Fox News Reports on Collapse of Building 7 Before It Happens

[Big_D]

See you make the mistake of relying on authority and blindly accepting what they say.If pete rose-probably the best hitter in the history of baseball goes and tells you the best way to hit a baseball is to swing at it like your chopping wood are you going to automatically rely on his word that he is telling the truth when the evidence is overwhelming that thats not the way you do it,that you swing at a level way?

I am not ignoring the opposite side of this view. I am aware of what they are saying. You are the one who seems to be ignoring the truth. Did you not see my list of engineering professors at the top engineering universities in the world at post number 260? Don't forget I have used many others. All of these individuals believe that 9/11 was done by the terrorists. They might differ on the specifics. However, they all agree that the middle eastern terrorists who flew the planes in the buildings were the cause of why those buildings fell. Do you really believe that none of these people know what they are talking about? Do you think that all the young adults who go to these schools are getting screwed as their professors just simply do not know what they are talking about?

I posted that canadawantsthe truth link that has over 47 videos that prove it,why do you ignore it and dont watch those videos,why do you not bother to read the evidence at 911truth? why do you ignore what the designers who built the buildings say that griffith quotes in his book?

Who's to say I didn't go on that watch those links or ignore those designers? Again, you ASSUME I didn't.

sorry but I will listen to what the people who actually BUILT THE TOWERS had to say before the towers went uo than the experts you like to think are god.LOL and THEY said as i said earlierm,that the towers were designed to take MULTIPLE hits form airliners,that if it DID take a hit,there would be a great loss of human lives and but the structures themselves would remain standing.its all there in Griffiths book.

Why do you listen to Griffin's book and not the list of professor I listed on post number 260? How about the article I asked you and Eots to debunk? Why do you not agree with this professor, especially when he has such excellent credentials? As I have said, this passed the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in their engineering division. Griffin's and Kevin Ryan's articles/books never passed this high society of engineering professors from around the globe. Why do you take their world of the best engineering minds we have to offer? Here a link for the best engineering schools in the world:
World's Top 10 Engineering Schools 2008/2009 | SKORCAREER
From the top five listed, I have used engineering professors at all five of them. Again, they all agree with me. So my question again is: Do you think that any of these engineering professors know what they are talking about? Sorry, but I will take their word over a philosophy professor and Ryan.

 

[Big_D]

I mean come on George Bush and bill clinton are authority figures,but do you believe and trust in everything they say? LOL.

Of course not. Who said I did?

btw,I looked at that on what you supplied and those are just internet links.that proves nothing,they can type in anything at those propagation sites.

Wow. Does this mean that on Alex Jones website they are not allowed to type what they want. NOBODY is forcing those people to write papers on 9/11. I guess that the engineering professor from the university of Tokyo just felt like making up a story on why the WTC buildings collapse. Or how about the engineering professors from the University of Sydney, Cambridge University, University of Edinburgh, University of Purdue, so on and so forth?

Those websites must hold some value in your book or you would have refuted the article which I asked you to numerous times now. You say time and time again that I make assumptions. Well now I assume that since you did not refute it, this means that you can not refute it. If you could then it would be done by now. In post number 144 you said you would refute the article by Bazant, but never did over two weeks later. Why is that?

they can type in anything they want on the net at wikepedia or those other sites you listed.

I used just ONE link from Wikipedia and that was one professor's credentials that I also backed up with another website. So you think that they can type in anything they want from these universities websites? Do you believe these people are even professors? Are the schools just making web pages for engineering professors that do not exist?

those links prove nothing.Well of course you dont believe it because you are clueless about how the CFR group works or operates.

By those university websites mean nothing while alex jones site and Canada for the truth holds a lot of value in your book. Do you not see anything wrong with that?

Bush Sr used to be the former director of the CIA,the last person you should believe in is someone who served in the CIA.LOL.Boy you are really ignorant if you actually believe this that nobody can tell the president what to do and that they are not puppets.

Why should I not believe that the president is not the most powerful person in the county? You never proved it otherwise. You supplied links to alternative websites, but you never proved anything. So now prove to me why the president isn't powerful. See what your problem is that you make claims that you do not back up. As I have said, I have believed in conspiracies in the past when I thought the evidence was there. I have read your info and the evidence is simply not there. When you make a claim (like when you state Obama is an awful person, knows that 9/11 was a hoax, and might have even had a hand in creating it) it opens a pandora's box of questions. Too many that can make you claim reasonable. Also, Obama was in the Illinois state senate at the time of the attacks. We all know he did not have a hand in the attacks. Yet, you think it is possible.

