Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[Gamolon]

WTC engineer John Skilling said the perimeter columns alone, which were not the structures' main support (the cores were) could handle an increase in live loads of 2000% before failure.

Mr. Jones. Please elaborate.

What does this actually mean in your opinion? What was the purpose of the perimeter columns? What were they designed to resist?

 

[Triton]

This thread is ridiculous.

 

[candycorn]

"Because the real "truthers" DO NOT want truth..............they want a conspiracy!!"
Do you realize what the "Official conspiracy Theory" has done to this nation? Who in their right mind wants that?
There are so many aspects of it that are so dubious, that it demands a new investigation.
But sometimes I wonder if the lid was blown off this cover up, what the implications would be..Massive chaos, loss of international and domestic credibility..
If the American people want truth they must acknowledge that they have been deceived. If that were to happen, and if they were to accept the facts that have been uncovered by the independent 9-11 research community, their faith in their government would be irreparably destroyed.
( For many it already has) In the long run, it is far easier to maintain one’s faith in a deceptive government than to deal with the painful details of that deception.

The defenders of the OCT of 9-11 inevitably ask how so many people could keep a secret. "Wouldn't someone have blown the whistle by now?" is the constant question by the champions of denial. How naive.

At the higher levels of government the issue is no longer about secrecy, but about survival. The extent of the 9-11 crimes are so great that a very real scenario of self preservation has arisen. It may well be that whistle blowers fear the consequences of exposing the truth about 9-11, not to themselves, but to the nation.

It is highly probable that they believe that their testimony would lead to the end of the United States of America as a viable power.
In this worst case scenario, the good people in our government and in our intelligence community may really fear that America would never ever regain its credibility in the world, and would never again be respected or trusted. They may envision a terrible time when the United States would relinquish its leadership position in the world and sink to the position of a rogue nation that had committed an unforgivable atrocity against its own people for political purposes. If this is so, can anyone blame them for not coming forward to expose what they know?

A deep love of country might easily create a dilemma for those who know the truth. What would happen at that unimaginable moment when a ranking government official was charged with complicity in 9-11? Would the nation recover? Could the nation heal after such a huge betrayal of the trust that has been cultivated and nurtured over our 230 year history as a nation?

But, in fact, they are badly mistaken. The United States of America will not crumble with the revelation of their actions because our foundation is too strong to falter at their hands. History is never without obstacles to progress and this ordeal will not be an exception. On the contrary, if and when the truth is ever known, this nation will be stronger and nobler for that knowledge.

And it is for those reasons that we must continue to pursue the truth.
Bottom line: the real facts are out there, somewhere. The questions being asked are legitimate and raise reasonable suspicions that must be addressed.
Refusing the 9/11 Evidence

The "lid" is never going to be "blown off this cover-up"!! There just isn't evidence to support that. No matter how much you believe it, want it, & know it in your heart, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference unless you can PROVE IT! It's been almost a decade. Plenty of time to put a real case together against the government. Yet, there hasn't been one. And for good reason, there aren't any hard facts to prove your case. I agree there are some questions that we don't know the answers to. Do you think the answers to those questions are going to abolish the evidence that is already known? Yes, NIST may have screwed up. But correcting a few of their calculations isn't going to change the out come. The call for a re-investigation is nothing but a ploy to keep this fading "truth movement" alive. No investigation will ever satisfy the "truth movement".

Right, right, and right.

You know....the REAL tragedy of the twoof movement is that it could have been so beneficial. I don't think any of us would argue that the system got fixed. While we're strip searching little old ladies and doing aggressive pat-downs of toddlers....absolutely no screening takes place of private planes or those who charter them. Check out a recent article by Andrew Goldman in the Atlantic. Very little air freight gets screened.

The twoof movement could have been useful in solving the neglected problems of real airline security. The twoof movement, instead got fixated on blaming everybody and everything other than the actual perpetrators and, in the process, made themselves look silly, stupid, and somewhat distrurbed. Case in point, would you let EOTS weed your flowerbed--do you want someone like him knowing where you live?

Anyway, Al Queda's days of hijacking aircraft is over for the time being. They move on to the next area of vulnerability because they take a long time in planning and discovered plots yield intel. It will be a McVeigh type that hits us using airlines next time (and there will be a next time because we have collectively rolled over and hit the snooze button).

Again, when it happens next time, these losers will blame the FBI, CIA, NSA, and everybody other than the actual perpetrators.

How sad.

 

[Mr. Jones]

QUOTE]

Why do you continue to compare the structures to sold entities in order to make your comparisons? What you are failing to see is that the upper and lower "blocks" are comprised of many individual components brought to together with CONNECTIONS. CONNECTIONS that are not in any way, shape, or form, designed to withstand the downward force of that descending block.

Did you just refer to BLOCKS?? Solid entities? Why do you?
Of course the towers were not 2 solid blocks! They were constructed with attached components! But it is a fact the components lower in the building were made with stronger, thicker columns, and beams designed to support much more loads then the top half of the towers.
Are you adding extra downward force, on the lower, by NOT taking into account all that fell to the sides and onto the streets??
Why are you leaving out the fact that there were truss supports all around the core, as well as the perimeter,...on every single floor.
You are going to sit here and say that every single one of those welded, and bolted supports would just give way, to allow a mear 10 seconds for 110 ten storys to collapse??
You aren't using your head man.

