The controled demolition theory developped on the website of "Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth" is really not a conspiracy theory. It actually gives an alternative explanation of the "collapse" of the 3 WTC buildings which takes into account all the relevant facts collected from visual observation, forensic evidence and a great number of trustworthy testimonies collected by the New York Times. The purpose of this topic is to make a synthesis of those three sources of evidence in order to convince the reader that the controled demolition theory is currently the only one which can be accepted as physically possible, scientifically founded, corroborated, coherent and credible. The first step is to prove the NIST report wrong. This is done very well by the foremost experts who reached a wide consensus on the physical impossibility of explaining the collapse of the towers by a crushing pile driver, the upper floors of the towers, which would cause a collapse of the floors beneath it only by its gravitational mass. Over 1500 of them signed the following petition: http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php The analysis and rebutal of the gravitational collapse theory is in the documents of the website ( http://www.ae911truth.org/ ) and summarized in the following film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4 A general synthesis of all the arguments meant for a wide public is in the following film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o I don't expect readers to research this enormous mass of data without me proving that is worth the investment of time and energy, therefore I want to outline specific elements which are particularly convincing. The three sources of evidence are: -visual observation of the collapse analysed by architects and structural engineers on the basis of their knowledge of a few basic laws of physics applied to the design of a skyscraper. -forensic analysis of the debris and rubble, including thermal and chemical evidence of the use of nanothermites based on documents from several different sources including FEMA, NASA and corroborated by the testimonies of firefighters as well as first responders. - Over a hundred testimonies of firefighters who witnessed series of explosions visually, auditively, felt the blast, the heat, the projections and observed walls and floors collapsing in one tower as a consequence ot the other one exploding. Their competent structural analysis is also relevant. I will copy and paste the most significant extracts with their source and page. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/h ... ll_01.html Other facts are significant like WTC7 collapsing at free fall speed some 7 hours after the two first towers although it wasn't hit by a plane, or the structural imperative given to John Skilling that the Twin Towers had to be able to resist the impact of airliners. TESTIMONIES OF FIREFIGHTERS ARE THE MOST CONVINCING STARTING POINT Those were recorded by the New York Times there: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/h ... ll_01.html Here are the most striking extracts mentioning seeing series of explosions, hearing them, feeling the blast, the heat, the projections, and how a vertical collapse was completely unexpected. DESHORE, KARIN p.15 : "Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. I went inside and told everybody that the other building or there was an explosion occuring up there and I said I think we have another major explosion. I don't know if we are all going to be safe here." BANACISKI, RICHARD p.3-4 : "We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions. Everybody just said run and we all turned around and we ran into the parking garage because that's basically where we were. Running forward would be running towards it. Not thinking that this building is coming down. We just thought there was going to be a big explosion, stuff was going to come down." GREGGORY, STEPHEN p.14-16 : "We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down. Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was? A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. But it's just strange that two people sort of say the same thing and neither one of us talked to each other about it. ..... Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion up on the upper floors. A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes. I don't know how far down this was already. I mean, we had heard the noise but, you know, I don't know." CACHIA, EDWARD p.5 : "As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down." RIVERA DANIEL, p.9 : "At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop" ? That's exactly that -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down." CARLSEN, CRAIG p.6 "I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time. I didn't realize what it was. We ...realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit. We then realized the building started to come down." TURILLI, THOMAS p.4 "The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple seconds and all of a sudden you just heard like it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then... just a huge wind gust just came and my officer just actually took all of us and just threw us down on the ground and kind of just jumped on top of us, laid on top of us." P.6: "At that point we were kind of standing on the street and I looked to my left and actually I noticed the tower was down. I didn't even know what it was when we were in there. It just seemed like a huge explosion." SWITHERS, JAY p.5 : "At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go." ROGERS , KENNETH