The next problem is when you instantly dismiss pieces of evidence that oppose your claim. For example, my list of experts from around the globe and Bin laden claiming responsibility for the attacks. YOU are the one that is ignorant when you think I should take the word from all these experts who disagree with you.

Your hilarious.if you try to run the country by yourself like kennedy did then well you end up being offed by the CIA.kennedy made the mistake of believeing that the president runs the country.thats the way it SHOULD be and thats how it was drawn up,but thats not the way it is anymore.I already addressed that to you before why those experts from popular mechanics of professors here in the states and around the world cant be trusted.

No you did not. You made an adequate case why more people will not go forward if they believe in the hoax. Yet, you never said why these professors from around the world agree why 9/11 was not an inside job.

I have said this before like 3 times and I'll say it again,READ griffiths book,dont just look at a page in the middle of it and be done with it.He explains in there why you cant believe those experts in popular mechanics.

Why would I trust Griffin if I couldn't trust all those engineering professors? In Griffins book he doesn't combat the Popular Mechanics article. He simply says how it is different from other experts. For example, in the "melted steel" section he says that Thomas Edgar's article on why the towers fell is different from the popular mechanics article. They state that Edgar says the heat rose to 700 degrees Celsius in the WTC building meanwhile, PM says it is 900. That is all.

Again, why would you take the word of a philosophy professor over the list of engineering professors from post # 260?

 

[Big_D]

NOW to address your last post on page 10.Do I take the opinion of a former philosophy professor over physics and engineering experts? like i said before,I dont soley rely on Griiffith.dont know WHERE you got that idea.He interviewed those kinds of experts in those fields is how he came to his conclusions and like eots said,griffith isnt the only one who has this opinion.

So you take the word of someone who interviewed experts than you do of the experts themselves?

why dooes EOTS link of over 500 engineers and over 150 pilots he has posted to you multiple times mean nothing to you? you always ignore that link he provides.

You apparently know me more than I know myself. Tell me where i have said that this means nothing to me. This is where you seem to stretch the truth. The 500 engineers and architects who signed the petition are NOT saying they believe 9/11 was an inside job. They are saying that they want a new investigation opened. There are many different reasons why they would want this. It doesnt mean they believe it was a hoax. You make it seem that all these 500 people agree with you, when they do not. According to this site there are almost 2 million engineers in the U.S. alone. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf02325/
According to this site, there are 132,000 architects in the U.S. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm Yet, only 500 of architects and engineers in the world signed the petition to have the investigation reopened. Again, these 500 architects and engineers are NOT saying that 9/11 was an inside job, they simply want a new investigation.

You have done this in the past, in other threads. You claim that Senator Mark Dayton and congressman Dennis Kucinich believe that 9/11 was an inside job because they want a new investigation reopened. Meanwhile, they have NEVER said this. As I said before, you jump from one point to the next without showing us how you got to the second point. It is like you are saying that since A is true then B has to be true.

Egar is corrupt.You have way too much faith in him.

I think that I only quoted him once. You keep bringing his name up because he is an easier target to attack than the other experts I have used. I put most of my faith on Dr. Zdeněk P. Bažant's paper. As I have said countless times, this is the one who you said you would refute and the one I asked you to debunk. Again, this is the paper that passed the society of engineering professors from around the globe. Griffin's book did not, but Bažant's did. Yet, you think I should agree with Griffin. That flat out does not make any sense. Since you have not refuted it then I again presume you cannot. That is another reason why I have a hard time believing you. If you were right, this would easily be refuted, but never was. Why do I put most of my faith in him? It is because this passed the society's review and b/c of his credentials:

Engineer Zdeněk P. Bažant is best known as a world leader in scaling research in solid mechanics (1–6). His research focuses on the effect of structure size on structural strength as it relates to the failure behavior of the structure. He also has made outstanding advances in structural stability (7), fracture mechanics (8), the micromechanics of material damage (8–10), concrete creep (11–13), and probabilistic mechanics (6, 8, 14). He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1996 and to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002, 1 of only 153 members with such a dual appointment... Bažant's work has spanned several engineering disciplines, and he has been honored with numerous awards in recognition of his accomplishments. In 1996, he received the Prager Medal from the Society of Engineering Science (SES) and the Newmark Medal from the American Society of Civil Engineers. In 1997, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers awarded him the Warner Medal, which recognizes outstanding contributions to the engineering literature. He has received four honorary doctorates and will be presented with a fifth this fall from l'Institut National des Sciences Appliquées in Lyon, France. Bažant has authored or coauthored six books and more than 450 articles in refereed journals. In 2001, he received the award of Highly Cited Researcher, which is given by the Institute for Scientific Information to only 250 authors worldwide across all engineering fields. In addition, he served as president of SES and was founding president of the International Association of Fracture Mechanics and Concrete Structures.
Biography of Zdeněk P. Bažant — PNAS

Here is his paper on 9/11:http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

So why would I take the word of anyone else over his?

 

[eots]

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.
Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives. [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]

... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.

The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).

Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!" http://impactglassman


Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks."


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[Big_D]

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.
Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives. [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]

... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.

The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).

Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!" http://impactglassman


Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks."


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

Unless you can disprove the credibility of the engineering review dept at the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, you cannot make the case that any of the articles that you have supplied are more reliable than this one:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

 

[garyd]

It takes six months to rig a 20 story building for controlled Demolition. You nut jobs in the truth movement are trying to make the case That Some one in the Bush administration could rigand aggregate of 267 stories in 7 months. It would be logistically impossible to manage that in seven months It would be all but impossible just to collect together enough explosives to do it.

 

[DiveCon]

It takes six months to rig a 20 story building for controlled Demolition. You nut jobs in the truth movement are trying to make the case That Some one in the Bush administration could rigand aggregate of 267 stories in 7 months. It would be logistically impossible to manage that in seven months It would be all but impossible just to collect together enough explosives to do it.

not just the Bush administration

 

[LA RAM FAN]

It takes six months to rig a 20 story building for controlled Demolition. You nut jobs in the truth movement are trying to make the case That Some one in the Bush administration could rigand aggregate of 267 stories in 7 months. It would be logistically impossible to manage that in seven months It would be all but impossible just to collect together enough explosives to do it.

will ignorance ever cease to exist.you clearly have no clue that the government has all the explosives in the world easily capable of pulling this off and are obviously not aware that Bushs brother and cousin were in charge of the security for the towers in the prior months before the explosion.yes it would take a few months to do but when your the president who is the son of a former president who was a former CIA director before becoming president and your two brothers are in charge of the security for the towers,pretty easy to pull off actually.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

nothing, but it DOES expose the general mindset of the 9/11 troofers

actually it means everything.it was posted to show that david schippers is an honest man who wants to do the right thing.He was on alex jones talking about how it was an inside job once cause of how many attempts he tried to get a hold of ashcroft to listen to him that he had agents in the FBI who knew attacks were immenent on the towers but ashcroft never returned any of his calls.like i said,these FBI agents went to schippers cause their FBI superiours would not look into the information they had that there would be terrorists attacks aganst the towers,they wouldnt look into it cause they wanted it to happen.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

NIST -a government institution is a laughable source to rely on.NIST has failed to disprove the controlled demolition hypothesis and clings to a gravity-assissted collapse hypothesis.This is a disservice to americans and the world.. as growing numbers of people doubt the 9/11 official myths.The twin towers destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions.
1.Extremely rapid onset of collapse
2.sounds of explosions at planes impact zone-a full second prior to collapse {heard by 118 first responders as well as by media,Dan Rather for one reported-this has to be the work of controlled demolitions.
3.observations of flashes [seen by numerous professionals]
4.squibs or [mistimed] explosions,40 floors below the {collapsing} building seen in all the videos.
5.mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking,filing cabinets,1000 people mostly to dust.