The towers had a strong core structure and perimeter columns all around the outside. The 47 core columns held up approximately 60% of the vertical load, and the 244 perimeter columns distributed the remaining 40% across the four walls, 10% per wall.

That is why I keep asking you the following.

Were these truss supports circled in red...

...designed to resist the force of this block, circled in red, coming down?

Who is implying that the top was BLOCK??
The part you reference, is made up of less thicker and less hardy, robust materials, that is a FACT.

It had to overcome the lower portion of the heavier, denser more stronger part, and since they weren't 2 separate "blocks" like you keep telling me to not think of, but it is somehow OK for you to,
The power part out weighed the top in strength, and size.
Even taking the kinetic force, of what, 12 ft?
IT SHOULD NOT HAVE COLLAPSED IN 10 FUCKING SECONDS.


Actual floor plans were withheld from the public for more than five years, and finally leaked by a whistleblower.
Actual construction photos make the real structure clear. Notice the extensive horizontal and diagonal cross bracing, particularly on the corner columns of the core.

The columns in the core had a separate set of heavier side braces for the floors. What happened to them?
What are the fuel loads for these particular floor truss connections?
Your failed truss theory doesn't hold up very well after further scrutiny.
The floor plans exposed the misrepresentation by FEMA and NIST of the true structure, which helped them support their theory of how a gravity-driven collapse occurred.

In order for each floor to hold up all the floors above it, the columns in lower floors must be much stronger and heavier than those above. In fact, the core columns on the bottom were 10 times more massive compared to those near the top.
You don't seem to grasp, OR want to admit is that the lower part of these massive towers were more robust, and stronger, as Skilling has been quoted as saying.

So the rectangular shaped towers were actually built more like pyramids internally.
The towers were designed, by standard building practice, such that the columns at each floor could resist the weight of 3-5 times all the floors above it. The safety factor.
This means each tower could have had 3-5 times as many floors before being on the verge of collapsing under its own weight.
This would surly lead to an arrest of the collapse, halt its momentum, at least to the point that it would take much longer then 10secs!
And don't forget that some mechanical floors had additional structural steel to support heavy machinery.

The Engineering News-Record declared that “live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000 percent before failure occurs.” -Skilling
So why the extremely quick collapses?

What YOU don't seem to understand is that in order for the towers and building 7 to collapse, to produce at or near free fall speeds as NIST has suggested for WTC 1-2, and forced to admit in WTC7,
The resistance has to be removed by something, and the article I linked simply states that fire temps inside that building have been shown to NOT be enough to do that.
Not enough to simultaneously remove all the resistance, to allow such fast collapse times. No where close to producing this--

This does not look like, or describe what you are trying to say it is.
This is an expulsion of debris, in an explosive manner...
Not your failed truss, floor by floor fantasy.
Also....notice how much of the actual core is standing?
Can the use of any type of explosive/incendiary be ruled out, happening somewhere in there?? If you say yes, how can you be sure when the NIST didn't even bother to check??
Could you distinguish any explosions from floors hitting each other in all that shit?
That should have been the first thing they looked for, especially given the complexes history.

Why can you not understand this? This is why we see perimeter columns peeling away like banana peels from the tower proper. The debris that was the upper block came down and severed the floor truss connections circled in red. There were huge elevator motors, electrical control panels, etc. in that debris.

You yourself are using the words"blocks"
The top part of the buildings were made of LIGHTER materials!!!.
The top would have had to have met more resistance then a mere 10 secs. for the entire collapse!!
The lower part of the towers were more ROBUST, were BUILT WITH SAFETY FACTORS, the falling top part would have been met with a resisting force, that should have momentarily DELAYED, EACH FLOOR.
You don't stop to think that the floors huge motors, panels that you mentioned, were supported by EXTRA heavier load bearing materials, and were taken into account?
Have you not read this about the WTC, or do you think the tops of towers like the WTC are built to the same standards as the lower, and no consideration is taken for extra loads on mechanical floors?

"I don't disagree that the floors must have collapsed at some point," said Matthys Levy, a founding partner at Weidlinger Associates, who has written a new chapter on the core-collapse theory for his 1992 book, "Why Buildings Fall Down," and plans to release a new edition in January. "I don't think that's enough to cause the buildings to go down."

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither FEMA's Study nor NIST's Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.
So effective was FEMA at concealing the nature of the cores that the 9/11 Commission Report , citing the FEMA Report, denied the very existence of the core columns.
9-11 Research: Tower Blueprints

I suggest you look over the videos that are available on the WTC construction, and look again at the NIST and FEMA articles written on the collapses, and notice how they minimize just how truly massive these things were, then ask yourself, how all the tons of steel and material could collapse in 10 secs.
Quit believing everything they say about it, as there is much proof presented that they are wrong.

 

[Patriot911]

QUOTE]

Why do you continue to compare the structures to sold entities in order to make your comparisons? What you are failing to see is that the upper and lower "blocks" are comprised of many individual components brought to together with CONNECTIONS. CONNECTIONS that are not in any way, shape, or form, designed to withstand the downward force of that descending block.

Did you just refer to BLOCKS?? Solid entities? Why do you?

