99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

reply to post by -PLB-

So you understand why that graph and those 90 seconds are irrelevant for the "official" explanation?

Obviously not if I posted it, you should have just said why instead of asking if I know.

Sure, at initiation the columns failed. After that they didn't need to fail. All that needed to fail are the truss connections. The supporting columns could simply be left unsupported and pushed and fall over. That is in fact what we see happening in videos.

Unless you have X-Ray Vision, the only visible thing is a plume of pulverized concrete and massive steel columns being thrown laterally hundreds of feet.

Jones is a crackpot who believes Jesus went to America and thinks he created an over unity energy device.

Wow attacking his religious beliefs? That's low dude, how is that relavent in a discussion of his scientific credibility, especially since he taught Physics at BYU for a good chunk of his life?

Yes, he believes he defied one of the most fundamental laws of physics. His work is not accepted in the scientific community, and he found nothing that disproves his chips were just paint.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e05e1521c410.jpg[/atsimg] Exploding paint chips?
He's a Mormon, he probably pulled those thermite chips out of his satchel of evil to sabatoge the official story in hopes of undermining the Bush Administration which is just one step in his sinister plot of world domination.

There was not just jet feul in those buildings. There were all kind of chemicals.

That's it? That's your explanation, some chemicals? You have to be more specific dude, just saying there were chemicals in there is not nearly enough to convince me.

False dichotomy. It is not either thermite or jet fuel. If jet fuel is not the explanation it in no way makes thermite more likely.

No, correct dichotomy . We have molten steel dripping from the tower right before the collapse. On top of that we have nano-thermite chips found in the dust. On top of that we have iron microspheres found in the dust which mean it was molten at one point. On top of that we have three towers falling just a shade over free-fall time, all in the exact same manner. Jet fuel isolated on a few floors cannot do any of that; explosives can.

WTC7 collapsed in a completely different manner, as I would expect. You are making an argument from ignorace. Just because you do not understand how WTC7 collapsed without explosives doesn't mean it can't happen.

Just because you do not understand how leprechauns teleport me to the fourth dimension through a black hole to surf rainbow tsunamis in candyland doesn't mean it can't happen. WTC7 was the first skyscraper to collapse from fire damage in history. Refer to this post so I don't have to re-hash information that's been posted here already.

I have explained it. You can't threat the top and lower section as two blocks, like in that video. That is just not how it is in reality, therefore that model is flawed.

But I can do that because that's what they are, the top section is one falling object, and the bottom section is a static object, and when they interact those principles can be applied just as they can to cinderblocks or pool balls.

I already explained that several times. 1) there is no requirement in the "official" explanation for the floor to impact at one moment in time. It can easily happen over a longer period, where one part of a floor is already collapsed while another part is not. In fact, the collapse can happen over more than one floor at once. 2) the resistance offered by the floors is nowhere near the resistance offered by the supporting columns.

Ignoring those points do not make them go away.

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm telling you that if the top section hits the bottom section with enough force to completely pulverize the entire building, then it would clearly slow down when it makes contact. The idea that it can strike it the building with enough force to completely destroy it but not slow down is absurd.

I have explained this, and I tried to do this with my multiple choice question. You choose that a floor that has to endure more mass has an equal chance of failing as a floor that has to endure less mass. Your understanding of physics is fundamentally flawed. I will change the question and add values to demonstrate how absurd your answer is.

Lets assume that the weight of 1 floor is 3kt

The top section is 15 floors (45kt) high and falls on the lower part, both the floor in the top and lower section fails. After that they keep falling, including the top section. After a while the collapse reached 5 floors down. We assume that previously both the lower and upper floor failed, as per your suggestion. The question is, which floor has the highest probability to fail:

1) the floor in the lower part that has 10 failed floor (30kt) + the top section (30kt) = 60kt falling on it.
2) the floor in the top section that only has the top section itself above it (30kt).
3) both floors have equal probability of failing.

Please answer that you think that the floor that has the largest mass to endure will fail first. And I know mass ejected/fell away, but I try to make the question as simple as possible. Once we agree on the answer we can add other factors if you like.

Yeah you tried to explain it but you sure did a half-ass job. Putting your pancake theory in a multiple choice format doesn't make it any less wrong. Even in the unlikely event that Ground Zero was transported to a parallel universe where the laws of physics didn't apply, the top section setting off a pancake-chain-reaction would take WAY longer than a shade over free-fall time. Would you disagree? Do you think that the top section can slam into every floor, progressively pulverizing everything in it's path including the steel structure as it gains mass, at just a hair over free-fall speed?

You do realize that those papers are published in a very biased journal, and are not accepted by the scientific community? That is not science, it is opinion.

I see, so when you asked for published work that explains how it defies Newtons Third Law of Motion, you mean published work that's different than the ones that I found. Did you even read a single page out of any of those papers? You claim that it's not science but opinion, but there's enough science in a few pages of just one of those papers to make your brain hurt.

Besides the twin towers I can't really think of an example. Just because something is not common means that it is impossible. The physics are well known, its do not predict it is impossible.

So despite the fact that there's no experimental confirmation, you want me to believe that a jet fuel fire that was isolated to a few floors and mixed with some unknown chemicals caused the top section to pulverize the bottom section in a pancake collapse, right at free-fall speed? Here's what pancake collapses look like from just a few stories: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d4f8b5f325ae.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0c1c40a9d6cf.jpg[/atsimg]
Compared to the 110 story WTCs: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3a79bc9ac24.jpg[/atsimg] Notice a difference?

David Chandler is not a physics professor, but a teacher. He does not have his work published in a respected journal and his work is not accepted in the scientific community. He is just a guy on the internet who is wrong.

So physics teachers do not have credibility in a discussion of physics? Should we just leave that to the politicians and mainstream media?

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Obviously not if I posted it, you should have just said why instead of asking if I know.

Sure I will repeat it again. Your pancake theory (as in the one you came with) does not include the weight of the top section.

Unless you have X-Ray Vision, the only visible thing is a plume of pulverized concrete and massive steel columns being thrown laterally hundreds of feet.

Study the available evidence a bit more careful. This is something you actually can do on Youtube. The most obvious evidence is a very large part of the core still standing when the rest of the building has already completely collapsed.

Wow attacking his religious beliefs? That's low dude, how is that relavent in a discussion of his scientific credibility, especially since he taught Physics at BYU for a good chunk of his life?

Because he himself took his faith to the realm of science. He did it before, and he did it again, twice. Do you see the pattern yet?

Exploding paint chips?
He's a Mormon, he probably pulled those thermite chips out of his satchel of evil to sabatoge the official story in hopes of undermining the Bush Administration which is just one step in his sinister plot of world domination.

