London Truth Rising - 9th Anniversary of 9/11

Correct sized image

02.09.2010 18:15

see attached

Gareth Newnham
mail e-mail: londontruthaction@gmail.com
Homepage: http://londontruthaction@gmail.com

911 was an outside job

02.09.2010 19:12

Gareth, you are a good guy but we are all bored of this. There is no evidence of an inside job. The 'Truth Movement' is a laughing stock.

anon

Open an shut case

02.09.2010 19:39

Of course matey every one knows it was :
Bin London, inb the cave with the 3D play station.
Arab countries are busy pulling off stunts like this all the time .:.:.

Bloody Right

@anon

Your stupid graphic assumes that GW Bush is the accused and that it has been proved beyond doubt that OB is guilty.

Your patronising arrogance in saying "we are all bored of this" makes me nauseous. You seem to be an apologist for GWB, you have no rational support for your position on 9-11, you are a reactionary, knee jerker

If you are bored then why even bother to read this post never mind think it's worth commenting on?.

The problem for you authoritarian types is that you are arguing against Empirical Science with stupid graphics and hand waving, you're going to have to come up with something a lot better than that. You are a laughing stock.

@Gareth
I hope Gareth will post reports on the events, I'm not bored of all of this despite what my spokes person (self appointed) 'anon' says.

9-11= False Flag.

No_body

Lack of democracy in the UK 9/11 truth movement

02.09.2010 21:27

A long as the UK 9/11 truth movement (Re-investigate 9/11, Truth Action etc) are organised via undemocratic and anti-democratic principles and practices, I cannot (in good conscience) take part in the campaigning and activities of these groups.

We claim there was a cover-up on 9/11 and that the true story has not been told to the public. We claim that a powerful elite hide behind the shadows and manipulate our so-called democracy, economy and public life .... yet as a truth movement we reject open debate and democratic practices, instead preferring organisation and control by tiny clique and the exclusion of those who dare to question the leadership by unproven innuendo and mud slinging.

Dear God! .. you are no better than the people and political practices you are criticising! Why don't you see that the ONLY way you can solve the problems that have plagued 9/11 truth in the UK is by more democracy within the movement rather than by giving up on democracy and giving into the despair of dictatorship by an small clique of insiders?

I will not be associated with a group that is not organised with at least some degree of democracy. I will not be associated with a group that suppresses free speech and open debate within the truth movement (see Tony Gosling's post about the Passing Clouds event this September 11th in this thread:

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=19391 )

crazydave
Homepage: http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=19391

@WTC7 2.25 secs @ free-fall

02.09.2010 22:00

Actually internet-addicted conspiracy theorists put the free fall down as taking 6.5 seconds, not the 2.5 you suggest.

But here is a video showing it is neither:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk&feature=player_embedded

Note the collapse begins at a weakened part of the building most affected by the collapse of one of the twins, that partial collapse then leads to the full collapse of 7.

I know you really want to believe, but it ain't a conspiracy.

Realist

2.25seconds is a load of rubbish

02.09.2010 22:21

It is constantly quoted as 2.25 seconds but never actually checked by troofers.

If they bothered to check themselves rather than just reading it was 2.25seconds then they'd realise there argument is full of it.

sad

debunk

02.09.2010 22:22

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

No conspiracy.

Shills working overtime on this thread dispute Building-7 controlled demolition

03.09.2010 09:59

The difference between 2.5 secs and 7 secs is not a significant point of difference that undermines the obvious fact that this building (Building 7) collapsed in a controlled demolition (those quoting 2.5 secs are creating misinformation - it has been estimated by expert opinion to be around 7 secs). Buildings closer to the twin towers (WTC 5 & 6) remained standing. This building inexplicably not only collapsed in on itself, but it fell on it's own footprint at a freefall speed that can ONLY be explained by controlled demolition. Larry Silverstone - the building owner - let slip the truth when he said in an interview that they made a decision to "pull the building".

The very idea that fires swept through the building and melted the steel metal frame and guirders!!! Even with the case with the twin towers in which the melting of the steel frame has been put down to the seepage of jet fuel, even this could not have occurred in Building 7 since no plane hit Building 7!!!! We are expected to believe a localised fire across several floors of the building weakened the steel frame to such an extent that the entire structure caved in on itself. It is an uninformed non-explanation of a most incredulous degree. Architects of eminent reputation and common sense are of this obvious opinion:

http://www2.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"

Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues: "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" -Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

Bull**** Detector

This is why WTC 7 collapsed

03.09.2010 10:17

This is why WTC 7 collapsed :

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Inside jobbers also cannot explain what happened to the passengers on those hijacked flights. Why relatives of passengers on flight 93 spoke about receiving phone calls from their relatives on that hijacked plane. Why bin laden admitted he planned those attacks etc.

Reality check

Democratic platitudes

03.09.2010 10:24

Crazy Dave said:
"A long as the UK 9/11 truth movement (Re-investigate 9/11, Truth Action etc) are organised via undemocratic and anti-democratic principles and practices, I cannot (in good conscience) take part in the campaigning and activities of these groups." ....& "Dear God! .. you are no better than the people and political practices you are criticising! "

I think Frazzel explained in the 911 Forum posting that the group reinvestigate 911 has had to keep itself a tight knit invite only group because of past problems with holocaust revision/denial stuff that some wanted to mix in with 911 which will of course only serve to discredit us.

You are free to set up your own group and hold democratic elections on who represents it. But I see no recent examples of this occurring in reality amongst activist groups in my experience. Usually, they are dominated by a hierachy of the most-committed. With the 911 issue, this is more likely than any other issue to attract a regular presence of spooks and the spellbound.

Dismiss Re-investigate 9/11 all you want, but you should appreciate that at least we know of one group in the UK less likely to get hijacked than others.

bd

2.25 of FREE-FALL is in NIST's final report

03.09.2010 10:37

The 2.25 seconds of free-fall is in the NIST report.
A copy of the relevant section is posted here.

That is the Empirical fact that WTC7 fell at free-fall for 2.25 seconds.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/12/415719.html

Here's why there's a problem with buildings (which are after-all designed to resist gravity ) collapsing at free-fall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related

As for the debunking web site it doesn't address the period of free-fall during the demolition of WTC7

9-11 = False Flag.

No_body

The Controlled demolition of Building 7 (inside job)

03.09.2010 11:29

Reality check needs to have a sanity check.

He'she quoted

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

The arguments made on this website are total garbage. Your map clearly shows building 6 is in front of Building 7 - so impact from columns falling from the twin tower collapse would have been absorbed by that building. IN ANY CASE, THE VERY EXPLANATION THAT THIS WOULD THE CAUSE OF THE MAIN STEEL COLUMNS IN THE STEEL FRAMEWORK OF BUILDING 7 TO HAVE DETERIORATED RAPIDLY IS BOGUS NONSENSE.

You Shills will have to do alot better than that.

Reality Check also said:
"Inside jobbers also cannot explain what happened to the passengers on those hijacked flights. Why relatives of passengers on flight 93 spoke about receiving phone calls from their relatives on that hijacked plane. Why bin laden admitted he planned those attacks etc."

> you avoid the subject in being unable to explain a contradictory fact through changing the subject completely. Did I even mention flight 93? The subject was the controlled demolition of Building 7, where the CIA office and the Security & exchange Comission has offices, in which there were all the paper file records into the investigations into large-scale fraud at Enron and World Comm - now incinerated into dust.

& Bin Laden is dead anyway and video messages from the great omnipresent bogeyman are completely fictitious.

You need to get a Reality check

Bull**** Detector

Psychological 9/11, the experiment.

03.09.2010 17:52

"Inside jobbers also cannot explain what happened to the passengers on those hijacked flights. Why relatives of passengers on flight 93 spoke about receiving phone calls from their relatives on that hijacked plane. Why bin laden admitted he planned those attacks etc."

All the passengers on the planes died as did a large number of people who couldn't get out of the buildings. The relatives did receive phone calls from the passengers. There is no evidence at all that Bin Laden admitted that he carried out the attacks.

If you think there is, go away, find it, translate it into English and then post it here on Indymedia. We'll wait here while your busy.

Do it now.

As for WTC7!

Only buildings that are felled during controlled explosions fall like that. Buildings that are chaotically and randomly damaged, fall chaotically and randomly. A building which is damaged in one section, experiences structural failure in only that section. The remainder stands until it can't support itself any longer and if it is weak enough, collapses.

Buildings which are on fire in random places and at different intensities, do not suddenly plummet to the ground all at once in just a few seconds. Only a bloody fool would believe this.

WTC7 was obviously felled with explosives. The original article writer, if anything, is guilty of only one thing. Choosing to seek justice by endlessly writing about it, so that armchair fuck-wits are endlessly given the opportunity to endlessly dispute what is obviously the truth.

To be honest with you, you ALL look like shills.

Freud.

fahrenheit 911&BBCs power of nightmares proved bin laden family& Bush link

03.09.2010 19:46

with BinLadens family members being flown out of the USA specially after 911 etc.
The debate on WTC7 & Nanothermite is almost rhetorical, the PNACs& Bush got what they wanted, they loved 911, LOL. Half of New YOrk believes Mossad did most of the demolition that did the damage& that the planes went in as a spectacle.
The proof wether Bush or Bin Laden has 99% been destroyed, but we all know they were complicit & that Bush benefited the most.

Mr B.A. Tonkin

Chortle ...

03.09.2010 20:03

"Buildings which are on fire in random places and at different intensities, do not suddenly plummet to the ground all at once in just a few seconds. Only a bloody fool would believe this."

Well, only a bloody fool and the vast majority of the world's architects and the world's engineers and ... oh, wait - you mean they're in it too?

alka

9/11 and co-conspirators.

03.09.2010 21:00

"Well, only a bloody fool and the vast majority of the world's architects and the world's engineers and ... oh, wait - you mean they're in it too?"

I don't give a flying bats arse what architects with businesses do to make keep on the right side of the establishment to keep the contracts rolling in. Anybody can take part in nepotism. Its piss easy!

Tell me why you think a fire can flatten a skyscraper in just over 6 seconds?

Freud.

How Can Fire Flatten a Building in 6 Seconds?

03.09.2010 21:25

Very easily.

First, the skyscraper depends for its structural integrity on vertical steel members. The loads are distributed through these members. Heat weakens the members, which may already be damaged. One member fails. Its loads are then distributed to the other members, already weakened, and they will collapse catastrophically. Just like a house of cards really.

Ah, and just think - every architect in the world, in China, Russia, Africa, Asia, ah, yes, they all want to keep in with the 'establishment'.

And your expertise in engineering? I'd hazard you don;t even have a GCSE in Science.

alka

alka WTF?

03.09.2010 22:45

@alka

WTC7 fell for 2.25 seconds @ Free-fall

Can a building do that? Very Easily? Considering that the very purpose of a building is to resist gravity and to resist it with a factor of safety at a minimum of 3 times gravity. Remember we're talking 40,000 metric tons of structural steel and concrete, Before you can do any engineering study you have to do the Physics and the Empirical Science. The Empirical Science, Newton's Laws and the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Momentum tell you that free-fall is an impossibility. Why don't you want to acknowledge that?

Your description of the 'house of cards' is at odds with what's seen in the video, WTC7 did not descend like a house of cards. It looked like a controlled demolition.

As for your preposterous assumption that Silence = Agreement with the official yarn, it's beyond stupid, your logic is flawed. Their silence means you don't know what they think.

And for those Architect and Engineers that can't maintain the cognitive dissonance of being told by the lead investigator at NIST that

"a free fall time is an object with NO structural components below it" ( He omits the mass BTW)

and then being told by the same NIST lead investigator that

"it essentially came down in free-fall"

They can sign the petition here

http://www.ae911truth.org/

No_body

The truth!

04.09.2010 00:24

"First, the skyscraper depends for its structural integrity on vertical steel members. The loads are distributed through these members. Heat weakens the members, which may already be damaged. One member fails. Its loads are then distributed to the other members, already weakened, and they will collapse catastrophically. Just like a house of cards really.

Ah, and just think - every architect in the world, in China, Russia, Africa, Asia, ah, yes, they all want to keep in with the 'establishment'."

I'll dismiss the last claim about 'every architect in the world blah blah' as pure uninformed fantasy.

But the first point...

Seems logical at face value but missing from your 'assumption' is one glaring omission. Vertical steel members do not fail as a result of fire. If they did the world would be awash with buildings collapsing as a result of fire damage.

But let's dismiss physics for a moment and assume that vertical girders had failed. In order for the entire building to come down as one connected unit, the weight would have to be perfectly distributed horizontally not vertically. I.e vertical girder fails and the structure immediately above it comes down and is able to pull the rest of the building down with it.

But the horizontal girders are in sections, connected by welds, bolts and joints. Every one of which would snap if tugged at by a collapsing section of the building (tens of thousands of tons).

No, the horizontal girders will not all fail at exactly the same time unless all of the vertical girders fail at exactly the same time.

It is physically impossible for every vertical main beam in a building of that size and structural composition to fail at exactly the same time as each other as a result of a random thing like fire. It doesn't happen and, therefore, hasn't happened.

The supposed idea that the girders were all damaged and being heated by fire caused their failure is also complete nonsense too. They would all need to carry identical degrees of damage and be heated identically to all fail at the same time.

But clearly, as the evidence shows, the entire building from one end to the other and from front to back, collapsed in one unit and fell without interruption. So clearly the building has gone from being supported enough to stand upright, to being completely unsupported and plummeting to the ground. So every upright has failed at exactly the same time.

There is only one way this can be achieved. Explosive charges attached to the upright girders being detonated at exactly the same time.

Please don't assume or try to suggest that I am an idiot simply because I disagree with you. My understanding of very basic physics is clearly more comprehensive than yours.

And also, the next time I ask for an answer to a question, I don't expect half-arsed guesswork. I don't take being blagged very well.

I don't like the idea that this building was deliberately destroyed any more than the next man. But I don't like being fooled either and I especially don't like being told to believe something by somebody who can't see any further than the end of his nose simply because he's got some vendetta going and has a point to prove.