p.3-4 : "Meanwhile we were standing there with about five companies and we were just waiting for our assignment and then there was an explosion in the south tower, which according to this map, this exposure just blew out in flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93." MURRAY, KEVIN p.15 : "When the tower started -- there was a big explosion that I heard and someone screamed that it was coming down and I looked away and I saw all the windows domino -- you know, dominoeing up and then come down." CURRAN, PAUL p.5: "With that, all a sudden the tower went completely -- a horrendous noise, a very, very tremendous explosion, and a very heavy wind came through the tower. The wind almost knocked you down. We were on the north side of the elevator banks, and they kind of broke up that wind. At first I thought the upper floors were caving, coming in. But then kind of like all thought there was too much dust down there, too much wind downstairs. We really didn't know what happened." DE SIMONE, GEORGE P.5 "After that, I got out of there as quick as Icould because the building was decaying. I mean, there was fire coming out of it, fire dropping down, and at that point I think we started to notice bodies dropping from the buildings. In that amount of time, and I can't tell you how long the frame was, maybe about a half hour, maybe 20 minutes, maybe two hours, we saw multiple bodies. I probably counted 20 bodies that had jumped from the windows. P.5-6 "As we got back up the street -- they had told me from the command post to just wait, that they would tell us what to do. The next thing I know, we heard a little bit of a rumbling, and then white powder came from the first collapsed building. I thought it was an explosion initially. We got hit with the powder. We tried to run. We got hit with the powder. It took a few minutes to clear." P.7: "Right after that, in my mind, I heard a rumbling, and it was almost as if it was the roller coaster at Coney Island. It seemed like a metal clanging on metal sound. Then we saw a black cloud come out, and I told everybody to run. We ran as fast as we could as far north as we could. At that point we had gotten separated. We couldn't outrun a cloud. As for me, I got knocked down. I thought it was the day I was going to die. I got knocked down and I put my mask on and it was full of debris in my face piece. When I started inhaling, I took a lot of stuff in from whatever was caught in my mask. I thought I was going to have a heart attack initially." "After that, I still thought it was an explosion. I thought it was some kind of thermal explosion where I'm either going to get burnt -- and I had kind of ideas that it was going to be something like Hiroshima where all this heat was coming at me and we were going to get burnt -- or if the heat didn't burn me, I thought that all the parts coming out of this building, the windows, metal, all the things like that, that I might be severed in half. It turned completely black." P.10: "I don't think we understood the magnitude of what was going on. I was fearful that there were bombs in the building. That was my first thought, being the military kind of guy that I am." GATES, GARRY p.6-7 : "Then, again, no idea what time -- I have a watch, but I'm trying to move everything together at the same time. I looked up, and the building exploded, the building that we were very close to, which was one tower. The whole top came off like a volcano. Q. What was that, was that the second plane hitting? A. I realized later, which actually I realized in talking with people over a period of two weeks, that had to be the collapse, because since that was the north tower which was hit by a plane first, the other tower was hit by a plane just before we got there. So now both towers have been hit by a plane. The north tower was burning. So the explosion, what I realized later, had to be the start of the collapse.It was the way the building appeared to blowout from both sides. I'm looking at the face of it, and all we see is the two sides of the building just blowing out and coming apart like this, as I said, like the top of a volcano. CHARLES, JASON : p.15: "I look over my shoulder and I says, Oh, (*)(*)(*)(*), and then I turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down. I saw the -- it looked like the top maybe 70, 60 floors coming off the building, and I had stood there thinking maybe the towers were not going to hit me. Then I looked closer and two pieces of debris fly over my head about 40, 50 stories up, flying over my head and I was like, (*)(*)(*)(*), I'm out of here. p.29: "We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy (*)(*)(*)(*), and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said (*)(*)(*)(*) and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door." p.40 "So at that point now we were just waiting for patients and nobody was coming in. It was like you know then we ran into another lieutenant, lieutenant Davis I think, he's from battalion 4 if I'm not mistaken. (Tape side two) -- towers and I heard six loud explosions, and those six loud explosions changed my mind real quick and I went back over to the triage center and it was like you know what ? Let me wait here. I had no helmet. I had no helmet. I had nothing that would have protected me from anything that hit me in my head. So I stayed where I was." SMIOUSKAS, RICHARD : P.7: "I was photographing the fire from the roof. I had a long lens on the camera, and I had people in the windows. It looked like they were being -- they weren't actually jumping. One or two people I saw, they seemed like they were being forced out by the people behind them. There