AE911 Engineer does for Free what NIST (Feds) couldn't do with Millions

reply to post by NightVision


Well if you had read I was referring to the above video that I saw when I logged into this thread, you see you got offended by my reply and then you took it upon yourself to reply back to me. Although I'm still trying to figure out why and after that I simply responded back to you. I should let you in on a little something I surf the net a lot and read up on current affairs quite often. I'm superb at reading between the lines and I usually since bullcrap a mile away. Translation your response got a valid reply!

reply to post by NightVision


Yea send it to the NIST, matter of fact find our previous presidents address and send it directly to him, oh yea make sure you foward copy to the pentagon and whatever you do be sure to let me know how that works out for you

Originally posted by jayde

I should let you in on a little something I surf the net a lot and read up on current affairs quite often.

That's great. Thanks for letting me in on that. When you're ready to create posts that make sense, you let us all know.


Best,

NV

reply to post by GenRadek


Thats 700 gallons fuel per a couple of feet of beam where's all the gazillion gallons it would have taken to match that ratio to the beams in the buildings? especially the beams lower down that weren't anywhere near the fire.

also when I said on an other thread that there was freefall speed in the fall, Hooper has answered that there wasn't, he never did prove his rebutal there or here, as the proof of that velocity was posted on this thread



[edit on 19-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Danbones]

Originally posted by jeddun
reply to post by NightVision

 

Most just don't buy the theories that's all...there is no proof to substantiate ANY of these claims...has nothing to do with not facing any demons or coming to terms with a wicked government...

as I posted on the jones thread credible polsters have found currently 16 percent of the american population believe the OS.
again you speak without facts.

reply to post by Danbones


As I've told you before, anybody can run the simulations on a decent computer.

I suppose I must post the simulations once more for those who forget so easily.

You can have a free fall from a minor infraction of a module structure. The WTC was modulated. And with a bit of heat and push, you get free fall.


The fires and materials were sufficient to provide free sulfer to create natural thermite-like materials.

www.ehow.com...

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Gorman91]

WTC 1 falling into its own footprint? Ok, maybe. WTC 2 THEN falling into its own footprint? Not bloody likely, but what the heck, we'll give it a "1-in-trillions odds". WTC 7 falling into its own footprint? With only light damage from 1 & 2 and a small fire on the upper floors? NEVER will I believe that was anything less than human intervention.

Originally posted by Quaght
WTC 1 falling into its own footprint? Ok, maybe. WTC 2 THEN falling into its own footprint? Not bloody likely, but what the heck, we'll give it a "1-in-trillions odds". WTC 7 falling into its own footprint?

Except none of the buildings fell into their own foorprint....

just another truther lie!

Is this video from the same person, a teacher, who forced the NIST to revise their revisions on WT7 to include a freefall "experience"? I think he should be taken seriously since he has been taken seriously by the $10,000,000 men. What he is saying is that a "natural" thermate reaction could not have occurred under the circumstances, he actually kept lobbing stuff on, something that did not occur on 9/11, especially the the role of jet fuel which all parties agreed was mostly burnt off in the initial fireball.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by smurfy]

reply to post by Gorman91

Gorman, that was on a par with the computer simulation of the kennedy bullet on ABC...the single bullet that did the U-turn in mid air.
that is a simulation of un connected blocks...?

NIST left out the whole Fall as stated in the OP...
your sim leaves out the TIED STEEL!
or did I just miss seeing some rivets?

reply to post by smurfy

What he is saying is that a "natural" thermate reaction could not have occurred under the circumstances

That was the point of my pg 1 observation...even when people stand all day and POUR the diesel fuel on a scrapmetal/wood fire pile, there is no thermite holes in the steel
only oxidation
and I have pulled a lot of copper in the scarp yard.
Anyone who wants to know just has to phone a scrap yard that processes copper from burnt motors.
or check any similarly burnt steel frame building, lord knows there are enough of them.





