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

[daws101]

‪9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE Mark Basile Chemical Engineer.m4v‬‏ - YouTube

a and e for truth the laughing stock of the engineering community.
no futher comment needed!

 

[daws101]

"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? . . . NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." -- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan 2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.
The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites

 

[daws101]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

pages 37 - 39

 

[eots]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

pages 37 - 39

page 1
you are retarded..

 

[Obamerican]

Page 2

Eots: see page 1

 

[Obamerican]

And who the hell are you?

Why should I answer to you? After reading your posts I can clearly see I have more knowledge of engineering than you. Don't be a sock puppet of Eots. You're better than that. I hope.

still waiting to hear your theory and how you arrived at it

Answer my original question. YOU are the one that is always saying that a tall building with steel beams WILL NOT collapse due to fire. My question is this:

Name another building where there was intense heat from fire PLUS the structural integrity of the building was compromised by the entire front of the building being sheared off by a 450,000 ton building hitting it?

Answer that question and we'll move on to the next part of "my theory" on what happened.

My money is you won't answer a simple, straight forward question.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]‪Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. Jones]

Why should I answer to you? After reading your posts I can clearly see I have more knowledge of engineering than you. Don't be a sock puppet of Eots. You're better than that. I hope.

still waiting to hear your theory and how you arrived at it

Answer my original question. YOU are the one that is always saying that a tall building with steel beams WILL NOT collapse due to fire. My question is this:

Name another building where there was intense heat from fire PLUS the structural integrity of the building was compromised by the entire front of the building being sheared off by a 450,000 ton building hitting it?

Answer that question and we'll move on to the next part of "my theory" on what happened.

My money is you won't answer a simple, straight forward question.

I think some of the smaller WTC complex buildings had bore the brunt of the towers more then 7 did, yet did not globally collapse. Regardless, If I'm wrong could you please provide any evidence of what you claim?
Specifically, Quote-" the entire front of the building being sheared off by a 450,000 ton building hitting it?"

As for the testimony that Rationalist1016 provides us, whether on video, or in the press, about the 7 building's, imminent collapse, creaking, bulging, etc..it does not add up to what was on any of the videos that NIST used for their fantastically flawed computer model, and hypothesis on the collapse.
Not only that, but it is more in line to what should have been a more reasonable outcome, mainly that the parts of the building experiencing these problems, and symptoms, partially collapsing, or giving way in a staggered manner.
Not the sudden and unexpected global collapse, producing free fall acceleration for 100 ft.

If stress was a factor on parts of the building, specifically the parts that were damaged by any WTC tower debris, producing the noises, is it not reasonable to think those parts would succumb first, and the building collapse in a more awkward manner? Surely we wouldn't expect to see the building collapse as clean as a controlled demolition.

One question I had before NISTs final report, but still applies today is, how was it possible to have certain knowledge of the building's demise before it collapsed, but be completely in the dark about how it happened after the building collapsed? How do you know an unprecedented event is going to occur prior to its happening, but not have any clue as to why it happened afterward?

As Shyam Sunder stated in 2006, '“But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

And NIST still never explained the total collapse in their "final" report. They admit free-fall acceleration, but don't alter their conclusion. Amazing and criminal lack of scientific method! We owe the 343 firefighters who died that day a much better explanation than NIST's pathetic failure.
NIST does not support scientific proof by virtue of its secret computer modeling. To be scientifically correct, they would have to supply others with this model to be proven by repeatability.

NIST= Not Interested In Seeking Truth

And again, I am waiting to see the evidence of the entire front of WTC 7 being sheared off by the "450,000 ton tower".

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaO2fON1H98]‪Why didn't WTC 5 collapse, or WTC 6 for that matter‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

"And again, I am waiting to see the evidence of the entire front of WTC 7 being sheared off by the "450,000 ton tower".

Not only that, but the amount of material that pulverized into fine particle dust loses its weight value. Which is to say, 450,000 didn't shear off anything. It's an illogical and from the poster, a dishonest suggestion.

 

[Obamerican]

‪Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!‬‏ - YouTube

This is the answer I expected from you. Idiot.

 

[Obamerican]

still waiting to hear your theory and how you arrived at it

Answer my original question. YOU are the one that is always saying that a tall building with steel beams WILL NOT collapse due to fire. My question is this:

Name another building where there was intense heat from fire PLUS the structural integrity of the building was compromised by the entire front of the building being sheared off by a 450,000 ton building hitting it?

Answer that question and we'll move on to the next part of "my theory" on what happened.

My money is you won't answer a simple, straight forward question.