It didn't even completely reacted when he heated it. Some explosive...

No, correct dichotomy

. We have molten steel dripping from the tower right before the collapse. On top of that we have nano-thermite chips found in the dust. On top of that we have iron microspheres found in the dust which mean it was molten at one point. On top of that we have three towers falling just a shade over free-fall time, all in the exact same manner. Jet fuel isolated on a few floors cannot do any of that; explosives can.

And on top of that your believe is based on junk science.

Just because you do not understand how leprechauns teleport me to the fourth dimension through a black hole to surf rainbow tsunamis in candyland doesn't mean it can't happen. WTC7 was the first skyscraper to collapse from fire damage in history. Refer to this post so I don't have to re-hash information that's been posted here already.

I am not making any claims at all about you being teleported, so what is your point? On the other hand, you are making claims about the WTC collapses.

But I can do that because that's what they are, the top section is one falling object, and the bottom section is a static object, and when they interact those principles can be applied just as they can to cinderblocks or pool balls.

Sure you can do that, but it is wrong. The top section and lower section do not behave like blocks.

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm telling you that if the top section hits the bottom section with enough force to completely pulverize the entire building, then it would clearly slow down when it makes contact. The idea that it can strike it the building with enough force to completely destroy it but not slow down is absurd.

It did slow down the collapse. But gravity speeds it up. The net motion is acceleration. We already went over this.

Yeah you tried to explain it but you sure did a half-ass job. Putting your pancake theory in a multiple choice format doesn't make it any less wrong. Even in the unlikely event that Ground Zero was transported to a parallel universe where the laws of physics didn't apply, the top section setting off a pancake-chain-reaction would take WAY longer than a shade over free-fall time. Would you disagree? Do you think that the top section can slam into every floor, progressively pulverizing everything in it's path including the steel structure as it gains mass, at just a hair over free-fall speed?

I don't agree. How did you get the idea that the collapse should take a lot longer? Show the math. But let me guess, this is a baseless claim?

I see, so when you asked for published work that explains how it defies Newtons Third Law of Motion, you mean published work that's different than the ones that I found. Did you even read a single page out of any of those papers? You claim that it's not science but opinion, but there's enough science in a few pages of just one of those papers to make your brain hurt.

So you think that journal is not a tiny bit biased? Really? Don't you think you are being a tiny bit naive? No, that is not real science. It is not accepted in the scientific community.

So despite the fact that there's no experimental confirmation, you want me to believe that a jet fuel fire that was isolated to a few floors and mixed with some unknown chemicals caused the top section to pulverize the bottom section in a pancake collapse, right at free-fall speed?

No I don't want you to believe that, you may believe whatever you like. It is not like you base your opinion on experimental confirmation anyhow.

Here's what pancake collapses look like from just a few stories:
Compared to the 110 story WTCs:
Notice a difference?

Yes big difference. That is odd. Those are completely different building and they look different after they have collapsed. How on earth is that possible (sorry for the sarcasm).

So physics teachers do not have credibility in a discussion of physics? Should we just leave that to the politicians and mainstream media?

Sure they do, if they publish their work in a respected journal that has a proper peer review process. I was correcting you because you were making what looked like an incorrect argument from authority. You didn't write "professor" for nothing, you wrote it to give your argument extra weight. I know it was probably just ignorance, I don't expect you to know everything (I didn't know and did a 1 minute fact check).

reply to post by -PLB-

Sure I will repeat it again. Your pancake theory (as in the one you came with) does not include the weight of the top section.

OK, but did you know that NIST doesn't even support the pancake theory?

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below).

--Straight from their website! So by attempting to position yourself with the "Airplanes caused the towers to collapse" gang, you're actually going against the very people that you're arguing to defend.

Study the available evidence a bit more careful. This is something you actually can do on Youtube. The most obvious evidence is a very large part of the core still standing when the rest of the building has already completely collapsed.

I think you're the one that needs to study evidence more carefully. Why didn't you post this video evidence of the core? Why do you not provide any evidence for your claims? You just say things; like I said earlier you have to provide evidence for your opinion to be taken seriously.

It didn't even completely reacted when he heated it. Some explosive...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/05803e239f58.jpg[/atsimg] Are you kidding me? Watch from 0:15 - 0:20 That bright flash that blinds the camera and burns through it's container isn't "completely reacted"? That tiny little sample creates iron microspheres, which mean that the temperature was high enough to create molten steel! I can't even find the words.....hence the facepalm.

And on top of that your believe is based on junk science.

It's "belief", not "believe". Junk science? Explain how the molten metal was both seen dripping from the tower prior to collapse and found in the rubble of all three towers? Jet fuel and chemicals impossibly producing that is junk science, not thermite. Explain the nano-thermite chips and iron microspheres found, and refrain from using "junk science" please.

I am not making any claims at all about you being teleported, so what is your point? On the other hand, you are making claims about the WTC collapses.

My point is WTC7 was the first skyscraper in history to collapse from fire damage despite the fact that there have been dozens of fires which were much more severe but didn't even come close to initiating a total structural failure which produced a free-fall collapse. The three buildings leased by Larry Silverstein all collapsed from fire damage, but the surrounding buildings in the complex that suffered much greater fire and structural damage didn't collapse. That's about as likely as me being taken to another dimension by leprechauns.

It did slow down the collapse. But gravity speeds it up. The net motion is acceleration. We already went over this.

You said things, but you didn't provide evidence. It didn't slow the collapse, that video plots points on the roof of the tower at 0.2 second intervals and finds the acceleration to be unimpeded at the moment that it should slow down. You don't seem to understand, if the top section acted as a pile-driver, it would slow down! The fact that the roof-line where the measurements were taken from was accelerating down means that it exerted a force less than it's own static weight on the bottom section. Colliding with the bottom section and adding material to the top-section-pile-driver would decrease the inertia therefore decreasing the acceleration. Also adding material to the top section would actually reduce the effectiveness of the pile-driver, because it would need to transfer it's momentum to the mass to bring the whole thing up to speed. Since the top section accelerated rather than decelerated through the path of greatest resistance, that means the lower structure was removed by some other force. Think about it, if there was no resistance throught the path of greatest resistance, that means the path of greatest resistance was weakened by something else. Plus the smaller top section could not pile-drive a much larger section of the same structure by gravity alone. The WTCs in the crush-down/crush-up manner supported by NIST is impossible, and therefore can be eliminated.

I don't agree. How did you get the idea that the collapse should take a lot longer? Show the math. But let me guess, this is a baseless claim?

Look at those papers that I posted.