Probably because you continue to worship the dumbass known as Richard Gage who demonstrated why it had to be a controlled demoltion by using two cardboard boxes.... solid entities.

So, Jones.... where's the evidence you keep promising us you have? Ready to admit you're a lowlife liar yet? I'm not going to stop.

 

[Trojan]

One thing that always bugs me, this claim that the blue prints for the WTC towers do not exist, or are somehow hard to find.

The WTC towers were the subject of asbestos litigation for well over a decade before 9/11 - i've seen them myself. They have been produced or otherwise made available to mutiple parties for many years.

 

[Patriot911]

One thing that always bugs me, this claim that the blue prints for the WTC towers do not exist, or are somehow hard to find.

The WTC towers were the subject of asbestos litigation for well over a decade before 9/11 - i've seen them myself. They have been produced or otherwise made available to mutiple parties for many years.

Not that hard to find. North tower blueprints.

Blueprints are rarely given to people without a legitimate need to have the blueprints because they can be used for illegal purposes. Imagine what the terrorists in 92 could have done if they had the blueprints and understood where to park the van for the most damage.

 

[Mr. Jones]

The "lid" is never going to be "blown off this cover-up"!! There just isn't evidence to support that. No matter how much you believe it, want it, & know it in your heart, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference unless you can PROVE IT!

Could you please make yourself clear as to what do you mean by proof?
As far as providing proof that the NIST reports are flawed, there are many independent researchers who have pointed out many discrepancies, and this should already be well known to someone who has seriously looked into the 9-11 debate. It really is silly to even ask. But I have provided just a small amount at the end of this post.

It's been almost a decade. Plenty of time to put a real case together against the government. Yet, there hasn't been one. And for good reason, there aren't any hard facts to prove your case. I agree there are some questions that we don't know the answers to.

You are acting naive about the vast power that the government has over the researchers who have contrary theories to it, and its own citizens. Do you not understand this is not some 2 bit small claims case, and the very people who likely would be defendants have a shitload of sway over the process?
Do you have any idea of the struggle this uphill battle poses, even for members who try to get a bill passed for a new investigation?
Are you even aware of any litigation about 9-11?

Do you think the answers to those questions are going to abolish the evidence that is already known?

It would turn the OCT on its head, and shake the nation if ever allowed to happen.
I and many others are hopeful that if a new independent investigation with subpoena power ever comes to fruition, that the vast amount of new information that has been accumulated, and along with the many witnesses that were ignored, would indeed show that a rouge element of our government allowed, and or facilitated the 9-11 attacks.

Yes, NIST may have screwed up. But correcting a few of their calculations isn't going to change the out come.

You are only spouting off you opinion, and have no legitimate substance to even conclude this would be close to the truth. You probably don't even know what the main argument points about the 9-11 attacks are. If you do, would you show us what you think they are please?

The call for a re-investigation is nothing but a ploy to keep this fading "truth movement" alive. No investigation will ever satisfy the "truth movement".

Terribly naive and bordering on stupid. So you think that the truth movement wanting a new look at evidence is only a ploy?? On the contrary, there are many patriots who love what the counry is supposed to stand for and mean to them, whereas many people like yourself have lost all meaning about what America is supposed to stand for, if you ever did at all.
Tell us who stood to gain more from the 9-11 attacks, the MIC, the government and defense industries, the energy companies, or the movement that would not even exist if there had been actual transparency and honesty in our government, starting with honest elections?

It's astounding how some of you readily admit that NIST may have "screwed up" but you just prefer to sit on your hands, and do nothing, while the nation pays for the consequences, with blood and treasure, and IOUs.

And for the record, There is convincing and compelling witness testimony. There are many credible witnesses and their testimony is convincing because it seems to match. This is called having a case. This has moved beyond theory into the realm of testimony, and demonstrative evidential proof. The problem is it would be a matter for the federal courts.
Federal judges are appointed and none of them will hear it. Many have tried bringing claims to court. This is the stumbling road block.

The government decides what is to be a conspiracy theory and what lies you are supposed to believe as the truth. People like you allow this to happen by acquiescing to everything they tell you, even though you know it to be harmful to you, your families and children, and the nation as a whole.
They know people tend to avoid being called a conspiracy theorist because it's socially punished, and are cowards. The government knows exactly how to manage his herd, and has done a good job at it on most brain dead people.

But alas, if you would like to read about what others have to say that counters the OCT and proves that there is vast evidence to oppose it here you go.



Journal of 9/11 Studies...

Propping Up the War on Terror
9-11 Review...

• Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust
Jim Hoffman
• Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, and others
• Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
By Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, & Steven E. Jones
• Mysteries of the Twin Towers
R. Herbst
• The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
By Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti
• Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST
By 16 scientists, scholars, architects, and engineers
• Public comments on the NIST WTC 7 draft report. Submitted to NIST 09/11/08.
Jonathan Cole P.E.
• WTC 7: A Short Computation
Prof. Kenneth L. Kuttler
• Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Seffen
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
• Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Stories of WTC 1
Gordon Ross Journal of 9/11 Studies
• Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
• Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
Kevin Ryan - U.L. whistleblower - former Site Manager
• Physical Chemistry of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Alum-Rich Microspheres at Demise of WTC 1 & 2
Jerry Lobdill 6/15/2007
• The Destruction of WTC 7
Vesa Raiskila
• The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation?
Eric Douglas, Architect
• Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method
Prof. Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics
• DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY
by Gordon Ross, ME [1], June 4, 2007*
• Open Letter to Purdue President France Córdova
Kevin Ryan, B.S. Chem.
• Jones vs. Robertson: A Physicist and a Structural Engineer Debate the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center
Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor, 911Research.com
• Another Structural Engineer Questions WTC Collapses
William Rice, P.E.
• Can Physics Rewrite History?
Chuck Thurston
• Reply to Protec's "A critical analysis of the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 & 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint"
Jim Hoffman
• NIST's World Trade Center FAQ: A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
Jim Hoffman
• Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
Jim Hoffman
• The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin
• Another reason the 9/11 fire-mediated collapse theory is wrong
Joseph Smith
• Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth
Jim Hoffman
• Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
Dr. Steven E. Jones
• Proof That The Thermal and Gravitational Energy Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center on 9/11/01
Terry Morrone
• Report on Weidlinger Simulation
Leaked WTC Blueprints contain 3D simulations from the Weidlinger report that contradict the NIST repoort of the Twin Tower's destruction
• Engineering News Record: The World Trade Center
• Bad Science: Keith Seffen And The WTC 'Collapse'
Winter Patriot blog 9/14/07
• UK Engineer: WTC 'Collapses' Were 'A Very Ordinary Thing'
Winter Patriot blog 9/11/07
• Explosions or Collapse? The Semantics of Deception and the Significance of Categories
C. Thurston
• My Response to Ryan Mackey and the Self-Crushing Building Theory, "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking"
by Chuck Thurston
• NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire
Frank Legge (Ph D) Logical Systems Consulting Perth, Western Australia. [email protected]
• High Velocity Bursts of Debris from Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers
Kevin Ryan
• Response to NIST on Control Demolition Investigation Failure
Crockett Grabbe © January 13, 2008 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
• Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum
Crockett Grabbe © January 18, 2008 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
• Collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center
Crockett Grabbe © December 23, 2007 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
• Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics
By Dr. Crockett Grabbe and Lenny Charles 9/08/07
• 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation Was Impossible
Dec 23, 2007
by Frank Legge, PhD & Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
• Dr Seffen Paper Proven Ludicrous
by Mick Meany
Feb, 2008
• Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Danial Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe
January 2007
• Engineer Sees Evidence of Extreme Temperatures in WTC Steel
Submitted by Shoestring on Mon, 02/25/2008
• The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers
Tony Szamboti, ME --- May, 2007
• WTC 1 - The Case for Collapse Arrest
Anders Bjorkman - Apr 19, 2008
• The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites
Kevin R. Ryan, 7-02-08
• Response to ”Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis” by K.A. Seffen
Crockett Grabbe
• How the Towers were Demolished
------------------------------------------------------------------
United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar
04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
Full Article Here
-By Gordon Ross
AE911Truth.org...

Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11
by Alan Miller
Official Account of 9/11: “Flawed”, “Absurd”, “Totally Inadequate”, “a Cover-up”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
January 5, 2008 – Eight U.S. State Department veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. “There is no question in my mind, that there is enough evidence to justify a very comprehensive and hard hitting investigation of the kind we have not seen, with subpoenas, general questioning of people, releasing a lot of documents,” said Daniel Ellsberg, PhD, in a 2006 interview with Jack Blood. Full Article
National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation

August 27, 2007 – World renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., today severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation, “I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.” Full Article
Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones
Pilots For 9/11 Truth...

F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 9/11 Plane Wreckage
911Blogger.com | Paying Attention to 9/11 Related News...
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lack of Foundation Damage at the Pentagon is Irreconcilable with the Official Reports and Data
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Conflicting Data, Hardcore Questions and the Media Blackout
pilotsfor911truth.org...
Planes Of September
By Shelton F. Lankord, Core Member, Pilots For 9/11 Truth

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's
pilotsfor911truth.org...

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
That is only a part of what can be found, and I am not going to sit here half the night and post this when all of you who are seriously curious can look plenty up yourself, as well as do your own research about the legaleeze involved.
As you can see there is a mountain of creditable evidence that the Government and its agencies are being obtuse, disingenuous or out right fucking lying.
There is a mountain of scientific creditable proof that NIST deliberately went out their way to deceive us by presenting unscientific findings that does not stand up to true science.
Members of the 911 commission have came out and said: The story we told you, is not what was told to us.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

9/11 Commission: The official cover up guide
The Kean Commission came to New York the second week of May for a two-day set of hearings at The New School University. As hundreds of Sept. 11th family members, reporters and curious New Yorkers lined up for airport-style security checks, they received copies of a new 24-page booklet published by NY 9/11 Truth, with help from 911Truth.org.
"Scamming America: The Official 9/11 Cover-up" is named after a quote by former Sen. Max Cleland, who resigned from the commission last November with the words, "Bush is scamming America."
Cleland attacked his own commission after the other members cut a deal to accept highly limited access to CIA reports to the White House that may indicate advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the Bush administration. "This is a scam," Cleland said. "It's disgusting. America is being cheated."

"As each day goes by," Cleland said, "we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted.... Let's chase this rabbit into the ground. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war."
The 911 OS is a proven lie, and this is just some of the indisputable creditable and scientific facts that prove the OS is a lie.