I think some of the smaller WTC complex buildings had bore the brunt of the towers more then 7 did, yet did not globally collapse. Regardless, If I'm wrong could you please provide any evidence of what you claim?
Specifically, Quote-" the entire front of the building being sheared off by a 450,000 ton building hitting it?"

As for the testimony that Rationalist1016 provides us, whether on video, or in the press, about the 7 building's, imminent collapse, creaking, bulging, etc..it does not add up to what was on any of the videos that NIST used for their fantastically flawed computer model, and hypothesis on the collapse.
Not only that, but it is more in line to what should have been a more reasonable outcome, mainly that the parts of the building experiencing these problems, and symptoms, partially collapsing, or giving way in a staggered manner.
Not the sudden and unexpected global collapse, producing free fall acceleration for 100 ft.

If stress was a factor on parts of the building, specifically the parts that were damaged by any WTC tower debris, producing the noises, is it not reasonable to think those parts would succumb first, and the building collapse in a more awkward manner? Surely we wouldn't expect to see the building collapse as clean as a controlled demolition.

One question I had before NISTs final report, but still applies today is, how was it possible to have certain knowledge of the building's demise before it collapsed, but be completely in the dark about how it happened after the building collapsed? How do you know an unprecedented event is going to occur prior to its happening, but not have any clue as to why it happened afterward?

As Shyam Sunder stated in 2006, '“But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

And NIST still never explained the total collapse in their "final" report. They admit free-fall acceleration, but don't alter their conclusion. Amazing and criminal lack of scientific method! We owe the 343 firefighters who died that day a much better explanation than NIST's pathetic failure.
NIST does not support scientific proof by virtue of its secret computer modeling. To be scientifically correct, they would have to supply others with this model to be proven by repeatability.

NIST= Not Interested In Seeking Truth

And again, I am waiting to see the evidence of the entire front of WTC 7 being sheared off by the "450,000 ton tower".

"Entire front" may have been poor wording on my part. Here is the point I was trying to make.

Between the front of the building being hit by the main towers, the fires and the odd construction of trusses between floors 5 and 7 you are telling me that it was IMPOSSIBLE for WTC7 to collapse?

 

[JackDan]

Anyone that posts a youtube video as evidence in ANY case, not just 9/11, is an idiot. Period.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Answer my original question. YOU are the one that is always saying that a tall building with steel beams WILL NOT collapse due to fire. My question is this:

Name another building where there was intense heat from fire PLUS the structural integrity of the building was compromised by the entire front of the building being sheared off by a 450,000 ton building hitting it?

Answer that question and we'll move on to the next part of "my theory" on what happened.

My money is you won't answer a simple, straight forward question.

I think some of the smaller WTC complex buildings had bore the brunt of the towers more then 7 did, yet did not globally collapse. Regardless, If I'm wrong could you please provide any evidence of what you claim?
Specifically, Quote-" the entire front of the building being sheared off by a 450,000 ton building hitting it?"

As for the testimony that Rationalist1016 provides us, whether on video, or in the press, about the 7 building's, imminent collapse, creaking, bulging, etc..it does not add up to what was on any of the videos that NIST used for their fantastically flawed computer model, and hypothesis on the collapse.
Not only that, but it is more in line to what should have been a more reasonable outcome, mainly that the parts of the building experiencing these problems, and symptoms, partially collapsing, or giving way in a staggered manner.
Not the sudden and unexpected global collapse, producing free fall acceleration for 100 ft.

If stress was a factor on parts of the building, specifically the parts that were damaged by any WTC tower debris, producing the noises, is it not reasonable to think those parts would succumb first, and the building collapse in a more awkward manner? Surely we wouldn't expect to see the building collapse as clean as a controlled demolition.

One question I had before NISTs final report, but still applies today is, how was it possible to have certain knowledge of the building's demise before it collapsed, but be completely in the dark about how it happened after the building collapsed? How do you know an unprecedented event is going to occur prior to its happening, but not have any clue as to why it happened afterward?

As Shyam Sunder stated in 2006, '“But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

And NIST still never explained the total collapse in their "final" report. They admit free-fall acceleration, but don't alter their conclusion. Amazing and criminal lack of scientific method! We owe the 343 firefighters who died that day a much better explanation than NIST's pathetic failure.
NIST does not support scientific proof by virtue of its secret computer modeling. To be scientifically correct, they would have to supply others with this model to be proven by repeatability.

NIST= Not Interested In Seeking Truth

And again, I am waiting to see the evidence of the entire front of WTC 7 being sheared off by the "450,000 ton tower".

