MOST Americans open to alternative explanations to 9/11

I'm very comfortable with the truth of 9/11 it's just folks like you who aren't. All i've seen on here and many other site's is wild claims and very little to back it up. If you were that confident with what you think you have uncovered you would have taken it much,much further than just coming to places like this and claiming victory.
Personally I think it's about time you stood by what you claim and take the one's who you claim to be accountable for what happened that day after all it's over 10 years since the attacks and nothings been done.

 

They would except they are missing two things, brains and evidence.

 

Nothings been done, if you had done something you would have got a new investigation or at least been close to it. There's been a long time since the event and all that seem's to be happening is your numbers are slowly dwindling.

Thats the thing you call them on the evidence and they call shill or just wave away evidence if it does not not fit their story.

 

The number of architects and engineers you claim disagree with NIST makes up less than 1% of the community, thanks for playing.

 

That video is for general viewership for people who want to learn the truth about the truthers. You don't have to click the play button. Plenty of truth seekers will.

 

They may do just that, unfortunately, at the end of the video they will be no closer to it.

 

Controlled demolition.

 

Do some honest research on your own, and get back to me.

 

Now PROVE it

 

ACtually you should look at what held up the World Trade Center towers...

 

Note that again 10 points and only one addressed and done badly.

 

Sorry jack,telling us what the THINK happened,isn't proof

 

Scientific method of proof is as close as proof gets in our world.

 

http://chrismohr911.com/

 

'Scientific method'.....from troothers?HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The only science they've provided is insisting apples are oranges,and then trying to sell them to the rest of us

 

really? okay.

A list of peer-viewed scientific papers regarding the event that "hasn't been investigated." This list is by no means comprehensive.

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (, pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

enjoy. Sorry to burst your bubble but the events that occured on 9/11 are among the most investigated in history. The above are just the tip of the iceberg.

Controlled Demolition?

http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf

more here:

http://www.jod911.com/

 

I watched Chris Mohr the other day. He doesn't seem to understand physics very well. As I pointed out yesterday, the only way for a building to fall down at or near freefall is to remove all the vertical columns simultaneously. Chris Mohr does not seem to understand that vital fact. Watch this short video on simple building construction.

[video=youtube;iN4ig1i-AKw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN4ig1i-AKw[/video]

At 1:18 in the video one can observe 9 columns, 3 beams, 13 floor joists, and 2 rim joists. Walls and roof are built on top of that. It is easy to see how cutting all 9 columns at precisely the same time would let the building crash to the ground at near freefall. In order for any building to collapse at or near freefall the columns have to be taken out at precisely the same time. That is the only possible way. Fires could not have possibly done that to 84 steel columns as NIST claimed happened in Building 7 because there weren't any fires on the lower floors. It is simply impossible.

 

That's the thing about the Scientific Method of Proof. It does not matter who does the proof. Everything is documented so that any observer can determine the facts for themselves.

 

Bull****,it certianly DOES matter who does it...and they haven't..

 

Lol... a poll from YouGov.... who pays people to answer them.

1100 polled, all of them sit there answering polls non-stop, earning points, that turn into cash.

ffs..... Priceless!

 

Bring some proof that heat does not warp steel, even without coming near to melting. I have never seen a machine gun barrel melt after doing a full box of ammo but don't count on hitting anything you point it at next time.

 

There have been many professional investigations into the collapses of the WTC.

They all come to the same conclusions.

Fire, impact damage, weakened steel, and gravity brought down the buildings.

 

LOL. And you believe them. The reports you believe defy the laws of physics and the laws of physics can't be defied because they are laws of nature. You proved yesterday you don't have a fundamental understanding of basic laws of motion and you are proving it again today.
Classic comedy gold!

 

Well, there was that and the way the things twisted in on themselves with no sound of explosives.

 

To someone who has heard a building actually blown, not a bit of it.