was half a dozen faces. In between the smoke you could see people. I guess they were all trying to get air, and this guy was actually standing in the window, standing in the frame with each hand on each frame and he kind of like got nudged out." P.8: "I glanced out, and I saw the people hitting the pavement. I could still hear what I think was people hitting the roof. You could hear explosions or thuds on the roof. Q. Overhead? A. Overhead, landing on the roof of Six World Trade Center. I turned around, and where the glass was clear I heard another explosion and I turned around and looked at the glass and there was just chunks that were splattered with blood. There was actually chunks of I guess human flesh was just dripping down. I looked and the person that just landed there just exploded like a watermelon. The largest piece I saw of the person was maybe a hand. They just splattered like a pancake. P.9: "I turned around and I started going back towards West Street. It looked like an earthquake. The ground was shaking. I fell to the floor. My camera bag opened up. The cameras went skidding across the floor. The windows started exploding in. I just rolled into the corner to protect myself from the glass. The next thing I knew, it was pitch-black." AND HERE IS A LONGER LIST: John Sudnik p.4 Timothy Julian p.10 Michael Ober p.4 Frank Cruthers p.4 Gregg Brady p.7 Craig Carlsen p.5-6 Joseph Meola p.5 Daniel Rivera p.9 Timothy Burke, p.8-9 Edward Cachia, p.5 Stephen Gregory, p.14-16. Karin Deshore, p.15 Richard Banaciski, p.3-4 Thomas Fitzpatrick, p.13-14 Jay Swithers, p.5 James Curran, p.10-11 Brian Dixon, p.15 William Wall, p.9 Kenneth Rogers, p.3-4 William Reynolds, p.8 Murray, kevin p.15 Coyle John p.8-11 Curran, Paul p.5 Walsh James p.10 Hoppey, Timothy p.5 John Dellendick p.5 Grabher, Steve p.10-11 Coutsouros, Dean p.3 Richiusa, Patrick p.10 De Simone, George p. 5-7-10 Moriarty, David p.7 Gombo, Jerry p.12-13
Your first mistake. No, they do not. They completely blow off all support of natural collapse, from huge fires, to gravity. They fail to understand e=1/2mv2. They don't factor in the aircrafts at all, avoiding the fact each aircraft was the energy equivalent 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT, igniting the biggest office fires in seconds in history. Forensic? They follow junk science and fantasy of thermite, lies of fraud papers like the Bentham paper, proven wrong by real science. If they take into account "all forensic evidence" where is the inclusion of this? or any of the other dozens and dozens of papers completed on the WTC subject? Wrong on all areas, as proven by 11 years of failure by the 9/11 'truth' movement. Signing an online petition does not prove NIST wrong. To prove NIST wrong, you need science, published peer reviewed papers in respectable journals, a scientific consensus, something AE911Truth has failed to do in 5 years. Gravitational mass + pile driver is exactly how VĂ©rinage demolition works, and there are many examples of that. Time to rethink your argument. Furthermore, the specific of just how active those 1500 are can be found here. Their performance is dismal. 3 years of consistent declines in new signatures, with 2012 being the worst year on record for them, down 56% on 2011, working out that it was the equivalent of one signed professional AE convincing another AE peer once every 36 years. Totally pathetic. A film which has been ripped to shreds by Chris Mohr and over 230 points which proves Richard Gage wrong on every single one of his claims. This will be interesting, you've done terribly so far. None of which have ever designed or built skyscrapers, but do continue. Already debunked. Refer above and here. Most of which were describing the impact of the second plane, or the actually collapse of the tower. Nice. WTC7 has been dealt with. Only idiots, deniers and con artists like Gage keep the debate going. Chris Mohr's link above deals with 7 and the 'free fall'. I'm not going to go through them because it would take pages. Suffice to say, most are describing the impact of UA175, or the collapse of the South Tower. Some are taken well after the collapse of both towers when dozens of cars and buildings were burning and exploding. Should also suffice to say, the vast majority of those who you quote do not believe in a conspiracy. Even your very first quote is from someone who doesn't believe your theories. No FDNY members who were there that day believe your theories. AE911Truth is a failure of an organisation. The JREF link shows just how pathetic they are. What's more, no professional engineering or architect body agrees with their group or their theory. None of ASCE's 120,000 engineers agrees with AE911Truth's theories. List of just some of the professional engineering bodies who agree with NIST: Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY). Lost of any professional engineering bodies which agree with AE911Truth: (Nil) Speaks louder than words. 911 has been explained. Time to pack up and move on. "9/11: Controlled demolition proven !" a long, long way from proven.
If you ever meet Karen Deshore, do not say anything about this crap unless you are more than arm's length away and have an escape route. She thinks you people are whacko.
Here's some more stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pu0UwSurMw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSh5o6ca8FM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwThcdIoufc One doesn't have to be an engineer to see that it was controlled demolition.
I love this logic. A similar statement is: One has to be inexperienced and clueless to see that it was controlled demolition.