So you think that journal is not a tiny bit biased? Really? Don't you think you are being a tiny bit naive? No, that is not real science. It is not accepted in the scientific community.

Dude you haven't read a single page from it and you're just assuming it's garbage, now THAT is naive. Read this one from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics which for some reason you believe is not accepted in the scientific community. It's the shortest one out of the four, so it'll take you no more than 5 minutes to read.

Yes big difference. That is odd. Those are completely different building and they look different after they have collapsed. How on earth is that possible (sorry for the sarcasm).

Don't apologize, talk how you want to talk, that's completely fine with me. The reason I posted those is that all three of them are supposedly pancake collapses, and with the first two the division of floors is clear and they're still for the most part visibly intact. Compare that to the WTCs, and you just see rubble with no clear division of floors. Just something for you to think about.

Sure they do, if they publish their work in a respected journal that has a proper peer review process. I was correcting you because you were making what looked like an incorrect argument from authority. You didn't write "professor" for nothing, you wrote it to give your argument extra weight. I know it was probably just ignorance, I don't expect you to know everything (I didn't know and did a 1 minute fact check).

To be honest I just typed in David Chandler, clicked on the first page, and next to his picture it said "Professor David Chandler". The Journal of Mechanical Engineering is a respected journal that has a proper peer review process, so check out that last paper that I posted. And despite your claims, the Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer review journal:

Thank you for visiting The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001.

Further relevant papers are now in the peer-review cycle.
We will continue for the time being to provide a service for researchers who wish to present a new finding or a new point of view but who feel that their contribution would not be suitable for a mainstream journal.

So just because they don't think it's suitable for a mainstream journal doesn't mean it's wrong, they probably just don't want to publish something that controversial in a mainstream journal because it might give the university that they work at bad publicity or ruin their reputation because of the societal tabboo in questioning the government and the official story of how the towers collapsed.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Sure I will repeat it again. Your pancake theory (as in the one you came with) does not include the weight of the top section.

OK, but did you know that NIST doesn't even support the pancake theory?

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below).

--Straight from their website! So by attempting to position yourself with the "Airplanes caused the towers to collapse" gang, you're actually going against the very people that you're arguing to defend.

Correct, that is your "Pancake" theory. When you add the top section it is no longer the "Pancake" theory. It becomes another theory. You are not the first thuther who is confused by this.

I think you're the one that needs to study evidence more carefully. Why didn't you post this video evidence of the core? Why do you not provide any evidence for your claims? You just say things; like I said earlier you have to provide evidence for your opinion to be taken seriously.

I actually expected you to be aware of it, as its one of the basic things you will see when you look into this subject. I take you are a "fresh" truther who is just getting into this? Anyway, the first Google "Core WTC collapse" hit: www.youtube.com...

Are you kidding me? Watch from 0:15 - 0:20 That bright flash that blinds the camera and burns through it's container isn't "completely reacted"? That tiny little sample creates iron microspheres, which mean that the temperature was high enough to create molten steel!

I can't even find the words.....hence the facepalm.

At least the facepalm picture is already there. That was not a sample of WTC dust that is ignited. How much research did you actually do aside from watching those idiotic misleading video clips from conspiracy websites?

It's "belief", not "believe". Junk science? Explain how the molten metal was both seen dripping from the tower prior to collapse and found in the rubble of all three towers? Jet fuel and chemicals impossibly producing that is junk science, not thermite. Explain the nano-thermite chips and iron microspheres found, and refrain from using "junk science" please.

Fire heats metal. Metal melts. Metal pours out. No nano-thermite chips were found.

My point is WTC7 was the first skyscraper in history to collapse from fire damage despite the fact that there have been dozens of fires which were much more severe but didn't even come close to initiating a total structural failure which produced a free-fall collapse. The three buildings leased by Larry Silverstein all collapsed from fire damage, but the surrounding buildings in the complex that suffered much greater fire and structural damage didn't collapse. That's about as likely as me being taken to another dimension by leprechauns.

Where do you get your information. No, surrounding buildings did not suffered more from fire. And how likely you think it is doesn't really make a good argument. You are uninformed and probably don't know much about structural engineering.

You said things, but you didn't provide evidence. It didn't slow the collapse, that video plots points on the roof of the tower at 0.2 second intervals and finds the acceleration to be unimpeded at the moment that it should slow down. You don't seem to understand, if the top section acted as a pile-driver, it would slow down! The fact that the roof-line where the measurements were taken from was accelerating down means that it exerted a force less than it's own static weight on the bottom section. Colliding with the bottom section and adding material to the top-section-pile-driver would decrease the inertia therefore decreasing the acceleration. Also adding material to the top section would actually reduce the effectiveness of the pile-driver, because it would need to transfer it's momentum to the mass to bring the whole thing up to speed. Since the top section accelerated rather than decelerated through the path of greatest resistance, that means the lower structure was removed by some other force. Think about it, if there was no resistance throught the path of greatest resistance, that means the path of greatest resistance was weakened by something else. Plus the smaller top section could not pile-drive a much larger section of the same structure by gravity alone. The WTCs in the crush-down/crush-up manner supported by NIST is impossible, and therefore can be eliminated.

Luckily we have you to show all the physics that prove what you are claiming. Wait, we don't actually. I guess I will have to rely on the professional structural engineers who publish in actual respected peer review journals once again.

Look at those papers that I posted.Dude you haven't read a single page from it and you're just assuming it's garbage, now THAT is naive. Read this one from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics which for some reason you believe is not accepted in the scientific community. It's the shortest one out of the four, so it'll take you no more than 5 minutes to read.

I have read several papers and never found anything convincing. That one may take 5 minutes to read, but a lot longer to understand and verify it all. I am not wasting my time with yet another one of those truther papers. It seems it is basically just talking about Bazant, I don't see how that supports your claims. So present the most convincing piece that supports your claims.

Don't apologize, talk how you want to talk, that's completely fine with me. The reason I posted those is that all three of them are supposedly pancake collapses, and with the first two the division of floors is clear and they're still for the most part visibly intact. Compare that to the WTCs, and you just see rubble with no clear division of floors. Just something for you to think about.

It is pretty much what I expect. The rubble in the WTC either fell down hundreds of meters or was crushed by fast falling debris. I would not expect neatly stacked floors. But anyway, what I expect to see or not isn't really relevant.

To be honest I just typed in David Chandler, clicked on the first page, and next to his picture it said "Professor David Chandler". The Journal of Mechanical Engineering is a respected journal that has a proper peer review process, so check out that last paper that I posted. And despite your claims, the Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer review journal:

Thank you for visiting The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001.