3,500 thousand people were murdered on that day and a great many more have joined them. If there is any suggestion of foul play then we have a right to know.

Anything else is tyranny.

I am a peaceful man but in the face of tyranny, I am prepared to kill.

Freud.

truth

04.09.2010 05:52

been reading some of the posts wont pretend to understand the technical argumeants for and against this being carried out by controlled explosions just seems strange that if people are going to all the trouble of destroying the towers so they can blame the terrorists they would have the ability to do it without it looking like a controlled explosion lets be honest if youre gonna murder thousands of people youre not going to be leaving evidence for people to find

truth??

More Truther Lies

04.09.2010 09:03

Truthers constantly bang on about disinformation yet still spout long debunked lies about WTC 7 collapsing in 6.5 seconds. This is nonsense - it ignores the collapse which started with the penthouse on top of WT7 - the true time of collapse was around 13 seconds - no where near 'freefall speed':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk

Just more truther lies and misinformation

Outside Jobber

big fuckoff yawn

04.09.2010 09:24

You have corporate r n capitalism right in front of your faces and it all says your are weak and stupid.. No conspiracy there just money and propaganda. I don't see you burning down the corporates though you useless idiots. perhaps ther should be a section on Indymedia called timewasters and conspiracy nuts for all the spineless dickheads peddling their mystical garbage.

dan brown cant write for shite

My sponge, it be waterproof!

04.09.2010 10:44

The whole 9/11 truth movement, 9/11 denier movement is a product of the very state we object to.

Shills all over. Just another part of the modern hegemony we are expected to kow-tow to.

If they wanted justice they could simply shoot George Bush dead. Then claim Osama Bin Laden did it.

If that happened nobody would give a shit. In fact the whole world would laugh its arse off and they fucking know it.

The whole 9/11 "movement", truthers and deniers alike is a vanguard. Most of them are clueless.

Anarkalite 47

those magnificent shills and their spinning machine

04.09.2010 14:32

Outside Jobber said: "Truthers constantly bang on about disinformation yet still spout long debunked lies about WTC 7 collapsing in 6.5 seconds. This is nonsense - it ignores the collapse which started with the penthouse on top of WT7 - the true time of collapse was around 13 seconds - no where near 'freefall speed'"

> yeah, because 5 seconds difference makes all the difference. It was 7 seconds in any case.

This credibility of this moronic shill spinning machine is getting shriller by the day....

bullshit detector

Muslim terrorists had plenty of time to plan 9/11

04.09.2010 15:19

What about the bombing of the USS Cole, The bombing American embasies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombings in London, Bali and Madrid? The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre. Were they all inside jobs too?

You people are nuts if you think the US government staged 9./11 and then blamed it on muslim terrorists as muslim terrorism has existed for decades - the first muslim terrorist bombing against the USA was of a US army base in Lebanon in 1983 which killed dozens of US servicemen. The US government did not need to invent an Islamic terror threat, it already existed long before 9/11

Your whacky conspiracy theories don't stand up to close scrutiny. Its time you dropped the inside job claims and realised the Islamic terror threat is real!

http://www.debunking911.com

Reality Check

My understanding of very basic physics is clearly more comprehensive than yours.

04.09.2010 15:42

Bullshit. What qualifications have you got?

twat

Free fall and so on

04.09.2010 16:11

This guy explains it quite well. Note his qualifications.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

alka

Oh dear Oh Dear it's getting really ugly

05.09.2010 01:03

NIST Global Collapse Analysis Model

Here's a still from the NIST model animation of their global collapse analysis (there are two animations only one has buckling where NCSTAR 1A says there should be buckling and this is a still from that animation)

In their report Phase 1 lasts just under a second and a half and the upper section (above floor 14, NCSTAR 1A) falls into the lower section at this time. This is the initiation of Phase 2, 2.25 seconds of free-fall. NIST say the upper section has fallen 2.2 meters during Phase 1, less than 1 floor height.

The green area I've added shows 8 floors 105 feet where 40,000 tons of mass made up of structural steel, concrete etc remain hindering the progress of the upper section. It's clear that there remains significant structure as well as the mass in the path of descent at this point in NIST's global collapse analysis, therefore free-fall is impossible and therefore their global collapse analysis is wrong because it does not fit the Empirical evidence of Free-Fall for 2.25 seconds. The only way that the remaining structure and mass can be got rid of so that the upper block can fall at Free-fall is by additional energy being supplied to destroy remaining structure and shift mass out of the way.

I don't see why you feel the need to say you're 'qualified' in Physics just limit your arguments to the Physics in question and try not to trumpet your qualifications it's an attempt at appealing to Authority.

No_body

oh deary me - niave and ignorrant

05.09.2010 06:40

The area you indicate was heavily damaged by debris from the North tower collapsed, including fires that burned through the afternoon floors 7-13 (which firefights couldnt extingush from low water pressure) and a gash that was 10 stories high.

There was also a big bulge between the 10th and 13th floors.
The report says most likely cause is fires within that region. They been burning for about 7 hours!
So forgive me for believe that that much fire would cause major structural damage.
Metal loses its strength, concrete melts. Its not exactally rocket science.

Regardless, does it really matter?
I don't see how WTC7 explains anything about the two main towers collapsing.
It explains nothing about how 2 x 110 story towers collapsed after being hit by planes loaded with jet fuel at 450 miles an hour by terrorists.

twat

Free fall and so on

05.09.2010 08:46

Since you can't be bothered to follow the arguments in the link I gave you, let me put it as simply as I can.

Collapse begins at whatever floor. The building starts to fall and hits the floor below. The dynamic shock is far beyond any static load the building is designed to bear. The shock wave will propagate down the structure at the local speed of sound (around 6000m/s in the case of steel). This shock wave will cause other structural members to fail, and typically you would see large chunks of material being thrown outwards as a consequence (which we do). This shock wave will have destroyed the structural integrity of the building, which is why there will be a period when there is very little resistance.

Your error is in assuming that each individual floor has to be demolished one at a time. Think of a pane of glass. Hit one end, and almost instantaneously the glass shatters into pieces. Instead of the glass, think of the building. It is hit by a severe block in the initial collapse, and fragments rather as the glass does.

The green area you have highlighted will have lost its structural integrity long before the upper floors reach it.

alka

Re: The Controlled demolition of Building 7 (inside job)

05.09.2010 10:23

Alka, the website you quote (

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM ) says nothing to dispute the explanation that Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, and of course the rational that the steel structures were melted by ultra-hot burning jet fuel did not apply to WTC-7. No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire.

The appropriately-named Twat says: “forgive me for believe that that much fire would cause major structural damage. Metal loses its strength, concrete melts.”

These office fires were not enough to heat a column weighing 15,000 pounds per floor to anywhere near 537.7° c – the melting temperature of steel, in other words, to significantly weaken the metal structure of the building to an extent that it collapsed on it’s own footprint. I concur with remarks Freud made in this comment thread earlier when he/she said: “Only buildings that are felled during controlled explosions fall like that. Buildings that are chaotically and randomly damaged, fall chaotically and randomly. A building which is damaged in one section, experiences structural failure in only that section. The remainder stands until it can't support itself any longer and if it is weak enough, collapses”, and “It is physically impossible for every vertical main beam in a building of that size and structural composition to fail at exactly the same time as each other as a result of a random thing like fire. It doesn't happen and, therefore, hasn't happened.”

As I quoted before, architects of eminent reputation and common sense are of this obvious opinion:

http://www2.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php

Twat also asked: “Regardless, does it really matter?”

A CIA office and the HQ of the Security & Exchanges Commission were located in Building 7. In regard to the latter, all the paper file records related to the investigations into large-scale fraud at Enron and World Comm was stored - now incinerated into dust.

As Freud also said earlier “3,500 thousand people were murdered on that day and a great many more have joined them. If there is any suggestion of foul play then we have a right to know.”

Bullshit Detector

Re: The Controlled demolition of Building 7 (inside job)

05.09.2010 10:37

a section of text from my last comment went missing on. here is my previous comment hopefully in full now:

Alka, the website you quote ( >

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM>> These office fires were not enough to heat a column weighing 15,000 pounds per floor to anywhere near 537.7° c – the melting temperature of steel, in other words, to significantly weaken the metal structure of the building to an extent that it collapsed on it’s own footprint. I concur with remarks Freud made in this comment thread earlier when he/she said: “Only buildings that are felled during controlled explosions fall like that. Buildings that are chaotically and randomly damaged, fall chaotically and randomly. A building which is damaged in one section, experiences structural failure in only that section. The remainder stands until it can't support itself any longer and if it is weak enough, collapses”, and “It is physically impossible for every vertical main beam in a building of that size and structural composition to fail at exactly the same time as each other as a result of a random thing like fire. It doesn't happen and, therefore, hasn't happened.”

As I quoted before, architects of eminent reputation and common sense are of this obvious opinion:

http://www2.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php

Twat also asked: “Regardless, does it really matter?”

>>> A CIA office and the HQ of the Security & Exchanges Commission were located in Building 7. In regard to the latter, all the paper file records related to the investigations into large-scale fraud at Enron and World Comm was stored - now incinerated into dust.

As Freud also said earlier “3,500 thousand people were murdered on that day and a great many more have joined them. If there is any suggestion of foul play then we have a right to know.”

Bullshit Detector

Sorry, bullshit, you're talking bullshit

05.09.2010 10:45

1. Steel doesn't melt at 537C.

2. You don't have get anywhere near the melting point for the steel to become significantly weakened.

3. How the building collapsed is exactly how any engineer or architect would expect it to collapse. It's held up by vertical steel frames. They are weakened to the point where one fails. The loads are redistributed to the others; they are overloaded; they fail too. Collapse now begins.
This is not a conventional brick structure. This is a steel frame building. Its mode of collapse will be very different. And in the absence of any sideways forces it will collapse vertically.

alka

Re. the controlled demolition of Building-7 (inside job)

05.09.2010 11:03

hopefully the Indymedia moderators can publish my last comment in full (I have emailed the mods list).

By chance a 3rd party does not intercept it a 3rd time, here it is again (obviously the preivious poster 'Twat' doesn't like me saying his name is appropriately titled):

Alka, the website you quote ( >

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM A CIA office and the HQ of the Security & Exchanges Commission were located in Building 7. In regard to the latter, all the paper file records related to the investigations into large-scale fraud at Enron and World Comm was stored - now incinerated into dust.

As Freud also said earlier “3,500 thousand people were murdered on that day and a great many more have joined them. If there is any suggestion of foul play then we have a right to know.”

Bullshit Detector

No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire.

05.09.2010 11:39

Alka, the website you quote (

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM>> The problem with your argument is that the nature of the building collapse was completely uniform throughout at freefall speed. The first column that failed would first lead to a building collapsing at the end of it's structure which is weakest - it would not fall perfectly symmetrically as it did. Your explanation of loads redistributed to the others is highly unlikely to have happened in such a precise and exact way so as to have resulted in a perfectly symmetrical collapse of the building at freefall speed on it's own footprint. I note you are not saying that the steel weakened at exactly the same rate in all the steel columns at a critical level which would be explainable, though highly, highly inlikely (a uniform fire).

Your explanation of loads redistributed to the others is highly unlikely to have happened in such a precise and exact way so as to have resulted in a perfectly symmetrical collapse of the building at freefall speed on it's own footprint.

Bullshit Detector

Give me your mind, I want a war.

05.09.2010 11:52

"You people are nuts if you think the US government staged 9./11 and then blamed it on muslim terrorists as muslim terrorism has existed for decades - the first muslim terrorist bombing against the USA was of a US army base in Lebanon in 1983 which killed dozens of US servicemen. The US government did not need to invent an Islamic terror threat, it already existed long before 9/11"

Nuts you say!

Of course throughout this terrorism planes have been flying into buildings haven't they! Muslims have always done this!

You are demanding (and it is a demand, not a request) that we accept history as a dictation of the present.

I would imagine that the architects of 9/11 had this at the forefront of their planning too.

You are dependable, I'll give you that!

Odd too, to see the politics of the War on Terror played out in the comments section of this story. Lots of people trying to convince each other that what is happening isn't happening.

WTC7 collapsed because it was blown up. No amount of arguing is ever going to change this simple and very obvious fact. There were two hijackings on September 11th 2001. One involving planes, buildings and terror writ large across the world, and another more insipid, hijacking of our minds.

If there has always been Islamic terrorism in the world, It has always gone hand in hand with a psychological terrorism...the war for our minds.

Mantesini

bullshit

05.09.2010 12:20

Well, let me put it this way. The vast majority of the world's architects and engineers are happy with that explanation. You are not. Frankly, I know who I go along with. The fact you can't or don't understand what's happening is your problem, not ours.

And it was NOT 'completely uniform throughout at freefall speed'. It certainly was not completely uniform.

Watch a video of a controlled demolition [as opposed to an uncontrolled one!]. I will lay you a large sum of money that the building will fall at close to 'free fall'.

alka

Defending the state!

05.09.2010 14:50

"Watch a video of a controlled demolition [as opposed to an uncontrolled one!]. I will lay you a large sum of money that the building will fall at close to 'free fall'."

Buildings that collapse due to being damaged partially fall in complete chaos with weak sections falling randomly. It tends to be chaotic, random & one hell of a mess leaving that which isn't weak enough to collapse standing upright. So you are left with gaping holes in the buildings where you can see into the exposed ruin. Anybody that has seen a building on fire will tell you that it can takes hours for all of it to reach the ground as dust. Large chunks break off, walls cave outward, bits and sections fall apart. All of this happens randomly over time.

Buildings that collapse in controlled demolitions plummet as one unit straight down to the ground because that is what a controlled demolition is designed to achieve.

WTC7 didn't collapse randomly in a mess over time, part of it wasn't left standing, no rump or ruin was left.

It went straight to the floor in a vertical downward line all together at exactly the same time. Each of the floors remained parallel with each other until they hit the ground.