If you own the courthouses, no amount of proof will be able to prosecute people with that amount of power and who are politically untouchable, for now. This is what tyranny is all about, it is deliberately stifleling anything anyone has to say about 9-11, that contradicts their criminal agenda.
Do you think that because the criminals say what is proof and what isn't, there is no proof?? The defendants are in charge of what is considered evidence??

 

[Mr. Jones]

One thing that always bugs me, this claim that the blue prints for the WTC towers do not exist, or are somehow hard to find.

The WTC towers were the subject of asbestos litigation for well over a decade before 9/11 - i've seen them myself. They have been produced or otherwise made available to mutiple parties for many years.

The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remained off-limits to the public for more than five years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information.
Released in March of 2007.

Official Reports Misrepresented the Towers' Construction
9-11 Research: Tower Blueprints

 

[Mr. Jones]

In any event, the speed of such an unlikely collapse would have to be considerably slower than free-fall, to account for the resistance of the "clay." Free-fall speed could only be attained by all of the steel in the structure reaching melting point of 2800F, a condition which would require the adding of even more tons of office materials burning with the heat and efficiency of a blast furnace. The only other way for a steel frame to come down at free-fall is for it to be cut into small pieces all at once or in rapid progression, so that the remains of the structure are falling through air. This is precisely what a demolition is.

I suggest you ask a structural engineer about this because you clearly do not understand one bit of structural engineering.

Read this.
Structural Material Behavior in Fire: Steel: Hot Rolled Carbon Steel Mechanical Properties

Steel STARTS to lose it's strength at about 572 degrees F (300 C). Here's a problem for you to ask a structural engineer. Go to this site and pick out a 40 foot long steel wide flange.
Structural Steel W Flange Section Properties Moment of Inertia, Steel Beam Size,Cross Section Area -* Engineers Edge

Ask the engineer to figure out how much of a load would need to be applied on top for the wide flange to fail. Now ask him to apply 800 degrees worth of heat to that flange and figure out how much of a load needs to applied to make that wide flange fail.

Let me know if the load remains the same for both cases. This will put your "steel needs to be melted in order to fail" claim to rest. A failed column is failed whether it is cut or over-stressed. Both will provide no support and result in the free fall of it's supported load.

I mean, what your basically saying is that no matter what load I put on a steel column, it will ALWAYS provide some resistance. The only way to do away with any resistance is to cut it or melt it.

Pure craziness.

I guess, based on your thinking, if I dropped a 1,000,000 pound weight on the top of vertical W10x60, that weight would not fall at free fall to the ground.

You still don't understand that the problem is the removal of resistance that is needed to achieve the very fast "essentially at free fall speeds" that NIST even admitted to. The article is being sarcastic and making a point that to do this fast collapse all the steel supporting would have to be melted, at the same time.
NIST leaves a lot out, in the hopes no one would notice the anomalies and BS that other researchers have found.
The failing of a column depends on many variables, among them at the WTC is the heat, the length of time it is heated, and where it is heated, and obviously intelligent researchers have calculated and concluded something other then gravity helped the collapses along in order to have it collapse in such short times, not only once, but 3 times in history, and one building didn't even need to be hit by a plane

It isn't as simple as calculating what the top stories weigh and doing the calculations with gravity, and the estimated distance of the fall to the lower part. You leave out thinking about the other things I mentioned before.

 

[eots]

The man does not believe there were any explosives. Read his papers, not just what Alex Jones tells you to read.

No one ever said he did, he believes there needs to be a re investigation.. because fact finding was deterred and blocked ..that the NIST conclusions are questionable and list very valid reasons why the investigative procedure was terrible flawed and intentionally hampered, for what ever reason

Then I am surprised that you used him as a reference, sense he seems to contradict your views. If I remember correctly, you believe that explosives are the likely cause of the collapse. And as you just agreed, he does NOT believe that to be the case. He believes that the damage caused by the planes and the fire is what caused the collapses. He just thinks that NIST failed to get the exact part that failed first, triggering the collapse. So, I'm not sure what a new investigation would prove. That the trusses failed in this spot instead of in that spot? That the core failed on this floor instead of that floor? That really doesn't change the outcome.
I understand, from an engineering perspective, he wants to know the EXACT cause. That is the nature of an engineer. I know, I am one. We want the details!
As far as his questions for NIST, I think they are valid. But the answers to those questions are not going to point to some "inside job" conspiracy. They are just going to allow a better understanding of how the damage and the fires destroyed those buildings.
And if that is your stance?................That you want to know what ACTUALLY happened? Then I would be wrong to group you with the "truthers". Because the real "truthers" DO NOT want truth..............they want a conspiracy!!

deterring fact finding and and blocking an investigation for what ever reason is a conspiracy

 

[Rationalist1016]

The "lid" is never going to be "blown off this cover-up"!! There just isn't evidence to support that. No matter how much you believe it, want it, & know it in your heart, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference unless you can PROVE IT!

Could you please make yourself clear as to what do you mean by proof?
As far as providing proof that the NIST reports are flawed, there are many independent researchers who have pointed out many discrepancies, and this should already be well known to someone who has seriously looked into the 9-11 debate. It really is silly to even ask. But I have provided just a small amount at the end of this post.