Further relevant papers are now in the peer-review cycle.
We will continue for the time being to provide a service for researchers who wish to present a new finding or a new point of view but who feel that their contribution would not be suitable for a mainstream journal.

So just because they don't think it's suitable for a mainstream journal doesn't mean it's wrong, they probably just don't want to publish something that controversial in a mainstream journal because it might give the university that they work at bad publicity or ruin their reputation because of the societal tabboo in questioning the government and the official story of how the towers collapsed.

The problem is that those peers are fellow truthers. From my point of view its like letting fellow catholics verify whether the bible is correct.

This is interesting, but simply knowing about someone does not make you an acomplice

reply to post by -PLB-

I actually expected you to be aware of it, as its one of the basic things you will see when you look into this subject. I take you are a "fresh" truther who is just getting into this? Anyway, the first Google "Core WTC collapse" hit: www.youtube.com...

It's not about me being aware of every single detail surrounding 9/11, it's about you posting the videos you're referring to, posting the images, witness testimonies, and so on. I find it funny that you used the spire to back up your side of the story, because that detail is actually included in the 9/11 Experiments video that nobody has successfuly debunked yet let alone attempted to debunk entirely. From this post:

Facts: Office fires cannot cut steel, yet white smoke trailed from cut segments of falling steel, and the top of the spire was not bent from any impact above. The spire stood as a free standing structure with columns swaying but resisting like a flagpole. Rather than tipping over like a tree, this structure dropped straight down even though there was no load above.

Evidence:[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47b7dd5c8b1f.jpg[/atsimg]
Facts: A freestanding structure collapsing straight down through its path of greatest resistance by gravity alone is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Also next time you're trying to post a YouTube video, you can embed it in your post by clicking the "VID: YOUTUBE" button and putting the "v=____________" code in.

At least the facepalm picture is already there. That was not a sample of WTC dust that is ignited. How much research did you actually do aside from watching those idiotic misleading video clips from conspiracy websites?

He's igniting nano-thermite to show how reactive it is. What is misleading about that? There was nano-thermite present in the dust, and to show us what effects nano-thermite has he ignites a sample.

Fire heats metal. Metal melts. Metal pours out. No nano-thermite chips were found.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/49dc0a7bc636.jpg[/atsimg] Your post is so ignorant that I want to vomit. First of all, jet fuel burns at a maximum temperature of 1800*F, and steel melts at 2750*F. You don't see anything out of the ordinary with molten steel being present? In case it's not obvious, let me spell it out for you: Jet fuel cannot melt steel. It's impossible.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ff6eb14e1a60.jpg[/atsimg]
Next, nano-thermite chips were found and I provided evidence for this earlier but you ignorantly repressed that detail, most likely as a defense mechanism because your mind is unable to cope with the idea that our government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Straight out of the Open Chemical Physics Journal ( peer-reviewed ): Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3

1Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
3S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA
49/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
5Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/59151789bd41.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a11ec07a598.jpg[/atsimg]

Where do you get your information. No, surrounding buildings did not suffered more from fire. And how likely you think it is doesn't really make a good argument. You are uninformed and probably don't know much about structural engineering.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/206e0a1f3571.jpg[/atsimg] 2 facepalms in one post, you fail hard. You said surrounding buildings did not suffer more from fire damage. You are about to be proven so wrong that you will probably void your bowels out of sheer humiliation:

Building 3: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/084b1bf175d4.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3e37f36b2e70.jpg[/atsimg]
Building 4: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aba9a86ae3a4.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b21d12a706a8.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1dcdfb38af8c.jpg[/atsimg]
Buildings 5 and 6: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/70c3a5045046.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/238f81eb4798.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e2f5b42f36a9.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/54365deb8653.jpg[/atsimg]
Building 7: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/608e789dc4ba.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/65c0b16d96f1.jpg[/atsimg] Now, let's take a minute and look back on your previous claim:

Where do you get your information. No, surrounding buildings did not suffered more from fire.

You are uninformed and probably don't know much about structural engineering.

Oh I'm sorry, do I have to have a degree in structrural engineering to have an opinion?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/85692fa545bf.jpg[/atsimg] You've officially earned yourself three facepalms, a record for this thread. Congratulations.

Luckily we have you to show all the physics that prove what you are claiming. Wait, we don't actually. I guess I will have to rely on the professional structural engineers who publish in actual respected peer review journals once again.

Remember those four peer-reviewed papers that I posted? The physics and mathematical calculations are all in there. That's why I posted them, so you could read them. Am I just wasting my time finding evidence for you? Because if you're not going to look at the evidence that I take the time to put together clearly you're being unfair and biased so we should just end this discussion right now.

I have read several papers and never found anything convincing. That one may take 5 minutes to read, but a lot longer to understand and verify it all. I am not wasting my time with yet another one of those truther papers. It seems it is basically just talking about Bazant, I don't see how that supports your claims. So present the most convincing piece that supports your claims.

It supports my claims because Bazants paper is backed by NIST, and it's wrong! So you ask for peer-reviewed journals with published papers that back up what I'm saying, and when I find them for you, you refuse to read them? How intellectually fair of you!

The problem is that those peers are fellow truthers. From my point of view its like letting fellow catholics verify whether the bible is correct.

Yet you haven't even read a single page of any of the papers that I posted. Do you see how unfair you're being? You asked for published papers that back up my claims, and after I find them for you, you don't even read them! It doesn't matter if Steven Hawking didn't proof-read their paper, just read it and see what you think, is that so hard? You'll spend days arguing over something, but you wont take 30 minutes to read something that sums it all up? Just read the damn papers that you asked for and don't be a closed-minded tool.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
It's not about me being aware of every single detail surrounding 9/11, it's about you posting the videos you're referring to, posting the images, witness testimonies, and so on. I find it funny that you used the spire to back up your side of the story, because that detail is actually included in the 9/11 Experiments video that nobody has successfuly debunked yet let alone attempted to debunk entirely. From this post:

Facts: Office fires cannot cut steel, yet white smoke trailed from cut segments of falling steel, and the top of the spire was not bent from any impact above. The spire stood as a free standing structure with columns swaying but resisting like a flagpole. Rather than tipping over like a tree, this structure dropped straight down even though there was no load above.

Evidence:
Facts: A freestanding structure collapsing straight down through its path of greatest resistance by gravity alone is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Also next time you're trying to post a YouTube video, you can embed it in your post by clicking the "VID: YOUTUBE" button and putting the "v=____________" code in.

You can change the subject of course, but it still proves that many columns did not need to fail, which is what we were talking about.

He's igniting nano-thermite to show how reactive it is. What is misleading about that? There was nano-thermite present in the dust, and to show us what effects nano-thermite has he ignites a sample.