At the very last moment, the left quarter section of the building breaks as one mass away from the centre section, as the building split into two sections. Odd that it should have the structural integrity and solidity to do this given that it was weakened enough to collapse!

What part of what your eyes are telling you can't you see?

Freud.

How to miss the obvious

05.09.2010 15:23

The type of building you are describing has a fundamentally different mode of construction from a skyscraper. You're talking about the conventional kind of structure where the walls and floors are part of the load bearing system. To make the point: A SKYSCRAPER IS NOT LIKE THAT.

The loads are spread between vertical steel posts. The walls and floors have no structural function whatsoever.

Go and learn a little bit about elementary architecture and engineering. Then you might be able to understand what's going on.

alka

The house that nonsense built!

05.09.2010 16:14

"The type of building you are describing has a fundamentally different mode of construction from a skyscraper. You're talking about the conventional kind of structure where the walls and floors are part of the load bearing system. To make the point: A SKYSCRAPER IS NOT LIKE THAT.

The loads are spread between vertical steel posts. The walls and floors have no structural function whatsoever.

Go and learn a little bit about elementary architecture and engineering. Then you might be able to understand what's going on.'

I haven't said that the floors and walls of a skyscraper hold the building up. Which they don't.

What I am saying (among many things, few of which you have addressed) is that buildings do not plummet to the ground all in one go as a result of damage (unless that is synchronised demolition) or fire.

To expect this 'theory' that a building can mimic the behaviour of a controlled demolition by fire or other damage is not just unreasonable, it is ridiculous.

As I have said previously, I am not interested in half arsed desperate, off the wall comments being used to undermine my comments simply because you are more interested in denigrating the 9/11 truth movement than getting to the truth of it.

I can assure you that I am not in the least interested in your private vendetta.

It is clear you are not interested in what is plainly obvious to anybody that is able to see what is in front of them. I don't know who you are, for all I know you are a spotty teenager sitting in your bedroom waiting for mother to bring your dinner to you, but I do know that buildings that collapse like WTC7, are artificially demolished.

This is not the behaviour it character of a building that has collapsed because it has been damaged. It is the behaviour and character of a building that has been demolished.

I really am very sorry you won't see this. To the rest of us it is quite obvious!

(Please don't quote the number of architects that claim that nothing untoward has happened, you have no idea what the business community has to do to 'tow the line' these days)

Freud.

When all else fails, try the 'ad hominem' attack

05.09.2010 16:58

And why would university departments in architecture and engineering in places from Paris to Peru, from London to Lima, from Shanghai to Sydney, all have to 'toe the line'? What's going to happen to them? Is Mr Cameron going to close them down? Is the CIA ready to silence them, one and all?

What happened to the WTC was not just 'a fire'. It was the impact of 100 tonnes of aircraft travelling at around 100m/s [work out its kinetic energy!]. The building was then marinaded in tonnes and tonnes of kerosene.

I'm sorry your 'truth' doesn't co-incide with reality, but there we are.

alka

Us 'racist'? - Never!

05.09.2010 17:48

a protest at the US Embassy in London on September 11th, 2006

an excerpt from:

Is it racist and/or Islamophobic to continue to subscribe to the official story of 9/11? Should we not denounce it as a racist rumour?

by Keith Mothersson (*), 9 July 2008

[...]

S is one of many good people who feel personally offended by my insistent plea that we should break with the hijacker story which we have unwittingly swallowed, and should now consider to be both false and racist.

A principal benefit of this choice of words is that by alleging racism we potentially make it harder and harder for the controllers of ‘politically correct’ progressive opinion to ignore our evidence about 9/11 being an inside job and frame-up, and our arguments about 9/11’s centrality to effectively resisting War, Islamophobia and creeping dictatorship.

However as we raise the ante, we inevitably walk a tight-rope. Precisely because of the emotional punch associated with the ‘R’ word, we run the risk of generating more heat than light, entrenching opinions behind renewed self-righteous defensiveness. So how can we increase the light-factor without also increasing the heat-factor, which detracts from enlightenment, unless any almost inevitable accompanying upset can be sympathetically handled and worked through?

Part of the hill we have to climb reflects the hyper judgmental way so many of us have fallen into thinking about racism, and even more about racists!

We don't think with compassionate wisdom of racism as a prevalent vulnerability to mistaken attitudes which all who grow up in Imperialist countries are perhaps especially liable to share to some extent and which easily cause harm because they impact negatively on certain people defined ethnically/'racially'.

Rather we have come to think of racism as a defining mark of Badness, something which resides in those evil Racists out there - who probably need to be chased down the street as the Anti-Nazi League did in the late seventies.

This idea that racism resides mainly in those others allows us to polish our egos quite cheaply, with self-assurance that we are on the side of the angels because

• we buy Fair Trade goods (at a labour-remuneration ratio of ten minutes work here for 100 there),

• oppose 'heavy-handed' immigration controls (but not ‘sensible legislation’),

• go along to Stop the War demos - which don’t, alas (but we don’t delve deeper into the reasons why we haven’t found a way, a voice and a unity to stop the Wars - though we should give ourselves one cheer for having limited Western militarism to a degree).

Us 'racist'? - Never!, a real affront to the narcissistic tendencies we all harbour to some extent or other.

Instead of being compassionate to ourselves, our harsh judgments of others are internalised as defensiveness which gets in the way of the needed revision of our views and perspective, both at the time someone is drawing our attention to the racism we too are perhaps practicing or complicit in, and as an on-going awareness-expanding process, whereby we hopefully shed more and more aspects of our imperial/racist conditioning - and hence become freer less-afraid human beings and better allies to the most oppressed people in the world and in the UK.

So I am not saying we good liberal progressive lefty green peace people are only racist. I am saying that people hold a spectrum of beliefs many of which are indeed anti-racist/pro-human, but we should all consider that it is likely that we also hold other assumptions/ identifications which may be unconsciously derogatory of 'others', and cherish other views which we may confidently assume to be universally valid, but merely reflect our relatively privileged position in the imperial hierarchy of class and global caste.

[...]

__________________________

(*) Keith Mothersson was the founder of 'Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth' (MUJCA)

http://www.mujca.com/

He passed away on July 3, 2009.

Keith Mothersson
Homepage: http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15222

The world as it is.

05.09.2010 19:36

"And why would university departments in architecture and engineering in places from Paris to Peru, from London to Lima, from Shanghai to Sydney, all have to 'toe the line'? What's going to happen to them? Is Mr Cameron going to close them down? Is the CIA ready to silence them, one and all?"

These are businesses you are talking about, the control is financial and by reputation, not political.

"What happened to the WTC was not just 'a fire'. It was the impact of 100 tonnes of aircraft travelling at around 100m/s [work out its kinetic energy!]. The building was then marinaded in tonnes and tonnes of kerosene."

We are talking about WTC7, not WTC1 or WTC2.

"I'm sorry your 'truth' doesn't co-incide with reality, but there we are."

Your concern is touching but misguided. Your absolute faith in 'reality' must be a comfort at a time like this!

Freud

The world as you would like it to be

05.09.2010 20:36

Wonderful how the pervasive tentacles of America and the neo cons extends to every university in the world, repressing dissent, even in the reaches of Outer Mongolia (do they have universities there?). Makes life so much easier once you accept that. You can forget about those pesky experts, with their independent expertise. You just banish them - pouf! They don't want to lose their money and reputation. Okay then.

WTC 7? Just as easy. When the twin towers collapsed, debris went everywhere. You thus has a seriously weakened tower which on fire, and no effective firefighting.

Are you saying that WTC 7 was set up with explosives before the aircraft hit? That's be a waste of time if bits didn't fall where people wanted them to. What if it hadn't caught fire? A lot of wasted time and explosive if that didn't happen.

Why bother with WTC 7? It's a sideshow. The symbolism is in the two towers. No gives a damn about WTC7 - so why blow it up?

alka

just like Billy Joel said

05.09.2010 22:02

Larry Silverstone in the words of Billy Joel
"We Didn't Start the Fire!!!!"

Who would have thought office equipment could burn to such a degree to weaken a steel frame of a whole building? Incredible

Bullshit Detector

Not so incredible

05.09.2010 22:35

... once you take into account the fact it had been bombarded with enormous lumps of flying debris.

alka

that termite burns real hot, eh?

06.09.2010 00:10

mmm, funny how WTC 5 & 6 buildings didn't burn out. More fire retardent I guess.

or, that termite burns real hot, eh?

btw, Alka, you seem to be taking this very personally. Maybe yr getting paid to sit in front of yr screen 24/7 and send messages on this thread.

One dost protest too much

bd

Building 7 - a textbook controlled demolition

06.09.2010 00:18

Alka also said earlier about the collapse of Building-7
"it was NOT 'completely uniform throughout at freefall speed'. It certainly was not completely uniform. "

>>> er, it was, completely and utterly - a textbook controlled demolition

bd (bullshit detector)

I want a pay rise!

06.09.2010 09:02

'Maybe yr getting paid to sit in front of yr screen 24/7 and send messages on this thread.'
Oh yeah, that's right, and I've just put in for a pay rise ...

Text book controlled demolition? Trouble is, the people who do it for a living don't think so. But it's amazing how far the tentacles of the neocons stretch ...

alka

why Alka is completely wrong

06.09.2010 10:37

Alka says that WTC7 collapsed due to structural weakness as a result of fire. Since the building collapsed at free-fall speed on it's own footprint within 7 seconds, the vertical columns of the steel frame of the building must have weakened simultaneously at a critical lower level to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall (with the weight above naturally giving way). This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second at that critical level. This is so unlikely as to have been impossible (unless you are saying that the fire been constantly at exactly the same temprature and duration throughout an entire lower floor of the building). it can only have happened with the use of explosives.
More info:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080916203015883

Alka said: "Text book controlled demolition? Trouble is, the people who do it for a living don't think so."

Alka, you seem to speak on behalf of architects & engineers worldwide, saying university departments all over the world are of the opinion that WTC7 collapsed due to structural weakness as a result of fire. I put it to you that I doubt many university departments around the world have actually formed an opinion of the issue because many are not even aware of the existence of WT7 and the fact that it collapsed, due mainly to the fact that it was at the time and remains of minor interest in relation to the collosal event of the collapse of the much larger twin towers, the planes having hit them ...etc. Even the story about what happened at the Pentagon was not largely focussed upon at the time and since.

Alka claims to speak of behalf of the whole community of architects & engineers worldwide worldwide, but does not directly quote anybody. Here are some quotes from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth's website
Ref:

http://www2.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: "Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."

Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues: "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" -Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: "Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"

Other leading experts to have spoken out:
Netherlands demolition expert Danny Jowenko

James R. Gourley, Esq.
Chemical Engineer, International Center for 9/11 Studies

jrpatent@gmail.com

Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Richard Gage, AIA Architect
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Graeme MacQueen, Ph.D.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Dr. Steven Jones, Ph.D. Physicist
S&J Scientific Co.

Dr. Niels Harrit, Ph.D. Chemistry
University of Copenhagen

Ron Brookman, Structural Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Chris Sarns
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Kamal Obeid, SE PE Structural Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Scott Grainger, PE Forensic Engineer, Civil Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Frank Legge
Logistical Systems Consulting

Bob Fischer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Justin Keogh
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

David Chandler
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

bd

I speask for no one other than myself

06.09.2010 12:21

Fine - you've found a dozen architects and engineers on your side. Let's see - how many architects and engineers do you think there are in the world? Indeed, looking at your list, not many ARE architects or engineers.

To suggest architects haven't heard of or are not interested in WTC7 is simply delusional. I would imagine that every major architectural practice building high rise buildings would have studied it very closely for the lessons that could be learnt. I would imagine that many university engineering departments have done case studies on it as it would provide hard data on why buildings fail.

How about:

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?263773

http://www.heitechservices.com/hsincludes/documents/HH_2009_4Q_FA.pdf

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Mind you, finding them on Google amongst all the noise generated by troofers is quite a challenge.

alka

The power of the enquiring mind.

06.09.2010 15:27

"Why bother with WTC 7? It's a sideshow. The symbolism is in the two towers. No gives a damn about WTC7 - so why blow it up?"

One of a number of questions that might be answered were an independent investigation by an independent body to take place.

I think that you are right about the twin towers being the main event. Nobody gives a damn about WTC7, which, perhaps, might explain why so many have switched off from the significance of its collapse.

The very fact that so many respected architects and engineers should disagree with each other, rather illustrates that something very wrong has happened here. In engineering and architectural design sciences, there should not exist this kind of disagreement over simple everyday physics!

Even NIST are perplexed over WTC7.

WTC7 may well have collapsed, but that doesn't mean it has gone away!

Freud.

cover-ups and obfuscation conceal an explosive explanation

06.09.2010 17:09

Your denial knows no bounds. Alka, you hide behind the US federal whitewash report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), published in 2008, which took three years to write.

Firstly, in reply to the 3 links you provided, only 2 of which work.

The 2nd weblink you provided does not open

http://www.heitechservices.com/hsincludes/documents/HH_2009_4Q_FA.pdf

Re: The 1st weblink and the 3rd, evaluate the findings of the NIST report. Alka, you seemingly don’t question that the establishment would ensure an official report into an event with dubious circumstances surrounding it implicating high-level involvement would be a whitewash? It always is, the NIST report is no different.

Problems with NIST:
Source:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/index.html

- NIST avoided physical testing altogether. Instead, it created a computer model that it claims supports their collapse theory, but won't even release that model for inspection by the public.
- In the new Report, NIST quietly dropped the theory promoted by since 2001 by the New York Times and FEMA, that diesel fuel was mainly responsible for the collapse, and minimized the role of purportedly extensive damage from the fallout of the North Tower.
- NIST entirely ignored the voluminous evidence of molten metal at the building's base, and steel sulfidation documented by FEMA, despite these issues having been directly raised with NIST in press conferences, and public comment periods for this and the previous report on the Twin Towers. NIST's pointmen act as if they never heard of aluminothermic incendiaries, yet some of the NIST Report authors and other supporters of the collapse theory have been on the forefront of research into advanced energetic materials based on thermite.
- NIST advances a theory that the entire "collapse" was caused by a beam disconnecting itself from its column supports through thermal expansion -- a behavior that is the opposite of that exhibited by actual building fires and building fire simulations, in which severely heated beams sag downward and stay connected, rather than remaining rigid and breaking their connections.
- To support its new theory, NIST apparently resorts to fabrication, claiming -- in contradiction to its earlier reports -- that girders lacked shear studs and had only two seat bolts per connection.