You are acting naive about the vast power that the government has over the researchers who have contrary theories to it, and its own citizens. Do you not understand this is not some 2 bit small claims case, and the very people who likely would be defendants have a shitload of sway over the process?
Do you have any idea of the struggle this uphill battle poses, even for members who try to get a bill passed for a new investigation?
Are you even aware of any litigation about 9-11?

It would turn the OCT on its head, and shake the nation if ever allowed to happen.
I and many others are hopeful that if a new independent investigation with subpoena power ever comes to fruition, that the vast amount of new information that has been accumulated, and along with the many witnesses that were ignored, would indeed show that a rouge element of our government allowed, and or facilitated the 9-11 attacks.

You are only spouting off you opinion, and have no legitimate substance to even conclude this would be close to the truth. You probably don't even know what the main argument points about the 9-11 attacks are. If you do, would you show us what you think they are please?

The call for a re-investigation is nothing but a ploy to keep this fading "truth movement" alive. No investigation will ever satisfy the "truth movement".

Terribly naive and bordering on stupid. So you think that the truth movement wanting a new look at evidence is only a ploy?? On the contrary, there are many patriots who love what the counry is supposed to stand for and mean to them, whereas many people like yourself have lost all meaning about what America is supposed to stand for, if you ever did at all.
Tell us who stood to gain more from the 9-11 attacks, the MIC, the government and defense industries, the energy companies, or the movement that would not even exist if there had been actual transparency and honesty in our government, starting with honest elections?

It's astounding how some of you readily admit that NIST may have "screwed up" but you just prefer to sit on your hands, and do nothing, while the nation pays for the consequences, with blood and treasure, and IOUs.

And for the record, There is convincing and compelling witness testimony. There are many credible witnesses and their testimony is convincing because it seems to match. This is called having a case. This has moved beyond theory into the realm of testimony, and demonstrative evidential proof. The problem is it would be a matter for the federal courts.
Federal judges are appointed and none of them will hear it. Many have tried bringing claims to court. This is the stumbling road block.

The government decides what is to be a conspiracy theory and what lies you are supposed to believe as the truth. People like you allow this to happen by acquiescing to everything they tell you, even though you know it to be harmful to you, your families and children, and the nation as a whole.
They know people tend to avoid being called a conspiracy theorist because it's socially punished, and are cowards. The government knows exactly how to manage his herd, and has done a good job at it on most brain dead people.

But alas, if you would like to read about what others have to say that counters the OCT and proves that there is vast evidence to oppose it here you go.



Journal of 9/11 Studies...

Propping Up the War on Terror
9-11 Review...

• Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust
Jim Hoffman
• Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, and others
• Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
By Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, & Steven E. Jones
• Mysteries of the Twin Towers
R. Herbst
• The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
By Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti
• Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST
By 16 scientists, scholars, architects, and engineers
• Public comments on the NIST WTC 7 draft report. Submitted to NIST 09/11/08.
Jonathan Cole P.E.
• WTC 7: A Short Computation
Prof. Kenneth L. Kuttler
• Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Seffen
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
• Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Stories of WTC 1
Gordon Ross Journal of 9/11 Studies
• Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
• Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
Kevin Ryan - U.L. whistleblower - former Site Manager
• Physical Chemistry of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Alum-Rich Microspheres at Demise of WTC 1 & 2
Jerry Lobdill 6/15/2007
• The Destruction of WTC 7
Vesa Raiskila
• The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation?
Eric Douglas, Architect
• Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method
Prof. Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics
• DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY
by Gordon Ross, ME [1], June 4, 2007*
• Open Letter to Purdue President France Córdova
Kevin Ryan, B.S. Chem.
• Jones vs. Robertson: A Physicist and a Structural Engineer Debate the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center
Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor, 911Research.com
• Another Structural Engineer Questions WTC Collapses
William Rice, P.E.
• Can Physics Rewrite History?
Chuck Thurston
• Reply to Protec's "A critical analysis of the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 & 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint"
Jim Hoffman
• NIST's World Trade Center FAQ: A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
Jim Hoffman
• Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
Jim Hoffman
• The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin
• Another reason the 9/11 fire-mediated collapse theory is wrong
Joseph Smith
• Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth
Jim Hoffman
• Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
Dr. Steven E. Jones
• Proof That The Thermal and Gravitational Energy Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center on 9/11/01
Terry Morrone
• Report on Weidlinger Simulation
Leaked WTC Blueprints contain 3D simulations from the Weidlinger report that contradict the NIST repoort of the Twin Tower's destruction
• Engineering News Record: The World Trade Center
• Bad Science: Keith Seffen And The WTC 'Collapse'
Winter Patriot blog 9/14/07
• UK Engineer: WTC 'Collapses' Were 'A Very Ordinary Thing'
Winter Patriot blog 9/11/07
• Explosions or Collapse? The Semantics of Deception and the Significance of Categories
C. Thurston
• My Response to Ryan Mackey and the Self-Crushing Building Theory, "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking"
by Chuck Thurston
• NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire
Frank Legge (Ph D) Logical Systems Consulting Perth, Western Australia. [email protected]
• High Velocity Bursts of Debris from Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers
Kevin Ryan
• Response to NIST on Control Demolition Investigation Failure
Crockett Grabbe © January 13, 2008 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
• Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum
Crockett Grabbe © January 18, 2008 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
• Collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center
Crockett Grabbe © December 23, 2007 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
• Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics
By Dr. Crockett Grabbe and Lenny Charles 9/08/07
• 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation Was Impossible
Dec 23, 2007
by Frank Legge, PhD & Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
• Dr Seffen Paper Proven Ludicrous
by Mick Meany
Feb, 2008
• Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Danial Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe
January 2007
• Engineer Sees Evidence of Extreme Temperatures in WTC Steel
Submitted by Shoestring on Mon, 02/25/2008
• The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers
Tony Szamboti, ME --- May, 2007
• WTC 1 - The Case for Collapse Arrest
Anders Bjorkman - Apr 19, 2008
• The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites
Kevin R. Ryan, 7-02-08
• Response to ”Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis” by K.A. Seffen
Crockett Grabbe
• How the Towers were Demolished
------------------------------------------------------------------
United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar
04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
Full Article Here
-By Gordon Ross
AE911Truth.org...

Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11
by Alan Miller
Official Account of 9/11: “Flawed”, “Absurd”, “Totally Inadequate”, “a Cover-up”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
January 5, 2008 – Eight U.S. State Department veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. “There is no question in my mind, that there is enough evidence to justify a very comprehensive and hard hitting investigation of the kind we have not seen, with subpoenas, general questioning of people, releasing a lot of documents,” said Daniel Ellsberg, PhD, in a 2006 interview with Jack Blood. Full Article
National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation

August 27, 2007 – World renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., today severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation, “I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.” Full Article
Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones
Pilots For 9/11 Truth...

F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 9/11 Plane Wreckage
911Blogger.com | Paying Attention to 9/11 Related News...
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lack of Foundation Damage at the Pentagon is Irreconcilable with the Official Reports and Data
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Conflicting Data, Hardcore Questions and the Media Blackout
pilotsfor911truth.org...
Planes Of September
By Shelton F. Lankord, Core Member, Pilots For 9/11 Truth

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's
pilotsfor911truth.org...

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
That is only a part of what can be found, and I am not going to sit here half the night and post this when all of you who are seriously curious can look plenty up yourself, as well as do your own research about the legaleeze involved.
As you can see there is a mountain of creditable evidence that the Government and its agencies are being obtuse, disingenuous or out right fucking lying.
There is a mountain of scientific creditable proof that NIST deliberately went out their way to deceive us by presenting unscientific findings that does not stand up to true science.
Members of the 911 commission have came out and said: The story we told you, is not what was told to us.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

9/11 Commission: The official cover up guide
The Kean Commission came to New York the second week of May for a two-day set of hearings at The New School University. As hundreds of Sept. 11th family members, reporters and curious New Yorkers lined up for airport-style security checks, they received copies of a new 24-page booklet published by NY 9/11 Truth, with help from 911Truth.org.
"Scamming America: The Official 9/11 Cover-up" is named after a quote by former Sen. Max Cleland, who resigned from the commission last November with the words, "Bush is scamming America."
Cleland attacked his own commission after the other members cut a deal to accept highly limited access to CIA reports to the White House that may indicate advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the Bush administration. "This is a scam," Cleland said. "It's disgusting. America is being cheated."

"As each day goes by," Cleland said, "we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted.... Let's chase this rabbit into the ground. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war."
The 911 OS is a proven lie, and this is just some of the indisputable creditable and scientific facts that prove the OS is a lie.

If you own the courthouses, no amount of proof will be able to prosecute people with that amount of power and who are politically untouchable, for now. This is what tyranny is all about, it is deliberately stifleling anything anyone has to say about 9-11, that contradicts their criminal agenda.
Do you think that because the criminals say what is proof and what isn't, there is no proof?? The defendants are in charge of what is considered evidence??

I understand that you want a new investigation. But it seems to me that you are saying that the investigations that have been performed so far, have been influenced, if not taken over, by "some" element of our government. You referred in your last post to the "vast power that the government has over the researchers who have contrary theories". If that is the case, then won't the government just take over a new investigation as well?
If a new investigation were to happen, and the out come still doesn't align with what you think happened, would that be the end of it for you? Or would you claim that the "vast power of the government" hi-jacked the investigation? Please understand, I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm just asking, where does it end? If the government has the power to influence anything they want, and they want to cover this up, then no investigation is ever going to solve it.
As I'm sure you already guessed, I don't believe the government pulled this off. I think they are too incompetent. What they ARE good at, is covering their own asses. And I believe the "cover-up" is of their massive failure to do their job!
As for a new investigation. I would be in favor. Because I think an investigation may hold the people accountable that failed to do their job. But I don't believe it will change the physical evidence of what happened to the buildings and the planes. But if I am wrong, I would gladly concede.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I understand that you want a new investigation. But it seems to me that you are saying that the investigations that have been performed so far, have been influenced, if not taken over, by "some" element of our government. You referred in your last post to the "vast power that the government has over the researchers who have contrary theories". If that is the case, then won't the government just take over a new investigation as well?
If a new investigation were to happen, and the out come still doesn't align with what you think happened, would that be the end of it for you? Or would you claim that the "vast power of the government" hi-jacked the investigation? Please understand, I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm just asking, where does it end? If the government has the power to influence anything they want, and they want to cover this up, then no investigation is ever going to solve it.
As I'm sure you already guessed, I don't believe the government pulled this off. I think they are too incompetent. What they ARE good at, is covering their own asses. And I believe the "cover-up" is of their massive failure to do their job!
As for a new investigation. I would be in favor. Because I think an investigation may hold the people accountable that failed to do their job. But I don't believe it will change the physical evidence of what happened to the buildings and the planes. But if I am wrong, I would gladly concede.