[edit on 19-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by Danbones


And as you noticed the blocks had some minute errors in how they were. If they were connected, they would act the same way as the wtc.

The fact remains that these unconnected blocks pushed each other down and fell in the same manner as the wtc. If you dropped a few hundred tons on the top of the towers from that gaping whole, not much going to stop it. I'm sorry to tell you but the simulation proves you wrong.

The Keneddy what not I could hardly care about because a bullet is not a building and to compare the two is nothing short of a strawman fallacy.


But hey, let's try the same structure!

Oh, same story. Sorry, the simulation proves that the structures could very well fall into their footprints.


Hell, you even get those little spews that people say are proof of charges!








So you see, the fires are enough to create the materials for thermite and other nasties. The physics show that falling into the footprint is possible, and if they were connected, they would fall level for level.


The fact is anybody can run these simulations these days.

Thank God for the free spread of information and user access to technology. It destroys these silly fallacies. Best of all, if you don't believe it, you can spend $50 and try it yourself. Oh the wonders of the 21st century.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by smurfy

 

What he is saying is that a "natural" thermate reaction could not have occurred under the circumstances

That was the point of my pg 1 observation...even when people stand all day and POUR the diesel fuel on a scrapmetal/wood fire pile, there is no thermite holes in the steel
only oxidation
and I have pulled a lot of copper in the scarp yard.
Anyone who wants to know just has to phone a scrap yard that processes copper from burnt motors.
or check any similarly burnt steel frame building, lord knows there are enough of them.

Hi Dan,
Your posts add some much lacked wisdom. As I see it so far, the teachers video is also still in the mode of asking questions about some other factor as yet undetermined, but still the end result causing a Thermate reaction. as regards 9/11.

People forget all the things the fire had to go through to get to the steel.Like the fireproofing,walls,carpet,CEMENT,office items.The fireproofing wasn't knocked off by the impact.How do I know?That stuff sticks really good you would have to

I don't think the experiment shown can be considered proof though.The only way to be able to show a proper experiment would be to build a tower exactly the same as the old ones,and let them stand for about 20 years then crash a 757 into it.

But you don't need to do that to prove that they're lying about a controlled demo.All the proof is out there.It's just even if they are charged,you're not going to win in the court room against the government...nope.Not only that but,It's career suicide.

reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX


The fireproofing was mad weak and yes, the impact would wipe it off. How do I know? Because when something goes kaboom and the shock wave pushes off perfectly good stickers the same rule applies.

And the walls and carpets would burn and add to the fire, not to mention the walls and flame are sufficient enough to create thermite naturally.

reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX


Please take the time to read the following link in it's entirety if you truly want to know what kind of shape the towers were in before 9/11 .

You said the fireproofing sticks really well . That statement is why I am posting this link .

You will be surprised to find how well the fireproofing DID NOT stick , if you take the time to read this .

The fireproofing was already failing to adhere to the steel even DURING CONSTRUCTION .

So yes , I firmly believe the impacts most likely caused TONS of it to be dislocated .

Please read , it will shed some light on the shoddy construction methods employed during the construction of the towers .

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by ShadowRamesses


" There were many beams cut in angles . "

Those cuts were made during the clean-up process . Here is a picture of an iron-worker making one of those cuts .

This particular theory definitely needs to be put to rest as there is nothing sinister about those cuts .

sites.google.com...

Originally posted by smurfy
Is this video from the same person, a teacher, who forced the NIST to revise their revisions on WT7 to include a freefall "experience"? I think he should be taken seriously since he has been taken seriously by the $10,000,000 men. What he is saying is that a "natural" thermate reaction could not have occurred under the circumstances, he actually kept lobbing stuff on, something that did not occur on 9/11, especially the the role of jet fuel which all parties agreed was mostly burnt off in the initial fireball.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by smurfy]

No, that was David Chandler.
www.youtube.com...