A group of scientists, scholars, architects & engineers also responded to the NIST report here

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080916203015883

Here are some telling extracts in their response to NIST (the fuel load referred to was a diesel tank located in the building for a back-up generator):
“On page 381 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 3, sent. 3) NIST flatly states that, in its fire simulations for the 12th floor, “[t]he [fire] spread rate was about one-third to one-half slower than that on the lower floors due to the higher fuel load [on the 12th floor simulation].” NIST goes on to report that the burn time across the north face in the simulation was longer than observed in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 381, para. 3, sent. 4) NIST then rejects the possibility that this could have resulted from the fuel load being too high, citing the sensitivity analysis in Section 9.3.3. (para. 3, sent. 4-8)”

“In Section 9.3.3, we find the referenced sensitivity analysis. Here, NIST reports that doubling the fuel load on the 8th floor resulted in the fires moving distinctly more slowly than in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 5, sent. 1-3) Confusingly, NIST also reports that decreasing the fuel load by more than one-third on floor 12 “showed little effect on the rate of fire progression.” (Id., para. 6, sent. 1-3)”

“REASON FOR COMMENT: NIST’s contradictory statements raise the question of why reducing the fuel load by more than one-third would show no appreciable effect on the fire rate of progression on the 12th floor, when doubling the fuel load on the 8th floor did result in an appreciable change.”

& also:

“COMMENT: In Section 11.4 (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 523-532), NIST goes through a detailed comparison of the structural response of the lower floors of WTC 7 to Case B and Case C fire scenarios. Case B used gas temperatures that were 10% higher than Case A, while Case C used gas temperatures that were 10% lower than Case A. No analysis of the structural response is shown or discussed for Case A.”

“On page 533 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1, sent. 1) NIST makes the unsupported assertion that “comparison of Case B and Case C results at 4 h (Section 11.3.3) showed that the Case C structural response would be nearly identical to the Case B structural response at a time between 4.0 h and 4.5 h.” However, when we read Section 11.3.3, we see that the analysis of Case C structural response was not carried out to 4.5 hours. Instead, we see that the response of Case C at 4.0 h was somewhat similar to the response of Case B at 3.5 h. NIST must explain how it extrapolated the Case C damage to 4.5 hours, when it was using lower temperatures in Case C than in Case B.”

“Also, no detailed analysis is disclosed for the Case A temperatures. NIST must include this data generated by Case A temperatures in its Report so the public can independently determine whether Case A profiles should be used in the subsequent LS-DYNA model.”

“REASON FOR COMMENT: Most important is the fact that NIST’s use of the structural response to only Case B temperatures in its subsequent LS-DYNA model represents yet another example of NIST choosing input data that would tend to overestimate the temperatures and structural damage caused during the WTC 7 fires. We explained above how NIST did this before with respect to gross overestimates of combustible loads on floors 11, 12 and 13. These happen to be the exact floors on which the most damage was caused in NIST’s black box model. Why did NIST not use the Case A and Case C structural response in the LS-DYNA model? Or, if it did, why did it not report the results of these models?”

Here are quotes from someone else which directs us more so to the likely cause of the unprecendented implosion of Building-7:
“We were surprised that the building [WTC7] collapsed, we being the team that investigated what occurred on that day. There was some damage to the Tower 7 caused by debris that hit it from Tower 1 but the damage was certainly not similar in scope or magnitude to that caused by the aircrafts hitting Towers 1 and 2. Normally when you have a structural failure you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is on the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7″.
[Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field.]
Dr Jonathan Barnett again: “A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. [New York Times, November 29, 2001]”

bd

Enough to make a parrot laugh ...

06.09.2010 18:12

Link 2 works for me. Maybe it's just one of the things that doesn't work for you.

So, Link 3. Published in STRUCTURE magazine. These people:

http://www.structuremag.org/
The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations.

Now, who should I believe? 911research run by four people, one of whom is a software engineer, another a psychologist, and a third ... a graphic designer! Or the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations?

I don't think there's a case to answer.

alka

NIST report is structurally unsound

06.09.2010 21:17

Alka, no acknowledgment of the NISC report and the serious disputation of fundamental parts of it - from a string of critics who are architects and engineers of imminent standing.

The article in Structure magazine was written by two engineers - Ramon Gilsanz and Willa Ng (so is not written in the name of the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations - which you do yr best to suggest; ...so what that Structure maganine is published by NCSEA - that doesn't prove anything about ratifying the so-far official but flawed explanation of how WTC7 collapsed). Considering fundamental assumptions at the heart of the NIST study appear to remain unanswered by NIST in regard to their report and that Gilsanz contributed to the NIST investigation, the article can only be considered an intepretation and opinion piece which is mere speculation whilst several outstanding questions which take issue with fundamental assumptions at the heart of NIST remain unanswered.

bd

Go and get published

06.09.2010 22:00

I tell you what - why don't you write it all up ... you could call it 'Some Anomalies in the Report ...', and submit your paper to all the architectural journals and engineering journals you can find. See what happens. Better than publishing it on the Internet ...

alka

flaws with NIST report have been published

07.09.2010 06:58

alka selsa, as I said, you collossal cretin, the main disputations in regard to the report are published here:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080916203015883

bd

Vanity publishing

07.09.2010 08:22

Putting material on your own website is the modern equivalent of vanity publishing. No one's going to read it and no one's going to take it seriously.

If you do want to be taken seriously then you need publication in a peer reviewed journal. If your evidence is that strong, you'll be published. If not, then you won't.

And how many publications in reputable peer reviewed journals have there been in the last nine years? Er ...?

alka

1274 architectural & engineering professionals dispute Nist

07.09.2010 10:05

No doubt they have sought to get published and the subject matter is too controversial for any trade journal/publication to want to go out on a limb. Like any other academic subject, a concensus of opinion forms even when there exists a substantial alternative viewpoint exists - in this case it is a consensus built upon a flawed report - the Nist report, which has managed to give the appearance of being peer reviewed. As far as I have been able to ascertain, none of the discrepancies identified by the architects and engineers who wrote their response to the Nist report have had an answer to these major disputations they have raised regarding fundamental parts of the NIST report.

Alka claims to speak for architects and engineers throughout the world, yet apart from architects involved with the Nist report, he cannot quote one truly independent professional who cites the voracity of the Nist report findings (In your first contribution to this thread, Alka, you provided a link to a website with writings from Steve Dutch - Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay - Ref:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM
One-by-one, he picks apart many of the scientific claims regarding an alternative explanation as to what happened during events on 911. However, he says absulutely nothing about Building 7, apart from supposition).

1274 verified architectural and engineering professionals have signed the petition demanding of Congress an truly independent investigation
[source:

http://www.ae911truth.org/ ]

Alka, have you read the main points of this deputation with the official version? As Freud said earlier: “The very fact that so many respected architects and engineers should disagree with each other, rather illustrates that something very wrong has happened here. In engineering and architectural design sciences, there should not exist this kind of disagreement over simple everyday physics!”

bd

This isn't just about buildings

07.09.2010 10:48

It's clear that the trolls want to steer this debate towards the buildings because they're aware readers will get lost and uninterested in the minutiae.

However, the following essay demonstrates that there's enough facts out there reported by the MSM to warrant a new 9/11 Investigation...

The Facts Speak for Themselves by Jon Gold

http://londontruthaction.org/2010/08/25/911-the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

Here's some information about the various peer-reviewed studies anyway...

Last year 9 members of an academic group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had a peer-reviewed paper 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. According to one of the scientists involved Professor Steven E Jones "in short, the paper explodes the official story that 'no evidence' exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings." It can be read at

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM.

In 2008, several of these authors published three articles challenging the official reports in US scientific journals, The Open Civil Engineering Journal

http://bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM, The Environmentalist

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4, and The Journal of Engineering Mechanics

http://ascelibrary.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=JENMDT&Volume=134&Issue=10#DISCUSSIONS%20AND%20CLOSURES. Dozens of other papers making similar challenges have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group, The Journal of 9/11 Studies

http://journalof911studies.com

As the aforementioned Professor Jones explains

"Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER."

From "What you need to know about "Peer-review" by Professor Jones

http://911blogger.com/node/19780

Here's another explanation to break it down...

Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple: Three Points of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe that Anyone Can Understand by Jim Hoffman

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

T

Yawn

07.09.2010 11:41

Get published in a reputable peer reviewed journal and then you might be taken seriously. I won't hold my breath.

alka

@ Alka

07.09.2010 12:17

Yeah that's already happened: Bentham Open, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist and The Journal of Engineering Mechanics. See above.

Why don't you talk about the facts as reported by the Mainstream Media in...

The Facts Speak for Themselves by Jon Gold

http://londontruthaction.org/2010/08/25/911-the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

T

credibility of NIST is fast weakening & will collapse like Building-7

07.09.2010 12:18

Alka, I think you deserve a pay-freeze. You and various Shill's attempts at nullifying debate/exposure of the serious flaws in the official explanation of what happened to Building 7 have not succeeded. Anyone over the last few days stumbling across this newswire posting will have observed an ever-increasing, extraordinarily long comment thread, suggesting to them that there was something curious to read here, as indeed there is.

Major disputation raised in relation to NIST model, observed in this video-short which compares the freefall collapse of WTC 7 NIST Model & actual footage of Building 7's collapse
View here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY

Taken from:

http://buildingwhat.org/nist-collapse-model/
The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”

Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modeling data. Mr. Chandler explains:

“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out they way the wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”

bd

Free-falling

07.09.2010 13:48

Some of the truthers seem to be getting a bit muddled about freefall - first they insist that it happened throughout the building's collapse, then they refer to a graph derived from the NIST report which indicates that the collapse may have approached freefall speeds but only for a fraction in the middle. Then they say that it doesn't matter if the fall was a few seconds longer than they keep claiming (when clearly it does). Then they moan that conspiracy-sceptics keep going on about the buildings when it's the truthers who've started a whole campaign based on botched physics about the buildinsg.

But, hey, if it makes them happy.

If WTC7 was a controlled demolition, why rig it so the collapse starts at the top of the building as the videos clearly show? That would be insane.

And, while we're on it, why the obsession with freefall speeds anyway? If a floor collapses, and the rest of the hugely heavy building then plummets, it's not going to make much difference to the speed of the rest of the collapse if the initial fall is triggered by supports suddenly breaking or by an explosion. The only way the conspiracy of Lizard People, or whatever, would accelerate the speed of the collapse would be if they'd stuck rocket boosters upside down to the roof or something. I expect to see that theory on truther sites soon ("It was invisible upside-down rocket boosters created by the CIA - hidden by holograms!")

Norvello

The Open Journal ...

07.09.2010 14:22

A lovely quote from this "peer reviewed" paper:

"Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamental law of physics in glibly treating the remarkable “free fall” collapse of each Tower, namely, the Law of Conservation of
Momentum. This law of physics means that the hundreds of thousands of tons of material in the way must slow the upper part of the building because of its mass, independent of deformation
which can only slow the fall even more."

How momentum gets dragged into this, I've absolutely no idea.You can produce arguments as to why it might not be in free fall [and basically, the argument would be resistive forces from floors that haven't collapsed], but it has got absolutely bugger all to do with momentum

And the authors overlook one extremely obvious point: that the material below upper part of the building may also be in free fall.

And The Environmentalist. Oh, yeah, good choice for a paper on engineering. Not.

And can you give us a more precise reference to The Journal of Engineering Mechanics?

alka

ha ha ha HA HA HA peer review chortle

07.09.2010 14:25

How about this then:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html

alka

Why am I not hearing the endless rumble of jaws dropping to the floor?!

07.09.2010 14:38

For those of you who have been regular readers of my blog it is no secret that after 8 years of doubts and confusion I have finally come to the conclusion that 9/11 was an "inside job". I would refer those who are not aware of my fairly recent "conversion" to the "truther" camp and of the motives which caused it to my paper "How I became a dedicated 9-11 Truther" which you can download from here (this is actually a letter I wrote to a friend and it lays out why I strongly believe that there can be no doubt whatsoever about the fact that 9/11 was an "inside job"). Please do read it as I will write the rest of this post under the assumption that you have read my paper where I substantiate and reference the following facts:

1) The US government and corporate media do not have any explanations about how the WTC1 and WTC2 fell. NIST simply did not investigate the events which followed the "initiation of collapse". In case you wonder what happened to the previously official version of the "pancaking" theory - NIST quietly dropped it. Let me repeat this once again. THERE IS NO "OFFICIAL VERSION" FOR THE COLLAPSE OF WTC1 and WTC2. None. Ziltch. Nihil. Notin'. Niente. As in "absolutely no nothing". Got it?

You never heard about this?! I am not surprised. But it gets even better, watch this:

2) The US government admitted that WTC7 feel in free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds. Why is that important? Simply because that means that a number of floors of WTC7 simply disappeared instantaneously and symmetrically from under the roof of WTC7. There is only one possible way to remove a section of a building instantaneously: by explosive power. Yes, the admission by Uncle Sam that the WTC7 feel for at least 2.25 seconds is an implicit admission that explosives were used. Let me repeat this one too: UNCLE SAM HAS DE-FACTO ADMITTED THAT EXPLOSIVES WERE USED IN WTC7.

Amazing, jaw-dropping stuff I would say, no? So why do I not hear the endless rumble of jaws hitting the floor all over the USA and the rest of the world? Maybe I should drive home the point even more forcefully? Ok, lemme try this:

Since Uncle Sam has admitted that only explosives can explain what was observed on September 11th, Uncle Sam has also admitted that he is guilty of that crime. No outside agency, nevermind some semi-mythical 'al-Qaeda' could have had access to a super secret building like WTC7. Only Uncle Sam could have rigged that building to bring it down in a few seconds.