 

[DiveCon]

NIST -a government institution is a laughable source to rely on.NIST has failed to disprove the controlled demolition hypothesis and clings to a gravity-assissted collapse hypothesis.This is a disservice to americans and the world.. as growing numbers of people doubt the 9/11 official myths.The twin towers destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions.
1.Extremely rapid onset of collapse
2.sounds of explosions at planes impact zone-a full second prior to collapse {heard by 118 first responders as well as by media,Dan Rather for one reported-this has to be the work of controlled demolitions.
3.observations of flashes [seen by numerous professionals]
4.squibs or [mistimed] explosions,40 floors below the {collapsing} building seen in all the videos.
5.mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking,filing cabinets,1000 people mostly to dust.

not a single one of your points is correct
but you are too stupid to bother with explaining why

 

[LA RAM FAN]

6.massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds.
7.vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves.
8.symmetrical collapse-through the path of greatest resistance -at nearly free fall speed-the columns gave no resistance.
9.the 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris-outside of buillding footprint.
10.blast waves blew out windows in buidings 400 feet away.
11.Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20-50 ton steel elements-obliterating the steel core structure.The photos show them being blown out and were found several blocks away.Impossible from a mere collapse of a building.
12.total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements obliterating the steel core structure.
13.tons of molten metal found by FDNY under all 3 high rises [no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as thermite.
14.chemical signiture of thermate [high tech incediary} found in slags,solidified molten metal}and dust samples by physics professor steven jones PHD.
15.FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples.
16.More than 1000 bodies are unacconted for,700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby blds as late as last year and exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

thanks again for proving your afraid of the truth as always divecon.

 

[DiveCon]

6.massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds.
7.vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves.
8.symmetrical collapse-through the path of greatest resistance -at nearly free fall speed-the columns gave no resistance.
9.the 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris-outside of buillding footprint.
10.blast waves blew out windows in buidings 400 feet away.
11.Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20-50 ton steel elements-obliterating the steel core structure.The photos show them being blown out and were found several blocks away.Impossible from a mere collapse of a building.
12.total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements obliterating the steel core structure.
13.tons of molten metal found by FDNY under all 3 high rises [no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as thermite.
14.chemical signiture of thermate [high tech incediary} found in slags,solidified molten metal}and dust samples by physics professor steven jones PHD.
15.FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples.
16.More than 1000 bodies are unacconted for,700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby blds as late as last year and exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire.

more stupidity

 

[DiveCon]

thanks again for proving your afraid of the truth as always divecon.

no
none of that is the truth
its all lies

 

[LA RAM FAN]

1.slow onset with large visable deformations
2. a symetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance {laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling,intact,from the point of planes impact to the side most damaged by the fires.
3.No evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel.
4.High rise buildings with much larger,hotter and longer lasting fires have never collapsed and as was mentioned before,the towers were designed to take MULTIPLE hitd from airliners as the designers have said.
...helicopter view of north tower looking over bld 7 massive interlaced columns of the north tower are seen falling outward -their ends are severed and glowing white-while streaming smoke from the ends.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

no
none of that is the truth
its all lies

nope,all true,your just in denial frady cat.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Gravity? thermate? NIST admits to not testing any WTC debris for explosives/demolition residue.this amounts to criminal negligence and underlies all the debate in this thread.Had NIST done its proper job recognizing that there were over 500 eyewitness reports,many of which were not coincident with the planes crashing or the buildings collapsing.News footage reveals explosions.It took a freedom of information act petition to get to these eyewitness testimonies about explosions.Testimonies that were omitted from the 9/11 commission report.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

WTC7 is the entry point for many who now know the 9/11 commission report is a farce...a coverup.many explosions occured which are not coincident to the planes crashes before,after,and proceding the collapses.the 9/11 commission report OMITS these.Thats why the people who defend the official version do a disservice to the over 3000 people who lost their lives in the towers.

 

[Toro]

6.massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds.
7.vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves.
8.symmetrical collapse-through the path of greatest resistance -at nearly free fall speed-the columns gave no resistance.
9.the 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris-outside of buillding footprint.
10.blast waves blew out windows in buidings 400 feet away.
11.Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20-50 ton steel elements-obliterating the steel core structure.The photos show them being blown out and were found several blocks away.Impossible from a mere collapse of a building.
12.total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements obliterating the steel core structure.
13.tons of molten metal found by FDNY under all 3 high rises [no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as thermite.
14.chemical signiture of thermate [high tech incediary} found in slags,solidified molten metal}and dust samples by physics professor steven jones PHD.
15.FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples.
16.More than 1000 bodies are unacconted for,700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby blds as late as last year and exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire.

If it had been an explosion, seismographs would have picked up a spike. According to seismographs at NYU, there was no spike. Thus, there was no explosion.