<<< MODERATOR EDIT: REMOVED OFF TOPIC QUOTE AND REPLY >>> You don't have to be an engineer,but it helps when you try and make a cockamamee claim that the WTC was controlled demolition And the collapse of the towers was anything BUT 'controlled'
Just go ahead and ignore this. When will you 'truth'ers understand that this has never been about what the government says? This is about common sense and logical conclusions via evidence available, of which there is an abundance to support the official narrative. It has never, ever, been about what the government says.
It would take an entire thread to deal with even a paragraph of the gish gallop from the OP. Some threads already exist on most of this hogwash. I will just stick to the ones I know best from professional experience. All the fire fighters need a thread because none of them are twoofs now, eleven years down the road.
Cjnewson's post is fascinating as a case of disinformation. Its only purpose is to mudy the waters by bringing confusion into the problem. Here are the classical tactics he uses: YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND First we get this formula e=1/2mv2 which doesn't meant anything without context, analysis and is only meant to say: “You can not understand if you didn't know this formula, so don't bother trying to make your own opinion because it's out of your reach. Don't learn, think, or try to understand what's going on.” MAKES SENS BUT IRRELEVANT Then we are given gross appearances of scientific argumentation, like a link to an actual pdf document about the analysis of WTC dust. Without context it doesn't mean much either, the conclusion being that in the sample analysed there was no evidence of thermite. In this other sample analysed here were discovered advanced pyrotechnic or explosive material though: http://www.ae911truth.org/fr/nouvel...xplosive-material-discovered-in-wtc-dust.html The architects and engineers critical analysis of the NIST report demonstrates that its approach was not only scientifically ridiculous but utterly dishonest. In that context I don't think the sample you linked to is relevant, but the good news is there are tons of more in the rubble ! And actually the signature of thermite was observed by the FEMA report Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study, with the combination of oxidation and sulfidation. Sample 1 p. C-5 is the most meaningful: http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1728 The layman like myself doesn't understand what it means but the author of that part of the FEMA report does and says so in his conclusion p. C-13: “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the sulfur has been identified... It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weekening of the steal structure.” Conclusion: your dust sample had no trace of thermite but the steel turned into swiss cheese examined by FEMA is solid forensic evidence of the use of thermites. A conclusion they could not reach without making the hypothesis of thermite first, of course. Architects and Engineers made it and it is corroborated, as you see if you make the small effort to watch the films I linked. IRRELEVANT INFORMATION The vĂ©rinage video has a very vague connection with the topic if I take the trouble to look for it myself while watching a video of the same type of controlled demolition happening 58 times. But when I finally realize it's not relevant and I wasted my time again it is very tempting to just drop it and try to find someone honest to debate with. However the tactics is so gross that it is worth exposing. BIASED ANALYSIS Follows the Chris Mohr film on youtube, 3 hours 46 minutes I can not risk wasting if it is only some more nonsense. So I go to the 230 points, apparently a written document which would allow me to sort out relevant and new information in less than 3 hours 46. The first points, apparently considered to be the most convincing, are refuted by data I had already indicated above, like the impact of the airliners having been taken into account by the designers of the WTC. The first points are immediately proven wrong by Architects and Engineers in the right column, which only says that the guy doesn't know what he is talking about. Why should I waste more time over his nonsense ? Obviously I shouldn't. DOUBLE YOU TEA F QUESTION MARK Then we get hit with the heavy stuff: a link to a 9 pages thread I should read entirely to maybe find how that refutes something. Or maybe not, considering the type of material I previously had to contemplate. If you take the trouble to write a couple of sentences to explain what the connection is, where the documents are and how they are relevant I will certainly go see them. You could even link directly to the documents, how about that ? ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS Trying to discredit Architects and Engineers with that joke of a graph on some JREF forum is a good illustration of utter dishonesty which discredits its author for good. And as you are hiding behind an alias it doesn't have consequences for you anyway. There is only way you could get me to read something you wrote now: tell me where you found that idea that the list of professional engineering bodies you mentioned agree with the NIST report. If no professional engineering body agrees with Architects and Engineers that's because professional engineering bodies don't have a mind of their own, they actually include lots of individuals who do. That is why professional engineering bodies don't sign petitions.