Then don't be such a moron in suggesting it was a WTC dust sample. You are being disingenuous.

Your post is so ignorant that I want to vomit. First of all, jet fuel burns at a maximum temperature of 1800*F, and steel melts at 2750*F. You don't see anything out of the ordinary with molten steel being present? In case it's not obvious, let me spell it out for you: Jet fuel cannot melt steel. It's impossible.
Next, nano-thermite chips were found and I provided evidence for this earlier but you ignorantly repressed that detail, most likely as a defense mechanism because your mind is unable to cope with the idea that our government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Maybe you think that steel and metal are synonyms of each other, but they are not. I have yet to be presented with evidence of molten steel. But don't mind the evidence, carry on in your fantasies.

Straight out of the Open Chemical Physics Journal ( peer-reviewed

): Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3

1Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
3S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA
49/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
5Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA

Junk science as I said.

2 facepalms in one post, you fail hard. You said surrounding buildings did not suffer more from fire damage. You are about to be proven so wrong that you will probably void your bowels out of sheer humiliation:

Now, let's take a minute and look back on your previous claim:

Where do you get your information. No, surrounding buildings did not suffered more from fire.

You are uninformed and probably don't know much about structural engineering.

Admitted, I misread you text, I thought you meant surrounding buildings, so outside the WTC complex. Not a big deal really but still thanks for all the facepalms.

Oh I'm sorry, do I have to have a degree in structrural engineering to have an opinion?

Of course you don't. Only when you want other people to take your opinion seriously. If you don't care about that you can have any opinion about any subject you want.

Remember those four peer-reviewed papers that I posted? The physics and mathematical calculations are all in there. That's why I posted them, so you could read them. Am I just wasting my time finding evidence for you? Because if you're not going to look at the evidence that I take the time to put together clearly you're being unfair and biased so we should just end this discussion right now.

Those papers are published in a "journal" that is not taken seriously outside the truth movement. They are reviewed by truthers. The papers have been thoroughly debunked by the way. Even fellow truthers have pointed out errors.

It supports my claims because Bazants paper is backed by NIST, and it's wrong! So you ask for peer-reviewed journals with published papers that back up what I'm saying, and when I find them for you, you refuse to read them? How intellectually fair of you!

Bazant it not wrong. His model just does not model the actual collapse, as is clearly stated in his work. So your logic goes like this: If I manage to prove Bazant wrong, my crazy crackpot conspiracy theory is automatically correct. Problem is though, it isn't.

Yet you haven't even read a single page of any of the papers that I posted. Do you see how unfair you're being? You asked for published papers that back up my claims, and after I find them for you, you don't even read them! It doesn't matter if Steven Hawking didn't proof-read their paper, just read it and see what you think, is that so hard? You'll spend days arguing over something, but you wont take 30 minutes to read something that sums it all up? Just read the damn papers that you asked for and don't be a closed-minded tool.

You are not in the position to know what I have or haven't read. I have not read them recently no. But as said above, you can easily find debunks if you search a little. These papers are not taken serious in the scientific community.

Just a little theory, the amount of facepalms you use is correlated with how much you feel pushed in a corner?

reply to post by -PLB-
There's nothing worse than having your post just about finished and accidentally X-ing it out.

You can change the subject of course, but it still proves that many columns did not need to fail, which is what we were talking about.

That's how conversations work, the subject changes, if we just talked about one thing for twenty pages that wouldn't get us anywhere. But I do admit that's interesting and something to consider. But why did it fall straight down through the path of greatest resistance? It can survive the extremely energetic and chaotic collapse of the towers, but just sitting in the open air makes it fall straight down?

Then don't be such a moron in suggesting it was a WTC dust sample. You are being disingenuous.

I still don't see why you're being such a cranky bear about this topic. There was nano-thermite in the dust, and to demonstrate how nano-thermite reacts he ignited some to show us what effects it has. If nano-thermite was used to bring down the towers, it wouldn't be covered in dust and debris, so why would he ignite the dust to show us nano-thermites effects?

Maybe you think that steel and metal are synonyms of each other, but they are not. I have yet to be presented with evidence of molten steel. But don't mind the evidence, carry on in your fantasies.

Jeez I wish you would have read the thread before posting so I don't have to keep repeating myself. NIST claimed that the metal seen dripping wasn't molten steel, but instead molten aluminum which contained solid inorganic material such as computers, carpeting, desks, and so on to give it the orange glow. As is typical with NIST they provided no experimental confirmation to back up their claims but instead half-assed an explanation and called it a day. However independent experimentation proved their theory to be very, very wrong. Videos are at the bottom of the page. Also check out this post to see molten aluminum vs. molten steel compared to the metal seen dripping from the tower. What do you think it more closely resembles: steel or aluminum?

Junk science as I said.

Yeah, peer-reviewed junk science published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. It seems that any published work that goes against the official story is junk science to you, regardless of the journal: Journal of Engineering Mechanics-- junk science. Journal of 9/11 Studies-- junk science. Open Chemical Physics Journal-- junk science.

Admitted, I misread you text, I thought you meant surrounding buildings, so outside the WTC complex. Not a big deal really but still thanks for all the facepalms.

Surely you wouldn't lie to avoid having to admit how wrong you were, right?

Of course you don't. Only when you want other people to take your opinion seriously. If you don't care about that you can have any opinion about any subject you want.

Oh, then what do you think about these 1500+ engineers or architects opinions?

Those papers are published in a "journal" that is not taken seriously outside the truth movement. They are reviewed by truthers. The papers have been thoroughly debunked by the way. Even fellow truthers have pointed out errors.

And once again you provide no evidence to back up your claims, you just say things. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if "you want other people to take your opinion seriously", you have to back up what you say with evidence. Again, what about the Journal of Engineering Mechanics is to not be taken seriously? Since a truther is affiliated with it, it's garbage? What about the Open Chemical Physics Journal? Also trash?

Bazant it not wrong. His model just does not model the actual collapse, as is clearly stated in his work. So your logic goes like this: If I manage to prove Bazant wrong, my crazy crackpot conspiracy theory is automatically correct. Problem is though, it isn't.

Oh so in that case the main paper that NIST used to back their theory is basically a POS? Bazant has been proven wrong by several people, both in that "junk science" journal as well as the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Bazant is wrong. It's not just the model itself that's addressed, many other elements of his paper are pulled apart at the seams in those papers that I posted. But of course you won't read them because it's all blasphemous junk science that proves Bazant to be wrong, but by proving the official story wrong that actually makes them wrong, right?

You are not in the position to know what I have or haven't read. I have not read them recently no. But as said above, you can easily find debunks if you search a little. These papers are not taken serious in the scientific community.

