also assume that both exterior and core were damaged by 15%.

That brings us down to 85 tons of support for each. So, together they are still able to hold 170 tons.

Now, take out the core in anyway possible and that leaves you with only 85 tons of support. This is not enough to hold the original 100 ton design weight. So, failure occurs. And like I said before, the failure would occur at the weakest point (the impact zones).

Griff,

I don't know what the heck that says. What is a safety factor?