We need more people to do experiments like this. It proves that this is not just some conspiracy "theory", but that it's backed by science & physics.

national geografic, these are the boys, whose job it is to make the liars official version ´popular scientific´ reasonable ..

ok, the video from national geografic only shows an single, unbound piece of metal, which is not connected to any other beam. and under a temperature that wasnt reached in the WTC, because most of the fuel exploded on the SURFACE of the building while impact. ( not to mention WTC 7 )

dont get brainf****d.

and, yes, thermite was used.

Yes, the tv pictures were manipulated.

Yes, the are military OPs with trillion Dollar black budgets , and who knows what weapons ´we´(better THEY) already have. and ´tested´ on civil persons in the iraq war..
laser weapons, direct energy weapons, hologram

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


and Yes, here are ´disinfo´posters who disturb .


[edit on 20-8-2010 by anti72]

I'd say a lot of 9/11 is fishy and still smells rotten. So maybe I could be considered in with the conspiracy nutters on this subject. But I still won't go as far as pushing it towards the more wild edges...

Some people go with one exotic thing or another to help bring the buildings down. The pre-prep with thermate the guy suggests in the video is good enough. You don't need too much in the way of energy beams, nukes, or more exotic stuff. You create a large class-D fire, in which an oxidation reaction pretty much becomes self sustaining (adding water at this point only makes it worse btw). Then when enough metal is hot enough to lose rigidity, you blow a few shaped charges and it goes like a stack of cards.

The only drawback the guy had while making his point with the video, is that he should have had the girder under load for the duration of the entire experiment. That would help reflect conditions present when the beam is used as a structural member. Still I think that even loaded, the demonstration may have produced very similar results.

Despite the execution... I think the biggest part of 9/11 that stinks to high hell is the motives:

1. If you're going to look anywhere for a huge paper trail that could have revealed some really dirty financial dealings, that's the spot. Stuff that'd make the Enron fiasco look like a day with Tickle-me-Elmo. Where else could thousands and thousands of such records be kept? It's the WTO buildings after-all!

2. A particular mercenary group with strong past ties to a particular U.S. 3-letter agency needed a way to market themselves and become famous. (Or become rather infamous, you could say.) They had some previous failings, or perhaps "less spectacular" results and needed some way to drum up the attention. Oh wait? That's Al Quaida?! Aren't they terrorists because some screwed-up fundamentalist cause? That would be nice to think it's the only motivation, but history shows the stronger part of their nature when you follow past money trails. Definitely guns for hire when it comes to funding their outfit and grabbing attention. Who else to grab the eyes of the world so nobody dares looking behind the curtain?

3. What better way for certain key players in the military industrial complex to benefit and profit other than providing the populace desire to go to war? More people should have listened to Ike way back when. Especially when it is possible to direct the conflict to the other side of the world and away from our own shores. Also it's convenient when the MIC people also have a big portion of the dirty paper trail leading back to them erased.

4. Hey the places now involved in conflict not only tie into oil and mineral resources, but also the opium trade. How nice is that? Arms sales and military support services in't quite enough. Maybe Ollie North could step in on Fox and give the history lesson and explain how those side ventures work again.

5. Also how about usurping the rights of people in what was once considered one of the freest nations on this planet? How about a hastily rushed and ambiguously worded law proposed not too soon after a disaster was made to happen? Naw, nobody would think that it was done like that, would they?

I'd say a lot of the existing parties known to be involved are involved, but not in the way everyone is made to think they are. But the problem is that the best evidence went up in smoke, and the remaining folks in the know will not say anything. Some of us conspiracy 'nuts' may see how the pieces can easily fit, but really don't have the public support or concrete evidence to back it up. And the more crazy theories aren't helping. Now if the likes of Julian Assange were to come up with something I'd be amazed, but as things are now I highly doubt that's the case. It's likely that too many people can be bought or threatened and the "War on Terror" files just aren't deep enough.