Yes, I posted it "publicly", but I didn't address you or anyone else now, did I? Now I have quoted you twice, and you're now being addressed. My problem, you know it do you? My problem is when people jump off the deep end for no reason, such as yourself was merely expressing the fact I haven't read every post in this thread. But I'll put my two cents worth into it. The complexity of the issue. Yes, I am aware of the fact that 9/11 wasn't done by Al-Qaeda. It was an inside job with externals assisting it.
and when you see a rabbit being pulled from a hat you believe its real! you are always good for a laugh! Thanks!
That apparently was the agenda. NIST claims they saved a small amount of steel from the twin towers and one piece from WTC7. There is a photo of John Gross, NIST's lead engineer standing on a pile of WTC7 steel which has obviously been corroded by a chemical reaction (likely a thermitic product). Then NIST claimed they did not have a large enough sample to do any analysis, how convenient. There is no question 9/11 could not have been pulled off without help from elements within the US government. I don't buy the claim that some other government (usually the Israeli government or the Saudi government) were the primary planners. They may have had some complicity but the primary responsibly lies with the Bush administration, who in particular is up for argument. Bush was not smart enough to plan or even take part in the planning of 9/11, he was likely just a patsy participant. It was after all a very sophisticated operation but had many flaws. It was dependent on millions of ignorant people buying a nonsensical fairy tale narrative that is scientifically impossible. Kevin Ryan published this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18124195-another-nineteen
No doubt about it. I had seen footage at one point many years ago of a steel beam after the collapse, was melting away at a 45°, dripping molten steel.
911 was pulled off without any help from the US government. The idea that they helped is laughable. the photo shows no evidence of a corrosive chemical reaction. You are no expert and your say so is all you have.
That was Dr. Leroy Hulsey and 2 of his students working on their PHDs. They conducted a 4 year study and published a peer reviewed report called "A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7". He was able to show several key points: 1. That NIST's hypothesis failed to include multiple structural elements and falsified data. 2. That even if NIST's hypothesis was correct and column 79 was actually pushed off its seat (an impossibility based on #1 above), it could not have caused a progressive collapse. 3. That even if a progressive collapse was initiated for WTC7, it could not possibly cause WTC7 to drop uniformly at free fall into its own massive structure. But no one needs Dr. Hulsey's study to figure that out, that's basic physics. 4. That the only possibly way WTC7 could drop uniformly at free fall is if all the core columns were taken out simultaneously followed 1.5 seconds by the exterior columns taken out simultaneously and created a computer model to demonstrate that. Of course that's impossible given NIST's claim that WTC7 failed strictly due office fires and that structural damage had no part in its "collapse". Although Dr. Hulsey did not articulate that the cause was controlled demolition, any fool should be able to conclude that columns taken out simultaneously could only happen in a controlled demolition. https://files.wtc7report.org/file/p...ollapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf
Because he was commissioned/funded by AE911Truth to review NIST's "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" (NIST NCSTAR 1A) and publish a peer reviewed paper on his findings. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1a.pdf NIST "investigated" the "collapse" of WTC7 but did not investigate the "collapse" of the twin towers only claiming in their paper that "global collapse ensued". So there was nothing identifiable that could be analyzed with respect to NIST's report on the twin tower "collapses". And experts at AE911Truth knew NIST's hypothesis on the "collapse" of WTC7 was bogus and wanted a structural engineer forensics expert to publish all the details about it. NIST relied on Bazant's error filled hypothesis for the "reason" for the actual "collapse".