I still do not hear the endless rumble of jaws hitting the floor all over the USA and the rest of the world...

The 'official narrative' (its not even a theory) about 9/11 is so full of holes that one could easily write a 100 pages long paper analyzing all the impossibilities populating literally every aspect of it: from the exploded and non-exploded residue of thermitic material found in huge amounts in the WTC dust, to the impossible telephone calls allegedly made from the hijacked aircraft, to the non-existing plane wrecks in DC and Shanksville, to the absolutely amazing biographies of the putative hijackers all of which seem to have been US government agents, to the role of Pakistan and Israel, to the ridiculous claims about recovered flight manuals, passports, letters etc. - none of it makes any sense at all. Every single one of these absolutely nonsensical parts of the official narrative deserves its own investigation and the good news is that it has already been done, very effectively, by the 9/11 Truth movement (my personal "9/11 electronic library" is currently at 22.6GB (!) of data, most of it high-quality research by very smart folks which have literally eviscerated all the absolute crap of the official narrative) Yet nobody seems to care.

Why?

In my training years I was taught that the process of intelligence revolves around three distinct phases, called the "three As": acquisition, analysis, acceptance.

The first one - acquisition - is all about collecting the data and that has been comprehensively done by thousands of folks since 9/11. The second one - analysis - centers on the careful analysis of the collected data, and I would say that the 9/11 Truth movement has also done a superb job in that respect too. Which leaves the last one - acceptance - which is the process by which the intelligence community brings its conclusions to the attention of the decision makers. It is in this final aspect that the 9/11 Truth movement has largely failed, at least so far: amazingly, even though the truth about 9/11 is out there, only a couple of computer mouse clicks away - most people simply do not give a damn.

Worse, those who do not consider themselves as "truthers" often reflect an amazing degree of bigotry and hostility. These are the folks who refer to "truthers" and their theories as "cooks", "garbage" and, my all-time favorite "conspiracy theories" (as if the official narrative is not one hell of an absurd conspiracy theory!). Why do these "skeptics" so naively accept an absolutely ridiculous official narrative and show such a vitriolic hostility towards those who dare question it?

David Ray Griffin wrote a brilliant open letter to the left-leaning wing of such "skeptics" entitled Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles? which you can download from here. Please do take the time to download and read it, it clearly shows that it is not the "truthers" who believe in miracles, but the so-called "skeptics". Griffin addressed his letter to left-leaning despisers, but he could have addressed it to the right-leaning despisers too - they are equally unwilling (or unable) to cope with the mind-boggling implications of the fact that 9/11 was beyond any doubt an inside job. Yes, the implications of this are truly appalling and, frankly, quite frightening and the aggressive reaction of the 'despisers" is not so much a reflection of their careful analysis and subsequent rejection of the evidence as it is a reflection of their fear to take a hard look at reality. It is hard, if not impossible, to achieve "acceptance" when your audience is absolutely terrified by the implications of your analysis and conclusions.

The 9/11 Truth movement is composed of people who have all dared to think the unthinkable. Some from day 1, some, like myself, from roughly day 3000, but who all eventually dared to plunge in the cold waters of facts and logic no matter where this might lead them.

In contrast, I find that most skeptics, in particular of the aggressive "despisers" variety are really what I call "existential cowards" - folks who choose delusion over the painful facts of reality.

There have been attempts by some in the 9/11 Truth movement to appeal to the common sense of the "despisers". One of my favorite ones is this video:

WTC7 -- This is an Orange

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk&feature=player_embedded

Yet, one would have to admit that these efforts have not yielded the results one could have reasonably expected. If anything, the more evidence the 9/11 Truth movement produces, the most vociferous hostility it gets from the "despisers". So where do we go from here?

Social psychology has shown the many ways in which people can be lead to believe the exact opposite of what their own eyes are showing them (check out, for example, the research known has the "Asch conformity experiments") or how figures of authority can elicit an amazing degree of obedience to "authority" (check out Milgram's work on obedience to authority). Here I think of those who reject the evidence about 9/11 basically because Noam Chomsky or Ron Paul dismiss it.

We can, of course, find some solace in the words of Gandhi about how "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win", but I would not hold my breath for a final "victory" any time soon. Yes, there are some absolutely amazing people in the 9/11 Truth movement (the names of Richard Gage, Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin immediately come to my mind), but these are all specialists, our movement still lacks a unifying Gandhi who would have the authority to speak for all and loudly cry out "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" when presented with the official myths and tales about September 11th. Sooner or later such a person will appear, I believe, but in the meantime I say that we should just keep working on the already huge corpus of 9/11 research without expecting to ever hear the endless rumble of jaws dropping to the floor. Folks - it ain't coming and we might as well get used to this unpalatable fact.

Looking at how long it took my own jaw to drop (8 years!) I find some solace in the idea that we will be able to convince people, although not en masse, but one by one, one jaw at a time. That should be the objective - small steps in the right direction while remaining steadfastly unaffected by the never ending stream vitriol and scorn from the existential cowards who are freaked out by reality.

The Saker
Homepage: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-am-i-not-hearing-endless-rumble-of.html

Hmmmm.

07.09.2010 14:49

"How about this then"

Yes, we seem to be getting entangled in personal vendetta here.

He said, she said, soap opera and trivial argumentative nonsense.

I want to know about interesting, intelligent, lively debate and an honest swapping of views. Not personal and belligerent campaigns of hate with snippets of gossip and innuendo parading as fact.

The website link you give states that it has an agenda...and therefore confirms that you do too!

Alka, you have lost me!

Feud.

Admit it

07.09.2010 15:17

That in the past nine years, there has never been any articles published in a reputable peer reviewed engineering journal which allege the collapse of any of the WTC buildings was due to explosives.

Enough said.

alka

Plenty of published studies here

07.09.2010 16:36

Yeah that's already happened: Bentham Open, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist and The Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM.

'Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction' The Open Civil Engineering Journal

http://bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

'Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials'
The Environmentalist

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4

'Discussion of “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions” The Journal of Engineering Mechanics

http://ascelibrary.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=JENMDT&Volume=134&Issue=10#DISCUSSIONS%20AND%20CLOSURES.

Dozens of other papers making similar challenges have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group, The Journal of 9/11 Studies

http://journalof911studies.com

Why don't you talk about the facts as reported by the Mainstream Media in...

The Facts Speak for Themselves by Jon Gold

http://londontruthaction.org/2010/08/25/911-the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

T

Enough said!

07.09.2010 16:47

"That in the past nine years, there has never been any articles published in a reputable peer reviewed engineering journal which allege the collapse of any of the WTC buildings was due to explosives."

Let me ask you a question.

Do you feel that the lack of consensus is, in and of itself, justification for and independent enquiry?

Freud.

Bentham

07.09.2010 17:10

You know, I thought there was something a litle dodgy about them when I saw their website. Then I googled them:

http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2009/11/for-sake-bentham-open-journals-leave-me.html

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/09/criticism-of-oa-publisher-bentham.html

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/hoax-exposes-incompetence-or-worse-at.html

So that's them out of the way.

The Environmentalist? As I said, engineering journal, not.

Followed your ascelibrary link and came across this paper: 'What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?'

Then I looked at the abstract, which began:
'Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. However, it remains to be determined whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. '

Hm. Probably not what you're talking about. How about Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions? Nope, that's not a Troofer paper either.

So, overall, FAIL.

alka

@ Alka

07.09.2010 17:42

You've not actually made any attempt to counter the claims made in ANY of the above papers and that's fine. As i mentioned before the procedure with peer-reviewed papers is that unless an objector publishes his or hers objection in a peer-reviewed established journal then the objection is not considered serious in the scientific community.

Anonymous trolling doesn't meet the required standards.

For a third time...

Why don't you talk about the facts as reported by the Mainstream Media in...

The Facts Speak for Themselves by Jon Gold

http://londontruthaction.org/2010/08/25/911-the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

T

Odd!

07.09.2010 17:56

"However, it remains to be determined whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves [suggests, sic] that they do not."

A poorly written analysis if I might say so but the underlying sentiment postulates that allegations of demolition using explosives cannot be dismissed by the writer, and he has, therefore, "hedged his bets".

You have made quite an error in quoting this passage as defence of your position!

Freud.

A Freudian slip

07.09.2010 18:37

I think not. The author obviously has loons like you in mind, and so has written a paper showing that explosives aren't necessary. AT least, that's how I read it from the abstract. To rephrase it: The present analysis proves that recent allegations of controlled demolition do not have any scientific merit."

'The Facts Speak for Themselves' - well, in that article, someone makes them speak, but they are basically a collection of facts linked by nothing except the author's desire to prove these people are EEEEVIL. It's basically a collection of innuendo and hearsay without a shred of evidence.

Peer review is the cornerstone of reputable science. No reputable peer reviewed papers have been published showing that explosive was used in any of the buildings.

alka

A dark age.

07.09.2010 20:47

"I think not. The author obviously has loons like you in mind, and so has written a paper showing that explosives aren't necessary. AT least, that's how I read it from the abstract. To rephrase it: The present analysis proves that recent allegations of controlled demolition do not have any scientific merit."

Well your not an academic that is clearly obvious. If you were you would recognise immediately what the author is actually saying.

I'm afraid you have fallen into a booby-trap, led entirely by your clumsy attempts to use the exacting text of an academic paper for your own, agenda laden, ends.

Thank you 'T' for posting the link to the article by John Gold. It makes disturbing reading. One very much gets the gist of what has befallen the United States in recent times. Ones heart has to go out in sympathy to the relatives of those people who were brutally murdered in 2001. It must be truly awful to have these things happen to your loved ones, and then to see your own Government expend so much energy in blocking and disrupting the search for justice.

It seems that not a day has passed, in which the Republican party of the United States has not been at war with its own people.

And, pathetically, we have to listen to the selfishness and nastiness of misguided internet commentators like those seen in the comment sections of this website, defending the indefensible and sowing the seeds of disorder and distraction among those who's only regard is for the seeking of the truth.

This is indeed, a dark age.

Freud.

@ Alka

07.09.2010 22:06

Alka: "Peer review is the cornerstone of reputable science. No reputable peer reviewed papers have been published showing that explosive was used in any of the buildings."

Well you can keep repeating that to yourself but the fact is the findings stand and criticism doesn't matter unless it's published.

Alka: "'The Facts Speak for Themselves' - well, in that article, someone makes them speak, but they are basically a collection of facts linked by nothing except the author's desire to prove these people are EEEEVIL. It's basically a collection of innuendo and hearsay without a shred of evidence."

Hmmm. Lets see if that's the case...

(1) On the morning of 9/11 several military wargames were taking place. Some of which involved simulated hijackings of commercial jets flying into buildings.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?printable=true&currentPage=all

(2) George W. Bush and Dick Cheney refused to testify to the 9/11 Commission under oath or in public. They agreed only to have a private conversation with members of the Commission... and not separately, only together. There were no recordings made and the victims familiies were not allowed transcripts

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bush.911.commission/

(3) On September 10th, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 ($2 trillion) in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

(4) A put option is a financial bet that will fall and lose tremendous value. On the days just prior to 9/11, the put options placed on United Airlines were 285 times higher than average. On September 10, 2001, put options placed on American Airlines were 60 times greater than average. United & American were the only airlines involved on 9/11.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020215082158/http://cjonline.com/stories/091901/ter_tradingacts.shtml

(5) George W. Bush’s brother was a Director and his cousin was the CEO of the security firm responsible for the design of the electronic security network of the World Trade Center prior to and during 9/11

http://www.washingtonspectator.org/articles/20050215bushes_1.cfm

(6) A plan for the invasion of Afghanistan had been in preparation for months and reached the White House for President Bush’s signature during the week before 9/11

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2002/msnbc051602.html

(7) The Bush administration was heavily made up of members of the Neo Conservative thinktank, The Project for the New American Century'. In September 2000 they released a document called 'Rebuilding America's Defences'. In it they said the 'process of transformation" they wanted the military to undertake would take an excessively long time unless there was a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

(8) In the months leading up to 9/11 multiple high level, specific and urgent warnings from at least 12 other governments around the world were ignored. There were so many warnings that CIA Director George Tenet was said to be running around with his 'hair on fire' and a lot not taken seriously because of 'warning fatigue'. Even an August 2000 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' was ignored.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a080601ranchmemo#a080601ranchmemo

(9) The heads of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, Rep, Porter Goss, and Sen. Bob Graham met with an alleged financier of the attacks of the day of 9/11

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101mahmoodmeeting#a091101mahmoodmeeting

(10) The WTC steel was quickly shipped overseas and melted down. This was an unprecedented violation of federal crime scene laws.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091201steelshipped#a091201steelshipped

Hmmm. Do we have as alka puts it "basically a collection of innuendo and hearsay without a shred of evidence"?

CLEARLY NOT!

T

Innuendo indeed.

07.09.2010 23:06

All may be true. (I was amused by "Even an August 2000 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' was ignored." I thought Bin Laden had nothing to do with it. ...)

You can assemble all sorts of gossip, none of which is any sort of proof that Bush and Cheney were responsible for the hijacking of four airliners. Nothing in any of that ties anyone in the Administration to the hijacking. It's entirely circumstantial.

Some of it really is trivial is this regard. So the Pentagon can't account for all its money. That's suddenly become a Cheney problem? Problems like that stretch over years. This is scraping the barrel.

And ... good heavens! Two Senators meet with the head of the Pakistani Intelligence Service! Which proves .... what?

The steel was recycled. And? What is the steel going to tell you? A violation of federal laws? Wow. So you're saying every little piece of debris from the towers should be carefully locked away?

As 'evidence' it's laughable.

Oh, and how did they recruit the pilots by the way? It was a one way mission, after all. No, don't tell me, it was done by remote control, by holograms, by missiles disguised as ... zzzz...

alka

@Alka

07.09.2010 23:57

The thing is... i know you're always going to disagree, that's why you're here after all.