I don't know howe many times this has to be repeated for it to sink in on some people. What those jabbering lunatics Jones and Harrit tested were PAINT chips. They contain absolutely everything that would be in paint and they contain kaolin, which would prevent thermite from working as designed. WTC buildings were full of lead-acid batteries. There were, thus, countless sources of suplhuric acid. This can, in a hot, wet environment, form pyrites. In the presence of copper wires and pipes, it generates plentiful copper sulphate. Copper sulphate in aquaous solution yields metalic copper to steel. It is one of the key reasons that electroplating is possible. Those forms of thermite that contain any copper compounds do not leave metlic copper residues There was no residue of alumina on the steel. It had sod all to do with thermite. If they cannot confirm the presence of alumina, they are talking out their asses. Verinage looks exactly like the collapse of the towers except for the absence of Class A fires, and sounds just like the collapses as recorded by all devices in the area at the time of collapse. You are stuck with the fact that the supposed professionals who signed the petition are fewer than 1% of all professionals in the field. Gather a hundred of any group of professioanls in a room and you will be sure to find at least one who is a little off his plumb line. Gather five hundred, and you will probably find one willing to believe that Elvis commanded a flight of flying saucers to turn high tech discombobulator gunns on the towers.
SAME POST AS BEFORE WITH LESS TYPOS. COULD I HAVE AN "EDIT" BUTTON PLEASE ? Cjnewson's post is fascinating as a case of disinformation. Its only purpose is to muddy the waters by bringing confusion into the problem. Here are the classical tactics he uses: YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND First we get this formula e=1/2mv2 which doesn't mean anything without context, analysis and is only meant to say: “You can not understand if you didn't know this formula, so don't bother trying to make your own opinion because it's out of your reach. Don't learn, think, or try to understand what's going on.” MAKES SENSE BUT IRRELEVANT Then we are given gross appearances of scientific argumentation, like a link to an actual pdf document about the analysis of WTC dust. Without context it doesn't mean much either, the conclusion being that in the sample analysed there was no evidence of thermite. In this other sample analysed here were discovered advanced pyrotechnic or explosive material though: http://www.ae911truth.org/fr/nouvel...xplosive-material-discovered-in-wtc-dust.html The architects and engineers critical analysis of the NIST report demonstrates that its approach was not only scientifically ridiculous but utterly dishonest. In that context I don't think the sample you linked to is relevant, but the good news is there are tons more in the rubble ! And actually the signature of thermite was observed by the FEMA report Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study, with the combination of oxidation and sulfidation. Sample 1 p. C-5 is the most meaningful: http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1728 The layman like myself doesn't understand what it means but the author of that part of the FEMA report does and says so in his conclusion p. C-13: “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the sulfur has been identified... It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weekening of the steel structure.” Conclusion: your dust sample had no trace of thermite but the steel turned into swiss cheese examined by FEMA is solid forensic evidence of the use of thermites. A conclusion they could not reach without making the hypothesis of thermite first, of course. Architects and Engineers made it and it is corroborated, as you see if you make the small effort to watch the films I linked. IRRELEVANT INFORMATION The vĂ©rinage video has a very vague connection with the topic if I take the trouble to look for it myself while watching a video of the same type of controlled demolition happening 58 times. But when I finally realize it's not relevant and I wasted my time again it is very tempting to just drop it and try to find someone honest to debate with. However the tactics is so gross that it is worth exposing. BIASED ANALYSIS Follows the Chris Mohr film on youtube, 3 hours 46 minutes I can not risk wasting if it is only some more nonsense. So I go to the 230 points, apparently a written document which would allow me to sort out relevant and new information in less than 3 hours 46. The first points, apparently considered to be the most convincing, are refuted by data I had already indicated above, like the impact of the airliners having been taken into account by the designers of the WTC. The first points are immediately proven wrong by Architects and Engineers in the right column, which only says that the guy doesn't know what he is talking about. Why should I waste more time over his nonsense ? Obviously I shouldn't. DOUBLE YOU TEA F QUESTION MARK Then we get hit with the heavy stuff: a link to a 9 pages thread I should read entirely to maybe find how that refutes something. Or maybe not, considering the type of material I previously had to contemplate. If you take the trouble to write a couple of sentences to explain what the connection is, where the documents are and how they are relevant I will certainly go see them. You could even link directly to the documents, how about that ? ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS Trying to discredit Architects and Engineers with that joke of a graph on some JREF forum is a good illustration of utter dishonesty which only discredits its author for good. And as you are hiding behind an alias it doesn't have consequences for you anyway. There is only one way you could get me to read something you wrote now: tell me where you found that idea that the list of professional engineering bodies you mentioned agree with the NIST report. If no professional engineering body agrees with Architects and Engineers that's because professional engineering bodies don't have a mind of their own, they actually include lots of individuals who do. That is why professional engineering bodies don't sign petitions.