Then post the "debunks"! Why do you make me do all the work? I not only have to find the evidence that backs up my side of the story, but am I supposed to assume both sides of the argument and find evidence to back up what you're saying? No way dude! Just post whatever evidence you have to back up what you're saying, don't just say there's evidence and then bail.

Just a little theory, the amount of facepalms you use is correlated with how much you feel pushed in a corner?

Where have you been this whole thread, I'm the reigning champ! Look through all the posts and see who left the discussion first: me or the truth-debunkers. See who brought the most evidence, facts, witness testimonies, and so on. I bring the heat, just like nano-thermite.

Also, since you seem so sure of yourself, why don't you go through our discussion, and compile a list of your evidence vs. my evidence, so we can see who backs up what they say, and who just says things.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
That's how conversations work, the subject changes, if we just talked about one thing for twenty pages that wouldn't get us anywhere. But I do admit that's interesting and something to consider. But why did it fall straight down through the path of greatest resistance? It can survive the extremely energetic and chaotic collapse of the towers, but just sitting in the open air makes it fall straight down?

Normally in a conversation you agree or disagree on something, and then you move on. You don't just ignore it and move on.

You can see part of the core toppling over, another part collapses down. Can you explain how this in anyway points in the direction of explosives? The explosives did not take out the core during collapse, that is for sure. Do you think the explosives went off too late? If so, how come the building still collapsed? And where is the evidence of detonations? The core is pretty much completely exposed, yet we see absolutely nothing that looks like explosives going off. (explosives include any type of termite, its just unpractical to typing that all the time).

I still don't see why you're being such a cranky bear about this topic. There was nano-thermite in the dust, and to demonstrate how nano-thermite reacts he ignited some to show us what effects it has. If nano-thermite was used to bring down the towers, it wouldn't be covered in dust and debris, so why would he ignite the dust to show us nano-thermites effects?

It is my standard reaction when someone is being disingenuous. Sure you can be wrong about stuff, have a different opinion, but I really do not like it when people start twisting the facts.

Do you know what happened when Jones ignited one of chips from the dust samples? It wasn't anything like that clip you pointed to. The chip didn't even completely burn. And he claims that is the high tech thermite that supposedly took down the buildings (but for some reason did not ignite and ended up in the dust).

Jeez I wish you would have read the thread before posting so I don't have to keep repeating myself. NIST claimed that the metal seen dripping wasn't molten steel, but instead molten aluminum which contained solid inorganic material such as computers, carpeting, desks, and so on to give it the orange glow. As is typical with NIST they provided no experimental confirmation to back up their claims but instead half-assed an explanation and called it a day. However independent experimentation proved their theory to be very, very wrong. Videos are at the bottom of the page. Also check out this post to see molten aluminum vs. molten steel compared to the metal seen dripping from the tower. What do you think it more closely resembles: steel or aluminum?

Those are bad experiments. I want to see what aluminum looks like when it falls, not when it comes in contact with a giant heat sink. In this clip the liquid aluminum looks pretty much glowing yellow.

Yeah, peer-reviewed junk science published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. It seems that any published work that goes against the official story is junk science to you, regardless of the journal: Journal of Engineering Mechanics-- junk science. Journal of 9/11 Studies-- junk science. Open Chemical Physics Journal-- junk science.

Do some research. Someone tried to get a gibberish paper published in their journal and he succeeded. It is a pay to publish journal. Jones paper was never peer reviewed by experts in the field.

Surely you wouldn't lie to avoid having to admit how wrong you were, right?

Nope, I do not like lying or twisting facts, that is why I admit I made a mistake.

Oh, then what do you think about these 1500+ engineers or architects opinions?

Being an engineer or architect is no guarantee that you are right. It does make your opinion more relevant however.

And once again you provide no evidence to back up your claims, you just say things.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if "you want other people to take your opinion seriously", you have to back up what you say with evidence. Again, what about the Journal of Engineering Mechanics is to not be taken seriously? Since a truther is affiliated with it, it's garbage? What about the Open Chemical Physics Journal? Also trash?

Do some research yourself, I don't feel like spelling it all out for you. I gave you pointers, now do your homework.

Oh so in that case the main paper that NIST used to back their theory is basically a POS? Bazant has been proven wrong by several people, both in that "junk science" journal as well as the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Bazant is wrong. It's not just the model itself that's addressed, many other elements of his paper are pulled apart at the seams in those papers that I posted. But of course you won't read them because it's all blasphemous junk science that proves Bazant to be wrong, but by proving the official story wrong that actually makes them wrong, right?

Again, do some research. This topic is too big to just do it on the side in this topic.

Then post the "debunks"! Why do you make me do all the work? I not only have to find the evidence that backs up my side of the story, but am I supposed to assume both sides of the argument and find evidence to back up what you're saying? No way dude! Just post whatever evidence you have to back up what you're saying, don't just say there's evidence and then bail.

Why I make you do all the work? Because I assume you are eager to find out the truth? If I post you one of those debunks, it is just a Google result I get. You can do that yourself also. A good place to start though is the randi forum

Where have you been this whole thread, I'm the reigning champ! Look through all the posts and see who left the discussion first: me or the truth-debunkers. See who brought the most evidence, facts, witness testimonies, and so on. I bring the heat, just like nano-thermite.

Also, since you seem so sure of yourself, why don't you go through our discussion, and compile a list of your evidence vs. my evidence, so we can see who backs up what they say, and who just says things.

I am afraid most people just stop caring at some point. I am not going to compile a list of evidence.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Wow, I saw the most convincing video today on 9 11 and the weaponry they used to hit the towers. You have to check it out, it is absolutely stunning. It's on YouTube, the poster's User Name is redrik09. Definitely take a look. I have seen so much evidence already, no need to convince me, but this one was the cherry on top of the crap sundae when it comes to this mass murder story, for sure.

Oh, and the most amazing photo I ever saw, if it was true, was one of a missile that was shaped like the body of an American Airlines jet, although not to scale, windows painted on it, etc., but it didn't have the wings or anything, just a body shape and decals, etc. It was being loaded on or off a plane by some military personnel. It was shown during a video with audio of an ex-military person speaking about a lot of government things he knew of, may have been on the main topic of mind control, can't remember (false flag events, included) and he said that was what was used to hit the towers, I think. Not sure of that, but it was interesting to see the photo.

reply to post by saintinwaiting

You mean this pic?

If so, that's a weel known hoax. The real image looks like this:

Originally posted by TupacShakur

The top section not experiencing a momentary deceleration when it makes contact is impossible.

It did.