Yet another steel frame high rise is engulfed in flames and burns for hours but there was not even a hint of a potential collapse. There have been at least 60 or more of these infernos prior to and following 9/11 with no global collapse. Opposite of Tower 7: Chinese Skyscraper Engulfed in Flames Does Not Collapse Into Own Footprint A fire engulfed a skyscraper in the central Chinese city of Changsha for two hours and it did not collapse. On Friday, China was shocked when a major fire broke out in a 42-story skyscraper in the central Chinese city of Changsha in Hunan province. The building belonged to the country's largest telecoms operator, but fortunately, no casualties were immediately reported despite the building being engulfed in flames for hours. Eerily similar to the Changsha fire is the one which engulfed the UK's Grenfell Tower fire. The Grenfell Tower fire killed at least 80 people but the final death toll is expected to rise as the investigation into the deadly fire continues. Both were widespread and posed significant threats to life and property, but none of the three fires proved capable of collapsing the structures. Unlike the Changsha and Grenfell Tower fires which burned for hours upon end, Building 7 of the World Trade Center reportedly collapsed into its own footprint after having only small fires. NIST claimed this was a result of high temperatures which started when the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center sparked office fires in Building 7. For comparison, the Grenfell Tower fire burned for 24 hours, charred nearly all 1,000 residences, but yet is still standing. So is the Changsha fire. Yes, we know these fires are in completely different buildings but it is important to point out that none of these other fires so much as weakened the structure of the buildings enough for anything to fall — much less collapse into its own footprint. Read the rest ... https://thefreethoughtproject.com/b...n-flames-does-not-collapse-into-own-footprint
Keep ignoging the elephant in the room. That Chinese tower was not hit by an airliner before catching fire. Massive false equivelnace an massive failure like all of your efforts
WTC7 was not hit by an airliner either. Perhaps you forgot. Of course being consistent does not make any sense.
Neither were the 60 or more buildings engulfed in flames that never globally collapsed. In fact the Usce Tower in Belgrade was hit multiple times by missiles in 1999 and suffered extensive fire and damage. It never collapsed, was refurbished and is currently being used as an office building. The North Tower suffered extensive fire over multiple floors in 1975 which burned for over 3 hours and was never in any danger of collapse. Steel frame buildings don't collapse, especially not globally and in a matter of seconds, accelerating directly into their own structure (at free fall for WTC7 and at 2/3 G acceleration unimpeded for the twin towers) for any cause other than controlled demolition, that's just elementary physics. Even Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead engineer is quoted as saying: "free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it", yet the NIST report claims WTC7 descended at free fall for the first 100 ft. It has never happened in any natural disaster, planes, fire, damage, earthquake, any combination, any experiment (see Cardington and Broadgate fire experiments), and has never been computer modeled, because it's clearly impossible and would violate the laws of physics. Start at the 6 minute mark:
Despite that NIST claimed on their own website in their FAQ: NIST never analyzed the total "collapse" of either of the twin towers, never mind determine why and how they collapsed. They merely claimed "global collapse ensued" without providing any supporting evidence that these were in fact "collapses" (as opposed to a complete destruction as in a controlled demolition). NIST relied on an error filled hypothesis written 2 days after 9/11 by Zdenek Bazant that explained that the top section (about 20%) of the falling tower crushed the much more massive lower section (about 80%) of the tower in its entirety. This allegedly happened at about 2/3 G acceleration with no discernible hesitation. Besides that physics and common sense makes such a hypothesis impossible, several papers have been written by experts outlining in detail why it's impossible. The German mathematician Ansgar Schneider proved in yet another paper that even if Bazant's hypothesis was taken as valid, the "collapse" would still have been arrested within 2 seconds. So now we have yet another engineer who has shown video proof why this hypothesis is utter nonsense from another perspective. First, the destruction of both twin towers were nearly identical. Second, one can visually see that the top section of the South Tower tilts significantly during its initial descent, yet according to Bazant, it is supposed to be crushing the lower section uniformly/symmetrically in the exact same manner as the North Tower. Start at about 26 minutes:
Additional visual proof that Bazant's hypothesis that the "intact" top 20% section of the tower crushed the lower 80% section is impossible nonsense that did not happen is this video (start at about 1:20) and photo. It shows that at the end of the destruction of the North Tower, there is an approximately 60 story section of the core that remains intact for a short time before it falls:
Another point that I forgot to add and missed the edit window. When you cut a tree at the base, it eventually topples over and never falls straight down into its own path. However in the video you can plainly see the remaining core section, known as the "spire" descends directly down into its own path. Again this is a 60 story connected core section made of structural steel.
Those pictures bring up the bizarre 'dustification' business. Watching the video it looks like the steel turns into powder/dust and blows away as it starts to fall. Then the remains of the steel got shipped out of the country. The so called "scientists and engineers" in this country totally piss me off. Back near the end of September 2001 I expected scientists to be all over the remains of the Twin Towers like white on rice.