T

9/11: The Facts Speak for Themselves

08.09.2010 00:14

Just to say... the 10 facts above are just a small fraction of those referenced in Jon Golds essay

http://londontruthaction.org/2010/08/25/911-the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

Cumulatively the facts make the case for an urgent reinvestigation of 9/11 very apparent. Especially so when you consider than 9/11 is the foundational myth of the 'War on Terror'.

T

put options lol.

08.09.2010 00:20

"4) A put option is a financial bet that will fall and lose tremendous value. On the days just prior to 9/11, the put options placed on United Airlines were 285 times higher than average. On September 10, 2001, put options placed on American Airlines were 60 times greater than average. United & American were the only airlines involved on 9/11."

http://web.archive.org/web/20020215082158/http://cjonline.com/stories/091901/ter_tradingacts.shtml

All well and good, till you open the link you provided, and I quote:

"CHICAGO -- The Chicago Board Options Exchange, the world's largest options market, said Tuesday it is investigating reports of unusual trading activity before last week's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

The statement comes amid widespread international efforts by investigators and regulators to determine whether terrorists tried to profit from stock and option trading ahead of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

In the days before the attacks, unusually high numbers of put options were purchased for the stocks of AMR Corp. and UAL Corp., the parent companies of American Airlines and United Airlines, which each had two planes hijacked. There was no such trend involving other carriers."

T, did you not think we would look at the links or something? typical of troofers, put options prooves a conspiracy, depends who's placing the bet eh?

p.s Alka, lovin your posts, , some great links there too.

Colonel Mustard, in the financial district, with the squibs..

@ Col. Mustard

08.09.2010 00:36

And who placed the puts?

T

@Fraud

08.09.2010 00:41

"One very much gets the gist of what has befallen the United States in recent times. Ones heart has to go out in sympathy to the relatives of those people who were brutally murdered in 2001. It must be truly awful to have these things happen to your loved ones, and then to see your own Government expend so much energy in blocking and disrupting the search for justice.

It seems that not a day has passed, in which the Republican party of the United States has not been at war with its own people.

And, pathetically, we have to listen to the selfishness and nastiness of misguided internet commentators like those seen in the comment sections of this website, defending the indefensible and sowing the seeds of disorder and distraction among those who's only regard is for the seeking of the truth.

This is indeed, a dark age."

Jesus Titty-fucking Christ! you sound like a cross between Tom Cruise summing up in "A Few Good Men", and Mel Gibson's rousing of the Picts in "Braveheart"

"This is indeed, a dark age"

Professor Plum, in the space beam lab, with the dark matter

puts

08.09.2010 00:46

well I am just using the link you provided, but here goes:

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, the SEC said it had received information from various U.S. agencies Friday about possible trading by terrorists in industries affected by the bombing, including insurance and the airlines, and also about possible put-option or futures-index trading.

On Monday, Germany's stock market regulator said it was looking into claims of suspicious short-selling just before the Sept. 11 attacks. Washington and several other governments have identified Osama bin Laden as a prime suspect.

Col Mus

Put it where you want it

08.09.2010 01:02

One popular theory suggests there was a suspiciously high volume of “put” trading of airline stocks in the days just before 9/11. Since “put” trading is effectively a gamble that the price of a stock will decrease, conspiracy theorists surmise that trading “insiders” knew about the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. While this may look suspicious in isolation, the general volume of put trading on these stocks reached similar levels at earlier points in the year. The spike in American Airlines trading was the highest of the all airline companies involved, but that’s hardly surprising considering that the company had just released a major warning about possible losses.34 Indeed, general bad news about the airline industry prompted investment companies to advise their clients to take the put options, removing any need to blame the trading options on foreknowledge of the attacks.

also this website has a bit about it too:

http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html

Mustardo the sane

Puts

08.09.2010 07:48

Straight to the source...

According to the 9/11 Commission Report a “US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.”

Who is the US-based institutional investor??? Just because the 9/11 Commission deems they have 'no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda' doesn't mean that's not the case.

The issue of the put options still stands no matter how many anonymous smoke and mirrors debunking sites you link to.

"Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News, speaking of the trading on Morgan Stanley and other companies, says, “This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20010928103413/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_Investigation010920.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

T

Back to Building-7 - the bit about 911 the shills can't explain away

08.09.2010 08:10

Alka refuses to acknowlegdelment the very pertinent criticisms about the collapse of Building 7, which wasw not hit by a plane.

Earlier, I sent a comment, the main points within which he/she ignored completely. Alka has done this consistently throughout this thread, choosing to hide behind statements such as "no alternative theories of what happened to Building 7 have been peer reviewed in any scientific journal, etc", without commenting on any of the detailed points I and others have raised.

Here are some of the main points I raised in my previous comment that go to the heart of the disputation of the NIST explanation of how Building 7 fell:

Major disputation raised in relation to NIST model, observed in this video-short which compares the freefall collapse of WTC 7 NIST Model & actual footage of Building 7's collapse
View here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY

If one compares the freefall collapse of WTC 7 NIST Model & actual footage of Building 7's collapse, one can observe that in the Nist model, the deformation of the external structure in the model does not occur in the observed collapse. In the Nist computer-generated model, at the top of the building, the external walls cave in after the interior of the building falls in. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Taken from:

http://buildingwhat.org/nist-collapse-model/
The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”

The only way that the remaining structure and mass can be got rid of so that the upper block can fall at Free-fall is by additional energy being supplied to destroy remaining structure and shift mass out of the way.

Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modeling data. Mr. Chandler explains:

“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out they way the wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”

More info:

1274 verified architectural and engineering professionals have signed the petition demanding of Congress an truly independent investigation
[source:

http://www.ae911truth.org/ ]

Here are quotes from someone else which directs us more so to the likely cause of the unprecendented implosion of Building-7:
“We were surprised that the building [WTC7] collapsed, we being the team that investigated what occurred on that day. There was some damage to the Tower 7 caused by debris that hit it from Tower 1 but the damage was certainly not similar in scope or magnitude to that caused by the aircrafts hitting Towers 1 and 2. Normally when you have a structural failure you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is on the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7″.
[Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field.]
Dr Jonathan Barnett again: “A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. [New York Times, November 29, 2001]”

Bullshit Detector

WTC7

08.09.2010 11:51

Frankly, I'm not interested in the details of how and why WTC 7 collapsed. I'll leave that to the structural engineers, most of whom seem quite happy with the standard explanation.

The case for it being caused by explosives is frankly ludicrous.

1. The collapse didn't start at the bottom.
2. When and how where the tons of explosive needed installed in the building without anyone noticing?
3. How could the perpetrators guarantee that it would be hit by debris? After all, if it were untouched, then the explosion would look mighty suspicious.
4. And most of all, why bother? You've taken down the twin towers, hit the Pentagon, and nearly got somewhere else with the flight that crashed? Why bother to take down a relatively obscure tower in New York after all that? It's not the cherry on top of the cake, it's a small currant hidden in the bun.

Having failed to show the Pentagon was a controlled explosion, and having failed to show the Twin Towers was a controlled explosion, the Troofers have one straw left to grasp - WTC7. When finally that gets debunked, where will they turn next?

alka

Structural engineers dispute Bush Science

08.09.2010 12:13

Alka: "Frankly, I'm not interested in the details of how and why WTC 7 collapsed. I'll leave that to the structural engineers, most of whom seem quite happy with the standard explanation"

Here's some structural engineers (and a Professor Emeritus) who've viewed the evidence and disagree with the standard explanation...

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: "Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"

Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues: "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" -Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php

T

Congratulations!

08.09.2010 13:29

You've actually found some! Well done!

Only 9,999,995 engineers and architects left to go and you'll be there ...

alka

Real science VS Bush Science

08.09.2010 14:53

There's over 1200+ Architects & Engineers calling for an investigation into what made the 3 buildings collapse.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak by Kevin R. Ryan

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/NIST_WTC7.html

Alka, please name 1 Architect or Engineer who supports NISTs 'hypothesis'. I would like to send him/her some information....

T

the crumbling argument of Alka & Nist's explanation for Building-7's demise

08.09.2010 15:19

Alka - was I saying the collapse didn't start at the bottom of the building??!?!? If that is your understanding, then you must be at odds with the computer-generated model used in the Nist model because it contradicts the reality of what happened in the observed collapse (ie: the Nist model is clearly wrong - 1274 and counting architects and engineers so say).

Again:

If one compares the freefall collapse of WTC 7 NIST Model & actual footage of Building 7's collapse, one can observe that in the Nist model, the deformation of the external structure in the model does not occur in the observed collapse. In the Nist computer-generated model, at the top of the building, the external walls cave in after the interior of the building falls in. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Building-7 collapsed with symmetrical descent at freefall speed. It did not collapse with the sides of the building folding inwards into the crumbling mass, as depicted in the Nist computerised model.
View here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY

Taken from:

http://buildingwhat.org/nist-collapse-model/
The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”

The only way that the remaining structure and mass can be got rid of so that the upper block can fall at Free-fall is by additional energy being supplied to destroy remaining structure and shift mass out of the way.

Bullshit Detector

Collapse through boredom

08.09.2010 15:46

I did point you to a paper discussing the collapse some time ago:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Published in Structure, which is a joint publication of the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, the Council of American Structural Engineers, and the Structural Engineering Institute.

Of course, they could be talking out of their arse. On the other hand, I suspect their expertise is just a tiny tad greater than yours ... or people who post on Youtube. Youtube is an admirable idea; an authoritative academic venue it is not.

alka

Nist cannot explain Building-7's symmetrical descent at freefall speed

08.09.2010 16:41

oh dearie dear. The article in Structure magazine was written by Ramon Gilsanz and Willa Ng who were part of the Nist team!!! So, they would agree with this version of events, wouldn't they!!!!!

By implication, their view and the science at the heart of Nist is therefore ratified by the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, since Structure magazine is their journal. Not neccessarily - this is an opinion piece. No doubt, if there is an explosive alternative explanation to why Building-7 collapsed (so far, the Nist report falls short), then it is logical that powerful interest groups will try hard to prevent such an alternative examination being conducted in public view, such as a peer-reviewed journal.

I don't know why any of the 1274 and counting architects and engineers have not written their objection to the Nist report in a peer-reviewed established journal, but I am sure there is good reason (I may speculate that they have tried and not be able to thus far).

Your claim that 99.99% of architectural professionals support the official version has clearly been found wanting. Of those that actually know of Building-7, 1274 ( and those who have not even actually gone to the trouble of signing the petition) is a sizable number.

Again:

If one compares the freefall collapse of WTC 7 NIST Model & actual footage of Building 7's collapse, one can observe that in the Nist model, the deformation of the external structure in the model does not occur in the observed collapse. In the Nist computer-generated model, at the top of the building, the external walls cave in after the interior of the building falls in. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Building-7 collapsed with symmetrical descent at freefall speed. It did not collapse with the sides of the building folding inwards into the crumbling mass, as depicted in the Nist computerised model.
View here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY

Taken from:

http://buildingwhat.org/nist-collapse-model/
The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”

The only way that the remaining structure and mass can be got rid of so that the upper block can fall at Free-fall is by additional energy being supplied to destroy remaining structure and shift mass out of the way.

bd

yet another fatal flaw

08.09.2010 17:23

We will for the moment pass over bd's analysis but to say one thing ...

BD's thesis is that NIST have got it wrong.

His logic is ..,

WTC7 didn't fall the way NIST says it did,
so (takes deep breath) ItWasBlownUp!

Slight hole in the logic there. Can anyone see it? Because it might have collapsed in all sorts of ways, none of which involved explosive. Which buggers up your argument.

alka

@ Alka

08.09.2010 19:42

Re: another fatal flaw:

Could not agree more, NIST modelling surely is based on what information they have, eye witness accounts, and videos, none of which show the full building. how big is the margin for error? What could be missed that can't be seen? Of course the modelling is not going to be 100% accurate, as shown in the Youtube vids. posted on here. It's not far off though.

I don't have a problem with it.

Miss Scarlet, with the Particle Accelerator, in Pennsylvania

Derivative Works.

08.09.2010 23:28

"Slight hole in the logic there. Can anyone see it? Because it might have collapsed in all sorts of ways, none of which involved explosive. Which buggers up your argument."

Yes it could have collapsed in all sorts of ways, the window 27 rooms along on the fourteenth floor might have broken 2 seconds into the 'plummet' rather than 5 seconds. The eleventh column on the 19th floor might have buckled with a bang instead of a twang.

The devil is in the detail Alka. As is the disinformation.

Why get hung up over the detail when the bigger picture has everything a normal person needs to make up their mind.

Controlled demolition!

I'd like to say see reason but with you it just aint gonna happen is it? Odd how the de-bunkers take on the very characteristics that they claim to be most offended by in the truth movement!

Blind as a bat boy. Blind as a bat!

Alka-holic.

the shill's lazy adherence to the official lie about Building-7 collapse

09.09.2010 09:24

here we go again.

the ever-incredulous Alka said:
"WTC7 didn't fall the way NIST says it did, so (takes deep breath) ItWasBlownUp! Slight hole in the logic there. Can anyone see it? Because it might have collapsed in all sorts of ways, none of which involved explosive. Which buggers up your argument."

>>>> Ha, so, you admit Nist maybe wrong after all your huffing and puffing! Kindly explain these alternative explanations for us then? I suspect you can't for, as usual, you are just spouting off blind rhetoric because you have nothing else to say in response to the overwhelming argument we have displayed that Building-7 was destroyed via the use of some kind of explosive device.

Miss Scarlet, with the Particle Accelerator, in Pennsylvania, said:
"Of course the modelling is not going to be 100% accurate, as shown in the Youtube vids. posted on here. It's not far off though."

>>> the model is completely different from the observed collapse. This shows that the Nist computer model of the collpase which the whole report is obviously based upon is not a rigorous study and is plainly wrong. So, you're wrong.