You aren't wrong. But the conspiracy loons are. They list people who claim the government was wrong but they hide what these people say is wrong. Just like saying that the writers of the 911CR claim that they don't believe what they wrote was true. They don't tell you that what they believe is that different agencies lied a little about what they did or didn't do that morning because it was either classified or they were playing CYA because they screwed up.

They claim there was active thermitic material found in the WTC dust. But don't mention that a pack of matches is active thermitic material. And they pretend that there couldn't be rust and aluminum present (rust + aluminum = thermite)

So they dream about what they want to be true, we don't know why. Me I've volunteered to be one of the readers at a 10 year remembrance ceremony this September. We'll be reading a list of those who died that day. I can do that and point out the stupidity on these boards. But mostly they ignore the facts. But hey, it keeps them happy and off the streets......

 

[Gamolon]

You still don't understand that the problem is the removal of resistance that is needed to achieve the very fast "essentially at free fall speeds" that NIST even admitted to.

Free fall speeds?

Let me ask you something before we continue. What actually fell at free fall speeds in your opinion?

Are you suggesting that the towers were completely gone in 9 to 11 seconds or are you saying that the top "block" (notice the quotes around the word block) crushed the bottom "block" and reached the ground in 9 to 11 seconds?

 

[Gamolon]

WTC engineer John Skilling said the perimeter columns alone, which were not the structures' main support (the cores were) could handle an increase in live loads of 2000% before failure.

Mr. Jones. Please elaborate.

What does this actually mean in your opinion? What was the purpose of the perimeter columns? What were they designed to resist?

And this?

 

[Mr. Jones]

You still don't understand that the problem is the removal of resistance that is needed to achieve the very fast "essentially at free fall speeds" that NIST even admitted to.

Free fall speeds?

Let me ask you something before we continue. What actually fell at free fall speeds in your opinion?

Look at the NIST report, and THEY say that they fell "at essentially free fall speeds"
The 9-11 commission excepts a 10 sec. collapse...So that is what we go with. Do you say different, and go against NIST and the commission?

Are you suggesting that the towers were completely gone in 9 to 11 seconds or are you saying that the top "block" (notice the quotes around the word block) crushed the bottom "block" and reached the ground in 9 to 11 seconds?

Again we are going with your experts here, if you have a problem with your sources, say so, and we'll proceed.

 

[Mr. Jones]

WTC engineer John Skilling said the perimeter columns alone, which were not the structures' main support (the cores were) could handle an increase in live loads of 2000% before failure.

Mr. Jones. Please elaborate.

What does this actually mean in your opinion? What was the purpose of the perimeter columns? What were they designed to resist?

And this?

You must have missed this-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3780309-post1244.html

 

[Gamolon]

Mr. Jones. Please elaborate.

What does this actually mean in your opinion? What was the purpose of the perimeter columns? What were they designed to resist?

And this?

You must have missed this-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3780309-post1244.html

And you seem to have missed one of my questions above. What do YOU think Skilling meant by 2000% of the live load?

Funny, but in your link above I see nothing mentioned about the fact that the MAIN purpose of the perimeter walls was to handle the WIND LOADS, which are LATERAL forces against the tower, not vertical.

So, when Skiliing said "2000%", was he referring to the actual LATERAL WIND LIVE LOAD for which the perimeter walls were designed for or the live GRAVITY load?

Please explain.

 

[Patriot911]

You still don't understand that the problem is the removal of resistance that is needed to achieve the very fast "essentially at free fall speeds" that NIST even admitted to.

Look at the NIST report, and THEY say that they fell "at essentially free fall speeds"
The 9-11 commission excepts a 10 sec. collapse...So that is what we go with. Do you say different, and go against NIST and the commission?

Are you suggesting that the towers were completely gone in 9 to 11 seconds or are you saying that the top "block" (notice the quotes around the word block) crushed the bottom "block" and reached the ground in 9 to 11 seconds?

Again we are going with your experts here, if you have a problem with your sources, say so, and we'll proceed.

What Jones is incapable of understanding is the simple fact that if you have enough mass to overcome the resistance of the structures under that mass, the resistance isn't going to slow the mass down all that much. That is why the NIST said the following and why Jones didn't quote the NIST because it makes him look like a retarded jackass once again.

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

Source

As for the 10 seconds claim, once again we can see the utter dishonesty of Jones' claims.

The 9/11 commission report claims the SOUTH tower fell in 10 seconds. Free fall acceleration from the very top of the tower would be 9.25 seconds, but that is not where we start from, is it. No, the collapse starts some thirty floors lower.

 

[Patriot911]

So, Jones.... when are you going to present us with one piece of real evidence or admit you're nothing but a lowlife liar? People are starting to wonder by now why you haven't been able to produce what you have repeatedly claimed to have.