FYI - Truthers have found these jolts in the paper/data. But the authors are either too inept or have lied to you when they state that their data doesn't show jolts.

Read this truthy thread and learn how you've been lied to:

the911forum.freeforums.org...

Tupac, I've been away for several days and have just now finished catching up with this thread. I've not seen an ass-whooping put on anybody like you did to these guys, since Ali fought Chuck Wepner. They have now dug themselves a hole so deep, and they look so pathetic in their attempts at real intellectual debate, that my hopes for progress are brighter than ever. Thanks for your efforts,you are truly a superstar.

Originally posted by Sinny
I must be honest I didnt read all you post, But thats because I believe your story to be true anyways..S&F for keeping the truth alive....

I Have a question if you lot dont mind sharing your opinions on this... Do you think that here in England our 7/7 bombing may have also been a false flag attack?

7th July London Bombings

Im a bit rusty on my facts, but I think there was also some confusion with who ever was supposed to respond to this incident as they were also running training simulations in the area and in these simulations they were responding to bomb attacks.

Quite scary if it was a false flag, I hate beeing an American ally, That country will drag us down with it.

A lifelong friend of mine is a manager for London Transport and on the day of the bombings he told me that the bus that exploded was the ONLY bus to be diverted on that particular route that day - THE ONLY ONE. Normally if London bus routes are diverted then EVERY bus on that route follows the diversion not just one. I find this very suspicious and I personally believe that Tony Blair and others knew about these 'attacks' in advance.

A new documentary

War by deception, dismantling the hidden American enemy's

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by -PLB-

You can see part of the core toppling over, another part collapses down. Can you explain how this in anyway points in the direction of explosives? The explosives did not take out the core during collapse, that is for sure.

That spire is nowhere close to the entire core. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a17e711f4250.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/62624187034a.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47b7dd5c8b1f.jpg[/atsimg] See how in the first spire photo there are two visible columns that look like stacked up boxes? Look in the construction photo, they match up with the two of the four corners. From that picture it looks like those two remaining corner-columns are the two on the short side of the rectangular core. And compared to WTC7 it appear to be 50-55 stories high, which is about half of the 110 story building.
Check this video out, watch the spire collapse several times. Notice how in comparison to the building on the right, it tilts towards it before falling down? Since in controlled demolitions the cutter charges are angled so that the building falls in such a way, maybe this tilting is from the cut being made which takes a few seconds. Also the dust cloud would block out the light from a cut being made, sort of like how the center of the Milky Way Galaxy is blocked off because we can't see through the dust.

Do you think the explosives went off too late? If so, how come the building still collapsed? And where is the evidence of detonations? The core is pretty much completely exposed, yet we see absolutely nothing that looks like explosives going off. (explosives include any type of termite, its just unpractical to typing that all the time).

I wouldn't say that the explosives went off too late, but maybe some of the explosives. But thanks for bringing this spire up, nobody else has mentioned it throughout the thread and it definitely makes me rethink the theory of a controlled demolition.

It is my standard reaction when someone is being disingenuous. Sure you can be wrong about stuff, have a different opinion, but I really do not like it when people start twisting the facts.

Nobody is twisting anything except you, don't get your panties in a bunch over nothing dude.

Do you know what happened when Jones ignited one of chips from the dust samples? It wasn't anything like that clip you pointed to. The chip didn't even completely burn. And he claims that is the high tech thermite that supposedly took down the buildings (but for some reason did not ignite and ended up in the dust).

There you go again saying something with no evidence to back it up. Post the video or the images of him igniting one of the chips from the sample, don't just say it happened and expect me to believe it with no evidence.

Those are bad experiments. I want to see what aluminum looks like when it falls, not when it comes in contact with a giant heat sink. In this clip the liquid aluminum looks pretty much glowing yellow.

OK so we have one video of molten aluminum that glows yellowish, and five or six others that show it as silver in a molten state. Molten steel is bright orange in every video. Plus try to find a picture of an airplane crash where it's aluminum frame turned entirely molten.

Do some research. Someone tried to get a gibberish paper published in their journal and he succeeded. It is a pay to publish journal. Jones paper was never peer reviewed by experts in the field.

No don't just say "do some research", that's your job. You are supposed to do the research and post what you find in here, don't make me do it for you. Saying it was never peer reviewed by any experts is a colossal lie. Steven Jones has a message for those who doubt that his paper was peer reviewed, check it out. Here's a little teaser:

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

Being an engineer or architect is no guarantee that you are right. It does make your opinion more relevant however.

Then it looks like we have quite the large group of relevantly opiniated experts who all say the official story is a lie.

Do some research yourself, I don't feel like spelling it all out for you. I gave you pointers, now do your homework.

No dude if you're not going to back up what you say the don't even say it. I take the time to find evidence to back up what I say, so I'm not going to take even more time to find evidence backing up your side of the argument, that is stupid.

Again, do some research. This topic is too big to just do it on the side in this topic.

Again, I did my research, you did not. It's your job to do the research and show it to all of us.

Why I make you do all the work? Because I assume you are eager to find out the truth? If I post you one of those debunks, it is just a Google result I get. You can do that yourself also. A good place to start though is the randi forum.

Great, so how about you copy and paste some of your google results. If you think a good place to start is the randi forum, get to it! What are you waiting for? Check that forum out, find what you are looking for to back up what you are saying, and post it here.

I am afraid most people just stop caring at some point. I am not going to compile a list of evidence.

You'll be one of those people soon enough.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by OMsk3ptic

 

Not really. When a very experienced person says something, it's not as likely to be correct as when an entire university's worth of experienced people say the opposite. One experienced person doesn't make it right. A consensus of experienced people does.

edit on 24-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

What a load of dingo's kidneys!
So a group of experienced firemen who have, like, experience in stuff that burns, all agree that there was molten steel running down the street, are less likely to be right than a bunch of proffessors sitting in their comfortable offices 200 miles away?
In my experience as an engineer, it's the man on the ground who is usually right in his first asessment,
and the people upstairs haven't got a clue

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I wouldn't say that the explosives went off too late, but maybe some of the explosives. But thanks for bringing this spire up, nobody else has mentioned it throughout the thread and it definitely makes me rethink the theory of a controlled demolition.

So you are saying that core columns are still standing because explosives did not do their job (in time) and then all in a sudden the explosives did do their job without showing any effect (blast, thermite burn). That makes no sense. By far the most logical explanation for the fact that a large part of the core was still standing is that those columns were not compromised during (main) collapse, and the complete lack of both visual of audible evidence for any kind of explosive charge proves they were not compromised in a later stage. I don't see how this in any way points to explosives.

Nobody is twisting anything except you, don't get your panties in a bunch over nothing dude.