As I said:
If one compares the freefall collapse of WTC 7 NIST Model & actual footage of Building 7's collapse, one can observe that in the Nist model, the deformation of the external structure in the model does not occur in the observed collapse. In the Nist computer-generated model, at the top of the building, the external walls cave in after the interior of the building falls in. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Building-7 collapsed with symmetrical descent at freefall speed. It did not collapse with the sides of the building folding inwards into the crumbling mass, as depicted in the Nist computerised model.
View here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY

Taken from:

http://buildingwhat.org/nist-collapse-model/
The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”

The only way that the remaining structure and mass can be got rid of so that the upper block can fall at Free-fall is by additional energy being supplied to destroy remaining structure and shift mass out of the way.

Bullshit Detector

demolition

09.09.2010 09:59

So when were the demolition bombs, or thermite placed then? Obviously, I don't expect you to know the exact time, but there are two catorgories or timeframes for the placement:

1. It was fully pre-planned, they were placed days/weeks/months before.

2. It was oportunistc, they planted the devces after the building was struck by falling debris, and caught fire.

So which was it?

paranoia porno

Enough said

09.09.2010 10:44

alka changes his/her name to avoid answering difficult questions he/she can't answer.

Alka and whatever name he/she goes under can't answer why the obeserved collapse is significantly different from the Nist model because he/she has no alternative explanation. Explosive must have been used. Enough said.

Bullshit Detector

explosives.... lol.

09.09.2010 15:22

Because the NIST computer simulation, does not fall in exactly the same way as the building collapsed, which not being a scientist, or engineer, I am unable to answer, as I am sure Alka isn't. But as someone pointed out earlir, which makes sense: could they have missed some factor, that changes that caused this? Now it is one hell of a leap to make tha one thing explosives! There are arguments against the 2.75 seconds of freefall being impossible, so ir really comes down to the simulation.

The argument that I or anyone else refuse to aknowledge this piece of "evidence" is simply nor true I AKNOWLEDGE THAT THE COMPUTER SIM BY NIST DOES NOT EXACTLY MATCH THE VIDEO'S OF THE COLLAPSE! Is just that, well...... so what? If you or anyone from NIST can tell me the exact size, depth, and internal damage caused by the gash caused by falling debris from WTC7, then I'll agree it's a fraud... you can't, nor can they.. The truth is no one can simulate exactly how that building was gonna collapse, because they don't have all the facts, but one can come pretty close. I really do think it's a mammouth task, and one prone having missing pieces and not quite fitting together.

Truthers spend a lot of time trying to and sometimes finding fault with the official, and peer-reviewed scientific explanations, but it has to be said, one can do this with any scientific thoery, or explanation of events, I would hedge a bet that within NIST, they are not all unified on even some of the major points, bet that would affect the simulation dramatically if some other arguments had won through (for better or worse).

So why no truther explanation with scientific modelling of how the building was bought down with explosives? 1 reason: ridicule, that modelling would be so far off the mark, so many obsrved events, witness testamonials, scientific data, and evidence. would show up the idea for what it is. So I formally challange truthers to do this (you have scientists, engineers, and architects on your side right?) , if the findings face up to scrutiny, and they show with near dead certainty the rigging of explosives. i'll get "911- the truth is out there" tatooed on my forehead.

The facts remain about WTC7,

1. there is a massive wealth of scientific evidence, and the visual evidence supports that if it was a demolition, it would have to be an exotic, untested demolition. It does not follow the normal patterns of a controlled demolition. e.g. the lack of explosions resembling those in a typical demolition, points of collapse, etc. etc.

2. If this was an exotic style of demolition, that one wanted to blame on a natural collapse one would have to have prior knowledge that:

a) the building was going to catch fire.

b) those fires were going to burn unchallenged for hours because of a disruption to the water supply

c) The building was going to receive damage from falling debris that came from somewhere.

3. One would have to know that in the very least, WTC1 was going to collapse and in a way that damaged, and set fire to WTC7, which leads to.........

4. The only way to know with absolute accuracy that terrorists are going to SUCCSESSFULLY hijack planes, fly them into WTC1 and 2, and destroy both buildings, is to orchestrate this.

5. You would need to either have pilots willing to sacrice their lives, or you have to make 3 passanger jets vanish, and replaced with drones.

6. The controlled demolition, and odder theories about the planes being drones, or military craft, or holograms that exist about WTC1 and 2 have all been thouroughly debuked.

7.The whole plan to bring down the towers, and WTC7 as seen by the truth movement is so ridiculously complicated, there is a reason for this: the sqaure peg of conspiracy, is being force into the round hole of events that took place. Let me explain:
Why go to the length of planting untested demolition technique in the twins? when, as any scientist will be happy to agree with you on if you quiz her or him: If you hit the towers lower with the planes, about central from the top, you increase the speed, and velocity, and carnage from debris, from the tower collapse, you also greatly increase the chance of collapse (although we now know it was a dead cert any way). It may have been possible to flatten WT7 doing this, if you get the direction of the plane right, would only take a bit of physics.
Why not fly another plane into WTC7? Why not be done with the idea of planes, and bomb all the buildings, and fabricate evidence that terrorists gone done it? Easily done...... maybe just a little bit too easy! Why not do a chemical attack, or dirty bomb attack, that would definately put america at war, would be easy to to a few contained attacks in subways, same result America under attack/at war, minimum effort.
No instead they went for a ridulously complicated plan, fraught with ways in which it could go wrong, which would have required the involvement of thousands of people, all of which had to keep silent about a plan to kill thousands of their own countrymen, even though Wikileaks exists..... Yeah right!

All that we have seen, including the debris damage and fires in WTC7 is staged.... that my freinds is impossible. And it would have to be the case, for a controlled demolition of WTC7.

fly

Another point!!

09.09.2010 15:29

Why not state that the who buildingis unsafe, and say that nobody can retrieve anything from it, and employ proffesional controlled demolition experts to blow it down the following day(s)? Sure people wll ask a few questions, set te media spin operation in motion, more and more I think about it, the more and more the conspiracy argument is utter bollocks.

Fly

@ fly

09.09.2010 15:51

WTC 7

You know better than people who actually design buildings?

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" -Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: "Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"

Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues: "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

http://www2.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php

T

WTC7 collapse - complete overview of main flaws with official explanation

09.09.2010 20:12

Fly writes a lot of words, but says absolutely nothing to convince that there is any other explanation other than use of explosives in the collapse of Building-7

Shill’s constant barrage of misinformation on this thread hasn’t worked, nor their attempts to stifle and obfuscate with lame half-truth, pointless trivia and idiotic rhetoric. The length of this thread is unprecedentedly long – and so even more attention has been drawn to it!

The freefall implosion of Nist’s credibility – 5 main problems with official explanation of how WTC7 collapsed
(Nist is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and it’s report into the reasons for the collapse of WTC7 was published in 2008).

1. Nist model showing the collapse of Building-7 is completely wrong
2. Data used in flawed computerised model cannot be tested and verified because modelling data not made available to the public
3. Flawed explanations about structural failure within Nist
4. Problems with the scientific method within NIST
5. NIST entirely ignored the voluminous evidence of molten metal at the building's base

1). Nist model showing the collapse of Building-7 is completely wrong
If one compares the freefall collapse of WTC 7 NIST Model & actual footage of Building 7's collapse, one can observe that in the Nist model, the top of the building started to collapse with the sides of the building folding inwards into the crumbling mass. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN! Building-7 collapsed with symmetrical descent at freefall speed. It did not collapse as depicted in the Nist computerised model.
View here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY

Taken from:

http://buildingwhat.org/nist-collapse-model/
The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”

The only way that the remaining structure and mass can be got rid of so that the upper block can fall at Free-fall is by additional energy being supplied to destroy remaining structure and shift mass out of the way.

2). Data used in flawed computerised model cannot be tested and verified because modelling data not made available to the public
Source:

http://buildingwhat.org/nist-collapse-model/
Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modelling data. Mr. Chandler explains:

“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out they way the wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”

3). Flawed explanations about structural failure within Nist
NIST advances a theory that the entire "collapse" was caused by a beam disconnecting itself from its column supports through thermal expansion - a behaviour that is the opposite of that exhibited by actual building fires and building fire simulations, in which severely heated beams sag downward and stay connected, rather than remaining rigid and breaking their connections.
Source:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/index.html

4). Problems with the scientific method within NIST:
A group of scientists, scholars, architects & engineers responded to the NIST report here

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080916203015883
Here are some telling extracts in their response to NIST (the fuel load referred to was a diesel tank located in the building for a back-up generator):
“On page 381 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 3, sent. 3) NIST flatly states that, in its fire simulations for the 12th floor, “[t]he [fire] spread rate was about one-third to one-half slower than that on the lower floors due to the higher fuel load [on the 12th floor simulation].” NIST goes on to report that the burn time across the north face in the simulation was longer than observed in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 381, para. 3, sent. 4) NIST then rejects the possibility that this could have resulted from the fuel load being too high, citing the sensitivity analysis in Section 9.3.3. (para. 3, sent. 4-8)”

“In Section 9.3.3, we find the referenced sensitivity analysis. Here, NIST reports that doubling the fuel load on the 8th floor resulted in the fires moving distinctly more slowly than in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 5, sent. 1-3) Confusingly, NIST also reports that decreasing the fuel load by more than one-third on floor 12 “showed little effect on the rate of fire progression.” (Id., para. 6, sent. 1-3)”

“REASON FOR COMMENT: NIST’s contradictory statements raise the question of why reducing the fuel load by more than one-third would show no appreciable effect on the fire rate of progression on the 12th floor, when doubling the fuel load on the 8th floor did result in an appreciable change.”

& also:

“COMMENT: In Section 11.4 (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 523-532), NIST goes through a detailed comparison of the structural response of the lower floors of WTC 7 to Case B and Case C fire scenarios. Case B used gas temperatures that were 10% higher than Case A, while Case C used gas temperatures that were 10% lower than Case A. No analysis of the structural response is shown or discussed for Case A.”

“On page 533 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1, sent. 1) NIST makes the unsupported assertion that “comparison of Case B and Case C results at 4 h (Section 11.3.3) showed that the Case C structural response would be nearly identical to the Case B structural response at a time between 4.0 h and 4.5 h.” However, when we read Section 11.3.3, we see that the analysis of Case C structural response was not carried out to 4.5 hours. Instead, we see that the response of Case C at 4.0 h was somewhat similar to the response of Case B at 3.5 h. NIST must explain how it extrapolated the Case C damage to 4.5 hours, when it was using lower temperatures in Case C than in Case B.”

“Also, no detailed analysis is disclosed for the Case A temperatures. NIST must include this data generated by Case A temperatures in its Report so the public can independently determine whether Case A profiles should be used in the subsequent LS-DYNA model.”

“REASON FOR COMMENT: Most important is the fact that NIST’s use of the structural response to only Case B temperatures in its subsequent LS-DYNA model represents yet another example of NIST choosing input data that would tend to overestimate the temperatures and structural damage caused during the WTC 7 fires. We explained above how NIST did this before with respect to gross overestimates of combustible loads on floors 11, 12 and 13. These happen to be the exact floors on which the most damage was caused in NIST’s black box model. Why did NIST not use the Case A and Case C structural response in the LS-DYNA model? Or, if it did, why did it not report the results of these models?”

5). NIST entirely ignored the voluminous evidence of molten metal at the building's base, and steel sulfidation documented by FEMA, despite these issues having been directly raised with NIST in press conferences, and public comment periods for this and the previous report on the Twin Towers. NIST's pointmen act as if they never heard of aluminothermic incendiaries, yet some of the NIST Report authors and other supporters of the collapse theory have been on the forefront of research into advanced energetic materials based on thermite.

Here are quotes from someone else which directs us more so to the likely cause of the unprecendented implosion of Building-7:
“We were surprised that the building [WTC7] collapsed, we being the team that investigated what occurred on that day. There was some damage to the Tower 7 caused by debris that hit it from Tower 1 but the damage was certainly not similar in scope or magnitude to that caused by the aircrafts hitting Towers 1 and 2. Normally when you have a structural failure you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is on the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7″.
[Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field.]
Dr Jonathan Barnett again: “A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. [New York Times, November 29, 2001]”

Bullshit Detector

@ bullshit detector, and T.

10.09.2010 02:23

T said: "You know better than people who actually design buildings? "

Nope, where have I claimed that I do? that's disingenious. I have largely used logic, of how improbable an inside job is, in the sense that it is taking the 'scenic route' and far too complex a way for an inside jod to be carried out, ( the points I make go unanswered) most of my arguments are based on logic, or common sense. Although that's a handful of scientistsyu are referencing against many more who don't believe the conspiracists . I have read a lot of scientist's and engineers writings who think it's daft, as well as a few who think it's a conspiracy, much like you have. Do you know better than people who actually design buildings?

T also quotes ""Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice."

a) Fuck off big planes flying into them.

b) I know it's a hard concept to grasp, but it's something that has a large impact on our everyday life, maybe you have heard of it? It's called gravity.

Bullshit detector writes:

"Fly writes a lot of words, but says absolutely nothing to convince that there is any other explanation other than use of explosives in the collapse of Building-7"

Well no, I disagree, , admittedly I applied logic to it- It's not nanotechnology I know, but it does show up glaring holes in the controlled demolition theory, interestingly, your arguments back against this logic are to hit me with more holes in the NIST explanation of WTC7, I know it's off the mark, I agree, but WTC7 has the least video footage, and least obvious collapse.
So please address the points I made about how I think logic shows that a controlled demolition is highly improbable e.g: Why not "legitimately" do a controlled demolition the next day, citing the build is unsafe, no on can enter, and destoy the building and it's contents that way? And tell me why truthers have not come up with a modelling, and explanation of how WTC7 was bought down with explosives that can be reviewed?

p.s. I do read the links you put up, you don't have to keep reposting them everytime you post giving the impression That I refuse to listen, but to apply a bit of logic again, none of the links you provide come from scientific data sites, all are conjecture sites, and none provide a model of controlled demolition, but all are less qualified, established, or unqualified people challenging the reverse.... And that's why we can't expect to see model, and explanation of a controlled demolition of WT7, although I really wish you guys would do this.