"Entire front" may have been poor wording on my part. Here is the point I was trying to make.

Between the front of the building being hit by the main towers, the fires and the odd construction of trusses between floors 5 and 7 you are telling me that it was IMPOSSIBLE for WTC7 to collapse?

Despite the dramatically different conclusions drawn, there does exist widespread agreement on both sides on a number of important questions. Proponents of both hypotheses agree that the damage to WTC 7 sustained from the impact of debris from the collapse of the north tower (WTC 1) was not an initiating or determinative factor in the collapse. Both sides also agree that the system of transfer trusses and girders in the building that allowed it to be constructed above the Consolidated Edison New York electric power substation played no role in the collapse, that hypothetical fuel oil fires from tanks stored in the building for emergency generators was not a causal factor, and that the office fires did not result in any significant loss of strength of the building’s load-bearing steel columns.

While NIST initially denied that the building achieved gravitational acceleration during its collapse in its draft report for public comment, it was forced to acknowledge that this was indeed the case in its final report after high school physics teacher David Chandler submitted his own analysis showing that the building collapsed at free-fall for approximately 2.5 seconds, and that there was a sudden onset of free-fall. According to NIST, the period of free-fall was 2.25 seconds.

To illustrate, what this means is that for 8 stories, or more than 100 feet, the building fell at the same rate as would a bowling ball dropped from the same height and falling through the air.

Proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis argue that elementary laws of physics rule out the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. They point out, for example, that the law of conservation of energy dictates that free-fall means all of the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means there was no energy remaining to do the work of buckling the columns, as is required by NIST’s hypothesis. The corollary is that there must have been some external source of energy acting on the columns for this free-fall to have occurred.

NIST argues in its final report that the rate of collapse was consistent with its computer models. However, language that the collapse was consistent with physical principles that existed in the draft report, in which NIST denied free-fall, was removed from the final report, in which free-fall is acknowledged.

And while NIST claims that no steel was recovered from WTC 7, it could not have been unaware of a sample that was recovered and studied by a team from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The steel had been severely corroded, showing signs of intergranular melting and sulfidation, with a “swiss cheese”-like appearance. The New York Times referred to this piece of steel as “Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation”, and the team’s findings and recommendations for further study were published as Appendix C of the report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Although NIST was tasked with carrying out the recommendations of the FEMA report, it ignored Appendix C altogether and implicitly denied the very existence of this steel.

The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Case Far From Closed | Foreign Policy Journal

So all the sensationalism that you try to inject into the collapse of WTC 7, does not change the above facts about the flawed, and dubious NIST report.
And again, does not in any way explain such a clean CD appearance of the collapse.
These are the reasons expert engineer's, who don't kiss the governments ass, like A&E, and the victims families want to spread awareness of these obvious gaffs, and have a new independent investigation.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Anyone that posts a youtube video as evidence in ANY case, not just 9/11, is an idiot. Period.

Why do you think that JackDan? Some people here have a hard time understanding the written word it seems, videos help with that, and also a fresh look at the collapse allows us to reexamine the way it actually happened.

 

[Mr. Jones]

"And again, I am waiting to see the evidence of the entire front of WTC 7 being sheared off by the "450,000 ton tower".

Not only that, but the amount of material that pulverized into fine particle dust loses its weight value. Which is to say, 450,000 didn't shear off anything. It's an illogical and from the poster, a dishonest suggestion.

Agreed. The conservation of energy and momentum, is not even being considered. People aren't thinking this through yet it seems. C'mon folks it's not that hard, but you must face the fact, or in your cases the possibility we been had, first.

http://www.ebtx.com/wtc/wtcfall.htm

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawrAdoccDk]‪WTC 7 NIST COLLAPSE VIDEO.‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. Jones]

talk about bs that link is is just more no credibility Babel now if it had been for MITor any good tech school you might have something.[/QUOTE]

MIT Engineer Jeff King's logical look at the official story of the WTC collapse

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&NR=1]‪MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Part 2-

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW81Cd7nNH8&feature=related]‪MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 2‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Ok so now you are presented with an engineer from a tech school that you yourself said was credible....anymore questions??

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og&NR=1]‪Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Triton]

Anyway, who's going to be at ground zero for the 10th anniversary of the false flag attack to attempt to engage in discussion with people and have many of them start screaming at you with arguments like "Its not possible!!" or "Nobody would do such a thing" or any other irrational emotion filled based claim that makes no sense while we get to be pushed into the little NYPD approved area and are treated rudely by them?