It was Judy Wood's hypothesis that some kind of directed energy weapon destroyed the towers. I don't ascribe to her hypothesis but there's no denying that the "spire" looks like it turns to dust in the video as it's descending. It could just actually be that there is some kind of dust cloud or the video loses clarity. After all, lower Manhattan was blanketed by dust into the Hudson River and even as far as New Jersey. There is no question this was not an ordinary controlled demolition so who knows what kinds of sophisticated incendiaries were used besides thermitic products. Scientists who failed to go along with the official 9/11 fairy tale were ridiculed and called "conspiracy theorists" or worse and lost their jobs. Companies would not risk their lucrative government contracts. Even to this day the corrupt ASCE does everything in its power to block all papers that challenge the official 9/11 narrative: ASCE: The holy scripture of 9/11 will not be challenged Richard Johns, co-author of a long-censored technical paper on the Twin Towers’ destruction, and AE911Truth’s Ted Walter are this week’s guests on 9/11 Free Fall. They talk with host Andy Steele about the latest developments in the decade-long saga involving Johns’ paper, which he and co-author Tony Szamboti first submitted to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE) Journal of Engineering Mechanics in 2011. Their paper was critiquing an earlier paper by Zdeněk Bažant and Jia-Liang Le that purported to explain how, through gravity alone, the top of the North Tower could crush through the structure below it without observably slowing down. Their paper was finally rejected as “out of scope” in 2013, more than two years after they submitted it. One of the editors who rejected it, Kaspar Willam, was a contractor on the NIST WTC investigation. The other editor, Roberto Ballarini, was a co-worker and active co-author of Le’s. Nine years later, Johns and Szamboti are still fighting to have their paper published. Walter also updates listeners on a separate paper that civil engineer Jonathan Cole submitted last month to the ASCE’s Journal of Structural Engineering, critiquing a new paper by Bažant and Le. Cole’s paper was rejected just two days after submission by editor John van de Lindt, whose Center of Excellence for Risk-Based Community Resilience Planning at Colorado State University receives $4 million per year in funding from NIST and works directly with NIST WTC investigator Therese McAllister. https://www.ae911truth.org/news/881-asce-the-holy-scripture-of-9-11-will-not-be-challenged
LOL Sounds like denialism to me. Nothing else in the video gets fuzzy. I have no idea what could cause what we see, but there is no denying that I see it. It looks very weird. The steel being shipped out is soooo suspicious.
I can't argue that, steel doesn't turn to dust. Do you have any theories? Deliberate (criminal) destruction of evidence, plain and simple. It's listed as #1 out of 32 facts posted in the thread called "The 9/11 Commission Scam Exposed in all its Glory" (Post #498 ).
Nope, I have a mental box for stashing weirdly interesting but totally unexplained ****. Ever heard of Ian Stevenson ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson Of course physics stuff that experts refuse to investigate properly is a subcompartment all its own.
In NIST's case given their Congressional mandate and the critical nature of the event I would classify it as criminal fraud and even conspiracy to coverup the worst terrorist attack on US soil in modern history.
A brilliant presentation by Jonathan Cole. Using the scientific method, via experiment, Cole shows why all the theories for the collapse of the twin towers are wrong except for the Explosive Demolition theory. He addresses all the major theories, Pancake Collapse, Crush Up/Crush Down, Directed Energy Weapon (Dustification), Mini-Nukes and Aluminum Sprinkler. Note that NIST has NO theory, merely stating without supporting evidence that the collapse was inevitable. He shows why the "spire" (the 60 story section of the core left standing following the "collapse") is the Achilles' Heel of all these theories. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is or how smart you are, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong!" - Richard Feyman
Part two of Jonathan Cole’s incisive webinar series: ‘9/11 and the Scientific Method’ In part two of this series, Cole summarizes the results of his experiments regarding the extreme temperatures observed at the World Trade Center. He shows how none of the various hypotheses put forward — except controlled demolition using some form of thermite — can explain the multitude of evidence related to extreme temperatures. https://www.ae911truth.org/news/890...tHZImATN-_dXcckURPF9m4YU4wotObOQ0gTxUEJFf0CBM