You were implying that video showed the ignition of a WTC dust sample. If that is not twisting the facts then what is?

There you go again saying something with no evidence to back it up. Post the video or the images of him igniting one of the chips from the sample, don't just say it happened and expect me to believe it with no evidence.

So you did not even read his paper. What can I say really? What use is it to discuss this with someone who doesn't know the subject?

OK so we have one video of molten aluminum that glows yellowish, and five or six others that show it as silver in a molten state. Molten steel is bright orange in every video. Plus try to find a picture of an airplane crash where it's aluminum frame turned entirely molten.

Are you basing your opinion on the amount of Youtube videos supporting each position? A very simple reason why there are not much videos showing aluminum bright orange is because there is totally no practical use for heating it to such temperatures.

No don't just say "do some research", that's your job. You are supposed to do the research and post what you find in here, don't make me do it for you. Saying it was never peer reviewed by any experts is a colossal lie. Steven Jones has a message for those who doubt that his paper was peer reviewed, check it out. Here's a little teaser: A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

The facts point out it was never peer reviewed. In fact, a couple of editors resigned from that journal because it made such a joke out of it. I am not going to post all the sources because they are very easy to find. Remain ignorant or do some proper research (Jones is not a good source), it is your choice.

Then it looks like we have quite the large group of relevantly opiniated experts who all say the official story is a lie.

It is completely dwarfed by the group that supports it.

No dude if you're not going to back up what you say the don't even say it. I take the time to find evidence to back up what I say, so I'm not going to take even more time to find evidence backing up your side of the argument, that is stupid.

Again, I did my research, you did not. It's your job to do the research and show it to all of us.

Great, so how about you copy and paste some of your google results. If you think a good place to start is the randi forum, get to it! What are you waiting for? Check that forum out, find what you are looking for to back up what you are saying, and post it here.

If you are not interested in the truth, by all means, don't do research yourself. Keep visiting conspiracy sites and keep watching Youtube videos .

You'll be one of those people soon enough.

Probably. You are not really coming with anything new that we haven't seen yet. Your responses are not really refreshing either. They contain the standard ridicule that truther deem required and they demonstrate you haven't done your homework.

reply to post by playswithmachines


Well you exchanged straws there to further your talking point. Molten steel was seen, and it has been explained by the ability for thermite to be produced in a jet fuel fire with the elements within the building.

What I was talking about in that context was one person, or a few person's opinions versus a much wider and diverse range of experienced people.

And yes, those firefighters would be wrong in my experience with dealing with people Trauma changed memory. This is a proven fact.

Field experience is only as good as it gets you. What you learn in repeatable provable experiments is what really counts.

reply to post by -PLB-

So you are saying that core columns are still standing because explosives did not do their job (in time) and then all in a sudden the explosives did do their job without showing any effect (blast, thermite burn). That makes no sense. By far the most logical explanation for the fact that a large part of the core was still standing is that those columns were not compromised during (main) collapse, and the complete lack of both visual of audible evidence for any kind of explosive charge proves they were not compromised in a later stage. I don't see how this in any way points to explosives.

You're right that's why I said it definitely makes me re-think the controlled demolition scenario in the last post.

You were implying that video showed the ignition of a WTC dust sample. If that is not twisting the facts then what is?

We're just going around in circles here. I keep saying that the video was to show the effects that nano-thermite has when ignited, and you keep saying I'm being misleading and twisting the facts. If you want to think that I was attempting to pull some crafty switcheroo where I would post a video of nano-thermite igniting in the hopes of convincing a few people that he was igniting a sample of dust which would be substantial enough to turn several people into truthers, forming some coalition of lunatics who go around twisting facts, then go ahead and think that.

So you did not even read his paper. What can I say really? What use is it to discuss this with someone who doesn't know the subject?

I have other stuff going on, I can't spend all day reading several entire papers from scientific journals. I'll probably get around to finishing all of them sometime this week though. What can you say? How about you say where you are getting your information from?

Are you basing your opinion on the amount of Youtube videos supporting each position? A very simple reason why there are not much videos showing aluminum bright orange is because there is totally no practical use for heating it to such temperatures.

Not the amount, but the ratio. 100% of the molten steel videos and images that I've seen have shown it to be a uniform, bright orange color. Only one of the videos that I've seen of molten aluminum shows it to have an orange color. Plus you didn't answer my question, can you find me some airplane crash pictures where the burning jet fuel turned the aluminum frame completely molten?

The facts point out it was never peer reviewed. In fact, a couple of editors resigned from that journal because it made such a joke out of it. I am not going to post all the sources because they are very easy to find. Remain ignorant or do some proper research (Jones is not a good source), it is your choice.

The facts? No your false opinion points out that it was never peer reviewed, I just showed you that it indeed was peer reviewed. You're just bashing Steven Jones simply because you disagree with the claims made in his work. He said it himself in that paper directed towards people like you who doubt the validity of his work and the peer reviewing process:

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals...then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?

You don't try to debunk the science behind his paper, you just attack his credibility by making fun of his religion and bashing the journal that he published in. "I am not going to post all the sources because they are very easy to find", do you post any evidence to back up what you say? If it's so easy to find, take 10 seconds to do a Google search and post the links in here!

It is completely dwarfed by the group that supports it.

Ah and where exactly is the website of this group of engineers, physicists, architects, and so on that support the official story? Surely such a massive group that strongly supports the science behind the official story would have some organization to affiliate themselves with, right? Or since there are only a couple thousand that have joined that 9/11 Patriots organization, do you assume that everyone else who didn't join it disagrees with them?

If you are not interested in the truth, by all means, don't do research yourself. Keep visiting conspiracy sites and keep watching Youtube videos .

So instead of providing me with the evidence to enlighten me with "the truth", you just attack where I get my information from. My "conspiracy sites" and "YouTube videos" that I use as evidence to back up what I say is much better than your opinion and complete lack of evidence to back up anything you say.

Probably. You are not really coming with anything new that we haven't seen yet. Your responses are not really refreshing either. They contain the standard ridicule that truther deem required and they demonstrate you haven't done your homework.

"Standard ridicule"-- In the last paragraph of yours you said this: "Keep visiting conspiracy sights and keep watching YouTube videos". To me that sounds like ridicule. A few facepalm pictures and multiple requests for you to back up what you say with facts and evidence is not at all ridicule. See all that evidence I include in my posts? That's my "homework".

Back up what you say with evidence, that's all I'm asking. You say the truth is out there and it's easy to find, so find it, post it here, and provide us with the truth. You've spent the past couple of days discussing this, but you won't spend 15 seconds to do a Google search and find the information that you claim is so easy to find.