"

Fly

Onus is on the professionals responsible for Nist

10.09.2010 07:20

Fly, a model of an alternative explanation for how Building-7 collapsed, ie: through controlled demolition? Not neccessary is it. Any model of a controlled demolition will do.

The onus is not on those who dispute the official version about Building-7 to prove otherwise. The onus is on the professionals responsible for Nist to explain the major discrepancies in their model. By doing so, the only explanation can be that the building collapsed due to the use of some explosive element.

Fly said:
"Please address the points I made about how I think logic shows that a controlled demolition is highly improbable"

>>> No, because you are just talking nonsense and I'm not here to play along with yr mental gymnastics and irrelevant, vain shenanigans

Bullshit Detector

Building-7 - no other meaningful explanation apart from explosive-use

10.09.2010 07:38

Fly said: "I applied logic to it- It's not nanotechnology I know, but it does show up glaring holes in the controlled demolition theory"

>>> er, no you didn't. You have mistaken supposition for argument. You have argued no case whatsoever. Speculation on how and why explosives were planted are meaningless and are a diversion to the main concern, which is how the building collapsed. There is no other meaningful explanation apart from explosive-use.

again:

If one compares the freefall collapse of WTC 7 NIST Model & actual footage of Building 7's collapse, one can observe that in the Nist model, the top of the building started to collapse with the sides of the building folding inwards into the crumbling mass. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN! Building-7 collapsed with symmetrical descent at freefall speed. It did not collapse as depicted in the Nist computerised model.
View here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY

Taken from:

http://buildingwhat.org/nist-collapse-model/
The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”

The only way that the remaining structure and mass can be got rid of so that the upper block can fall at Free-fall is by additional energy being supplied to destroy remaining structure and shift mass out of the way.

Bullshit Detector

@ BD

10.09.2010 14:09

">>> er, no you didn't. You have mistaken supposition for argument. You have argued no case whatsoever. Speculation on how and why explosives were planted are meaningless and are a diversion to the main concern, which is how the building collapsed. There is no other meaningful explanation apart from explosive-use"

You talk about supposition as if it is a bad thing, well every new idea, invention, and scientific discovery ever has come about through suppostion. "suppose there is gravity" Newton thought, as he rubbed his sore head, went on to test it, and found it to be true.

You suppose the building was bought down in a controlled demolition, and are attempting to find this supposition to be true, of course, you won't accept that, you beleive 100 percent it to be true. So because you are calling for an investigation this means that you don't have the evidence,you certainly have what you think are clues, and pointers. Therefore you have belief it was bought down by a controlled demolition, that belief is supposition.

And to look at it from the perspective I have, and to suppose certain things, and ask certain questions is used by scientists, engineers and social scientists the world over. From finding lost sunken vessels, to determing a philisophical idea, to working out what happened on an ancient battle field, or to draw a conclusion that it was a controlled demolition from an official explanation.

The questions such as,:

How did they have prior knowledge of the damage, and fires?
What would be the most efficient way of doing this?
etc. etc
I won't repeat them all again, and to then draw a conclusion from that perspective, and the answers that come up, so many of which don't fit with the truthers limited explanations. in my view is a very valid argument.

I look forward to your reply bd, that no doubt will contain those links I have already checked out ;)

Fly

Here's a thought

10.09.2010 16:11

Call it a supposition if you will, but Truthers say that WTC1 and 2 were bought down with an exotic demolition technique, to create the the effect of a collapse from the top. So, what happened with WTC7? Was it friday, they wanted to go to the pub and thought, "aww sod it, can't be arsed with an elaborate demolition, let's just do a standard on this one eh lads"?

Fly

Building-7 - symmetrical descent at freefall speed

10.09.2010 16:31

fly, considering Building-7 fell with symmetrical descent at freefall speed, considering the fact that the only way the remaining structure and mass can be got rid of so that the upper block can fall at Free-fall is by additional energy being supplied to destroy remaining structure and shift mass out of the way, how do you explain how Building-7 fell in this way?

Bullshit Detector

fly turns sensible argument into nonsense

10.09.2010 16:36

fly wasted his time writing:
"">>> er, no you didn't. You have mistaken supposition for argument. You have argued no case whatsoever. Speculation on how and why explosives were planted are meaningless and are a diversion to the main concern, which is how the building collapsed. There is no other meaningful explanation apart from explosive-use"

You talk about supposition as if it is a bad thing, well every new idea, invention, and scientific discovery ever has come about through suppostion. "suppose there is gravity" Newton thought, as he rubbed his sore head, went on to test it, and found it to be true.

You suppose the building was bought down in a controlled demolition, and are attempting to find this supposition to be true, of course, you won't accept that, you beleive 100 percent it to be true. So because you are calling for an investigation this means that you don't have the evidence,you certainly have what you think are clues, and pointers. Therefore you have belief it was bought down by a controlled demolition, that belief is supposition.

And to look at it from the perspective I have, and to suppose certain things, and ask certain questions is used by scientists, engineers and social scientists the world over. From finding lost sunken vessels, to determing a philisophical idea, to working out what happened on an ancient battle field, or to draw a conclusion that it was a controlled demolition from an official explanation.

The questions such as:
How did they have prior knowledge of the damage, and fires?
What would be the most efficient way of doing this?
etc. etc
I won't repeat them all again, and to then draw a conclusion from that perspective, and the answers that come up, so many of which don't fit with the truthers limited explanations. in my view is a very valid argument."

>>>> wot a load of bollox. This is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever had to detect!

Bullshit Detector

lol.

10.09.2010 17:30

fly, considering Building-7 fell with symmetrical descent at freefall speed, considering the fact that the only way the remaining structure and mass can be got rid of so that the upper block can fall at Free-fall is by additional energy being supplied to destroy remaining structure and shift mass out of the way, how do you explain how Building-7 fell in this way?

Well it is obvious to me that the demolition crews, stretched themselves a bit when they did the master peice of WTC1 and 2, so they were a bit burnt out by the time they came to rigging WTC7, so they just placed a standard demolition, nothing fancy like the others, more's the fool them eh? Hindsight, it's never a good thing.

I am taking it from a common sense angle, to be honest I have read a lot of stuff on it, but I would just be parrotting Alka, go back and read his stuff, about how he pointed out the scientists, engineers who peddle conspraloon stuff are in the minority, and don't have reputable peer-reviewed publications.

Fly

Citizens Investigation Team

10.09.2010 17:37

Look, it's highly unlikely that NIST are going to re-open the investigation, why don't you people force their hand and re-open it youselves, bit like the Citizen Inspection teams carry out inspections of arms dumps, it's an effective stratergy. You could get your findings published in peer-reviewed journals, finally we would be able to scrutinise both accounts in parallel, and draw conclusions. NIST won't do the controlled demolition model.... Do it yourselves, it may take years, but to me it seems the most powerful weapon you have, because you have the academics to do it.

Course It will fail miserably, but that's my opinion, prove me wrong.

Fly

Nist official explanation for Building-7 collapse is full of holes

10.09.2010 23:19

Fly, who would take a Citizens Investigation Team seriously? I'm not saying it is not a worthwhile endeavour - just that there are limits to it's scope. For one thing, some of the evidence has been destroyed (steel from the Building-7 ruins).

The most important thing is to uncover the flaws with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (Nist) report. The big blackhole in the middle of the Nist computerised model and explanation of how the collapse occurred is the nature of it's collapse (ie. the symmetrical nature of its collapse at freefall speed). The only way that the remaining structure and mass can be got rid of so that the upper block can fall at Free-fall is by additional energy being supplied to destroy remaining structure and shift mass out of the way.

Re: the lack of a peer-reviewed alternative explanation as to how Building-7 collapsed, I don't know why any of the 1274 and counting architects and engineers have not written their objection to the Nist report in a peer-reviewed established journal, but I am sure there is good reason. No doubt they have sought to get published. I may speculate that the subject matter may be considered too controversial for any trade journal/publication to want to go out on a limb. Like any other academic subject, a concensus of opinion forms even when there exists a substantial alternative viewpoint exists - in this case it is a consensus built upon a flawed report - the Nist report, which has managed to give the appearance of being peer reviewed.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, none of the discrepancies identified by the architects and engineers who wrote their response to the Nist report have had an answer to these major disputations they have raised regarding fundamental parts of the NIST report. They are detailed and substantial. For the record, they are again:

1. Nist model showing the collapse of Building-7 is completely wrong
2. Data used in flawed computerised model cannot be tested and verified because modelling data not made available to the public
3. Flawed explanations about structural failure within Nist
4. Problems with the scientific method within NIST
5. NIST entirely ignored the voluminous evidence of molten metal at the building's base

1). Nist model showing the collapse of Building-7 is completely wrong
If one compares the freefall collapse of WTC 7 NIST Model & actual footage of Building 7's collapse, one can observe that in the Nist model, the top of the building started to collapse with the sides of the building folding inwards into the crumbling mass. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN! Building-7 collapsed with symmetrical descent at freefall speed. It did not collapse as depicted in the Nist computerised model.
View here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY

Taken from:

http://buildingwhat.org/nist-collapse-model/
The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”

The only way that the remaining structure and mass can be got rid of so that the upper block can fall at Free-fall is by additional energy being supplied to destroy remaining structure and shift mass out of the way.

2). Data used in flawed computerised model cannot be tested and verified because modelling data not made available to the public
Source:

http://buildingwhat.org/nist-collapse-model/
Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modelling data. Mr. Chandler explains:

“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out they way the wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”

3). Flawed explanations about structural failure within Nist
NIST advances a theory that the entire "collapse" was caused by a beam disconnecting itself from its column supports through thermal expansion - a behaviour that is the opposite of that exhibited by actual building fires and building fire simulations, in which severely heated beams sag downward and stay connected, rather than remaining rigid and breaking their connections.
Source:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/index.html

4). Problems with the scientific method within NIST:
A group of scientists, scholars, architects & engineers responded to the NIST report here

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080916203015883
Here are some telling extracts in their response to NIST (the fuel load referred to was a diesel tank located in the building for a back-up generator):
“On page 381 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 3, sent. 3) NIST flatly states that, in its fire simulations for the 12th floor, “[t]he [fire] spread rate was about one-third to one-half slower than that on the lower floors due to the higher fuel load [on the 12th floor simulation].” NIST goes on to report that the burn time across the north face in the simulation was longer than observed in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 381, para. 3, sent. 4) NIST then rejects the possibility that this could have resulted from the fuel load being too high, citing the sensitivity analysis in Section 9.3.3. (para. 3, sent. 4-8)”

“In Section 9.3.3, we find the referenced sensitivity analysis. Here, NIST reports that doubling the fuel load on the 8th floor resulted in the fires moving distinctly more slowly than in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 5, sent. 1-3) Confusingly, NIST also reports that decreasing the fuel load by more than one-third on floor 12 “showed little effect on the rate of fire progression.” (Id., para. 6, sent. 1-3)”

“REASON FOR COMMENT: NIST’s contradictory statements raise the question of why reducing the fuel load by more than one-third would show no appreciable effect on the fire rate of progression on the 12th floor, when doubling the fuel load on the 8th floor did result in an appreciable change.”

& also:

“COMMENT: In Section 11.4 (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 523-532), NIST goes through a detailed comparison of the structural response of the lower floors of WTC 7 to Case B and Case C fire scenarios. Case B used gas temperatures that were 10% higher than Case A, while Case C used gas temperatures that were 10% lower than Case A. No analysis of the structural response is shown or discussed for Case A.”

“On page 533 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1, sent. 1) NIST makes the unsupported assertion that “comparison of Case B and Case C results at 4 h (Section 11.3.3) showed that the Case C structural response would be nearly identical to the Case B structural response at a time between 4.0 h and 4.5 h.” However, when we read Section 11.3.3, we see that the analysis of Case C structural response was not carried out to 4.5 hours. Instead, we see that the response of Case C at 4.0 h was somewhat similar to the response of Case B at 3.5 h. NIST must explain how it extrapolated the Case C damage to 4.5 hours, when it was using lower temperatures in Case C than in Case B.”

“Also, no detailed analysis is disclosed for the Case A temperatures. NIST must include this data generated by Case A temperatures in its Report so the public can independently determine whether Case A profiles should be used in the subsequent LS-DYNA model.”

“REASON FOR COMMENT: Most important is the fact that NIST’s use of the structural response to only Case B temperatures in its subsequent LS-DYNA model represents yet another example of NIST choosing input data that would tend to overestimate the temperatures and structural damage caused during the WTC 7 fires. We explained above how NIST did this before with respect to gross overestimates of combustible loads on floors 11, 12 and 13. These happen to be the exact floors on which the most damage was caused in NIST’s black box model. Why did NIST not use the Case A and Case C structural response in the LS-DYNA model? Or, if it did, why did it not report the results of these models?”

5). NIST entirely ignored the voluminous evidence of molten metal at the building's base, and steel sulfidation documented by FEMA, despite these issues having been directly raised with NIST in press conferences, and public comment periods for this and the previous report on the Twin Towers. NIST's pointmen act as if they never heard of aluminothermic incendiaries, yet some of the NIST Report authors and other supporters of the collapse theory have been on the forefront of research into advanced energetic materials based on thermite.

Here are quotes from someone else which directs us more so to the likely cause of the unprecendented implosion of Building-7:
“We were surprised that the building [WTC7] collapsed, we being the team that investigated what occurred on that day. There was some damage to the Tower 7 caused by debris that hit it from Tower 1 but the damage was certainly not similar in scope or magnitude to that caused by the aircrafts hitting Towers 1 and 2. Normally when you have a structural failure you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is on the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7″.
[Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field.]
Dr Jonathan Barnett again: “A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. [New York Times, November 29, 2001]”

Bullshit Detector

we do NOT support this

10.09.2010 23:35

The list of supporting organisations includes Tree House Cafe.

We have no interest in, or affiliation with, the "truth" movement, and we never have. We certainly are not a supporting organisation.

Treehouse cafe