The staff rotates but every once in awhile, the regulars pop out to assist. Some do it for years and years and years. Boss on vacation or was he told to "cool it" for a bit by the brass?
I'm honored you devoted an post just to me. A pity its contents are laking, more of a personal attack than a rebuttal of my facts, but sure. Either way, I'm not going to waste my time reply as my points made originally still clearly stand, and all you have tried to do, ironically, is muddy the waters. The statistics of AE911Truth are solid, you can check them yourself. I don't need to discredit them, their own stats do that themselves. But one thing I will respond to directly; They agree with NIST because they participated in the NIST reports. Source.
Check out this video about a guy from NIST. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg Why does NIST refuse to talk to Architects and Engineers? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AYPvwJk0q0
This guy John Gross seems to have a foregone conclusion and he's torturing the evidence to make it fit his conclusion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM "Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11 - AE911Truth"
Gross had to speak very carefully there not to give away his true feelings. It is considered unseemly to call an eccentric a deluded son of a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) in a public Q&A.
Because they are unqualified, under-educated, often psychotic clowns who bother better-educated people that themselves pointlessly. You can only have an adult discvussion with a rational person. Sunder has their range and azimuth.
Then it would be easy for NIST to show Richard Gage to be wrong. If they had a public debate, it would settle the whole thing. It looks suspiciously like NIST is afraid it will get eaten for lunch if it debates with Richard Gage. http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.ph...e-the-q911-conspiracy-theory-de-bunkersq.html (excerpt) ------------------------------------ Reason 4: The Hit and Run Away - This is where people retort, publish articles, chime and and parrot the official narrative, and then never ever ever face the 9/11 truth experts in public. I have spoken at a dozen or so 9/11 events over the years and I have never once seen any myth hugger, official or otherwise, attempt to set the record straight even though many were explicitly invited to many of those events ------------------------------------
First off, NIST's job isn't to debate Richard Gage. That's not what it was hired to do, and that's not what their end game was. The reason they don't reply to them is because it would open up the flood gates for every jackass that thinks like truthers do to contact them and waste their time. Believe it or not, NIST does a lot more than just this one report. They are busy individuals that can't be bothered with every ridiculous truther theory. They certainly aren't running away, and there is a reason why Dick Gage is a joke in the real world. Chris Mohr HAS debated him, and handed him his ass. Chris Mohr was a journalist, for the record. What would NIST have to gain by dedicated a professional to debate someone who has no structural engineering background. and has never built a building over 10 storeys? Nothing, there would be no point. Better questions would be: Why hasn't Dick Gage submitted a paper for peer review, like the NIST? Why hasn't he presented his information in front of a scientific body, like NIST? Why hasn't he submitted corrections to NIST in regards to the components he feels are incorrect? (I know people who have done this, and NIST has made changes) Why is it that he charges for his "demonstrations"? NIST doesn't charge for theirs.
I'm not just going to take your word on that. I'll have to watch this first. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2dEVikWEbU I know that pro-official version people are capable of proclaiming that their side has won even when it's obvious that they lost to mislead those who aren't familiar with the an issue. All mainstream organizations are owned and he knows that. At about the 30 minute mark of this video a scientist says that science fraud is common. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buosgl6J3Kw Look what this scientist says about science journals. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA (00:16 time mark) Whenever two groups of experts are saying opposite things about a big controversy, that usually means that the government is paying a bunch of scientists to lie. Scientists at the Rand Corporation say that depleted uranium is safe. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm There are other scientists who say the opposite. http://www.google.es/search?q=depleted uranium&tbs=vid:1 You seem to have a lot of faith in the establishment and all of these experts who maintain that it was controlled demolition are nothing to sneeze at. http://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth
Quit whining scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c....NO ONE is trying to mislead on our side THAT is the purview of truthers like YOU.
I would suggest the NIST is just busy doing all the things it is paid to do. Funny how no one ever challenges anything else they do. But on this one topic they are described as a pack of blithering idiots
Here's something about Chris Mohr. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg "My Response to Chris Mohr" Here's some more stuff. I haven't looked at a lot of it yet. http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidChandler911?feature=watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg
