Unfortunately we live in a country where the content of class lessons and lectures is determined by, ultimately, the same people that determined the fate of those same three buildings.
Are you claiming that the 911 conspiracy spreads to post-secondary institutions and the professors who teach there? Do you have any evidence of this?
Academia has long been the battleground of cultural marxist revolutionaries and ideologues working, knowingly or unknowingly, under the aegis of the financial elites. For over a decade, the establishment has dismissed skepticism of the official 9/11 story as pseudo-intellectualism at best and schizophrenic antisemitism at worst. In the highly charged, politicized, foundation-grant-suck-up environment that is academia, It doesn't take a genius to know that promoting alternative 9/11 theories in the classroom is tantamount to career suicide.
My question to you is, are you really dumb enough to be asking this question honestly and earnestly, or were you simply trying to rhetorically entrap Mr. Gage by mischaracterizing his remarks?
Hes claiming that the people behind 911 dictate what is taught by university professors in the U.S. I did not mischaracterize his remark, that is what he said.
Sorry I should have said "naive", not "dumb". That was unnecessarily hostile, and for that I apologize.
That said, your original reply subtly exaggerated his comment to imply that those responsible for 9/11 have exerted direct operative control over the curriculum of post-secondary schools, whereas the reality is both more nuanced and more obvious: by already having the right sorts of people (aka people who like to avoid career suicide) established in positions of authority in government, media, and academia, skepticism of 9/11's official story simply became the intellectual taboo that it is today.
It's not so much, "intellectual taboo" or elite influence. But simply more of an unwillingness to subscribe to the implied theory that 9/11 was an "inside job". Academia won't support this idea without unequivocal evidence.
Determining whether 9/11 was an inside job is not the same as a scientific experiment. There's enough circumstantial evidence to pass judgement. People have been put to death with flimsier circumstantial evidence than that.
I'm saying that the implication of an inside job based on circumstantial evidence and conjecture is not verifiable in the minds of Academia.
On the contrary, there's not enough evidence to pass judgement. Conjecture and circumstantial evidence should never be used as a substitute for unequivocal and irrefutable evidence.
I've said this before too: Innocent people have been put to death or incarcerated for seemingly "strong" circumstantial evidence. Some are lucky enough to have irrefutable DNA evidence vindicate their innocence. No matter how much circumstantial evidence there seems to be, it still does not irrefutably prove the ultimate idea that our government orchestrated and masterminded 9/11.
They already have and continue to do so. With that said, its their job to not buy into a theory until it is proven. These "obvious conclusions" aren't as airtight as you'd like to believe.
Absolutely.. not taking anything away from the importance of that. However, the scientific data has yet to prove without the shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was the result of our governments own doing.
Any small amount of research into the topic would serve you well.
Former CIA Personnel Director F.W.M. Janney once wrote, "It is absolutely essential that the Agency have available to it the greatest single source of expertise: the American academic community." To this end, the Central Intelligence Agency has poured tens of millions of dollars into universities to influence research and enlist students and faculty members into its ranks.
That's interesting but there are a ton of things just simply not true here.
For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think.
Completely and utterly false. McCarthyism, for example.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies.
Again, completely false. If you look at communism as an example, one potential position resulting from a marxist perspective, you'll find an explicitly anti-state system.
I'm not exactly sure how to address the claim that "political correctness" is totalitarian as the author doesn't even give us a clear exposition of what these "tenets" are. Just vague claims of "legal trouble".
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production.
No, this is not true. Do you agree with this statement? Because if you do, I'd like to know why. I don't know how someone who has studied marxism could arrive at this conclusion.
Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.
So political correctness is cultural marxism, but this still isn't defined. I don't know what the guy is talking about. I don't know what cultural marxism is or where this is expressed within such a framework.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil.
Again, incorrect. A marxist analysis does not hold these prescriptive judgments on individuals based on class.
In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.
Again, I can't be certain of who this individual is referring to, but feminist theory does not at all express this black and white viewpoint.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property.
This is begging the question with regards to property.
Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated.
No, this is not true definitionally and this is not true legally unless you assume that the white student owns that position at the school by default of their being white.
And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics.
In what way does "marxist economics" "give the answers they want"?
And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.
What is meant by this statement?
Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments
No this is incorrect. Marx was not attempting to make absolute predictions about all capitalist economies. He made observations about how this mode of production operates and made certain general predictions (eg the rate of profit prediction which was really just a revised argument already made by Ricardo and Smith before him).
Honestly, I've no interest in debating the finer points of Marxism in theory, versus Marxism in practice, but I observe that you're far more concerned with the former than the latter. Which makes sense given that you're defending the honor of an ideology with a track-record of repression, balkanization, and dehumanization that is as reprehensible as it is long. So unless I'm terribly mistaken, nothing I say here will sour your taste for establishment-funded, state-sanctioned Kool-Aid masquerading as scholarship.
You just posted a link, he tore it to shreds, and that's your answer? Sounds like your more interested in holding your viewpoint than looking into historical accuracy or facts which your beliefs are founded on.
No, I'm rather more interested in what people actually do than in the bullshit theories and sophistry they peddle to rationalize and/or disclaim said actions.
Dude, there's mountains of history out there that are factually more accurate and show how fucked up and also how good some governments have been throughout history. Check out the podcast the History of Rome. It's a good place to start on how and where democracies go wrong and he also talks about the bias of the historians at each period he's referring to. However, you don't have to start there, but please read something from respected historians, who put their own cultural beliefs aside and try to examine the past for what it was. Reading conveniently simplified and inaccurate history is really quite painful.
Honestly, I've no interest in debating the finer points of Marxism in theory, versus Marxism in practice[1] , but I observe that you're far more concerned with the former than the latter. Which makes sense given that you're defending the honor of an ideology with a track-record of repression, balkanization, and dehumanization that is as reprehensible as it is long. So unless I'm terribly mistaken, nothing I say here will sour your taste for establishment-funded, state-sanctioned Kool-Aid masquerading as scholarship.
What you're doing is fallaciously conflating "b" with "a" by asserting through non-sequitur that "a" necessarily leads to "b". You're also just sort of lazily implying ad hominem attacks to discredit "a" rather than detailing what exactly it is about either "a" or "b" you find wrong on its own merits (as any premise or argument ought to be evaluated).
You also demonstrate a severe ignorance of what exactly is being discussed (eg: marxism, communism, progressivism) and couch it all under this nebulous term of "political correctness", which is just an easy catch-all phrase for things you don't like other people talking about (which is really fucking ironic).
Ok you're right this was all a chimera, pay no attention to the men behind the curtain or their mega-foundation-grant / CIA connections, move along, nothing to see or learn from any of these links...
In Howard Zinn's, "A People's History of the United States" Zinn has an excerpt from a church study group that found something like 70 higher learning institutions around the U.S. using material published by companies created, working with, and known to associate with the CIA.
Well thats a pretty vague requirement for a connection with the CIA. If a electronics department uses something published by IBM, the whole school is suddenly suspect?
Yes. They all work for the state. People who get paid by the state and depend on the state to survive usually do everything they can to defend the institution that writes their paychecks.
While I am not dismissing your point, in a large percentage of secondary schools in the US, the students' loans are financed by state issued loans. So, in effect, to maintain eligibility for federal and/or state funds, some may feel the pressure to not speak out or have specific content contrary to what the State/Federal Official Story™ is.
some may feel the pressure to not speak out or have specific content contrary to what the State/Federal Official Story
C'mon, you know how liberal and/or critical of the U.S. government some college courses are? also, have you read the requirements for approval for a institution to accept financial aid? They are pretty lax. got a accredited degree program? your in. got a program that provides training
for gainful employment in a recognized occupation? your in. You don't even need the government to recognize it as school if its on a native reservation and run by natives.
Not at all. Theres no evidence that objectively claims the U.S. government was involved. Thats just the conspiracy bias that is ingrained in the 911 truth movement.
I don't get why you won't make a list of objective evidence, but instead convert to calling people shills for trying to take you to task. Honestly, you behave like a Chinese government paid 50 Cent Army troll (when asked for proof, resort to ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies).
I just called you a 50 Cent Army troll and that's your rebuke? Pot, meet kettle. I guess we should just devolve to who's dad can beat up who's, because this is going nowhere fast
Concave earth theory doesn't have enough "data" to support even talking about it. 9/11 has plenty to warrant discussion and analysis. It isn't so much a "conspiracy" that they aren't talking about it but the overwhelming silence does speak to the fact that they are muzzled- whether through direct control or subtle, nuanced fear of repercussions.
Concave earth theory doesn't have enough "data" to support even talking about it.
Neither does the 911 truth movement. I could easily argue that a similar level of "data" is present in concave theory circles, does that mean it should be discussed in classrooms? Its not peered review science. Having a critique of the NIST report isn't evidence towards a government conspiracy, and isn't any more worthy of classroom discussion than a critique of the natural resonance explanation for the tacoma bridge collapse.
the overwhelming silence does speak to the fact that they are muzzled
No. They are just as silent about concave earth theory, are they muzzled on that too?
You lost credibility when you put the 9/11 issue on the same level of plausibility as the earth being hollow. This isn't about the discussion of the plethora of physical evidence and laws of physics anymore but merely a question of your cognitive dissonance. This discourse is passé.
As someone with a degree in physics/engineering, I consider all pseudoscience to be on a similar level, be it the 911 truthers claiming newtons 3rd law was violated, or a concave earther talking about refracted light. The biggest difference is that the concave earthers actually have a better understanding of physics.
Are you saying the content of class lessons and lectures is determined by the pentagon, Halliburton, the Bush, bin Laden, and Rothschilds families? Or that the department of education was also part of it?
This has been one of my favorite quotes for two decades.
Along with this:
Don't forget this — it's the law of the universe that the strong shall survive and the weak must fall by the way; and I don’t give a damn what idealistic plan is cooked up, nothing can change that.
Funny how he profited from societal evolution proving him wrong before he was even born, making the life and career he had possible. Cooperation among "weaker" individuals is generally a more successful strategy than being "strong" and uncooperative, which is why even underdeveloped civilization as we experience it is possible.
Right, until the civilization is up and running, and then your Steve Jobs types come in and cherry-pick the fruits of everyone elses' cooperation. It's the fucking Randian cunts we have to watch out for in this world.
Jesus Christ! That may be the most insulting thing I've ever read. They may as well have just said "we want to keep the poor people poor so they can do the shit work for us."
Corporations and publishing companies are notorious for being involved with, starting and propagandizing war. And with consensus, it's either political suicide, or conformity.
The goal of a structural forensic investigation is to take the evidence at hand and to come up with the most probable explanation for the collapse/failure based on our understanding as engineers of the loading, geometries, and material properties involved.
Based on all information I've seen, and you know looking at the event 11 years after the fact (when I took the class), the "official NIST report" covers the most probable collapse scenarios for each building based on the evidence/information available. I know it's not what you want to hear, go ahead and downvote me.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that in a forensic investigation there are almost always questions after the fact that can't be resolved, because we never have 100% perfect information. Original design drawings get amended and Steve forgets to redline that one sheet, minor changes in the field occur during construction, some steel erector doesn't tighten a few bolts down fully, a building owner decides to change something small ten years in that changes the loading distribution, some minor defect gets worse over time, etc. etc. there are a million small things that can happen that affect our idealized frame analysis of a structure. The best that people can do is formulate the most likely hypothesis that explains the phenomenon without relying on Martians. If you want to claim Martians, you better have very strong evidence to back up your theory.
But the NIST report did not "come up with" the idea that the buildings fell due to fire caused by airplane strikes - they started with that as an assumed fact, and then went on to find the most likely way that the buildings would have collapsed due to fire caused by airplane strikes.
They did not entertain any other possibility, and did not come up with the most probably explanation of the original cause. It's like doing an autopsy of a person who was shot in the chest, and assuming that the bullet killed them - even if the bullet wound appeared to be post-mortem, didn't bleed, or strike any major organs, and the body was also missing their head. "Well, we know they were shot, so obviously the bullet killed them - now let's figure out the most likely way they could have died from a bullet wound. Must have nicked an artery and bled to death internally" Then, the mortician writes up a report that tries to explain how the bullet killed them, completely ignoring the fact that the body had evidence that the person died because their head was chopped off - in fact, doesn't even mention the head in the autopsy. Just assumes the cause of death is the bullet because they were told the person died of a gunshot by the police beforehand - even though that policeman had blood all over him, a blood-soaked chainsaw in one hand, and the missing head in the other hand.
so what is the head in this analogy? what is the no blood, or no vital organs? who is the policeman and what is the chainsaw and severed head in hand in your analogy?
The majority of the evidence doesn't support controlled demolition though. The whole premise of controlled demolition is absurd. How would they have managed to smuggle in the obscene amounts of explosives needed to bring down the towers? Why not just fly two planes full of explosives into the towers? Or full of jet fuel? Why not just pay al-Qaeda terrorists to fly a plane full of jet fuel into a building?
You mean an exorbitant amount of energy like thousands of tonnes collapsing? I think the problem with 9/11 truthers is a lack of a basic physics education.
Why are you conspiratards obsessed with this free fall speed thing? NIST admit it fell at free fall speed. If you did even the slightest amount of research you'd know this.
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
It's only at free fall for a small amount of time. It's 40 per cent lower than free fall.
It manages to fall at essentially free fall as the force above is so huge that the building below cannot support its mass and collapses. Any reaction force from below is negligible. As you can see it takes a second for sufficient energy to build up. Buildings are built to take the force of just a few stories above them, not a moving mass.
(I can tell just by your comment) that you really don't even have any business jumping in this discussion with people such as myself who've spent hundreds of hours researching the topic.
Are you some sort of parody account? Top. Minds.
I actually have a degree in engineering that has a decent amount of focus on the structural side. I'm not an expert by any means but I actually have a background in the field.
Edit:Literally in the report. Floors 13 till 5 collapsed, the above floors where not supported.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, and 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
This is a good analogy. I've often used it myself. I've been conducting a forensic analysis of the World Trade Center dust, and it certainly does not point to fire as the mechanism of destruction. My dust samples do not contain a trace of thermite, though, which is a contradiction to the "traditional controlled demolition" theory promulgated by many in the 9/11 truth movement. Thermite is never used to demolish buildings, either, so there's that.
But, if you assume the fire was started by anything other then the airplane fuel where is the hard evidence? The only evidence I hear about is a few people saw something strange happen a few days before hand or heard strange sounds.
You can say they were destroyed/covered up of course but then you are using abstract thinking. If you use photographic evidence then you need to take in ALL photographic evidence. There is substantially more photographic evidence that the planes hit the buildings and released their fuel than their are of virtually any other evidence. If the evidence is overwhelmingly one sided most of the merit will fall on that side.
So you have hard evidence and photographic evidence that it was the jet fuel on one side and theoretical circumstantial evidence on the other. The scientific method sides with hard evidence over any theory. It doesn't mean the theory is wrong it means that we only base fact on hard evidence.
Well of course planes hit the buildings and the fuel burned. Like you said, there's plenty of proof of that.
What there isn't (solid) proof of is:
That those were the planes we were told they were.
That the planes were piloted by the suspects (and not by computer).
That the fires caused the 3 buildings to collapse.
I cannot prove an alternate story. But the official story has also not been proved. Any conclusion will be at least part theory (hypothesis, really), because so many things can't be known - the data is not there.
But I have never claimed that I know exactly what happened that day. I claim that the official story has holes and inconsistencies, and therefore is not fact.
To blindly believe what has been reported to us is a mistake. Why? Because we have a MASSIVE amount of evidence throughout history that the people who are in the position to give out that kind of information will always report what is beneficial to them (to the extent that they believe they can pull it off), regardless of its relationship with truth.
When I talk about "the government", I'm not talking about a cohesive group of public servants who are all working together and who all have the same knowledge and intent. Government by nature is a helter skelter collection of people and institutions with different purposes and goals, with different access to information, and with different agendas and people to whom they answer. Anyone who has had a government job knows that it's a huge clusterfuck.
People use that as evidence that no government could ever pull off a conspiracy.
But that's actually the reason that conspiracies can be put into effect. It's not a government acting as a single unit with hundreds of thousands of people complicit, all keeping their mouths shut. Conspiracies are almost always created by a very small group of people who work through the system to achieve a goal. Because of the chaos and complexity, many things can happen without anyone ever catching on.
As a "truther", my point of view is that the official story has problems. My goal is to question everything. Until someone can prove beyond any reasonable doubt what happened on 9/11/2001 and the days leading up to it and the aftermath, I am suspect of the story. Because it is very simple to look at the story and ask "who benefits from which version?"
The people who benefit from the official story are the same people who were neck deep in all of the events, calling the shots - the Bush administration used 9/11 to push their agenda of war with Iraq, increased power to spy on and detain and torture whoever they like, etc. - if you study the papers written by Cheney and Rumsfeld, you'll see very clearly that 9/11 was like Christmas to them as far as pushing agendas they have openly called for through their very long careers. So that group benefited hugely by 9/11, and by the acceptance of theofficial story.
The owner of WTC benefited massively. It's easy to find the details of the financial problems that those real estate holdings were causing him, and how 9/11 solved it and added a nice profit from insurance. So the official story is of extremely great value to Larry Silverstein. Like Woodward & Bernstein, "follow the money".
There are other people involved who benefited, but I think you see my point.
Bin Laden had less clear motive to orchestrate the events of 9/11. No one seems to analyze that angle. What did he gain? Attention, sure. Infamy, yes. Revenge? Only if you believe he is the Bond villain evil scheming caricature that he was portrayed as by the West. I can't really say what he was or wasn't, because the only information I have on him has been filtered through Western media and propaganda. Supposedly, his strategy was to lure the US into invading a Muslim country, anger Muslims against the West, and destabilize the US (and world) economy through a war of attrition. If that is true, then 9/11 was a major victory for Al-Qaeda.
But unlike the doctrines written by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove, those agendas aren't quite as indisputable. All of the position papers and statements from them, they stand by and it's very clear where they stood and what they have said through various think tanks and political forums. With OBL, there is more ambiguity - the CIA has admitted to authoring fake Bin Laden videos and propaganda. And everyone knows that there are allegations that he was some sort of CIA asset at one point in the past, and had ties to the players on the American side. There are some leads to a US-Saudi-hijackers link - the censored 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report for one (all of that is unsubstantiated, but it does open one to questioning the origins and agendas of the supposed "lone gunmen").
So Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda benefited as well, but there is some reason to be suspicious of parts of that story, and if it was purely a case of striking a blow at the Great Satan or whatever. It appears to be more complex, as things of this nature almost always are. And throughout history it has been the rule rather than the exception for the major players in world events to have ties and connections and multiple agendas.
When we talk about, see films about, or read history books about any government from the past, or outside of ours, it is never questioned that there are dirty dealings and false flags and double agents and corruption of all types. Lies, assassinations, and personal agendas. But for bad reasons, most people want to believe that our nation doesn't do those things. We are the first country in the history of the planet that is made up purely of "good guys" who never bend the rules, never pursue personal gain by manipulating the system, and who don't fight dirty. If one were to write the story of 9/11 but with the characters and period details changed to be about the Roman Empire or something, then we would all be perfectly fine questioning the absolute truth of what the government had told it's citizens. If it was Russia and Putin, we would all be like "those dirty fuckers!"
So when you look at MOTIVE, several groups stand out - and many (most?) of them are the ones who were neck deep in the events of 9/11, and also just happened to get everything they wanted as a result of 9/11.
When you look at MEANS, there are also many question marks. Would some of the richest and most powerful people in the world (Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld/Silverstein/Israeli power players) have the means to manipulate money and documents and stories and planes and high tech building explosives and stool pigeons? Absolutely. If you look at the "inside job" group, they are rich and powerful enough to do just about anything imaginable.
Now, on the other side, the "terrorists". What means did they have? The hijackers were very low sophistication level outsiders. Could they have managed to get into the US, get some quick and dirty flight training, avoid detection, get box cutters stashed onto the planes, and successfully maneuver 3 out of 4 planes into hitting their targets perfectly - so perfectly that two planes completely demolished three buildings through means that have never been done before or since, in all of the history of mankind? I see how it can be explained without any one step or situation sounding completely implausible, but taken as a whole, it's a pretty miraculous feat.
When you talk about OPPORTUNITY, did the hijackers have that? It appears that they did. At least we are told that they did. They all made it into the US, and despite being on watch lists and under some level of suspicion remained here (even past expired visas) long enough to pull it off. That's the story we're told. We're also told that they were able to board the planes without problem, and take them over and fly them without being stopped (except for the uber-patriotic wet dream flight 93, of course). We're told that they did. But again, for all that to happen without any one step along the way going South takes a lot of luck. A whole lot.
Did the "inside job" lot have the opportunity to create a false flag attack? The POTUS & his pals, the most powerful people in the world, can easily make their own opportunity. They have access to systems, people, and means of manipulation that most people can't fathom. They too would need everything to go right. But they have the ability to stack the odds in their favor.
So that's my macro view of why I am suspicious of the official story. When it comes to the NIST report specifically, I look at it in a similar way. Who is involved? What is their motivation? What assumptions are made? Are facts given flexibility, or are theories tested rigorously over and over again in order to eliminate all doubt? How many leaps of faith are required? Are they eager and forthcoming with their methods of coming to conclusions - or are they oddly secretive about how some numbers and ideas become presented as "fact", or are we just told that rigorous and state of the art methods were used (just don't ask us what they were!!!)? Do they explore every single possibility, or only the ones that lead to a preconceived notion? Do they thoroughly debunk any other possible explanations? Or do they just pretend that other hypotheses do not exist? Is evidence cherry picked to support a certain conclusion, or is every single bit of data investigated as thoroughly as possible?
NIST looks and acts sketchy. The have a very strong motivation to come to a certain conclusion. How much has the report affected the way buildings are designed and built, so that the same problems could be avoided in the future? Are they eager to show off their brilliant deductive work, and use it to change things?
I want proof, not "this is most likely if you only look at it from one angle". I don't have to prove an alternate theory in order to question the prevailing one - I only need a reasonable doubt. And there is lots of that.
I have watched the video until the end, but not recently. I accept I will never know the truth regarding the 911 attacks.
Im not trying to convince you, or anyone else for that matter, of anything.
I just wanted to share the video for people who have not seen it.
For me the video struck home (I hope I use the correct expression, non native english speaker here) because he speaks my native tongue and comes across as very convincing.
I am not at all surprised he based his statement on a video or two. He was an expert with his own controlled demolition company. An expert does not need much to recognize/see whats going on.
I was more surprised he died shortly after this interview in a single car accident on a quiet road.
Are we watching the same video? When he says, "Yes, that's odd. I can't explain it." I believe he's referring to, "So they'd have to do it while it was on fire." I think many who believe WTC 7 was a controlled demolition would agree that it seems unlikely the building was rigged for explosives while it was on fire.
That same demolition expert says WTC1 and WTC2 were not controlled demolitions and were in fact natural collapses. He flat out says that CD is "impossible" based on what is seen in the dozens of collapse videos.
I notice that never seems to get brought up when Danny Jowenko is mentioned in these parts.
Are you saying that from a fully objective perspective, not thinking about the reasons or the conspiracies, that on comparing the NIST report with the contrary findings that have emerged since, that you find the NIST report to be more plausible?
For me, almost every single aspect of the official report is ludicrous to the extreme. Practically nothing about it rings true.
When you read a scientific article in an academic journal, do you just take it on face value? As an ex editor of academic journals, one gets used to spotting where the authors have massaged the interpretations and analysis to emphasize the correctness of their hypotheses. That's what I would call "subtle" lying. The NIST report is on the opposite end of the spectrum. It's so blatantly false that you can't even pick it apart (well, some have but the overwhelming sentiment is that the whole think should be discounted immediately).
It sounds like you're coming at this from a very biased perspective. I don't know if the CIA hired people to fly those planes or they were actually rednecks from Alabama and Cheney wanted to use them as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no insider knowledge or training that gives me any special insight into the motivations of the hijackers or political leadership of this country. I'll leave that to the people with master's degrees in middle eastern history and foreign policy of the United States.
All that I know is that I spent 6 years in university, getting a master's degree in structural engineering, and based on what I have seen, the NIST report gives the best explanation of the physical mechanism for the collapse of these buildings based on the evidence available. The criticisms of this theory that I have seen mostly derive from a combination of lack of understanding by the layman of structural engineering practices (and material science in particular), and trying to fit evidence to match preconceived biases.
In forensics, you are supposed to go into it with a blank slate absent of preconceived biases, follow where the evidence takes you to the most logical and justifiable conclusion. Most conspiracy theories related to the collapse of these buildings are heavily tainted with selectively using evidence to justify a preconceived story.
What contrary findings? I don't think I've seen anything that could be called a contrary finding. Genuinely curious as I'm not aware of any actual study of the events that doesn't concur with the NIST findings
let's assume every one of the scenarios you laid out occurred on that day - all of them, and more you didn't mention ... the fact that all three building fell at free-fall speeds into their own footprint is incalculably improbable
Especially WTC Building 7, which really had no catalyst to set off the free-fall collapse beside a relatively insignificant amount of debris falling on it. Not to mention, it was a much smaller building than the WTC 1 and 2, meaning that there were less floors and less metalwork on the interior overall, making the likelihood of an error a slight bit smaller overall. In a massive skyscraper like 1 and 2, it's honestly not that unlikely for something to have gone wrong in design, but WTC 7 was the size of a large hotel in a major city, really. I don't find it all that likely that expert engineers and builder that were in charge of building the WTC's, especially 7 would have made such a grave mistake as to make 7 fall from some debris. But I suppose that's just a theory, technically...
I love the critical experts on here that clearly have never even read the report. Nowhere is it claimed in the NIST report that damage from debris falling caused the collapse of Building 7. Fuck, if you just read the FAQ section you would know that.
The fires started by the falling debris which burned out of control due to the failure of the lower levels' sprinkler system (which was fed by a water main that was severed when WTC1 and 2 came down) caused thermal expansion of the girders which severed connections to a key column which failed due to euler buckling with the loss of lateral restraint blah blah blah. Just read the damn thing. They even go so far to say that even without any damage from debris the fire alone would likely have caused the collapse.
Thermal expansion is a real concern in design and can generate enormous stresses when not properly accounted for. It's one of the major reasons why roller supports and expansion joints are a thing in structural design. The design engineers likely assumed the sprinkler system would activate in time to put out a major fire before the girders could reach such temperatures and expand to such a degree. Structural design is based on likely situations, reducing the likelihood of collapse down to a certain acceptable threshold. There has to be an acceptable level of risk, otherwise you just dump money into a pit and burn it. What happened on 9/11 was not designed for, and the building failed.
Maybe the NIST never reported that debris itself collapsed the WTC 7 building, but I hear people claim it all the time.
As for the claim that it was the fire that brought down the steel-framed WTC 7, that's also been refuted multiple times by engineering experts (I don't have the sources on-hand, I'm sure a quick Google search will get you what I can't). An office fire has never brought down any other skyscrapers, why would WTC 7, one of the most important buildings in NYC (the largest city in the United States) be built so shoddily?
Technically correct, although the J.L. Hudson Dept. Store was something like 2/3 the size of WTC 7, so nearly close enough. And made of the same steel frame as WTC 7.
Controlled demolition has brought down plenty of steel-made buildings of the same design as 7, but not as large, you're correct in that.
is what the J.L. Hudson Department Store demo looks like. Weeks of prep work to wrap columns in explosive, and the demo itself had loud explosive bangs (the type that accompany controlled demolition).
Saying that controlled demolition brought down WTC 7 requires far more proof than saying that similar buildings have been brought down. There isn't a single record of a controlled demolition of a skyscraper the size of WTC 7, and even less evidence that such an undertaking could happen in secret without conventional explosives.
There have been hundreds of reports from witnesses of both the major two towers, and WTC 7 saying they heard loud "bomb-like" noises just before each of the towers fell. IIRC, I saw a first-hand video where they actually caught the sound, but of course that kind of thing is very easy to fake, so it should be taken worth a grain of salt, really.
Also, there are reports (indisputable) that 'repair crews' were doing maintenance on elevator shafts in the WTC, and that they had access to the core of the building when doing so. Reports indicate (disputable, of course) that it's very easily possible for a group of infiltrators posing as the repair crew could have planted Thermite, C4, or another highly explosive, corrosive, or thermal device/element on to the frame of the WTC buildings.
I'm not saying to believe one way or the other on the WTC 1 and 2 buildings just from what I'm saying I've read (I can't seem to find the same sources I see myself for some reason, but I've scrolled through others saying the exact same thing- Google is magical), I'm just saying that all things considered, it is extremely curious and unlikely that all these things fell in to place to bring down the towers and 7.
I'd love to see the arguments by and credentials of these so-called engineering experts. Most of the engineers I've seen in AE9/11 are like..biomedical engineers..who know about as much about this topic as I do about pacemakers or prosthetics, zilch.
As for the last argument, it's wholly illogical. It's always the first time for something to happen...until it happens. Ever heard of Galloping Gertie? Structures can behave very differently based on their individual design parameters, and fires have their own sets of characteristics. Just because there hadn't been a fire that had brought down a high rise building, doesn't mean that there couldn't be a fire that could bring down a high rise building, especially in a building where the sole fire protection system malfunctioned due to the cutting of its supply for the lower 20 stories.
I am going to give you an interesting experiment to do:
Go and build a platform on top of 4 support columns made of reinforced steel beams, then build a couple more levels on top of it. Use something foor the flooring that will allow very hot fires to burn next to two of the support beams, or 3 of the 4. See how the thing falls.
Guess what, it won't pancake down in on itself, it will begin to weaken on one side and the weight on top will bend the steel until the structure begins twisting over, eventually the top will fall off to one side. What happened on 9/11 makes no sense in the context that we have been offered in the officially-offered conspiracy theory(which is literally what it is). It's the most ridiculous theory out there, on par with "aliens shot laser beams at it from space weapons platforms".
It did happen, though. What this means is that whatever equations you set up to do the calculations weren't appropriate. I'd start with the concept that the buildings fell within their own footprint. They most certainly did not! Those buildings exploded all over lower Manhattan. They didn't fall into their own footprints. In fact, if you look at early pictures of Ground Zero, the area where WTC 1 and WTC 2 used to be contained the least amount of debris. There weren't tall piles of building debris in the footprints of the buildings. The debris was scattered widely. Again. This does not happen with controlled demolition.
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet.
The statement was not mine for you to question. Here, I accidentally left off the quotation marks and the name behind the statement. Let me fix that for you....
"The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)
So I guess we should fix your statement as well. Let me do that for you.
"FEMA is full of shit if they think that was a small debris field. Who the fuck do they work for, anyway?"
I'm proving the point that even they admit to a "small debris field" with an approximate radius of 70 feet. What do they have to gain by lying here? Especially when any/all evidence supports their statement.
Wow. I just presume that everyone else is telling the truth, because I am. I stood two blocks away from Ground Zero, and couldn't see anything above the footprints of either WTC 1 or WTC 2 above a ten foot fence. Nobody is lying here, as far as I know. Certainly not me.
You are the one who asked me if I trust FEMA. Your statements aren't making any sense. I am also talking about WTC7. Not 1/2. Please read statements before commenting on them.
My statements are the truth. The WTC "Twin Towers" did not fall into their footprints. The exterior of WTC 7 fell mostly into its footprint, but by 5:30PM, most of the building was already destroyed. As much as you mention WTC 7, I guarantee you that you will still be confused if you only pay attention to what happened to WTC 7 at 5:30PM. If you learn what happened to this building during the day (even before noon), you won't be able to accept the controlled demolition story. I repeat, it really is you who is confused, because you agree with the "bombs in the building" theory. It didn't happen!
The statement I posted that you responded to was about WTC7 and WTC7 alone. Therefore, your statement about the "Twin Towers" is irrelevant and an (obvious) attempt at a topic shift. Do try and stay on topic.
Again, your entire, well thought out reply of "Not really." is completely wrong. Since my quote was directly and obviously referring to WTC7.
If you learn what happened to this building during the day (even before noon), you won't be able to accept the controlled demolition story
You shouldn't rely on me or anyone else to inform you of what happened to WTC 7 during the day leading up to the events at 5:30PM. You should learn for yourself. I will tell you that one of the things you will learn is that the interior of WTC 7 was being destroyed hours before the exterior showed much damage at all. This is not consistent with controlled demolitions, by the way.
I'm not relying on you. You have clearly shown that you aren't able to "inform me" of anything. You claimed that I don't know what happened. So, tell me what I don't know!
I will tell you that one of the things you will learn is that the interior of WTC 7 was being destroyed hours before the exterior showed much damage at all
The whole interior? Some of the interior? Source? Proof? Take a firm stance here. Why are you afraid to get specific? Is it because you know I'll refute you?
You can dress it up any way you like. I genuinely asked you to show me what you claim that I don't know. (Not sure how you know what I do/do not know.) There is no aggression on my end. I provided a statement about WTC7. You claimed it was incorrect by incorrectly shifting the topic to WTC 1 and 2. Then, when I revealed this to you, you claimed I do not know about WTC7. So, again....please do tell. I'm genuinely interested here!
OK, no problem. You do agree with the statement, "Not everything that glows orange is glowing orange because it is hot. Sometimes things glow orange without high heat. An example of this is the computer pixels I'm looking at."
This has nothing to do with the topic. You said I don't know what happened to WTC7. How do you know what I do/do not know? And why are you so afraid to tell me what I "don't know?" Is it because you know I'll refute you? Yes. Yes it is. I'll continue to wait.....And please, try to stay on topic.
You really think I'm afraid? This makes no sense. I'm asking IF you know what happened to WTC 7 early on during the day. I'm not saying that you don't know. I have no idea what you know.
Yes, that is exactly what I think because that is exactly what you are conveying. If you had something to prove or "teach" me, you would have done so. But instead, you claim that I don't know what happened to WTC7. So please, stop stalling and tell me!
I already told you, WTC 7 was destroyed on the inside BEFORE 5:30PM. You already know this. You may not have considered it before, but you're already aware of this.
Destroyed by what? And you're claiming this "destruction" caused the collapse? Why are you so afraid to be specific. You messaged me, now prove your point already. You've had days now. I'm waiting...
You don't know what caused it, but you know it happened. Translation: you don't know what you're talking about, yet you're trying to educate people. NIST lists thermal expansion as the sole reason for the global collapse of WTC7. So you are incorrect. I do know what happened to WTC7 (according to the "official story") And the "official story" is ridiculous. Next time you want to "inform" me of what happened, hopefully you'll actually have something to say! Have a good one!
You're not trying to say that WTC 7 was perfectly fine up until 5:30PM, so I don't understand the nature of your vitriol. That building was destroyed on the inside before 5:30PM. What you call a collapse is really just the collapse of the exterior.
Nope. I didn't say that at all. So you putting words in my mouth serves no purpose other than a weak attempt at giving you the chance to finally disprove something. Try refuting my actual words.
The "official story" states that thermal expansion is the sole cause for the global collapse of WTC7. Not damage from WTC1. The "official story" also withholds their entire proof of this theory. Making it an unproven fairy tale. Sorry to be the one to tell you.
I've been conducting a forensic analysis of the destruction of the World Trade Center for 13 years from the streets of lower Manhattan. I haven't been doing internet searches and calling it research.
The fact that you made this particular comment on an internet forum is quite comical. I guess I should just take your word for it, huh? Just like NIST (the "official story") who never proved their claims/theories as well?
I hope in your 13 years of "forensic analysis" you found a way to account for the VOC spikes measured at ground zero. The "official story" hasn't been able to account for them.
If you are implying that the WTC was destroyed with a mechanism that involved high heat, I beg to differ. The WTC was destroyed from the inside out, over time, at low temperature.
I am not implying anything. That is the statement of NIST (the "official story") I couldn't care less about your non-sourced opinion that lacks any/all evidence. The "official story" states that WTC7 globally collapsed due to thermal expansion. Not due to damage from WTC1. You're right, it is laughable. That may be the only thing you're right about. However, you have even less evidence than NIST. And that's a pretty tough accomplishment.
No, I don't twist. You tried putting words in my mouth, again. I asked you to stop doing that. It's childish and reveals that you have no argument. Here's a "straight out sentence" for you:
I posted a statement that WTC7 had a small debris field. You said "not really." Then, when I revealed that the statement I posted was from the "official story," you started to run away from your own statement. You then tried using WTC1 and 2 as examples because you knew you were wrong, but couldn't admit it for some reason.
so, again,
"The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. " - FEMA - straight out sentence.
Additionally, NIST (the "official story") states that:
"The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event—the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections" - NIST - straight out sentence
"This is the first known instance where fire-induced local damage (i.e.,buckling failure of Column 79; one of 82 columns in WTC 7) led to the collapse of an entire tall building" - NIST - straight out sentence
"21. Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?
The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings." - NIST - straight out sentence
As for the "bombs" statement, yes, there is direct evidence that the "official story" cannot account for the government measured VOC spikes/dates.
"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet.
Your response:
[–]friendlylooking [-4] -1 points 9 days ago
Not really.
Sorry. This would be easier for you if I couldn't easily go back and see what you wrote. It's all right there.
I'm not confused. I literally proved you wrong. I showed you our exact conversation. And you don't like it. So you feign confusion. You're not fooling anyone. Sorry.
"The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event—the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections" - NIST - straight out sentence
"This is the first known instance where fire-induced local damage (i.e.,buckling failure of Column 79; one of 82 columns in WTC 7) led to the collapse of an entire tall building" - NIST - straight out sentence
I'm not proving anything. You'll have to do that for yourself. I'm just telling you the facts. WTC 7 was being destroyed early on during the day on 9/11, before noon and continuing up until 5:30PM.
You have nothing to prove. You have told me 0 facts. Which is exactly why you are too scared to get into specifics. You are fooling 0 people. Thanks though!
The fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels.
There was no use of accelerants.
The spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics.
Fire-induced window breakage provided ventilation for continued fire spread and growth.
There were simultaneous fires on multiple floors.
The fires on each floor occupied a substantial portion of the floor.
The fires on each floor had passed the point of flashover and the structure was subjected to typical post-flashover temperatures.
The sprinklers were inoperative or ineffective; and 9) the fires burned for sufficient time to cause significant distortion and/or failure to the building structure.
These are just those listed by NIST. Hope this helps!
No buildings of that size have ever been demolished. So know one really knows the out come. I'd say they " fell within their footprint " fairly well considering they were at the time the largest buildings on earth.
My point is that relatively little of the debris of WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell "into their footprints". The vast majority of the material fell outside the footprint of those two buildings. Most of it was in the form of this incredible dust, but there were lots of steel beams left over, too. Only a minority of these steel beams ended up in the footprints of either of the Twin Towers. I walked down to Ground Zero from my apartment on Day 3 after the attacks, and you could barely see anything above a ten foot fence. Over to one side, you could see some taller pieces sticking up, but where WTC 1 and WTC 2 used to be? Nothing. You couldn't see a thing from street level two blocks away above that ten foot fence. The debris pile over the footprints was rather short.
I think you misunderstand what is being implied by "into their own footprint". Obviously there was too much dust and matter for it to all fit within the square that the building stood on. What he is saying is that the top pancaked down onto the "bottom"(lower half of the structure after failure). This would require a universal, across-the-boards failure, not a fire weakening steal on one side, or two sides, at one specific level of the building.
Ever played Jenga? Have you ever seen the tower collapse straight down in on itself after pulling one piece or two pieces? Go build a model with modern engineering standards and light a couple of floors on fire, see which way it falls and how the weight distribution forces it off to one side.
Things just do not happen the way NIST said 9/11 happened. It is a joke to believe otherwise.
Yeah, but with Jenga (and every example of controlled demolition), you end up with the highest point of the debris pile centered in the middle, right below the center of mass of the building. This did not happen with 9/11. The low point of the debris pile was above the footprints of each of the Twin Towers. This is not how it is commonly described. It's commonly described as having mostly fallen WITHIN the footprint, when the vast majority of it fell OUTSIDE the footprint (of each of the Twin Towers).
How is the point you are making relevant? It stems from a base of you being pedantic and nit-picking meaningless misinterpretations of phrases (like "into it's own footprint") instead of accepting and understanding the obvious and correct suggestion that is implied by it's use.
Of COURSE that many stories of a super-structure aren't going to all be contained in it's original "footprint" during or at the end of a total collapse. Obviously. That isn't actually relevant to the use of the phrase "into it's own footprint", and you should really be smart enough to realize what is actually being (correctly) implied in it's use, instead of being self-sabotaging and needlessly technical. If you need someone to explain to you what it means, look up a video of the event occuring and see how the towers tops fall right in on themselves and remain going straight down that way throughout the whole event. They don't weaken on one side and topple over, they don't weaken on multiple sides and twist/crunch under the increasing weight now lacking load-bearing support columns to hold them up - the building loses support at every critical point at exactly the same time all the way down. Do you know how we know that? Because it's on video, and how those towers behaved is not how tall structures which are weakened at one point on one level(or multiple individual points at a few levels, in the course of a pure accident or fires) behave. Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but fires simply don't do that.
If I am having a heart attack and say "I'm having a heart attack" - right now, you would be the doctor coming up to me and saying "no you're not because your heart isn't conscious and can't attack you so that isn't actually happening and you're wrong". The point that doctor(you) is making is not actually relevant, and is really, really stupid - even though it's technically correct in that my heart is not actually conscious and cannot therefor "attack me".
I was just reporting my own experience. I walked to Ground Zero from my apartment on Day 3 after the attacks, expecting to see a pile of debris. But instead, there was a ten foot fence, and you couldn't see anything above either footprint. You could see some tall pieces leaning over on the side (to the north). You could see an amazing amount of fumes. But where the Twin Towers were? You couldn't see anything above that ten foot fence. This is a direct report from someone who was standing right there, looking at where the WTC used to be.
The debris pile was very short, especially above the footprints of the Twin Towers. This is important, because it goes against the "controlled demolition" hypothesis.
I'm just saying no building if that size has ever been demoed by explosives ( or airplanes ) so we really have no comparison. All the conjecture in the world won't give us the answer to what it would look like.
Size doesn't matter when it comes to a hydrocarbon fire. The smallest and the largest hydrocarbon fire burn at the same maximum temperature, which is far too low to significantly weakens steel, even the tiniest amount of steel.
Yes I fully agree. I was only arguing that it doesn't make sense ( to me ) to say the towers didn't come down within their own foot print b/c we have never demoed anything that size so there is no comparison. The argument that they were not demolished by explosives b/c they didn't fall right is kinda a no go b/c you can't point and say " there. That's what blowing up the tallest structure in the world ( with another next door also coming down ) looks like. Were they hit by planes, definitely. Did the collapse get helped along by explosives? That is the question. And even if you had a comparison of size by demolition you'd have to first fly jetliners into them to get an accurate comparison.
One thing, though, is that the towers didn't come down in their own footprint. If you look at pictures taken immediately after the damage, even before WTC 7 fell, you'll note that there isn't a TALL pile of debris centered over the footprints of WTC 1 and 2. It's rather short actually. The debris fell almost entirely outside the footprints of those buildings. This is evidence of explosions, although not necessarily explosives. You don't need to fly airliners into a gigantic building to test whether or not they could damage it. All you have to do is smash an aluminum baseball bat against a single steel beam. Go ahead. Bring some friends and take turns. Bring 100 aluminum baseball bats. No matter how many times you smash that same steel beam, it will always ruin the baseball bat and stay almost untouched. In a collision, what gets destroyed is the physically weaker object.
Yes. I agree. The physically weaker object usually takes the brunt ( I say usually because wierd stuff happens during tornadoes but this was not those conditions ). I don't mind talking about it. Maybe I should be clear and say I don't know what brought them down but I'm fairly positive it was much more than the aircraft. My argument is only.... We don't have a demolition of this magnitude to use as a comparison so saying that the buildings did or did not stay within their respective foot prints to proove it was or was not a demolition seems invalid. There are many other good facts having to do with physics and melting points and such that would seem to indicate that there was much more going on than the crashes. The only major problem I have us explaining away the amount of people that would have to keep quiet about the job. That's a hard one.
I agree with what you're saying nearly 100%. That last point about an "amount" of people that would have to keep quiet about the job is an important point. If you add in a grand conspiracy, it's hard to say how it could stay a secret. If you're talking about advanced weaponry controlled from a secure and undisclosed location, then keeping it a secret is much easier, because it's fewer people.
well the lore around 9/11 has almost gotten to the point physicists are at with fierce debates about superstring theory vs. brane theory vs. steady-state vs. great attractor vs. quantum gravity etc. etc. - learned people fight eloquently for their positions yet none of us gets to know the truth ... with 9/11 there is a lot that is very dirty about that day within the U.S. gov't, israeli gov't, Saudi gov't. and others and some of them know the truth
Really? That's what everyone with an opinion seems to say about 9/11. "It must have been an inside job. It must have been a government behind the attacks." For this reason, I want you to consider the opposite view, that it wasn't an inside job. Maybe it was a small group of people. Maybe they weren't associated with the United States, Israel, or any other government. I know you probably think I'm ridiculous for even suggesting it, but the inside job theory hasn't produced anything in the 12+ years it's been around.
the inside job theory has produced a mountain of evidence, mostly circumstantial (but that's enough to convict a lot of murderers) and is the majority opinion of people around the world by a wide margin
the best-case scenario for those who wish to believe the official story is that saudi hijackers under direction of KSM (for al queda) were independent cells and pulled off the spectacular attacks - this scenario indicts israel the most because their mossad agents so closely shadowed some of the alleged hijackers that they practically lived together
The inside job hasn't produced much good evidence. Physical evidence. Documentary evidence. Even eyewitness evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be good evidence, if it is supported by these other types of evidence.
There's at least one angle that allows you to see the mechanical penthouse on the roof that is supported by interior columns. This is our one visible clue from the outside of what is happening on the interior of the building. It clearly collapses in an irregular fashion (either west to east or east to west, can't remember), and prior to the exterior of the building beginning to collapse. This suggests a complete interior collapse, followed by the interior member framing pulling the exterior walls down with it.
The freefall claim is thoroughly debunked. Measurements of the roof line using video tracking software as it collapses shows that it is significantly slower than freefall speed. There's a section in the FAQ that addresses this. Furthermore, if the hypothesis of an internal column collapse preceding the collapse of the exterior columns/walls is correct, much of the beginning of the collapse is not being included in the time measurement. By the time the collapse visibly begins from many angles from the exterior, the building is significantly overstressed due to the loss of the interior framing and offers very little resistance to the loads acting upon it, hence why it would appear to collapse at near free fall speeds.
Not true, even NIST acknowledges WTC 7 free-fall now:
A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.
Simultaneous, synchronized free-fall of the entire facade for even 8 floors means no structural support / resistance across the whole of the falling facade, which is exactly what happens in a controlled demolition, as opposed to NIST's fictive, undisclosed, non-peer reviewed progressive collapse speculation.
The interior columns and structural framing failed prior to the collapse of the exterior. This is shown by the collapse of the mechanical penthouse prior to the visible collapse of the exterior walls. By the time the exterior collapse reaches those 8 floors, not only is the entire interior of the building gone, but momentum of the upper exterior wall weight is crushing down, not surprising that it would reach free-fall speeds for that intermediate stage of the collapse.
or if the lacing of detonator cord that is going off within the central structure fires first the vibration alone could topple that roof area inward seen falling in sequence first (and/or through weakening of the central supports) ... then the drop - clearly the central 60%-70% of the building pulls down the outer sections
Interesting rhetoric at the end. Couple loose bolts and tower seven came down due to a small roof fire that collapsed an awning.
It must have been a very magic day in New York, several other steel buildings, built far, far before the twin towers, have burned to husks in multiple day long fires, never even came close to falling.
Small roof fire taking out a modern steel building in a complete free fall demolition event? You have to be intentionally thick or scared of the idea to let that one squeek by.
I know, it's scary. The government sold us out and killed people to further their war industry. Time to put our big boy pants on and deal with it.
That's about as far away from what he said as possible, and you know it. Don't be a prick just because he disagrees with you and happens to be a professional in a relevant field.
I am a welder fabricator for a big firm in Germany, can you explain why their were 45 degree cuts on some of the structural beams on the demolition site?
A contractor would never do this as it is a risk to life, one would cut straight through and lift away, not risk a 100ton beam sliding away from them.
Non one in Germany believes the official story, we have already had a out of control government in our history, it appears the U.S people are allowing the current administration to do what ever it likes.
Welder dude specifically said they would never cut beams at a 45 because the beam might get away from them. I dont recall ever seeing a tree be cut like those beams were cut. Usually a tree has a wedge cut on the side you want the tree to fall and the a second cut is made from the other side.
it is Germany's historic example which encourages ever greater vigilance...
German citizens were attacked from within to catapult War. The same here and you go off about Lumberjacks felling trees!
Please exhibit some vigilance in here and respond with some integrity.
EDIT: Pile on the down-votes. Richard Gage is telling you that the cuts at Ground Zero were performed in the clean-up phase. Did I miss some detail here Richard Gage, reddit?
How many workers at Ground Zero were killed on site, by mismanaged debris handling or removal? One. Just one.
Answer the questions put forth by sacchetta.
Americans happily vote fascist authoritarians into office every time an election comes around. Republicans still claim that Bush did a good job, and Democrats still claim that Obama is a great president. Both sides are fully supportive of the illusion being sold to them.
We didn't elect Bush. He lost to Gore and manipulated the election to win it.
When Bush was president, there was more anger and hatred for his administration, more disapproval of it than any I had ever experienced (I remember back to Carter). Obama is disliked by a lot of people, but not as much as Bush was.
These angle cuts were seen in images of Ground Zero taken during the clean up period, when they were removing building debris. They probably weren't caused by the destructive process itself.
My dad is a civil engineer in architecture & construction, he has said that nobody in his trade believes the official story
Incredible. Thanks for sharing. Also speaks some sense to all of those people who say "yeah well AE911 only has a few thousands members so everyone else must disagree!".
Since I do not know much about planes, are the planes that crashed into the towers similar to the B52? You had also mention different designs. I would assume that Bc a plane hits one building and the building survives, that a building with a different design may fair differently? Assuming of course all other factors equal.
Amazing how you can be so skeptical about the NIST report but when this anonymous internet user claims his dad's friends don't believe the official story you eat it right up. Where's your skepticism gone?
Well, I'm a civil engineer outside the US and in my experience, almost nobody in the field distrusts the official story. The thing is, NIST ran simulations, collected all possible data, and came to conclusions with that. Conspiracy theories in this case throw out a conclusion and then make an incoherent rambling to back those conclusions.
And then, in the case of WTC7, refused to release the inputs the their models citing "public safety" concerns. How would showing how these buildings collapsed, and therefore what standards for other building might need to be changed, endanger public safety?
See, now this is an argument that's compelling and not just bullshit. I don't like that they didn't release the input files. Yes, they more or less detail how they get the data, but I ddidn't like not having all the inputs. But I'd say, given the testing done, and the information released, it's not a really big deal. It just means you have to collect your own data from all the footage released just like they did in order to run your own simulation.
But I'd like to mention one thing about the conspiracy theory about 9-11. It's not a theory. It's thousands of them. That's why we "shills" can't disprove everyone of them, because they range from "there were no planes" to "the orbital invisible teapot did it". So there isn't a falsable theory. Unlike NIST's which is falsable. It probably isn't 100% accurate, but it's the more plausible scenario.
If you agree that the reason for collapse of building 7 was "thermal expansion" of a single beam, and if you agree, as NIST stated, that no one ever knew before that thermal expansion could be the cause of a building collapse - then explain how on Earth it is possible that anyone could possible know before hand that the building would collapse. Foreknowledge of that type is impossible. Period.
How could the failure of a single beam which led to a progressive collapse cause a collapse that happens at absolute freefall for 2.5 seconds? That is also impossible.
Thermal expasion can be the cause of a collapse, that's why you have to leave "gaps" in the structures, for thermal expansion. And yes, thermal expansion + weakened steel can make a building fall, especially when it has lost some lateral support, which makes the buckling easier.
And again with the fucking freefall, you guys are fucking delusional and pulling facts out of your ass. You are saying WTC 7 would take 2.5 seconds to fall at free fall speed. So basically, you're saying WTC 7 was 30.6 meters tall, which is the height from where something would reach the ground in 2.5 seconds at free fall speed (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y%3D%281%2F2%29*9.81*2.5%5E2).
Please, you don't know shit about the simplest of high school physics. So don't go around like you know what foreknowledge is impossible, or as if you know anything about structural engineering.
Thermal expasion can be the cause of a collapse, that's why you have to leave "gaps" in the structures, for thermal expansion. And yes, thermal expansion + weakened steel can make a building fall, especially when it has lost some lateral support, which makes the buckling easier.
You are lying or NIST is lying. Shyam Sunder the lead investigator said "The study has identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse. For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a structural collapse."
So given that FACT how is it possible that anyone that day itself could have had foreknowledge that it would collapse. You are plain and simply a fucking idiot or a liar if you don't see the problem here.
And again with the fucking freefall, you guys are fucking delusional and pulling facts out of your ass. You are saying WTC 7 would take 2.5 seconds to fall at free fall speed. So basically, you're saying WTC 7 was 30.6 meters tall, which is the height from where something would reach the ground in 2.5 seconds at free fall speed (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y%3D%281%2F2%29*9.81*2.5%5E2).
No, dumbass. I said that there was 2.5 seconds of free fall. Not that the whole building collapsed in 2.5 seconds.
Please, you don't know shit about the simplest of high school physics.
Actually its you that doesn't if you don't get how by its very nature a progressive collapse can't involve any amount of free fall. In this case 2.5 seconds. That would mean that in an instant it was as if 8 stories of structural components were simply not there. By its very nature a progressive collapse can't happen in an instant.
You are lying or NIST is lying. Shyam Sunder the lead investigator said "The study has identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse. For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a structural collapse."
It probably is the first time it actually happens, but thermal expansion has been taken into account for steel buildings since long time ago. It's important even in concrete buildings, as I recall seeing the gaps for thermal expansion in the EHE-98 (Spanish standard for concrete buildings back in 98). I really don't know if it's never caused a collapse, but it has definetely caused damage before (such as cracks in concrete buildings or deformations in steel ones). And this is not the usaual thermal expansion, we're not talking "it's summer and it's hot outside" expansion, we're talking about a really hot fire.
By the way, people seem to forget a fucking skyscrapper fell near this building, that's some structural stress to be taken into acount.
No, dumbass. I said that there was 2.5 seconds of free fall. Not that the whole building collapsed in 2.5 seconds.
Okay, so there was free fall during 2.5 seconds. I'm going to throw a [citation needed] just to learn a bit about it.
And by the way, if it wasn't a demolition caused by the fires, what was it? The NIST report tested for blasts, but really, anyone who has been near any decent amount of explosives when they go off knows that explosives are loud as fuck. And if it wasn't a controlled demolition with explosives, what was it?
The thing is, simulations mean NOTHING as they can easily be manipulated. They never told ANYONE what data they used for the simulations. They REFUSE to release the data they used for the simulations.
Got called a shill, thank god I'm not playing the /r/conspiracy drinking game.
Not a shill, just a person who's read the official version. Unlike you. You say they never told anyone what data they used. Except it's totally detailed in the NIST report. You don't get that long of a report saying "A wizard did it". They detailed their data, the programs they used for simulating, where did they obtain that data and how they obtained it. A simple read of the NIST "short" report (the one with the hundred and something pages) would make you to quit blatantly lying (although unknowingly). The data is all there. You just have to want to look at it.
By the way, all the arguments for the official version have been peer reviewed. Haven't seen any peer reviewed article against. I'd guess it's because peer reviewed articles demand you use the scientific method, instead of saying things for the fun of it.
You have a point, it's not the subreddit, it's the individual retard. In this case /u/EyeCrush . /r/conspiracy just has to do with it because a lot of people like you just try to discredit any opinion different from yours with "omg, paid shill, fuck you".
Sadly, I'm not paid for debunking this shit. Sadly, NIST report being accurate (which it is) doesn't prove who is behind the attacks (only who carried them out). And sadly, 9/11 not being a false flag conspiracy (which most likely isn't) doesn't end with some other conspiracies out there.
The thing is, trying to fight a scientififc paper with bullshit, just discredits that particular opinion, and by association, any other related opinion on that topic. So you're just hurting your "cause", "crusade" or whatever you want to call it.
Ok, so you say NIST report is a fabrication. That's an affirmation, isn't it? So, if you know the least bit about the scientific method, you know that the burden of proof lies with you.
So please, tell me a thing in the NIST report that is wrong. To do so, if you were so nice, I'd like you to link me to the report and telling me in which page there is that supossed lie.
By the way, you keep on going with the ad hominem shill argument. Funny enough, the US went all the way across the pond to get recently graduated civil engineering students to agree with them. That's what I call being thorough.
Jet fuel burns at 1000 degrees at the most. Steel requires 2800 degrees to melt.
Also, all supports in a skyscraper have to fail at the exact same time to cause the building to go into free fall. This can only be done with explosives.
For the rest, look at Richard Gage's material. He lays it all out, along with thousands of other architects and engineers who do not support the official story.
First, I was really confused with your use of degrees there. I assumed we were talking Celsius (which the report uses most of the time) or Kelvin (international system). Farenheit are just not widely used in science.
Second of all, you just proved you haven't read a single word of the official version. Nowhere in the official version does it say that steel melted. NOWHERE. And if you find any page of the official report saying the steel melted because of the fires, please, point me to it.
Third, you just proved your total disregard of facts, saying the building goes into free fall. For starters it doesn't. The official report goes on about how they calculate the falling time, and thus the speed, but we don't even have to go that "sciency" to disprove this bullshit. You just need to see the debris ejected lateraly. They fall faster than the rest of the building. So either those debris have some magical acceleration on the y axis to make them accelerate at more than 9,81 m/s2 or they were falling at free fall speed and the building wasn't.
2200 architects and engineers support different parts of Richard Gage's theories. Thousands worked in the official report, from all over the world. So it's not a numbers game. But if you want to play the numbers game, you just have to see, 2200 architects and engineers think it was a demolition, the majority of us don't (at least in my experience, and I probably know more engineers than you do).
As always, you'll dismiss most of my message and you'll try to fight a small part of my argument. I don't mind, it just goes to show what happens when you try to disprove science with made up facts.
For a fire to bring down a skyscraper, it would have to melt the steel. The NIST report cites the fires as THE reason as to why Building 7 fell at free fall speed, a building that was not hit by any airplanes.
So, I guess you haven't really bothered to read the NIST reports like you claim.
As I said, you disregarded my comment, moved on with your agenda, which I'll continue to disprove.
For a fire to bring down a skyskraper, it wouldn't have to melt the steel. It would have to weaken it. Melting happens at 1538ºC, the huge dip in strenght starts at 430ºC and ends at more or less 700-800ºC where steel has lost most of its strenght.
The NIST report cites the fires as being the reason as to why WTC7 fell. Nowhere does it say it fell at free fall speed. And if you could find any scientific paper saying WTC7 fell at free fall speed, please, do enlighten me. But if you want a scientific paper calculating the speed at which WTC7 fell, I refer you to the official report on WTC7 by the NIST, chapter 3.6 "Timing of collapse initiation and progression".
The only way for a building to fall into its footprint like that at freefall speed is for ALL supports to fail at the EXACT same time. Sorry, but the fire wasn't widespread enough for that.
which I'll continue to disprove.
You've disproved nothing.
MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1
Seriously, that video is full of shit. Hey, let's have this one camera angle that only shows 60% of the building, it's not like the official report took data from all different sources available. And more so, seeing as I have indisputable proof, let's send this for peer review. Except, what has more ground in science... a closed comment youtube video.
I've disproved nothing? Free fall speed in both the towers and WTC7, and your claim of steel having to melt for a building to fall. By the way, it's not me who's saying the official version is false, then never actually bringing the official version.
Seeing as you're going to keep with the "shill" argument and disregarding any data I give, and you just move on with the next argument in your list, I'm going to head off to sleep. And don't think I'm trying to change your mind about this. You're a conspiratard. You're too far gone. I just hope that if anyone is reading this AMA with doubts of both sides, he or she will see the arguments for and against. And on one side he's just going to read "Shill shill shil shill, omg lizardking", which makes me rest easy.
But hey, I'm all open for discussion still. You're saying that all the report is a one big lie. Ok, you don't make a big lie without smaller lies. The lie starts somewhere.
So please, link me to a mistake or deliberate error or lie in the official report. Page and everything, as to avoid what happened before, saying "the official report says steel melted" when it doesn't. So as to keep the discussion true to the report (which you say is false), if you're going to fight the official version, tell me where is it wrong, instead of making strawmen.
Ok good, so now I'm the one ignoring what you say. Funny enough, you just try to take my argument and use it yourself, as to show I'm the one ignoring you, not the opossite.
And now to address this last video. What message are you trying to convey with it? It's just a series of videos of the building falling, and definitely not at free fall speed. I don't know how many controlled demolitions would demolish first the east penthouse and then the rest of the building, but if you watch 2:35 on your own video, you can see the first of the 3 columns buckling and thus the east penthouse falling. Then, after a few seconds and a new load distribution, the other 2 major columns give up. Just like NIST report said, ovserved and simulated.
By the way, dindn't think of going this route yesterday: Okay, let's say the NIST report is "one big lie". What is your theory about 9-11. Cause I don't know which theory you think it's true. See, there's only one official version, but there are like 20-30 different conspiracy theories. And most of the time, people seem to think all of them are true, even when they are not compatible, either between them or with reality.
Ok, so let's say it's free fall speed (although it's been proven time and again it isn't). What caused the building to fall? WHAT? Was it thermite? Lasers? Was it an explosion? What was it, and why is there no evidence whatsoever of it?
What about the part where he disproves your claim that the steel was melted and points out that steel loses much of its strength when heated to a certain temperature? Do you have a response to that at least?
I know two Professional Engineers (PE) who don't believe the story at all but they make a lot of money from the state and also the good old boy network could decide that they are crazy if they made an issue. So they sit quietly.
I was hoping I could get you to address a few things:
1.) Lack of sound on 9/11. Explosions are faster than the speed of sound, and cause a loud bang. This is an example of a recent controlled demolition. Mic clipping (when the signal gets overloaded it distorts and it is called “clipping”) can be seen and heard in the video linked. Why can we hear conversations as WTC 7 is destroyed? Why is there no evident clipping on most of the WTC tower destruction videos? How can explosives be that quiet, furthermore how is it that the amount of explosive power needed to turn 2 110 story buildings and a 47 story building into dust failed to overcome all foreground noise?
2.) Molten metal. The claim is that molten metal flowed through the site however there are no pictures. When the site began to be watered down and when the storm came days later the site was soaked. Water expands at about 1600X’s it’s original volume when it hits a surface at 100°C, why were there no steam explosions in these “hot spots”? In addition, how was earth moving equipment able to operate on these hotspots? Their hydraulics would have seized up way before reaching the NASA “hot spots” temperatures of around 700°C. We saw pictures of material glowing on the ground surrounded by paper, how is it that metal so hot it is glowing, ignores the paper around it?
3.) Seismic data. Why did the destruction of the towers (1,2 & 7) not result in a Seismic Signal that was of enough significance? How is it that there was no primary or secondary wave for the destruction of any of the towers? Only surface waves were present (earth recovering from weight lifted off). As I understand you are an architect from the San Francisco Bay Area, how is an architect from a very active earthquake region is not instantly interested in the seismographic data? If the buildings came down due controlled demolitions wouldn’t the seismic data be the smoking gun?
4.) Lack of debris. This is a picture taken before 5:20pm on 9/11 (we know this because WTC 7 is standing in the back left). The tiny 1-2 story WTC 1 “pile” is seen at the right center of the picture, it is dwarfed by the 8 story WTC 6 building (seen in the back right behind WTC 1). How does explosives or thermite, thermate, nano thermite, super-thermite or thermitic material account for the lack of debris? The twin towers were made out of around 5700 outer column prefabricated units, why is that not reflected in this photo or in the one mentioned before? Surely there was no steel removed or “shipped to China” when this picture was taken, again how does a controlled demolition and thermite or its variants result in this?
5.) Thermite. Thermite, thermate, nano thermite, super-thermite and thermitic material; why does it keep changing? As I understand it is essentially iron oxide and aluminum, if the towers were turned to dust as we see in the videos and pictures, should we not expect there to be iron and aluminum dust in the debris since the towers were made out of iron and had aluminum cladding? It is claimed that there were non-ignited thermite chips found in the dust. If the heat was so intense then how didn’t it set off the thermite chips? Also shouldn’t there have been lots of bright flashes everywhere? Not just a glowing red substance pouring out of places, but a blinding light as seen in YouTube videos about thermite? How was it that the thermite was able to act so quickly, accurately and on time? From all the videos I’ve seen it appears to be rather slow and nowhere near the speed needed to bring anything down in sequence. Why was thermite not mentioned in Stephen E. Jones & Bob McIlvaine’s RFC? The word thermite is in a link within the document but that was added later, why would Jones not mention or discuss thermite within his RFC?
6.) 1400+ Destroyed cars. I have seen an interview of yours where you say falling pieces of thermite fell onto the cars and burned them, how does this explain abrupt boundaries, plastic materials not melting, rubber not melting, missing door handles, entire engines missing or flipped cars. If thermite was falling and was hot enough to cause the destruction of 1400 cars, then why were people not burned, why was paper all over the ground not burned and why where there leaves on the trees above or right next to these destroyed cars? These vehicles were on West Broadway behind WTC 7 (building on the front right) so we know this image was taken before 5:20pm and was a good distance from WTC 1 & 2. How can such destruction be attributed to thermite or fire?
Hopefully I have listed a few of my fellow redditors concerns above. If there is any information that I have gotten wrong feel free to PM me with the proper evidence. WTC 1 Turning Into Dust Slow Motion HD
Something is glowing and dripping from the tower? How do we know what it is or what is causing a glow? I don't have samples of that substance, I don't know any one who does. Please link me to a analysis of samples of molten metal or solid metal that was molten.
And I was linked to a video of a glowing substance dripping out of a building. I don't know what temperature it is or what the material itself is. How can I say that that is concrete evidence? Or enough evidence to base any claims on?
If I bring video or pictorial evidence into a courtroom I need to have the permission of the original creator for it to be admissible evidence (I am no lawyer but this is my understanding).
In that sense how is a bit of glowing dripping material proof for extreme heat and presence of molten metal, where is the corroborating evidence for this conclusion? Especially when we don't have the video creator's permission?
Well it certainly isn't orange Kool-Aid. Here are some expert, eyewitnesses for ya.
Oh, and it's pretty well known about the heat at ground zero. Mind you that image was captured almost a week after 9/11, so it's safe to say those temperatures were higher moments after the event.
You must not have gone through my original statement where I linked the NASA photo. Again if there were rivers of molten steel, WHERE were the steam explosions? The site was drenched so how could the water not encounter any of these hotspots and result in a steam explosion?
The NASA image indicates some form of data, how can we conclude that it is extreme heat when there was not a single steam explosion?
Where did all this molten metal go to? Is there a giant metal block somewhere that was made from molten metal run off? How did a collapse/bombs/molten metal not result in any significant damage to the bathtub? Clean up had to be halted because the earth moving equipment was damaging the bathtub. How does earth moving equipment damage something that 2 110 story buildings didn't?
This picture was taken before 5:20pm (WTC 7 is standing in the background). WTC 5 is 8 stories and it towers over the rubble. Did the steel get shipped to China before WTC 7 was destroyed? Is there any receipts or any kind of documented evidence for the idea that all the steel was shipped to China? Please provide links or references to a place where I can obtain them, I will be happy to look at it.
And once again. If water converts into steam at approximately 100°C, then why was there not one steam explosion during the 90 or 99 days that those 700°C+ temperatures were present. The site had continuos water being poured on it and it rained on the 14th. How did this not cause a single steam explosion. If temperatures were as high as NASA has inferred, why aren't these water pools boiling? According to that NASA data is should be 819°F right there. That picture was also taken on 9/11.
This is a LIDAR composite image that shows the site on the 16th-23rd of September 2001. How do you get rid of almost 1 million tonnes of debris that quickly? If you download a picture collection and look through it you will be able to start placing them in a rough order by looking at the environment around it (certain things move and it gives you a timeline). Anyways if you do that you will begin to see that there was not much rubble to begin with. You begin to realize that the videos aren't lying, the building is mostly turning to dust before it hits the ground.
As for the "meteorite" does that account for anywhere close to 200 000 tons of steel? I don't have a sample of it, if you have a few reports on it I'd love to see them just PM me the links.
It's obvious there is no pleasing you, but I shall try.
This picture was taken before 5:20pm (WTC 7 is standing in the background). WTC 5 is 8 stories and it towers over the rubble. Did the steel get shipped to China before WTC 7 was destroyed? Is there any receipts or any kind of documented evidence for the idea that all the steel was shipped to China? Please provide links or references to a place where I can obtain them, I will be happy to look at it.
I don't know what you are getting at here. No smartass, they didn't move the steel out of there on the day of 9/11. Most of the debris from the buildings are sitting in their respected footprints and surrounding vicinity.
Here is a link describing the amount Chinese and Indian corporations purchased of ground zero steel thanks to Bloomberg and the Port Authority. Let's do the math from the article. China gets 50,000 tons and India gets four shipments of 33,000 tons each. That's a total of 182,000 tons of steel.
If temperatures were as high as NASA has inferred
??? Other than just spouting bullshit, do you have an alternative theory/inference for the source and intensity of those heat signatures produced in that image? Please link to your sources for me.
As for the 'meteorite' please explain how something like that came to be outside of extreme heat. Don't forget to link to your sources please.
The amount of debris that you see in the picture taken before WTC 7 was destroyed is consistent with what you see in ground zero during the next weeks. In other words, clean up was much much slower than people are led to believe and they assume that after weeks most of the debris belonging to the towers had been cleaned out and shipped off. In reality the majority of the debris wasn't on the ground to begin with, it had turned to dust before a gravity driven collapse was a possibility.
This picture was taken on the 13th. That ambulance is ground level parked in front of WTC 1. You can see the base of WTC 1. When comparing it with other pictures you find that it is only a few stories high. How can this be? Where is all the material? Some suggest it is in its basement. In WTC 1 there were 14 people in stairwell B scattered over the bottom few stories. All 14 survived, which means that if 110 stories had to fall into its own footprint it they would have to carefully navigate around a single stairwell. Here is a photo of WTC 2's basement on the 18th. It looks considerably empty. So if the debris isn't on the ground and it's not in the basement, where is the debris? Dust cloud.
I don't know what that material is. I don't have a sample, I don't have a bunch of scientific papers on it. I would be happy to get some. There are many ways to fuse materials, why do we assume that heat would have did that when we don't have any court admissible evidence about it. I really don't want to speculate on things that I don't have any information on. And if that was as hot as it needed to be to melt together, where was a single steam explosion when all the water was draining through the site?
How can the NASA information be pertaining to heat when there was workers and water where the temperature was supposedly around 700°C? When water hits something at a a temperature greater than 100°C it expands in volume by 1600X's, why was there not a single steam explosion if all this molten metal, thermite and meteors were present. If temperatures are as high as stated in the NASA data (especially for 99 days) how can we conceive that there was not a single steam explosion when the water hit the 700°C temperatures?
you see in ground zero during the next weeks. In other words, clean up was much much slower than people are led to believe and they assume that after weeks most of the debris belonging to the towers had been cleaned out and shipped off. In reality the majority of the debris wasn't on the ground to begin with, it had turned to dust.
The collapse turned steel into dust? Without explosives? By what process did this occur? Last I checked metal tends to bend, flex, and shatter when stressed. What mechanism pulverized steel into dust? Show me your source. I want to see math here.
Where is the debris? You tell me. I say it's right there. The burden of proof is on you. If you insist that metal turned to dust, without explosives, show me your facts.
I don't know what that material is. I don't have a sample, I don't have a bunch of scientific papers on it. I would be happy to get some. There are many ways to fuse materials, why do we assume that heat would have did that when we don't have any court admissible evidence about it. I really don't want to speculate on things that I don't have any information on.
Way to dodge the question. Asking for perfect information is a sure sign your motives are less than genuine here. Truth appears to be less important than your agenda. (Put in a good word for me)
Now answer the question. Enough bullshit. How was that hunk of steel, concrete, and carbonized materials formed without heat? You say there are many ways to fuse those materials. Put up or shut up. Outside of heat, and/or extreme pressure (which will produce heat) I don't know of any other way.
Other office fires have burned much hotter and longer than those in the Twin Towers. Please provide me one photograph as evidence for this "mysterious dropping glow" coming from any other office fire, ever, in the history of the planet.
Why do I have to theorize? There is something there that is glowing and dripping, we don't have samples so how can I conclude. Glowing doesn't just happen to hot material.
I'm not trying to get you here or be a prick or anything. I honestly cannot think of anything else that would be present in that situation that would be glowing and dripping. From all my experience as a human being I cannot fathom anything other than molten metal.
This may be my own lack of epxerience or knowledge which is why I ask, because I have no idea what you might even imagine it could be.
We don't have an analysis of lots of things that day but some thing don't require an analysis, we can figure them out based on our knowledge of the world. I'm just wondering if this is one of those things.
I mean, we all know that the fireball upon impact was caused largely by the fuel in the plane. Did we have an analysis of that? No, but we know it.
I understand. I have personally carefully gone through 6000+ photos, the crime scene is VERY different from what we are being told by many. A dripping glowing substance on video does not prove that there is molten metal or thermite. If it was molten metal, that still will not explain how 2 110 story buildings turn almost entirely into dust and leave no significant seismic signal, make little sound and leave next to no debris compared.
I would really like to stay away from talking about Dr. Judy Wood for this AMA. It seems that it invokes the same response from Richard and it is counter-productive. I used only evidence that stands alone so it can't be mixed in with character assassination. PM me if you need anymore information. Thanks
Since Richard must not respect you or your questions perhaps you can direct my old addled brain to your theory about the craters in some of the other buildings. I'm getting older by the second and I cannot find any scientific discussion about these other buildings deformation!
ld addled brain to your theory about the craters in some of the other buildings. I'm getting older by the s
Material missing from WTC 6 and WTC 5 is mind boggling. I think the smoking gun is WTC 4. What can cause a building like that to have most of it's main body "erased"?
Feel free to PM with any questions or if you are in need of evidence. Thanks for the support!
Wasn't trying to badger you or anything it's just that it's obvious you've done a lot of research on this subject and your questions were well thought out - was just curious what you thought of the DEW hypothesis.
Discussion of Judy Wood really does seem to bring out the worst in people - almost like there were a deliberate campaign in place to smear and discredit her...
I got attacked by multiple users for just mentioning her work (not her name) last week in a comment. I didn't even say I supported it. I also have never made a single post about Judy Wood in all my years here.
Yet for some reason, I had multiple users saying I wasn't fit to be a mod here, and had folks combing through my past posts in an attempt to "discredit" me...and for just mentioning the DEW hypothesis in a comment as an aside!
It was truly bizarre, especially since I was attacked by several folks that I thought I trusted.
Yeah - always a red flag for me when I see people angrily deriding someone or something. If she's wrong, she's wrong - shouldn't be so hard to disprove her theory if it's as wildly inaccurate as some people have claimed right? But why get so angry about it? Why ridicule someone just for mentioning her name or suggesting that maybe some really fucking advanced technology was used that day?
Bottom line is that, if I'm being honest, I've never seen satisfactory answers to a couple of /u/sacchetta's questions either.
Thank you so much /u/ambiguously_ironic. Who will answer our questions if the "truthers" don't? It's up to people like you and I (and all other redditors who want to know the truth) to discuss this info in the most productive way possible. It is people like us who sacrifice hours and hours of our time digging through anything just looking. You are the reason there is hope.
Why must someone face those circumstances when they are coming forward with evidence you can verify for themselves.
There is a saying "the flak is always thickest when you are right on top of the enemy". If you have indisputable irrefutable evidence do not be discouraged from discussing it. Just approach it with much caution so that the information doesn't get muddled up.
Spreading this for WHAT EVER reason does injustice to this subreddit and muddies the water. You have been proven to be untrustworthy just by these alone. Your only response is to insinuate that I am somehow associated with Bipolardouche0.
edit: were you also in charge of the AMA that was a disaster (45 min late/Clusterfuck) because Richard wasn't properly prepared? This was truly bizarre
I really want to stay away from the Dr. Judy Wood connection for this AMA. Like you said it brings out the worst in people and diverts them from anything. If you PM me I will be happy to share any evidence I have accumulated (gigs and gigs of it so I may have to link you to where I found them).
Ok, I will take that bait... if it is Molten Glass that is even MORE unlikely then Molten Steel... Glass in a Skyscraper is double paned, reinforced Tempered Glass... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toughened_glass
That means it has a melt temp of 1,328 °F a molten flow would be viable at 1,500 °F.
Jet fuel, the catalyst to the burn in the buildings has a max thermo signature of 1796 °F. It is PLAUSIBLE that is glass melting out of the WTC.
HOWEVER, neither of those temperatures are anywhere NEAR the 2,010 °F neccasary to bring Steel to melting point.
As for the weakening arguement, the design of the WTC is widely used, and would make all three WTC buildings that fell that day the only Steel highrises to ever have subcumb to fire.
Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the
huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the
effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the
hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause
a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special
expertise was needed. OSHA called in Mohammad Ayub and Scott Jin, structural
engineers from its national office, to assess the situation. They recommended a
special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments.
They brought in experts that made the hydraulics not seize up? How did this machine get even close to the temperature steel glows at without seizing up? Heat rises and the excavator is reaching from above.
That's a textbook example of a Gish Gallop. You know darn well that he could not possibly answer all of those questions properly in the allotted time we had here.
Take those videos to court and try to use them as evidence, see how far you can get. I've seen them all before many times, the first one is pretty surreal. The sound, the guys reaction. Doesn't something not seem right? Doesn't the explosion sound odd? And the guy with the masks reaction makes me even more uneasy. I don't dismiss witness testimony, but from going through a lot of them I've begin to see that they are using words within their normal vocabulary to describe things that are extraordinary. People said they were picked up, by God or an angel or a gust and floated down staircases and they floated down a block or dove under a ESU truck and when they finally got up to come out the vehicle above them was gone. FirefighterTodd Heaney said "When I got to the front of the building, it tossed rigs down the street like it was- lie they were toys. They were upside down, on fire". We assume or are told that the tower falling created gusts strong enough to pick up and throw a firetruck down the block. Why are there still leaves on the trees? Wind strong enough to throw a firetruck would strip a tree of it's leaves right? And wouldn't fire burn the leaves off? Not to mention burn all the paper around it setting the whole street on fire? These people are using the words they know to describe something that happened to them. And it seems to be the same with hearing "explosions" and seeing "fire and smoke".
Consider this 911 call from Melissa Doi. She was on the 83rd floor of WTC 2. She says that the floor is completely engulfed, and its very very very very hot. She says "OF COURSE THERE IS SMOKE" and we can't breath. Not once during the whole conversation do you hear someone coughing. "Everybody is having trouble breathing some people are worse" "Of course this is smoke! I can't breathe" "I think there is fire I don't see it it's too hot". When people overheat they get sluggish while their bodies shut down, she has an excited tone. And if the building is filled with smoke then how are they alive? How are they not coughing? Smoke is what usually kills people in the fire, it displaces the oxygen as well as consumes it all. And there is always coughing. My point is many many witnesses are describing things in the best way they can and it's important to really think about their situation by looking into the conditions surrounding them.
This is a graphic of the approximate size of WTC 1, 2 & 7 and the Seattle kingdome as a reference. The seismic reading is listed. WTC 1 2.3, WTC 2 2.1 and WTC .6. The Seattle kingdome had the same seismic impact as WTC 1 (2.3) but the towers had 30X's the potential energy of the kingdome, how is it that the towers didn't make a bigger impact? How is it that WTC 7 had such a small signal. Also seen in the picture are solid blocks at the bottom 20 floors, 16 floors and 36 feet. This is the size the building should have been in order to get such a low seismic signal. The picture above was created using data from the Palisades in New York. Also all 3 towers only created surface waves. There was no primary or secondary wave, I can't find the links explaining the lack of primary or secondary waves but you can look at the kingdomes wave side by side and see the differences.
And thermite is pretty slow. Most people that I run into say that thermite plus explosives brought the buildings down, so I was more or less referring to the sound of the explosions since thermite is just a cutting agent. Hopefully I addressed some of your concerns. Have a good one
Hey saccheta, I actually enjoyed your posts a lot in this thread as they have challenged some of my beliefs and that is a good thing.
I'm wondering what you think about the implications of the gusts of wind and the anomolies in the Melissa Doi call you mentioned. Do you have any opinions of what these facts might imply? Or do you not even go there? I get the impression that you're not totally satisfied with either AE911's story or the offiical story.
I am talking about evidence. I have cited my sources/provided links. I have read that article a while ago. What I have stated above stands alone and does not need to be attached to Dr. Judy Wood.
The linked article does not answer any of my questions. It is dancing around a couple, that's it.
Dude you can do a simple youtube search of firefighters talking about hearing secondary explosions throughout the basements, this should be common knowledge by now, sad.
I want to try and answer questions from as many different people as possible, and seems I already caused a delay. You can find answers to these questions by doing a little research, and there's a lot of information on AE911Truth.org
You're back up buddy. They are good questions, and I understand your frustration but also Richard's point of view. Hopefully him and his team can respond to your question at some point later on or at a later time, while still being able to converse with all of us while we're here.
I must say I'm pretty disappointed. Not even sure if it"s worth responding to his response to my question, as it appears he barely took the time to answer it to begin with.
Thanks, I spent a lot of time compiling my questions and did very careful research involving evidence only. It means a lot to see other people help me out
Excellent, if you can address any of that above that would be awesome. Pick any one, I have looked on the site, many many times I even have your report for the Toronto Hearings right in front of me.
Can you at least address some of those things that are not mentioned on the site. The sites explanations aren't in any way satisfying and when else will I get the chance to speak to an expert like yourself?
My first point about lack of sound. And any of those other points you wish to address.
1.) Lack of sound on 9/11. Explosions are faster than the speed of sound, and cause a loud bang. This is an example of a recent controlled demolition. Mic clipping (when the signal gets overloaded it distorts and it is called “clipping”) can be seen and heard in the video linked. Why can we hear conversations as WTC 7 is destroyed? Why is there no evident clipping on most of the WTC tower destruction videos? How can explosives be that quiet, furthermore how is it that the amount of explosive power needed to turn 2 110 story buildings and a 47 story building into dust failed to overcome all foreground noise?
The fireman says something... It could be a lot of things. It's unclear in most of the versions I've heard.
If WTC7 were a controlled demolition then the explosions would have been very close to the collapse time at 5:20pm - certainly not the many hours earlier when it seems this video was shot.
First off, this sounds like it was pulled right from a sound library. Please provide other links of videos that pick up this sound. (I've seen this video many times)
I never disputed that people heard what sounded like explosions throughout the day. I just want to address that it doesn't happen as the towers are being turned into dust. And in general that bombs cannot turn a building to dust.
When a building is going to be demolished there is a very careful process of removing almost EVERYTHING from that building. Why? Because anything that is in front of a window will turn into a projectile and will be accelerated faster than the speed of sound. Why don't the buildings around the towers look like they have been machine gunned? There are even many windows have have a round hole through the first pane but the second is untouched. Note that the marble is completely missing. Why is there not much damage to other buildings above about 20 stories. Did only the bottom part of the towers explode with gentle bombs that made no sound, moved slower than the speed of sound and put debris through a circular hole in one pane of glass without going through the other?
My recollection from a longer version of that video is that it wasn't that near WTC7 (it's about 5 blocks away) and it wasn't anywhere near the time of the WTC7 collapse.
I don't know how to validate the time (I believe it has been done before though) but just looking at the shadow length alone suggests this was much earlier in the day (the sun was only 9 degrees from the horizon at 5:20pm - here's what the shadows at that time actually looked like.
In the WTC 7 how do we know when it took place. The streets are covered in dust so it was after 1 of the towers was turned into dust. It could have been after both towers were though. I had posted this in a comment before:
First off, this sounds like it was pulled right from a sound library. Please provide other links of videos that pick up this sound. (I've seen this video many times)
I never disputed that people heard what sounded like explosions throughout the day. I just want to address that it doesn't happen as the towers are being turned into dust. And in general that bombs cannot turn a building to dust.
When a building is going to be demolished there is a very careful process of removing almost EVERYTHING from that building. Why? Because anything that is in front of a window will turn into a projectile and will be accelerated faster than the speed of sound. Why don't the buildings around the towers look like they have been machine gunned? There are even many windows have have a round hole through the first pane but the second is untouched. Note that the marble is completely missing. Why is there not much damage to other buildings above about 20 stories. Did only the bottom part of the towers explode with gentle bombs that made no sound, moved slower than the speed of sound and put debris through a circular hole in one pane of glass without going through the other?
Also firefighters report that their scott packs were spontaneously combusting. Could this not account for the loud bangs?
First Responder Statement: FIREFIGHTER TODD HEANEY
File No. 9110255, 238
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
FIREFIGHTER TODD HEANEY
Interview Date: December 6, 2001
[Emphasis added.]
A. ..."I remember getting a drink of water out of their cooler there, and then we just started to put out the car fires, and the rigs were going, ambulances. I mean, there must have been 50 of these things burning heavily. The Scott cylinders and the oxygen cylinders were all letting go. They were all blowing up left and right."
First Responder Statement: FIREFIGHTER PATRICK SULLIVAN
File No. 9110235, 227
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
FIREFIGHTER PATRICK SULLIVAN
Interview Date: December 5, 2001
[Emphasis added.]
A. ..." There was a Deputy Chief's rig on fire that was extended to 113's rig. There was a big ambulance, like a rescue company truck, but it wasn't a rescue company truck. It was a huge ambulance. It must have had Scott bottles or oxygen bottles on it. These were going off. You would hear the air go SSS boom and they were exploding. So we stretched a line and tried to put that out. He could only use booster water."
I am an audio engineer. Mics that have preamps built into a camera often have a smaller dynamic range, causing things to clip easier. In the link of the controlled demolition in Ottawa I posted I used professional recording equipment and there was still no way around clipping. If there is a controlled demolition going off near you there is NO mistake in what is happening. Those blasts hit you right in the core and rattle your teeth, and they certainly clip microphones and make any other noise around you inaudible.
I'm not sure if you are talking about me or Richard. However I do work on video projects too (not that that would qualify me to state that a glowing red dripping material is molten metal since I don't have any court admissible evidence supporting that).
So appreciated your clear, concise, nearly first in line questions for Mr. Gage. Have a bad taste in my mouth from his reply to your post and the over-all theater of this AMA.
Perhaps I just need food and a nap. Thank you for posting here! Saved your contribution!
Thank you for bearing with me. I noted you spent a lot of time compiling questions, and |I am sorry I have to ask you to focus on just one.
Your question breaks down into 3 separate ones, but i think you're point is that explosives would have produced louder sounds than is apparent in videos(?)
I must admit you raise a good point. I am not sure what the sound characteristics of something like nanothermite might be but and advanced explosive would put a higher percentage of it's energy into heat & light, and less into wasted sound energy.
advanced explosive would put a higher percentage of it's energy into heat & light, and less into wasted sound energy.
Which would immediately be converted into sound as the surrounding air absorbed that heat and light. That's how a blast wave works. Were you kidding when you wrote that, or what?
That's not my complaint. My only complaint is that the guy said "advanced explosives" could be quiet. That's nonsense. If sincere, it shows a profound ignorance of just what an explosion is. And if not sincere, then it's smug and dismissive as hell.
For this demolition I was 1000 feet away. No one was allowed to be in front of us, in fact I had a pass so I could stand there, most people had to be at least another 100 feet behind that. My main point is, when there is a controlled demolition with explosives there is no mistaking it. It rattles you and the one I was at was only 11 stories high. I can't imagine what 110 stories feels like. Why didn't EVERY witness close emphatically insist they heard explosions.
I'm just waiting for you to address why the cameras didn't pick up any explosions when they were capable of picking up the noise of the building falling.
If the videos show no explosions, and witnesses claim there were explosions, video evidence trumps witness testimony.
If there were explosions, they would occur prior to the collapse (to cause it) and wouldn't have other sounds to compete with so they'd be heard quite clearly on video, even at distance.
Thermite isn't an explosive in the classic sense of the word. It just burns really, really hot really fast.
Here's a link to a "Brainiacs show in England where they play with some thermite. There IS a bang when they pair it with liquid CO2, but absolutely no bang when they put it on the engine block of a car.
Thermite works by burning incredibly hot, not exploding.
Thermite isn't an explosive in the classic sense of the word. It just burns really, really hot really fast.
Which makes it completely unsuitable for building demolition. How do you sequence something like that?
How do you make it so that the thermite doesn't burn through the casing holding it to the column before it burns through the column you are severing?
I've watched thermite experiments too. A 3 kilogram pile sitting on a horizontal piece of beam barely made a scratch. How much would be needed to take down a 110 story building? How do you get it into the building? How do you get access to the support columns on all 110 stories (or even half of them) without destroying the fully occupied office space?
How much would be needed to take down a 110 story building?
very little. the official story admitted that the WTC1 and WTC2 came down in a "progressive collapse", but failed to admit that this is actually a known, tried-and-true method of controlled demolition.
therefore, as demonstrated in the official story of 9/11, there is no Thermate/ Thermite necessary, given that the progressive collapse will do the work for you, once the collapse is initiated.
so, for a progressive collapse controlled demolition, the crew would only need access to whatever floors that airplanes allegedly hit.
Patenting something is not the same as using it in practical application. List me all the buildings destroyed over the last 15 years using thermite or a variation of it.
The columns used in that "demonstration" are nowhere near the size of the trade center columns, so it's a useless demonstration.
its a demonstration of proof of concept to answer your question of
How do you make it so that the thermite doesn't burn through the casing holding it to the column before it burns through the column you are severing?
What if the planes are off target by a dozen floors?
i dont believe that muslim extremists were piloting the aircraft, so i don't think they would have missed their mark, kinda like the fancy flying that hit the pentagon.
How do you keep the thermite from immediately igniting once the massive fireball of an airplane explosion envelops them?
testimony of the man who found thermite or variation of it. Jeff Farrer Physicist
The man who found thermite and promptly shared that discovery with...nobody.
How long ago was that? 6 years now? And not a single independent lab on the planet has ever laid eyes on this magic powder, let alone been able to test it.
its a demonstration of proof of concept to answer your question of
How do you make it so that the thermite doesn't burn through the casing holding it to the column before it burns through the column you are severing?
Except that the columns are nowhere near the size of the trade center columns, so you haven't proven that thermite could do the job without melting through the casings...casings that would have been attached to every single support column you intend on severing with your magic powder.
testimony of the man who found thermite or variation of it. Jeff Farrer Physicist
care to address what he says?
The man who found thermite and promptly shared that discovery with...nobody.
he put it on video and shared it on youtube.
How long ago was that? 6 years now? And not a single independent lab on the planet has ever laid eyes on this magic powder, let alone been able to test it.
this is actually a valid point.
before this AMA, i would have thought Richard Gage to be a good guy, but his reaction to evidence that doesn't fit his narrative makes me skeptical of his bias toward pushing the thermite theory over the mini nuke theory, kinda like how loose change is a misdirection, with its "revelation" of Operation NorthWoods, which may or may not have been a forgery custom created for loose change. convenient, huh?
its a demonstration of proof of concept to answer your question of How do you make it so that the thermite doesn't burn through the casing holding it to the column before it burns through the column you are severing?
Except that the columns are nowhere near the size of the trade center columns, so you haven't proven that thermite could do the job without melting through
that was amply demonstrated. the goalposts are moving from "can't shape charge thermate" to "experiment isn't the same size as WTC"
in any event, the official story is that airplanes hit the twin towers, and the damage from the impact weakened the buildings such that the upper floors progressive collapsed all the way to the ground, or lower.
we are supposed to believe that a progressive collapse and a controlled demolition are two different things, when in fact progressive collapse is a form of controlled demolition.
this is why, according to the official story, a progressive collapse brought down the buildings (without explosives)
and why, according to conspiracy theorists, a progressive collapse brought down the buildings, as a controlled demolition, perhaps with some explosives (theoretically no explosives even necessary, according to official story)
Cuts with the speed of explosive shaped charges but without the fragmentation and logistical problems of explosives.
They say its used for :
Infrastructure (building/bridge) demolition
Roadway cutting for demolition or access holes for utility service
Pipeline cutting for offshore environments
Wow. Something like that might even explain those tarballs of mixed steel and concrete that could not have possibly occurred due to fuel or office fires.
As far as who and how, remember these words from Sherlock Holmes:
when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
And since its physically impossible for a building to accelerate its fall through a standing structure, the government's story is, quite simply, impossible.
Demolition of skyscrapers. Don't miss that distinction.
A charge or two taking out a bridge is one thing. Hundreds of sequenced charges nearly silently taking out the largest building on the planet is completely different.
So you've devolved into hiding behind distinctions without a difference. Got it.
I also notice you've never posted any proof that other skyscraper, burning much hotter and longer, show any signs of the "molten metal waterfall" observed in the Twin Towers collapse.
Nor does the official explanation have anything to say about the large chunks of fused concrete and metal. An office fire can't cause that, even with hydrocarbon accelerants.
Shouldn't we be hearing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel hitting the ground if thermite or any of its variants chopped the building to the ground? Does this mean explosives were not used at all?
Please provide a link to the thermite you speak of so I can take a listen.
Thank you for your time. I'm new to all of this, so please excuse my ignorance: Is it possible to set up a large-scale controlled demolition without people on the street, or overnight cleaning crews in the buildings seeing the demolition being set up well in advance of the demolition?
Might I also add that there are eye witness accounts of a power down by the Port Authority. This occurred the weekend before 9/11. This left the entire building accessible for contractors to work on installation of explosives.
To follow up on that question, how many explosives do you expect were used in the towers? extrapolating from the Harrit et al. study, specifically from the .1% unreacted nano-thermite they found in the dust, I estimate there must have been at least a few hundred tons of thermite in the towers.
My questions is - with all the resources now available to A&E49/11T, why hasn't there been an effort to put forward, as a single point of reference, a comprehensive rebuttal to the NIST Report(s), along with Engineering and Science papers submitted for peer review and publication?
Also, given the height of the twin towers, and the timed speed of their destruction (to within about 6 seconds of absolute free fall in nothging but air), isn't there a straightforward proof requiring nothing more than grade 10 level physics (ie: laws of motion), along with a simple thought experiment, and if so, where's the physics paper for that?
I think the point was to have a rebuttal that is "submitted for peer review and publication".
There are a million sites purporting to "debunk" the official story with various pseudoscience. Without a proper published peer reviewed response, most people will end up lumping all of those sites together, including stuff like directed energy weapons and mini nukes, and tarring the whole movement as silly.
I've given this a LOT of thought over the years, and I'm just not at all satisfied with Richard's response, to be perfectly honest.
It doesn't make any sense not to be making a push in this direction.
It could BEGIN with the papers published over at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
I'm thinking something that would look like a report by a reputable, multidisciplined, architectual and engineering consulting company with expertise in building forensics and of course, structual engineering.
Then, out of the single, larger report, spin off some papers for review and publication..
Man would that ever get the ball rolling far and wide in a hurry - plus, it would invite replies in the form of attempted debunks of the singular, authoritative NIST debunk by A&E49/11T, which, from what I've come to understand, would simply not be possible or hold up under scientific scrutiny and analysis because they would have to violate the laws of physics to do so.
Everyone would be all over it.
It would bring the debate to a whole new level, while lending credibility to our movement and the work of A&E49/11T.
I have seen dozens of valid medical studies rejected by journals (ie peer review) simply because they go against medical dogma. There are major powers which subvert paradigm change under the guise of "peer-review"
I'm thinking something that would look like a report by a reputable, multidisciplined, architectual and engineering consulting company with expertise in building forensics and of course, structual engineering.
That will never happen. By being reputable, you are concerning yourself with image and getting involved in politics and tragedy is not only risky but taking an opposing side is political suicide. This is a contradiction.
"The Destruction of the Twin Towers, and Building 7, on September 11, 2001, Why the Official Government Report is a Fraud."
by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
or something along those lines..
As to the published papers, and the book - we could then send out an info package, by mail, to every single member of the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers), which could be done.
The number of signatories to A&E would then climb to over 10,000..
Lots of news headlines, interviews, etc., etc. taking the debate to a whole new level both in the US, and globally.
The scientific community has endorsed the findings of NIST. It has been supported in dozens of peices of published scientific literature. Sure you can go over the report and find small mistakes or errors, but the scientific community has shown that it supports NIST's findings. Maybe the problem isn't with the NIST report, but the critiques of it that are biased towards a conspiracy.
“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”http://youtu.be/v3mudruFzNw
They do not release their model data for peer review, therefore their model is a fraud and the investigation is compromised.
They do not release their model data for peer review, therefore their model is a fraud
see? this is what i'm talking about. You have some critique of the NIST report, and rather than just present that critique, or god forbid - your own data, a issue with the NIST report is twisted into evidence of an alternate hypothesis.
Maybe the problem isn't with the NIST report, but the critiques of it that are biased towards a conspiracy.
Like I said, the findings of the NIST report are widely accepted by the scientific community.
How can anyone peer-review their data if they don't release their data? Nobody in the scientific community can accept a report in which they can't replicate. They won't release the model data, therefore it is a fraud. Period.
Their results are what matters. For example, if someone performed elemental analysis on a sample (say, the WTC dust) to determine its composition and presented their results, but wouldn't release their samples(just like Harrit), the study is not considered a fraud. Its considered a fraud when other people repeat the experiment with their own samples and can't replicate the original papers results. Or even better, when they can point out mistakes in the original paper.
But like I said, the findings of the NIST report are widely accepted by the scientific community. Other people in relevant fields have created their own collapse models that independently corraberate NISTs findings.
How can anyone peer-review their results if they don't release their data? Nobody in the scientific community can accept a report in which they can't replicate...
Nobody said the report went through the peer review process; it was never intended to do so. However the scientific community have independently replicated NISTs results. You don't need the exact input data to check if its results are accurate, and most if not all papers pass peer review without the reviewers explicitly running through every calculation made in the experiment. Thats actual science, not the high school ideal that you've been taught. Do you expect the people who peer reviewed CERN's higgs experiment to pour over trillions of bits of data they accumulated? or recheck any experiment performed on the new 20 Petaflop supercomputer built at ORNL? no, they focus on replicable results, which means they generally make sure the experiment followed a clear and accurate methodology.
Lol? Investigations of murders have different standards for investigation, considering they are not science projects for research...they are crimes and need irrefutable evidence. NISTs investigation is more than refutable.
Faith based models are not answers. They're coverups
On October 1, 2002 Congress passed the "National Construction Safety Team Act" which authorized NIST to assemble teams and investigate the collapses of the World Trade Center Buildings.
NIST released the public comment version of its "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" in August of 2008 and the comment period closed 2 weeks later on Sept 2008. Note: The report I am referencing here is NCSTAR1A, a summary, and if you were to read it all it’s about 77 pages.
In October of 2008 NIST released its final version of "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7".
After reviewing the Draft for public comment and the final release of NCSTAR 1A it is important to note the changes that were made for section 3.6 as an example of how NIST incorporated Freefall into their report. http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/
- Draft for public comment pages 40 and 41 section 3.6
VS
- Final release pages 44, 45, 46 section 3.6
"Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”)
Why is this an issue? Because the lead NIST engineers said free fall could NOT happen in a natural collapse. http://youtu.be/J_mqJUsqeLA
This alone warrants a new investigation!!!
Second point:
Alright, so. The standard called “full disclosure” in which all data and methodologies to support a hypothesis are to be shared so that other scientists can independently verify (replicate) the results has been violated.
In this case, although the software is available, NIST has withheld the data. If the model in the report is to be considered scientific and valid for supporting statements and conclusions in the report then the standard of “full disclosure” must be met.
I called Michael Newman (NIST Public and
Business Affairs) via telephone and from email confirmation by Patrick Gallagher (NIST Director). The document below is authentic and, put plainly, makes the model faith-based. The investigation is therefore compromised.
Well, you claim to have read it, then cut and pasted some text you found online rather than demonstrate some individual thought. Its really telling when you clearly don't even know what NIST set out to do, then try to pass some text you found on-line as your own response.
Its clear you haven't read it because you've compared it to murder investigations, and can't seem to grasp that it was never meant to be submitted for peer review.
If you decided to exercise free thought for a change, rather than parroting what others have told you, you can find the NIST report here. And on that page they list the objectives:
The specific objectives were:
Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response;
Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7; and
Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.
Its goals read the exact same way as any investigation into any engineering disaster, not murder investigations or scientific papers. They try and figure out what the problems were so that they can improve the safety of others. Are you also calling every investigation into airline disasters (which have drasticly improved airline safety) a fraud since they never were submitted for peer review?
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
I was thinking alone the lines of an authoritative book combining all the evidence and findings which shows/proves the NIST Report to be false, along with a series of peer-review papers to be published in credible Engineering and Science publications/journals.
Scientific papers that have been peer-reviewed and published? How about a comprehensive model that refutes the NIST's?
That along with the general public's inertia and unwillingness to accept the facts are what we have to focus on.
It's one thing to say that "those in power" are preventing you from getting published, but it's a little disingenuous when you haven't submitted anything.
How about a comprehensive model that refutes the NIST's?
NIST never offered any such model for the "collapse" nor did they even effectively deal with it, offering a collapse initiation hypothesis only, while declaring that what ensued thereafter was "inevtiable".
We focus on the scientific forensic evidence that proves that the three World Trade Center skyscrapers were demolished deliberately in controlled demolitions.
I would assume that given their search for forensic evidence, a model demonstrating how controlled demolition is a better explanation would be an effective tool.
Building a Better Mirage - NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
Jim Hoffman, website designer, is not a reputable source or qualified expert nor does he have any training whatsoever in mechanical or structural engineering, demolition or physics.
Hoffman's analysis and points are valid, and as to that model, there will be one some day, but if you had any idea how complex it would be, you'd realize why they haven't made one yet. NIST however, had the neccessary resources to make one, but decided not to.
Someday there will be one though and then we'll all owe a debt of gratitude to A&E4-9/11T and the 9/11 Truth Movement for keeping this issue alive on on the table, because there can be no model of what happened to the twin towers capable of supporting the "global collapse" hypothesis. The laws of motion forbid it, absent the use of explosives.
Hello Richard, i am a student (who gained employment today in a NYC establishment!!) studying Civil and Structural Engineering.
We had an open day the other day for all the engineering students, our section had five FAIA members who openly joked that the official reports were a joke and not worth bothering with, such that it could damage our learning.
This had probably 100+ students start to question the official account, 9/11 had never come up, ever, in our studies.
The lecturers refuse to talk about the event on campus, administration will not meet with the student body to discuss the benefits of learning about the engineering aspects in regards the three skyscrapers collapse.
May i ask, where is this pressure coming from and how do you think engineering students can best address it?
Peter Dale Scott addresses this issue in his articles, lectures and books:
In American history there are two types of events. There are ordinary events which the information systems of the country can understand and transmit. There are also deep events, or meta-events, which the mainstream information systems of the country cannot digest. I mean by a “deep event” one in which it is clear from the outset that there are aspects which will not be dealt with in the mainstream media, and will be studied only by those so-called “conspiracy theorists” who specialize in deep history.
I'd like to make a comment here, not to speak for Richard.
The psychological nature of the Big Lie carries with it it's own self-sensoring, because the only alternative hypothesis is "unimaginable" and all but impossible to reconcile with.
It's not some conspiracy between the schools and the deep state shadow government, as has been implied elsewhere in this thread.
"The great masses of the people . . .will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." -- J. Edgar Hoover, former FBI director
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." -- Marshall McLuhan
To accept any hypothesis that runs contrary to the Big Lie is to unravel all of it. To unravel all of it is to be just another "conspiracy theorist." There's no middle ground. You either traverse the rabbit hole to its ultimate depth or stay out of it altogether.
Not sure if that's by design or just serendipity for TPTB.
Would the other 95% of the population really care as much if the US government had done it?
As a non-US guy, I don't have a personal stake in whether their government killed thousands of its own people on this particular day.
But then I get told "I'm afraid to face up to the truth, because it would be too shocking". Not really. It would only be shocking that the US government had perpetrated such a bone-headed plan.
More like they don't want to become entrapped in endless arguments from students who have gotten into "9/11 truth", and now won't listen to opposing opinions.
Then how on earth would Richard know whether the NIST model supported their alternate hypothesis?
If the complaint with NIST is that they released a flawed, substandard, incorrect or incomplete set of collapse information (model and underlying data), then why has AE911Truth not attempted to release a model of their own?
“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.” http://youtu.be/v3mudruFzNw
This makes NISTs investigation fraudulent and model invalid. This makes AE911's call for a real investigation and their demolition hypothesis the only other alternative to NISTs fake science.
this is from memory so forgive me if it's not entirely accurate, NISTs model showed a partial collapse. the problem with the full collapse model is that it had to have included free fall motion of the building, which is impossible with the exception of pro demolition. It didn't support their preconcieved conclusion of collapse due to stressed hot beams, so they omitted it from the report.
1) Why did we not hear explosions in the WTC 7 videos?
There are many reports of explosions in the twin towers during the collapses, however it does not seem the same for WTC. There also isn't much visible evidence of brightly burning thermite.
2) Some debunkers claim that independent researchers and scientists have done their own investigations and have agreed with NIST, how do you respond to such claims?
3) If AE911truths goal is to spread awareness of the truth, why have they not written any peer reviewed papers proving their claims? Surely this would help spread awareness.
4) How do you believe explosives were planted in WTC 7, 1 and 2
seem plausible to fit with explosives, however WTC7 seems like a much harder job
5) What do you think in the strongest piece of evidence proving the official story is wrong and explosives were used?
6) Last question, you might not be able to answer this though. Seeing as there was much controversy over the peer review of the nanothermite paper, would it not have been best to republish the paper in a different journal? Why was this not done? (sorry if you cannot answer this).
EDIT: I thought of 1 more :) sorry. Do you have any opinions on the group 'project for the new american century' and their infamous quote of a 'new pearl harbour'?
I believe I should thank you for requesting this session.
I hope you'll forgive me for not spending time on all your questions. I'm glad that the issues of 9/11 are important enough to you that you consider such things.
Briefly, you make some good points, and as evidence grows explanations for all these things will, I expect, emerge.
You could put this to rest by using your architectural knowledge to demonstate silent explosives. Have the PTB pressured you off youtube? You demoed the collapse with cardboard boxes there. Wouldn't showcasing the physics with a bowling ball a few inches above your head shame the liars into admitting the truth?
You didn't make a big enough bribe campaign contribution, obviously
When in China...if you want to get anything done quickly and locally, you pay a bribe. They don't call it that, they call it a "service fee" but it's a bribe.
Same here. If you want your politician to do something noteworthy or helpful, you have to make a significant financial commitment.
Someone else wrote this, I'd love to see your answers.
"You run a non-profit with a mission statement declaring to fund research and papers to show 9/11 was an inside job. So why is it that when we look at your tax records we see all the money going into paying yourself nearly $100,000 annually + accommodations + meals and the rest going into promoting your DVD's while not a single cent goes towards any research or funding any studies whatsoever?"
It's the same question asked of any non-profit whose mission is research. If people donate expecting research, it's entirely reasonable to find out what research is being done with their donations.
I've always believed that science is ultimately going to break the case open. Can you explain in layman's terms why the gravity fed collapse theory is not possible?
Thank you for your question.
Its really quite simple.
Imagine the 2 towers after they were hit: there's an upper section and of course the larger, lower section.
As an analogy imagine you are standing with a large bowling ball resting on your head. Your head can support the weight, right?
Now imagine that same bowling ball drops 6inches onto your head. can you still resist the bowling ball?
Yes of course you can.
Its really that simple, but you'd be amazed how many people don't understand simple physics.
This is why it is so important we bring people's attention to these issues.
Wait, if you drop a bowling ball, even from only 6 inches, onto your head, it is going to do a hell of a lot more damage than if you just rest it on your head. Your body may not collapse, but you're going to be hurting.
Is this really the analogy you want to use to argue against the gravity fed theory? I mean, it is so easy to show it is full of baloney. Put anything on your head. Then drop it on your head. Which one cases more damage?
Your body might be able to resist the bowling ball (as in you will still be standing), but there will be far more damage done to your body.
He should have been clearer that "resisting" the bowling ball means that, once it makes contact with your head, it will not experience constant downward acceleration (as the towers did) because your head is providing an upward force on it. It sounds like he means that dropping the bowling ball from a height will not affect you at all.
It is a fundamentally flawed understanding of physics that this guy is pedaling. We are interested in kinetic force, NOT static weight. I want you to do an experiment at home. Take the thickest book you have and a styrofoam cup. Place the book gently on top of the cup. It holds! Now take that book and drop it onto the cup. Cup is crushed. The top floors built up momentum (as an actual engineering term) as the floors damaged by the planes gave way. The amount of force required to stop that momentum is directly proportional to how fast you want to stop said material. The impact deceleration between two steel bodies is incredibly high (in other words, it takes a very short period of time for the velocity of the moving body to reach zero in the initial direction of movement) That means the amount of force imparted on the stationary object is much, MUCH higher than the original forces induced by the same weight. So it isn't a matter of the lower structure being able to support the weight of the structure above, it is a matter of the supporting structure trying to decelerate the falling part of the building. Simply put, if this guy is actually arguing what his example implies he is arguing, he has ABSOLUTELY no idea what he's talking about.
It's "peddling", not "pedaling". And your analogy is flawed. You needed to lift up the book in order to subsequently drop it onto the cup. The top floors of the towers did not experience any such magical upward motion before falling.
What it did experience was the collapse of several stories WHERE A PLANE FLEW THROUGH THE BUILDING. I might have used the wrong "peddling" but I know my engineering, and I know this guy is wrong.
His explanation was poor, as I've already noted above. His use of the word "resist" is unclear; he's referring to this problem: http://youtu.be/NiHeCjZlkr8.
Anyway, the towers were built to withstand an airliner impact. Furthermore, WTC7 was not hit by an airplane and still collapsed. How do you explain that, when no steel-frame high-rise, outside these 3, has ever collapsed due to fire?
I have addressed the airliner argument in other posts. The planes were travelling over twice as fast (three times as fast in the case of flight 175) as the design constraint. Given the masses of the planes, that translates into TEN TIMES more kinetic energy absorption as the design limit. To add to that, the building design did not account for several thousands of gallons of Jet A burning for an hour at 1500F. So let's review; the impact was ten times more energetic than the design limit, taking out a large fraction of the structure (the WTC buildings had a load carrying exterior, so these plane impacts were particularly devastating to integrity) then the remaining structural material was heated to 1500F. At that temperature, structural steel loses around 70% of its strength. So you have a ~60% compromised structure with its remaining structure being massively weakened by heating. That adds up to one screwed building. Also, the building did NOT accelerate at 1g. The lower structure DID provide resistive force, but if you complete the momentum equations, once the upper part of the building started to fall, the force needed to stop it was multiple times the structural limit, i.e. The structure failed when struck. I haven't read as much about wtc 7, but I do know the estimated temperatures were comparable. Even if falling debris damaged a smaller portion of the structure, the heat would have still made the building collapse. The reason it hasn't happened before is because none of the other buildings had structural compromise added to the equation.
The planes were travelling over twice as fast (three times as fast in the case of flight 175) as the design constraint.
Where are you getting this? According to this document and its sources (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html), the towers were designed to withstand an impact from a jet traveling at least 600 mph, which is faster than either jet was traveling.
Given the masses of the planes, that translates into TEN TIMES more kinetic energy absorption as the design limit.
Again, incorrect, but even if it weren't... how is this relevant? Obviously the towers survived the initial impact. The kinetic energy didn't knock the towers down; it was transferred into destructive force on the columns, windows, and other materials in the tower, leaving only the tower as it was, with some minor structural damage and some fires. WTC engineers have said that "one could cut away all the first-story columns on one side of the building, and part way from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100-mph wind force from any direction." (http://rethink911.org/evidence/twin-towers/implausibility-of-the-official-theory-twin-towers/). Obviously the planes did less damage than this. The point is that the towers were extremely over-engineered, and just judging from the damage that was visible, there's no way the towers would have collapsed, especially straight down through the path of greatest resistance, while spewing out large sections of steel supports radially in all directions at high speeds.
several thousands of gallons of Jet A burning for an hour at 1500F
No. First of all, most of the jet fuel was consumed by the giant ball of flame you see immediately following the impact. The remaining fires could not have been much hotter than ~500F (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm), which is not hot enough to melt, or significantly weaken, steel. Again, even if it was, in order for the building to collapse straight down like it did and not sideways (like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1oceE_67MM, or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqRN63iDTqA), the columns that failed would have needed to fail in a perfectly symmetric way; that is, the columns on the opposite side of the tower from where the plane hit collapsed at the same time as those on the same side. How is that even remotely likely?
Also, the building did NOT accelerate at 1g
No one said this. The towers experienced constant downward acceleration. That is, there wasn't a "jolt" when the falling part of the building met the solid, undamaged part of the building. This is impossible if you assume that the lower portion of the tower was completely undamaged.
I got my speed from a scholarly article released by The National Academy of Engineering. You got yours from a conspiracy website. I want you to reflect on that, but I doubt you will.
Most of the Jet fuel was consumed by the giant ball of flame...
I don't even know where to begin to explain how wrong this is. You have absolutely no understanding of the energy content of hydrocarbon fuel.
columns would have to have failed in a perfectly symmetrical way
Again completely false. Where did you get your degree in forensic structural engineering? Cascade failure of beams that hot would occur quickly enough that it may as well have happened all at once. There doesn't NEED to be a jolt, and there wouldn't be, considering once the top of the building started falling the forces needed to cause said visible jolt are astronomical. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
Finally, we weren't talking about WTC7 now, were we? Yes, it did experience MOMENTARY freefall, and if you read even a few sentences of the report past what you're referring to, the free fall acceleration duration almost perfectly coincides with the amount of time it would've taken for the falling structure to hit more sound structure. A catastrophic failure of a load bearing member means just that. One second it provides resistive force, the next second there is no resistance. So momentarily the above structure falls.
I'm done with this conversation, because it is obvious all of the information you have regarding the collapse was gleaned from conspiracy websites, and you have convinced yourself they are the only reliable source. That makes civilized discourse impossible. So you are entitled to your beliefs, and I'm going to stop trying to change them, but that doesn't make them right
Resistance here doesn't mean "no damage done", but rather resisting the force of gravity. I think he should have phrased it much better than he did there.
You would still be resisting gravity. If you are standing, you are by definition, resisting gravity.
It is not about damage at all. If I am correct, he is talking about free-fall, and about how free-fall (i.e. at the rate of gravity) is not possible when there is something resisting the gravity. For example, if you are jumping from the top of a building and there are a bunch of blankets in your way, you won't be free-falling, as the blankets would be resisting the force at which you are falling.
Now this is my understanding of what he was trying to say, but yeah its really confusing the way it is phrased, and so only he really knows for sure. If he was speaking in terms of damage done the person, clearly a bowling ball falling from any significant height is going to be damaging to the person, and so that would make hardly any sense in terms of an analogy. You wouldn't need to be that smart of a person to know that. So I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, by saying he likely didn't mean that.
I understand what resisting gravity means. That why I said, given enough damage you wouldn't be resisting gravity, or standing at all.
An average person might be able to remain standing if an average bowling ball dropped on then from 6 inches, but increase either the weight or the distance and that average person won't be resisting gravity for long.
You're reading into this a lot of you add in free fall speed. That isn't at all what he said.
I think we are both looking at it in a different way. I am only concerned with the effect the object has on the force, and you seem to be concerned with the effect the force has on the object. But yeah, we can both agree that it is a terrible analogy.
That analogy doesn't scale at all. Its simple physics. You drop a object from 6" its going to have much less energy/momentum than if you drop it from 12 feet. You don't need to scale distances down, since a building falling 12feet is going to increase the energy by the same factor as any object would (ignoring air resistance).
Also, it doesnt account for the fact that the supports in a building need to be attached/aligned to support the rest of the structure. After it started falling it would be a miracle if the broken supports somehow all reconnected allowing the impact to be distributed evenly across the remaining support structure. Otherwise parts of floor XX is trying to support every floor above it, which is not something the WTC was designed to handle. The load was distributed to the core columns.
Yea but could it withstand a 12 foot drop? Even if the support beams reconnected somehow, and you gave it another 12 feet of compression to absorb the impact it would effectively double the total load on the rest of the structure.
Why? Theres video evidence of the exterior columns in the towers bowing and snapping. Thats actually happening right at the floor joists of the 79th floor in that picture, so I guess I am wrong. It would collapse about 2 stories, not one, minus a few feet of sag before the columns snapped, that puts it closer to about 20 feet rather than 12.
Let me advise you not to try dropping a bowling ball on your head from this height, it would result in literal brain damage.
Yes, I agree that Orangutan's reply does not address why the tower continued collapsing after it started to. What I'm saying is that the quote from the WTC engineers (“one could cut away all the first-story columns on one side of the building, and part way from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100-mph wind force from any direction”) implies that the damage caused by just an airplane was not sufficient to start the collapse.
the damage caused by just an airplane was not sufficient to start the collapse.
Exactly, It wasn't sufficient. We know this because the towers did not immediately collapse. The fires in combination with the damaged support structures initiated the collapse.
Even if an entire floor was completely, spontaneously removed, the part of the building above the missing floor would have no more potential energy than it did with the floor there. But an entire floor wasnt removed, most of the building was perfectly intact with zero air gap between the crushing part (top of building) and the crushed part (bottom of building). Since we know that the lower part of the building was pushing up exactly as hard as the upper part was pushing down, we would expect the upper part to disintegrate in about as much fall as the height of the upper section. Instead what we saw was the upper part disintegrate the lower part all the way to the ground. At some point, the upper part of the building should have disintegrated enough to not be able to crush the bottom part.
Do you really think that is a valid comparison? Dropping one solid object onto another solid object is not the same as dropping tons of unsupported weight onto a structure that is 88% air and made up of hundreds of individual pieces attached together.
If you wanna say the towers are made of 88% air, why is that so called 'unsupported weight' not also made up of 88% air, like it's lower portion? Is the top piece made of indestructible material while the lower portion is made up of feathers?
Lol, they are equal. The same building.
Even if they were different, there's no dropping anyway, because the top portion of the tower exploded before the bottom collapsed. (many claim it was a pile driver type scenario, which is clearly debunked here: http://youtu.be/nUDoGuLpirc)
You're confusing weight and density. Something can be 88% air and still be heavy. The upper portion was the same weight regardless of its density, but the density of the bottom is relevant because it effects its stability.
A pyroclastic flow (also known scientifically as a pyroclastic density current) is a fast-moving current of hot gas and rock (collectively known as tephra), which reaches speeds moving away from a volcano of up to 700 km/h (450 mph). The gas can reach temperatures of about 1,000 °C (1,830 °F).
I didn't see anyone being incinerated by what essentially was just big clouds of fast-moving dust.
There was nothing "pyroclastic" about them at all.
This smacks of people borrowing scientific-sounding terms to add a credible sound to their arguments, instead of just sticking to the facts, even if they're not as exciting sounding.
So, what exactly is the difference between a large cloud of dust and a pyroclastic flow in your opinion? Or are they just the same? I'm wondering if this is just a misunderstanding based on unfamiliar nomenclature.
The stores are pretty much equal to each other. So if two equal objects collide an equal force is applied to both, so they should destruct each other at approximately the same rate. So the upper part that began falling should have diminished completely after it had traveled by it's height into the bottom part. After that there should be nothing left to continue the collapse.
If there was a weak part in the bottom part of the building which would have severed we would have seen the collapse continue from that point, but it didn't happen like that either. It was like a pile driver crushed the building down. I didn't see that pile driver anywhere.
Even if the top part of the bottom portion of the building was heavily severed because of the fires, the collapse would still have slowed down until there is nothing left to do more damage. But the buildings were destroyed to the first floor and beyond, absolutely nothing left.
I'm not an expert on the matter, but my common sense says what happened is very unprobable or even impossible.
Looking forward for the day when we have the capability to reconstruct the scenario in a computer model, down to very little details.
Into each other. If you have a line of ten men that are somewhat equally sized and ask the first one to fight everyone, one at a time, to death, how far would you think he gets?
Haha, completely tangential analogy but I guess it still proves my point- the guy who starts fighting will get beaten up, but he will still get a few hits down to the 4th or 5th person in line.
So the force of the top falling is just 'diminished' into the bottom portion right? Considering the top floors were speeding up as they fell (due to gravitational acceleration) and gathering mass from collecting the next floors on the way down, would you say with confidence that you know the lower floors have the structural integrity to resist that load?
I was more thinking he would get to second or first. One at a time I said, not trying to hustle his way down slapping everyone.
The speeding up part is one thing that I don't get either. There seemed to be absolutely no resistance to the top part making it's way through.
Yes I would say that eventually the force from the top part would diminish into the bottom after the mutual destruction ends. In case of WTC that didn't happen for some reason and the collapse continued to the bottom. If it was not assisted, the top part should have slowed while going into the bottom part and at the same time keep getting smaller and smaller. I could see the "mass gathering" part happening if the building didn't have those columns in the middle to support the structure. I can't say with confidence that I know anything about WTC except that they don't exist anymore, but it still seems obvious to me that the columns would have had the integrity to support the load from that small portion that begun falling. But what happened looks like they didn't and immediately were destroyed without any effort.
Edit: read the NIST FAQ. Not much in it except that what they say about the bottom part not being able to resist the load. Also that 40 stories of core colums were standing for a long time after the collapse is interesting, would like to see the images / video footage for that.
So the upper part that began falling should have diminished completely after it had traveled by it's height into the bottom part. After that there should be nothing left to continue the collapse.
What do you mean by "diminished completely"? Are you referring to the speed of the moving pile, or are you referring to the amount of rubble?
I don't know why I'm bothering wasting my time, but here is a quick "back of the napkin" calculation that I've seen in a couple places to explain the speed of the collapse.
When the first tower finally buckled at the point of impact of the plane, the top section would have dropped at near free fall speed through nothing but air for roughly 12 feet at least. In that amount of time, that 35 story pile of rubble would have gotten to around 19mph.
Now, that 35 story pile of rubble moving at 19mph impacts the first floor of the structure beneath it. Here is where the "equal and opposite" physics stuff comes in. The amount of force necessary to pulverize the first floor impacted is equal to the amount of force needed to slow down that falling pile slightly. So, the first floor impacted is pulverized and the pile is slowed down to something like 11mph.
Once that first intact floor collapses, it's weight is added to the falling mass. Now instead of 35 floors worth of rubble, you have 36. Also, once that first floor gives way, the rubble has another 12 feet worth of air to fall through before impacting the second intact floor. So now you have 36 floors worth of rubble starting out at 11mph. By the time it impacts the second intact floor, the pile is moving at ~27mph.
So with every floor destroyed, the rubble pile grows in mass and increases in speed.
The core columns for both towers stood for a few seconds after the building collapsed. 40 stories worth in one tower and 60 stories worth for the other.
The reason they were still standing is because the floors peeled themselves away from the core and perimeter columns as they collapsed on themselves. That's also the reason why the collapse inside the building seemed to outpace the collapse of the shell.
At first glance it's certainly counterintuitive. Buildings don't normally collapse from office fires.
The thing is, the fires on September 11th weren't normal at all. First of all, the fire suppression systems were completely severed by the first 2 towers collapsing, so the fires in WTC 7 had free reign to burn out of control without a drop of water. Secondly, the fires were going on as many as a dozen non contiguous floors or more, fed by office furnishings and diesel powered generators, and burned for over 7 hours.
The FDNY personnel onsite could see the building in major distress 3 hours before it came down. They had a structural engineer onsite consulting, and not only did he predict that the building was going to collapse, but he also nailed the exact timeframe for the collapse.
Clearly the thought of a controlled demolition that would have been a major shock to everyone onsite doesn't jive with the reality on the ground. Given that other structural engineers have done their own collapse models separate from NIST and come to essentially the same conclusion, I'm OK with deferring to the experts and the people on the ground on this one.
Except we aren't talking about pillows. We're talking about a building. Analogies end up being pretty useless. If you sever the supports holding up the top of a building, that building collapses.
88% air and made up of hundreds of individual pieces attached together
the top section is exactly that aswell. Remember, the top section and the bottom section are made of exactly the same stuff. In fact, the building got stronger as it progressed downwards.
Excellent point about the building getting stronger as it progressed downwards. The bottom building columns are always bigger than the upper parts of those same columns, and as the building collapsed there was less weight to support because the building turned to dust and was blown every direction, even up.
That picture really tells more than a thousand official theories.
Just wondering how fast would a concrete block need to be smashed against another to produce only dust.
The destruction power has been something so unbelievable. An ash castle collapsing would produce a similar view, but a solid object falling apart, no way in this universe.
Just wondering how fast would a concrete block need to be smashed against another to produce only dust.
this is exactly the physics question we have been posing to each other lately. if you were given a hammer and a cement block, how much physical labor would it take to hammer that block to a fine power? your arm would get tired before the job was done.
also interesting is why the cement turned to dust instead of randomly sized broken pieces.
this is one reason the official story doesn't hold up. but it may also be part of the reason that the Thermite/Thermite theory doesn't hold up.
Sure, the top brick and falling brick break - what happens to the rest of the energy in the collision? Unless all matter is ejected upwards and to the sides (which it isn't) the force of the impact still has to be applied to the bricks below the top brick.
Try that same thought experiment except under the column of bricks, you are holding it up. Would you really expect to feel no extra load when the brick is dropped?
The use of simple physics can prove that the WTC was not destroyed a gravity driven collapse, but simple physics may not be sufficient to explain what did destroy the WTC. Knowing what didn't happen is the first step, but it is a baby step. The real meat is finding out what did destroy the WTC. Knowing that it wasn't jet plane crash isn't enough.
I had an idea for a meme about two pop cans, one on top of another. Something like, "Could the top can crush the bottom can?".
Are the same forces at work with the pop can analogy as a skyscraper? Obviously the top can couldn't crush the bottom can. But does adding weight (like skyscraper heavy) increase the chance gravity could assist in the downward destruction?
Heh, so a Foster's King Can on the bottom and a Molson Cold Shots can on top. Check.
I think it's a good way maybe for something to "click" in peoples minds about how impossible it is for something of equal weight and density to destroy itself from gravity alone. For whatever reasons people (myself included) believe this. Once it clicks in peoples minds it seems ridiculous.
Do the experiment and film it :D Stack some (full) cans in a pile, hold them together with glue or something, then drop a can onto the top one. It would probably get crumpled up a bit, but no fall straight through the entire stack of cans :D
As an analogy imagine you are standing with a large bowling ball resting on your head. Your head can support the weight, right?
Now imagine that same bowling ball drops 6inches onto your head. can you still resist the bowling ball?
Yes of course you can.
As an analogy imagine a nail with a large hammer resting on it. The nail can support the weight, right?
Now imagine that same hammer drops 6inches onto the nail. can it still resist the hammer?
No of course it can't.
if you simply drop the hammer onto the nail with the force of gravity alone, the nail might be 'pushed' in slightly, but i seriously doubt it will be driven in. for it to be driven in, you'd have to apply much more additional force than gravity.
for instance, when i see nails being hammered in real-life, the hammer is either swung with significant additional force from the human musculature to drive the nail in, or repeated hammerings are required to gradually push the nail in.
and in any case, the hammer is FAR HEAVIER than the nail. a more accurate analogy to the WTC, where a fraction of the entire building caused the collapse of the entire building, would be the nail resting on the hammer, and dropping the nail onto the hammer. in a hundred percent of the cases, i believe the nail will bounce off the hammer.
As an analogy imagine a nail with a large hammer resting on it. The nail can support the weight, right? Now imagine that same hammer drops 6inches onto the nail. can it still resist the hammer? No of course it can't.
For your analogy to be correct you would need to hit another hammer facing upwards. Imagine that.
Yes it can. Saying the nail will "resist" the hammer is not the same thing as saying that the nail will not move. See this for clarification: What a Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like: http://youtu.be/NiHeCjZlkr8
I mean, that's almost as bad as the "two concrete blocks" example. Of course the bottom one doesn't collapse, it's a solid structure.
The towers weren't solid structures. It's not a case of "the top X floors vs the bottom Y floors" either, it's a case of "the top X floors vs the 1 floor below them".
Ughhhhhh. No, Newton who? The guy with the fig cookies??
Because everything there is to know about physics, engineering, and material science was taught in 10th grade physics. There's no reason at all that people go on to study for 4 years of undergraduate and another 2-7 years of graduate school to master these topics.
Why didnt the potential energy of the top section of the building crush the lower section of the building long before an airplane hit it, like during the construction of WTC?
Dynamic vs. static load. Seriously, it's not rocket science. What do you think actually happens in a controlled demolition? What you're postulating would mean controlled demolitions are violating Newton's third law too.
so, as the static load (potential energy) of the upper part of the building started to collapse and became a dynamic load (kinetic energy), did the floors below the collapse experience an increase in load, a decrease in load, or did the load stay they same?
What do you think actually happens in a controlled demolition?
the building support super structure is systematically, symmetrically removed, hense the phrase "controlled" demolition. asymmetrical failure should cause asymmetrical collapse. if you were sitting in a 4 legged chair and one of the legs broke, which way would you fall?
as an engineer, if you were given the job of demolishing the old WTC complex to make room for a new WTC complex, how exactly would you do that demolition job? would you use a top-down controlled demolition on WTC1 and WTC2?
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
Have you watched 9/11- The New Pearl Harbor? In my opinion it is by far the most comprehensive investigative documentary surrounding the events of 9/11 ever made. If you haven't, I implore you to watch it as soon as you get some time for a 5 hour documentary (yes, 5 hours). If you have (or when you watch it), would you consider having AE911Truth endorse the film? It does not have nearly the publicity that it deserves, and the filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco encourages free duplication and distribution of the film, so there would be no legal issue to sort out.
Gage is fully committed to NOT looking at who might be guilty.
If you ever wondered why he is not threatened by the powers that be, I'd suggest that was the reason. He looks at the evidence of what happened, NOT at the evidence of who did it or why.
It is a conscious choice on his part and he freely admits to it.
I spent several years just looking at the physical evidence of 9/11, and most data points suggest that the official story was a big lie. After it occured to me that proving the Pythagorean theorem in new ways doesnt make it any more true, I moved on to looking for alternative suspects. I didnt make the same mistake with Boston, and as soon as it was evident that it was a false flag, started looking for alternative suspects http://friendfeed.com/groups/search?q=0p6dBMB #0p6dBMB
Gage is being very smart hear. He understands that all of the information that supports the Inside Job theory which has been gathered by so many film makers and amateur researchers is nonsense, so naturally, he distances himself from it.
He will only defend his own theory about the three towers that collapsed. He is not as certain about the Inside Job theory as most keyboard warriors are.
It's called credibility, and many people here, including mods, do not give a F about it. We should use Mr. Gage as an example on how to carry ourselves and ideas.
Richard Gage only deals in sourced facts and newtonian physics. No theories. That's why he is successful.
9/11 The New Pearl Harbor does not fall into that category. All of the material is objective, sourced in real-time, and compared to the opposing arguments. Also, I'm shocked at your inability to realize that his thesis is that 9/11 was an inside job.
I'm curious, why didn't you enjoy meeting Griffin? His books strike me as exceptionally well researched, and you guys are essentially on the same side here, no?
Could you please give a small list of some of the top false information that is being put out there, or some of the theories that have maybe purposely muddied the waters.(like nukes). Thank you for your dedication.
ARA and SAIC are both manufacturers of directed energy weapons and parts. They were also 2 of the biggest contractors NIST used in their investigation.
I am all for evidence based conclusions. But to say that it is ironic that a person with what the mainstream would consider is a far out theory, dismisses another theory because it is too far out, is an understatement.
/u/smokinbluebear couldn't be here and asked someone to submit their question:
We know the WTC steel was quickly shipped off--much of it to be recycled in China and India--but, what were the most important pieces to analyze for a proper investigation? and what percentage of these pieces were investigators given access to? was WTC 7 handled the same as the Twin Towers?
Wondering if you think the victims (and their families) have been silenced with a non-disclosure agreement which Feinberg’s 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund may have contained...
Richard Gage's response:
Hey smokinbluebear,
To answer your first question..the most important pieces to analyse were (and still are) where the horizontal steel beams connected with the outer steel frame. These are the most likely points for the explosives to have been positioned.
I'm not sure the exact percentage investigators had access to: but the investigators looked at the debris without considering alternative explanations. That's not science.
WTC7 was handled jsut as unscientifically as the towers in my opinion. You can't see a building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, into its own footprint and not want to look deeper.
For your second question. Its important to highlight the points and evidence that cannot be refuted. There's no good evidence that anyone has been silenced. I remain on the fence for that discussion.
Thanks for your hard work, Richard. I was impressed by your recent appearance on CSPAN.
My question might seem an odd one but I hope not. In your experience, what's the best piece of evidence you've found that convinces your peers and colleagues to question the government narrative? Is it in video form, statistical form or some other medium?
Thank you for your question.
Is that a video of one fo the towers?
I have studied many videos of both the collapses of the North and South towers and have not seen this particular anomaly before.
I am speculating of course, but I would say this is fake.
If you can find any evidence that this existed prior to, say, 2003..It would be helpful.
I have doubts when something like this only emerges in 2014. I'm sure you're aware of a fake video in which WTC7 was seen to have obvious scattered explosions, and a Flying Saucer.
(but just because I am skeptical doesnt mean you're wrong: keep gathering evidence!)
if you slow down the video footage it is clearly visible behind the molten metal. It is a bright 'squid' of molten looking material, the exact same as in the gif
Speculation- Perhaps Unexploded thermite being scattered and exploding at a certain ratio when mixing with air. Such as an air pocket forming in the burning material and exploding. Or molten metal may have came in contact with water, which rapidly expands as it turns to steam, and would cause the molten metal to effectively explode or scatter.
Squibs are explosions, they are faster reactions than the "squibs" that are ejected from the towers.
Water tanks were located on selected floors so that it wouldn't have to be constantly pumped up. Isn't this a more viable expiation for these "squibs" since they are travelling at a much much slower speed than an explosive displaces material?
And again. Why don't these squibs make an audible sound.
Wow. People always say this but it's awesome you responded.
The link was posted on this subreddit the other day and was put up to debate. It was actually posted after it was announced you'd be doing this AMA. I was curious to see your reaction. The video seems to follow the molten Metal and there just happens to be a blast. I had never seen that video before and was curious if you had. If I find any more info about it how would I keep in touch with you?
It is a life changing experience when you really begin to look into that day. It effects everyone everywhere at all times. Don't stop your positive contributions!
The DSC results for the thermitic material in the dust are remarkable. What is the insurance company's response to this evidence after paying out billions for a crime they didn't investigate?
My question is, do you realistically think the truth will ever come out to the mass public? It's kinda disheartening to see how close minded a lot of people are, even in the face of strong evidence. I wish I knew more people like the ones around this sub because frankly it's a little lonely.
Sorry my question doesn't relate to architecture or engineering. I don't for one second believe the official story, so I don't have anything technical to ask about.
Thanks a lot for doing this. Takes serious cojones and I wish you even more success in the future.
I appreciate the reply but realistically has it ever happened? Are there cases where a small group of people have caused a massive difference using honest and peaceful means?
Lol yeah revolutions don't seem to be very clean practices. Then again it wouldn't be a revolution it it wasn't violent..
Kinda makes you wonder what we would end up having to do if the people suddenly wanted a change. Would you say it would be peaceful in our day and age?
One of the arguments that I hear a great deal is regarding the explosive charges which can be observed as debris/explosions coming off the building traveling down just below the line of collapse. To my mind I have always thought it reasonable that rather than exploding charges this is actually debris being blown out of the building as a result of the air evacuating the collapsing levels. When you have a whole floor worth of space which you are collapsing in a second it is likely to violently push out all the air right?
Your appearance on cspan was a big deal. How did they go about contacting you for an appearance? Were you surprised? And what was their reaction, if any? Any follow ups? Great interview, avoided the theories and stuck to the irrefutable evidence. That video has been viewed 210,000 times on cspan website alone.
Not answering his questions but the pentagon crash is so obviously bullshit. Look at the pictures of the MH17 airliner crash in Ukraine. There's debris everywhere. There was a small bit of an engine on the pentagon lawn. It's surprising how stupid or oblivious people are. "A huge plane crashed into a building. Then all the parts of the plane just evaporated and all that was left was a huge hole. Move along now. Nothing to see here."
Hi Richard,
I'm thrilled to be to ask you a question. According to one poll 65% of Canadians support the bombing of ISIS. If in 2014 you haven't got that war is racket yet, I think it's safe to say you probably never will. So this says to me that the majority of the population has decided to remain ignorant about the ongoing militarism of this country and it's allies. What am I do to? The world is collapsing into total war and the future looks bleak from so many angles, how can help people see what's going on, to look deeper, when the vast majority of the people don't want to talk about it (and those who do can't help but being irrational?) Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks for your great work, which is indisputable, so much so that I wonder why the powers that be let you get away with it. You once said you've never been threatened, has this changed? I'm really surprised that there aren't attempts to shut you down. You are living proof that freedom of expression is still alive and well in your country. Please comment. Thanks!
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." - JFK
"...it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"What you do may be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963
I absolutely agree that the work done by those skeptics and professionals subsequent to the report is crucial to determining the truth of what occurred that day; I asked about the report only with regards to what information (or lack there) contained within your organization might hope to one day correct or perhaps expand upon. For example, the NIST failing to provide the data behind their collapse model of building 7.
However: what we at AE911truth can do is develop our own models. As we dont have the tools or resources that NIST do, it will take more time.
This is absolutely true and a number of other groups have produced their own models that validate NIST's... When could we expect to see AE911's - I mean you've had eight years?
You ad hominem attack it by calling it the "Omission Report", and then you say it's hard to get past the first page.
Followed by "its what's not in the report that matters most of all.". Well then, what is important about the report? Just that we listen to what you and many others online say about the people who wrote the report and what's in it?
Holy crap this is unprofessional and disappointing. People are asking questions so they can answer the debunkers questions like "why no sounds of explosions when WTC7 fell?", and then you ask us to re-watch the zillions of hours of video on ae911truth.org? Why don't you just ask us to purchase some t-shirts and mugs while we're at it?
Many of us are starting to doubt the Thermite theory because it doesn't seem to explain how WTC1 /WTC2 were reduced to dust. The mini nuke theory seems to be gaining popularity
they weren't reduced to dust, but there was a signifcant amount of dust.produced from the explosions.
there were little pieces of things, lots of paper and steel that was corroded sulfidated and eutectic mixtures.. the iron spherules and chips of nanothermitic material in the dust does fit the collapse just fine. thermitic materials are used in demolition
John cole done some experiments, you can find them on his youtube channel (physics and reason). It is a smaller piece of steel, and only uses normal thermite, but it gives you some idea about how much will cut steel.
Why do people cling to the idea that a covert controlled demolition would be magnitudes more difficult to pull off than an overt controlled demolition?
a covert controlled demolition would take thousands of people, yet an overt controlled demolition may only take dozens?
If you want to know why 9/11 happened, just look at what the politicians did with it.
Why? It takes a proper demolitions team weeks to setup a controlled demolition which includes placing hundreds of high energy charges, running miles of det cord, but more importantly removing a massive amount of the structure maually.
Clearly it was impossible to remove any of the structure manually - that work couldn't have gone unnoticed - so if anything the explosive load would have to be even higher. Instead of using a supersonic high explosive as it typical in demolition (which would have been obvious from the sounds) they apparently had to use some sort of thermite - which has never been used in building demolition.
So this team of however many people rigged a building to collapse, unnoticed and without any of the typical structural preparation, and did it with basically untested incendiary materials? To me it seems to be a massive leap of faith to believe that.
so on the one hand, it would take weeks of careful preparation and lots and lots of explosives to bring down a building like #WTC1 in a controlled demolition,
but on the other hand, a random airplane crash can somehow accomplish in minutes the same thing that would normally take weeks of careful preparation and lots and lots of explosives to accomplish?
you can't really have it both ways. either buildings come down relatively easy from being randomly hit by a plane, or buildings don't come down very easily and require lots and lots of explosives for a controlled demolition.
Well sure, if you'd been able to model the dynamics of the collapse well enough in advance I guess it might have been possible to know that removing only a small section could result in the collapse.
However if it was vital to destroy the building in a very specific way then you'd have to emulate the existing wisdom on demolition. For the Twin Towers especially it would require incredible precision to deliver the result that some claim would be impossible without explosives.
Also, frankly, you can have it both ways either. It was either possible for a small localised failure to create the collapse we saw, or it could only happen as observed if it were a classic controlled demolition. If the latter then it would need a lot of explosive power.
Well sure, if you'd been able to model the dynamics of the collapse well enough in advance I guess it might have been possible to know that removing only a small section could result in the collapse.
But in that case they have clearly removed almost all of the supporting structure.
Also someone should show that video to Richard Gage... I'm fairly sure that top section of just a few floors shouldn't be able to destroy the building below it.. at least according to AE911
now that we know that a top-down progressive-collapse is indeed a known method of controlled demolition (from the video)...
and now that we know that massive amounts of explosives (and the "masses" of people involved in placing the explosives), are not necessarily required to do a controlled demolition, (as demonstrated in the 9/11 official story)...
can we say that a 9/11 controlled demolition is much, much easier than the 9/11 shills would have us believe?
and can we also say that a top-down progressive-collapse would be the method of choice for any planned controlled demolition of WTC1 and WTC2?
could you or anyone else point to any alternative method of controlled demolition that would be a better choice?
what would be the pros and cons of any alternative method of controlled demolition?
how would alternative controlled demolition methods look different than what we actually saw happen on 9/11
are we supposed to believe that 19 radical muslims just happened to choose a random angle of attack that coincidentally matches up perfectly with the method of choice for a planned controlled demolition?
wrong they use thermite in buildings very often, also they didn't run wires as it's not necessary to set of charges in a building, radio was invented ages ago.
I'm very curious to see a citation for the thermite thing, because I've never seen any evidence or documentation for thermite being involved in demolition.
As for radio detonators - yup, it's possible, but we're talking about hundreds of carefully synchronised detonations. Probably not impossible, but certainly not simple either - and none of these carefully placed charges could afford to be damaged by the fires left to burn uncontrolled for seven hours.
Yes - there are two patents for various types of thermite-based cutters I think.
Still no evidence that thermite is actually used in demolition. A few people from the demolition industry in the past have said very explicitly that it's not.
Your an idiot, backing up anything will be futile and a waste of my precious energy, so have a nice life.
* You're.
I'm going to just chalk this up to me being right. Thermite isn't used in building demolition, given that you're unable to offer anything to counter that assertion.
What? Where? They usually use jackhammers, skid loaders and traditional cutting tools for that as far as I'm aware.
Even if thermite were used in that context (and I'm not at all convinced that it is) it seems a far cry from being the primary charge to initiate and control collapse.
That's not a source. That is a poorly-edited video of controlled demolitions and a description of thermite. There's zero evidence presented that thermite is used for controlled demo.
As to why anyone would want to destroy the WTC towers, you have to look at issues like rents (not happening) and the cost of asbestos removal. The twin towers were money losers that needed to be demolished in order to get rid of them and make way for new buildings. The asbestos made that prohibitively expensive.
It is not actually hard to find this out, I'm surprised you didn't already know it.
Well they are rebuilding less floor space, so if those issue were real then it could make sense. Of course it seems a pretty dramatic way to resolve that issue and it cost a LOT of money this way... Hard to believe that it makes financial sense.
1) How do you account for the thousands of ironworkers and civilians that helped with the cleanup (starting the same day as the attacks) that did not notice or document any evidence of explosives in the debris?
2) Have you done any studies of known controlled demolitions to determine if freefall is typical in a controlled demolition? Since highrise controlled demolitions only use explosives on a fraction of the floors, you wouldn't expect true free fall throughout the whole collapse. So have you compared the collapse profile of WTC7 to known controlled demolitions to see if they follow a similar acceleration?
With regard to number two - it seems to be a known truth in the 9/11 Truth movement that "only controlled demolition" could account for free fall and yet, as you say, I don't think free fall is typically observed in implosions (with the exception of things like chimney's that are toppled).
I've not seen anyone actually study the matter though.
I've analyzed NIST's data on the collapse of WTC7 myself to determine a more accurate collapse profile than what they presented. You can see my results here. I would love to see it compared to a known CD.
What do you think happens in a controlled demolition? the explosives only cut small sections of the support structure, leaving gravity to take down the rest of the structure. For example, the demolition of a 29 story building (33 floors with basements) only put charges on 9 floors. That means about 70% of floors in the structure were unaffected by explosives. That also happens to be the tallest building ever destroyed by CD.
In this case, fire helped take out a section of the support structure.
Because nobody noticed or mentioned the molten metal under the WTC? Lemme guess; the airplane hit the building with enormous energy that was immediately converted to heat energy and melted the aircraft. http://google.com/search?q=molten+wtc
I'm talking about the miles of det cord required, or the cuts made by the explosives. You would think the ironworkers who got there on the night of the 11th would have noticed right away that some non-insignificant section of the columns were already cut. If I rigged a 110 story building with explosives, I sure as fuck wouldn't let anyone not on the inside near the rubble.
Lemme guess; the airplane hit the building with enormous energy that was immediately converted to heat energy and melted the aircraft
what? you know theres plenty of ways that the metal could have gotten red hot in that pile right?
Thats bedrock. Also, contrary to the "nukes!" theory that this is always mentioned with, the hole was under WTC4 which was demolished sometime after september 11th.
I've asked many people, no one has ever answered... So I'l ask you...
The molten metal was allegedly days or even weeks after the collapse. It's asserted that "simple office fires" or "jet fuel" would be unable to produce molten metal.... So how would thermite or any controlled demolition explain this curious event?
While it's certainly true that thermite will melt steel, that melting will only continue for as long as the reaction is taking place. Once the fuel is consumed and the reaction stops so does the melting - things cool down and solidify again.
How then could thermite explain molten metal days or weeks after the collapse?
this is a very good question. considering that a body would begin to cool immediately after the fuel source is taken away, the only explanation is that there was a lot of energy, and a lot of heat/ high temperature.
even the iron in the casting process in a foundry goes from as liquid as water to solidified enough to manipulate in only a few hours.
also, it has come to my attention that there was molten granite under WTC, which is another highly suspicious fact.
this is a very good question. considering that a body would begin to cool immediately after the fuel source is taken away, the only explanation is that there was a lot of energy, and a lot of heat/ high temperature.
Well yes, and if you look at what it takes to create massive heat from traditional combustion, the key is usually insulation and ventilation from below. It seems likely to me that the debris pile, pilling air from the subway tunnels, could have generated such conditions.
Although that said the documentation for the 'flowing rivers of molten metal' is pretty limited - the reality of what was happening beneath the debris seems far from clear I think.
also, it has come to my attention that there was molten granite under WTC, which is another highly suspicious fact.
Yeah I saw those pictures too, along with the claim that there were 15 kiloton nuclear weapons below the towers - verified by Edward Snowden it was claimed, if I recall.
I'm no geologist, but that looks more like erosion than melting to me. My impression is that melted granite would have a much more glassy appearance. There's also not a lot of context for the images.
i was hoping to verify that the molten granite images were indeed from underneath the WTC. i was pondering the holes in the granite. were those previously subway tunnels?
More than anything I just want to say thank you for doing what you do (at no doubt great personal sacrifice) and I truly hope that one day, somehow, we find the truth of that terrible day.
Larry Silverstein was quoted as saying ".... and the decision was made to pull it." concerning Bldg 7. If, as NIST says, fire caused the collapse of #7, what was Mr. Sivlerstein saying needed to be pulled?
This is the wrong question, and shills will always reply that "pull it" meant get the firefighters out and let the building burn...
The correct question to ask is "what did Larry Silverstein mean when he said he watched #WTC7 collapse? Thats a little harder for the shills to explain away.
Well the problem is that the interview has been edited - aside from "...maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull is, ahh, and they made that decision to pull..." it's impossible to know exactly what the full interview actually was. There is very clearly an audio edit immediately before "and then we watched the building" - he could have said any number of things in there, and the editors have compressed it for the sake of brevity.
It's perhaps surprising that an unedited extract of the interview was never released to counter this persistent talking point, but I'm not sure how long it was between that documentary going to air and the "pull it" quote becoming such a big deal, so it's very possible that the original footage was no longer in existence by then.
I would love to see a BLDG 7 simulator. Let folks "x" out which columns to cut and then run the simulation to demonstrate what the result might look like. Bare bones simulation with simple physics only. Have you ever looked into an interactive demonstration like this?
I suspect the work in building something like that would be massive... If they were to expend any energy on simulations to support their argument they'd be better of focusing on actual physics simulations to release for peer review.
/u/SovereignMan was kind enough to join the mod team for this ama, as he has a substantial amount of knowledge and insight surrounding 9/11 (along with a keen eye for spotting trolls).
I have no question, I want to say thank you for all of your hard work and effort in trying to bring truth to people. We need more organised groups like AE911.
Rudy Dent is a huge addition to your list of supporters, do you know of any others (9/11 firefighters/victims) he may pull into the fight with you? We need more like him.
In countries like Egypt only a tiny minority of the population believes in the official story, and if I am not mistaken even the President of Egypt at one point expressed doubts. So in places like that were questioning the official story is more socially acceptable why don't engineering departments at universities ever look into the facts? Or do they?
What is your educational and experiential background that makes you believe you are qualified to comment and analyze these areas, so that your opinion trumps that of the vast majority of technical and educational professionals in the field?
I guess what I am asking is what did you do before you got into this area. What were your occupations that were relevant to this field prior to 9/11? What is your educational background?
It's my area but I was always under the impression that an architect Which handles mainly aesthetic design is not the same as a structural engineer which calculates loading, geometries, and material properties. Maybe I am incorrect in this assumption.
I would have assumed that an architect would have some knowledge of structural design, also if you were working with structural engineers for 20+ years on designs, I would assume that you would pick up some of this knowledge as well.
You know its a conspiracy when it has been 10 years plus since it happened and you still have the same question you had when it happened unanswered 10 years plus later. Its that simple.
Nothing to add. There has been coverup and the official story don't answer any of the scientific community questions.
While I don't have a question directly related to A&E, I am curious about your conspiracy theory perspectives. What are your views on some more "accepted" theories, such as the NWO, depopulation agendas, chemtrails, central banking, and mainstream media manipulation? Do you think 9-11 opened up your mind to these possibilities or were you thinking about them before? Do your co-workers and volunteers share similar theories?
Good afternoon Richard,
Thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to help educate us!
My question is: Could you please share your thoughts on Judy Wood? I've noticed her work being disseminated on this website without much scientific proof to back it up.
Your C-Span interview is the most precise q & a I've ever seen from a truth advocate. Thank you for all you are doing and have done for the truth movement.
We never did learn the names listed in DC madam Debbie Palfrey's little black book. She was suicided after she said shed sell the contents of her little black book to help pay for her legal expenses. Oddly enough, her "suicide" seemed to help dismiss any cases against those whose names were in the little black book. How could they convict a prostitute/pimp without convicting the johns? It takes two to tango.
I am late to the conversation as usual but I'd just like to say thank you Mr.Gage and to all the others trying to reveal the truth. You are heros amongst men!
Don't you fear for your life? If you truly believed the US government was corrupt enough to drop a few massive buildings and kill many Americans that this post would get you killed. Why wouldn't the government just erase you and your post. As well any anything that was said on the internet. Why wouldn't you be arrested, disappear, or killed if the US government did this?
Hey Mr. Gage,
I have been questioning the 9/11 event for years and all I get is no way your an idiot and I almost believed them.
What in your opinion is the best way to get it across to people in normal conversation without credentials or evidence?
Also what in your opinion is the smoking gun that this is a false flag operation? The exact thing e.g. the way it fell, the nano thermite etc.
Why won't you sit in front of a panel of real Engineers and Architects, on film, and debate them on the subject? I'm not talking about a few guys from Popular Mechanics. I'm talking about guys who work in this profession for a living and have extensive experience with real, Professionally Registered credentials...
Hello Mr. Gage, my question is what you think of former Senator Bob Graham discussing the redacted 28 pages of material from the 9/11 Commission Report ?
Former Senator Graham has stated that what is in those 28 redacted pages directly links Saudi Arabia to the 9/11 hijackers. If that is the case, do you think that a grassroots effort by your organization could place pressure on certain key elected officials to introduce more bipartisan legislation to get the 28 pages declassified ?
In other words, could it really be that simple ? Now I'm aware how secretive the federal government is with their classified documents, like how there are still documents that relate to the Kennedy assassination that are classified. Do you think that the 28 classified pages could be the holy grail of the 9/11 truth movement ?
Hey Richard, many theories get thrown around in discussions here, specifically Judy Wood's space beam stuff which you have thoroughly debunked on your website http://www.ae911truth.org/faqs/505-faq-3.html
Considering some people are just researchers, rather than professional engineers etc, many can be sucked into baseless theories that "sound good" because they do not understand certain observations.
Could you explain to the users here why it it critical to have verifiable facts and tangible sources, all backed up by multiple credentialed experts and how that has made your organization and E.S.O documentary so successful?
And is there any expert that supports your group who caused huge breakthroughs for 9/11 truth? Dr. Bob Bowman and Dr. Lynn Margulis are amazing! May they rest in peace.
Great work
Since he already answered this question in the previous thread, here's his response so he doesn't have to answer it again:
Hey 9-11-2001
AE911Truth has become successful simply because we stick to the evidence. Judy Woods DEW (I like space beam though) is as laughable as NISTs 'office fires'.
When evidence is independently verified, its very difficult to debunk, and that the kind of evidence we need to keep our focus on.
Thank you for your question.
I want to engage as many different people as possible so I hope you'll understand if I don't answer any more of your questions, but I think either yourself or someone else asked something similar.
Please see my response.
First off, I would like to thank you for your courage in speaking out about such an important issue and what many of us here establish as our ‘Kennedy Moment,’ who here remember that day extremely vividly. Most here from the US will agree that this event was both a crucial and pivotal moment for not only geopolitics as it was for us in our individual lives.
Again, most of us here have researched the event extensively and can all agree that at the very least, the facts of that day are not supported by our government’s Official Version.™ While not getting into the specifics of the events, we all agree that our government used the events as an excuse to pass legislation that has greatly limited our civil liberties, and have set of a chain of events that has forever expanded our police state in both the militarization of local police forces and the establishment of an entirely new governmental department dedicated to ‘keeping us safe.’ This has also expanded the surveillance state that has expanded exponentially in the past 13 years with the global applications of the internet.
I for one am no longer satisfied with being just knowledgeable and content with ‘knowing’ what really happened (as well as being disgusted by what it has done to this country and planet with the cascade of events that have taken place), I am eager for change in our current system, but know full well that the pervasive effects of unlimited campaign financing effectively make those who are not career politicians with access to these types of monies, silenced.
By your estimation, what percentage of the American public who were affected by that day agree with the above statements? I imagine we both agree that our current representatives will not open a new, independent, criminal investigation for the events on 9/11 due to the taboo nature of the subject in American culture and dialogue.
A representative democracy or republic was meant initially as a system of government for regular people to serve their people, and it was regarded as a privilege. Career politicians are diametrically opposed to how this system is supposed to work, as they are dependent on their campaign financiers to fund the PR machine required to keep them in power. With the advent of services such as kickstarter and indigogo, could your foresee a system where candidates are crowdfunded (and possibly unified by certain key issues), and legislation can be organized in an open-source manner? I believe if this is feasible, the time is NOW.
With that being said (and I apologize for the lengthiness of the comment already), do you agree that at this point, the only real way for a new investigation to occur is for our governmental system to be repaired? For this, the only remedy I can imagine is a complete reboot, with career politicians being voted out and individuals free of the shackles of corporate money replacing them, who will finally be able to represent their constituents properly, and who can open a new criminal investigation, and slowly roll back the legislative behemoth implemented in the 13 years since 9/11. In my view, this can only be established by motivated citizens who are unhappy with the status quo, and are willing to unite with others who may not agree politically or ideologically on what the mainstream media state as ‘major issues,’ for the greater good.
Could you see this happening? Again, thank you for all that you do for those that are unable to speak out for fear of being socially ostracized and difficult to employ in certain fields (I am in academia myself).
Is the ideal outcome of the 911truth movement to have a third party investigation? A whole new investigation done by people who would not have profited from this event? I am very much "a believer" and would like to see this happen, and those responsible brought to justice.
The Plane Impacts: A Fake Cause in a Murderous Hoax.
(Edit: don't allow the downvoting to dissuade you from considering the information presented herein - when over the target we always take some flak!)
Hi Richard,
I have one more question and one that I feel is very important to answer, in light of all the evidence for CD of the twin towers.
What do you think of the evidence provided by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, via the NTSB Radar Data, that the south tower impact plane could not possibly have been a hijacked UA Flight 175 piloted by Marwan al-Shehhi, and must therefore have been a highly modified 767-type aircraft, remotely piloted to the target?
Is that evidence not complimentary to the evidence that the twin towers were brought down by explosives initiated from around the impact areas?
After all, if the buildings were prepped in advanced to be destroyed with explosives, then it hardly makes any sense whatsoever to suggest that all they required, to be destroyed as they were and to complete the murderous hoax, was a successful hijacking with boxcutters, and successful navigation and piloting to the target.
did you watch skygate, or any of the pilots for truth videos? it's beyond the realm of possibililty for those aircraft to perform like that, not to mention with rookie pilots.
also, where are the black boxes, the plane parts identified by serial number?
He MUST think that the plane was taken over from on-board control (hijacker locked out of flight control) and flown by wire ie: remotely.
If so, very VERY risky indeed (with the pre-wired building waiting for impact) to fly such an aircraft (unmodified commercial airliner) through that dive and final approach to target - at Vmo + 148kts, and Vd + 88kts.
It's absurd.
No rational, thinking person, with access to the data, could go along with that contention.
With evidence of CD of the twin towers in hand, there is just NO WAY that he could possibly think that the plane was a hijacked aircraft flown to the target by a piss-poor novice "pilot", not a chance. He's not a dummy.
For the operation, the way it played out, there could be no room for such an unknown, indeterminate outcome.
I'm really at a loss here... (shakes head in wonder).
Some people, like those at 911Blogger, think, wrongly, that positing remotely piloted drone aircraft is somehow discrediting to the movement, when the truth of the matter, based on an objective analysis of all available info and data, including evidence for CD of the twin towers, is just the opposite, since the implication is that the 9/11 truth movement is saying on the on hand, that the buildings were destroyed with explosives initiated from around the impact areas, and on the other, that the operation relied upon successful hijackings and piloting to the targets by complete novices.
Maybe people just get it wrong sometimes without being deliberate disinformation agents. It is not like this stuff is all that easy to figure out. Even you are not always correct. A little humility would be nice.
IM(well educated)O, the planes were remote controlled and the hijackings were a big bs cover up story.
We could discuss the evidence to support my assertions, or you could attack me for having opinions while not having a clue how much homework I did in order to come up with them. Your choice.
Beautifully said, however.... hypothetically, if you knew a terrorist cell were going to impact a tower, and cause a construction nightmare ('cause you know those suckers would just keep standing), then pre rigging them in anticipation wouldn't be that much of a stretch. Melt the cores with thermite and let gravity and a few charges do the rest... I think we can have it both ways. Rigged for explosion, and anticipating collision, from first a nut job hijacker, followed by an exquisitely delivered drone.
FWIW- I remember sitting in my Dads office at the DOJ in 1994. I was 17 and ironically enough... 'conscripted in my local counterculture'.
A significant concern at the time, and a likely motivation for all of this , was the need for better wire tapping and data analytics. Encryption was a problem. The scale of digital growth was a problem. CALEA wasn't cutting it. All of these people cared about "us".
Russia warned us of the Atta attack. DIA and CIA knew of it. FBI had a glimpse... 911 was sudo judo. We pulled those planes in, pulled the towers down, and pulled the wool over everyone's eyes... Or tried to anyway. A/e911 needs to accept drone aircraft, and truthers at large might benefit from accepting that we did have a foreign enemy that day. I don't know what happened fully, but I'm happy to help obliterate the obfuscation.
Also, with a degree in radiological sciences, I can assure you that any discussion of mini nukes is a red herring. The isotopes presented are not even close to the quantities, or integral decay chain products with associated half lives of true 'fallout'.
No planes, no terrorists, directed energy, and mini nukes are complete distractions.
I find that absolutely incredible that you may believe that the plane that hit the south tower was a hijacked UA Flight 175, piloted (@ Vmo + 148kts) by someone the 9/11 Commission considered to be no more skilled or trained than Hani Hanjour, especially in light of all the evidence for the CD of the twin towers.
You'll note that I said nothing about "no planes" or any such nonsense/disinfo.
There's nothing wrong with Rob Balsamo's data and evidence, as you might see from the link I offered. There may be things wrong with his personality and interpersonal approach and style, mind you, but the info and science is totally 100% valid.
P.S. Are you really Richard Gage? There wasn't the usual twitter photo given for other reddit AmA's. I simply cannot fathom how you'd be unable to think this all the way through, causally - moviong backward from the evidence and proof of CD of the twin towers, to the plane impacts and their approach.
So in other words, you think that the buildings were prepped and ready for explosive demolition, whereby all that was required was a successful hijacking (with boxcutters) and piloting to the target (at Vmo + 148 kts).. to set the stage for the official story as to the apparant causal mechanism of the twin towers' destruction? Huh?!
There's a final piece of this puzzle in terms of the nature and levels of the impacts as well as timing in regards to the subsequent destruction of the buildings about an hour and an hour and a half later that really needs to be addressed here to complete this heinous puzzle and "mystery" (to the degree that you can't quite see it yet).
New York Times, Archives
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER CRASHES; First Tower to Fall Was Hit At Higher Speed, Study Finds.
By ERIC LIPTON and JAMES GLANZ
Published: February 23, 2002
Researchers trying to explain why the World Trade Center's south tower fell first, though struck second, are focusing on new calculations showing that the passenger jet that hit the south tower had been flying as fast as 586 miles an hour, about 100 miles an hour faster than the other hijacked plane.
The speed of the two planes at impact has been painstakingly estimated using a mix of video, radar and even the recorded sounds of the planes passing overhead.
Two sets of estimates, by government and private scientists, have surfaced, but both show that the plane that hit the south tower at 9:02 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, approached the trade center at extremely high speed, much faster than American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m.
In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.
''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. ''It's off the chart.''
The speed of the planes is far from the only factor that will be important in explaining why the south tower, which was struck between the 78th and 84th floors, fell within 56 minutes and the north tower, which was hit between the 94th and 99th floors, stood for 102 minutes.
Ultimately, it was the combination of structural damage and the fires, fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel, that brought the buildings down.
The south tower was also hit at a lower point, meaning there was more weight bearing down on the damaged floors.
But the difference in the towers' survival times, which translated into a difference in the amount of time tenants and rescue personnel had to get out, could be related in part to the planes' speeds, researchers said.
''Clearly one plane came in faster and had more energy,'' Dr. Jerome Connor, a professor of civil engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is studying the collapses, said of the new calculations, in which he was not directly involved.
''If one building had more damage, it would take less for the heat to build up enough for it to come down,'' Dr. Connor said. ''That would help explain why the building that was hit second, fell first.''
The high speed of United Flight 175 may also have complicated the hijackers' mission, because it would have been more difficult to make accurate adjustments in the plane's direction, several pilots said. Loud and repeated alarms would also have been sounding in the cockpit.
''The faster you go, the less time and room you have for error,'' said Tim O'Toole, a former 767 pilot and staff engineer in safety department of the Air Line Pilots Association.
The flight data recorders from the two planes have not been found; Boeing officials said these so-called black boxes are not designed to survive the forces they encountered in the collapse.
The South Tower was hit much lower, across multiple floors (78-82), and at a much higher rate of speed (by 85 knots or 100mph) than that at which the North Tower was hit - that must explain it - how the towers fell and why the 2nd one hit, fell first.. followed by the North Tower in the exact same manner about a half hour later (burned longer). Of course! After all, it could only be as a direct and sole result of the plane impacts (the attack) that the twin towers were completely destroyed. To say otherwise would be crazy and makes no sense..
Returning to look at the design parameters of exterior perimeter steel columned framework of the twin towers.
were they "tapered" thinner towards the uppermost stories where the North Tower plane impacted around the center of the 95th-96th floor (of a 110 story building) at 425 knots or 5 knots over the Vd design dive limit and 65 knots over Vmo?
The main idea here is that the south tower plane had to attain a certain critical speed to successfully break thorugh the perimeter steel columns at the lower level (around the 79th floor) ie: thicker, whereas the north tower plane, which impacted around the 95th floor level, although still very fast at 425 knots or just over the Vd limit of 420 knots, did not require as much speed to break through at the higher level where the exterior columns are not as thick (tapered thinner towards the uppermost stories for weight loading purposes).
This was done to help create the narrative as to the causal mechanism of destruction for both towers, as per the article cited ie: building hit lower, although hit second, fell first.
Thanks for answering or attempting a brief reply to my question.
Are you familiar with an individual by the name of Dwain Deets, because he's very familiar with your work and that of your group. Might he even be a member of A&E49/11Truth?
More info here: (in case you're still checking your mailbox from the recent AMA).
What are your thoughts upon review of this information, and have you ever watched any of the videos from pilots for 9/11 truth or checked out the listing of pilots who question 9/11?
I'll have to presume that you're sincere in this notion that there's "no evidence for that" (modified Boeing 767-type aircraft, remotely piloted) but to be perfectly honest, I can't understand why you would think that way. It just doesn't make any sense to me, at all.
And isn't CD (controlled demo) itself tangential evidence suggesting nothing less within the context of "operational success"..?
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
I find the explanations more complex than they would need to be.
Here is all that is needed:
A)-establish aircraft's groundspeed/possible range of value for groundspeed... in knots.
also present the margin of error associated with the above
B)-present aircraft's actual physical capability (not just a certification) in terms of groundspeed in knots
again, present any margin of error associated with the same
4 things. That's it.
If you can, please do so. I look forward to receiving it.
In case you were unwilling or didn't have the time to read my longgg post, below this one, here you go! re: your request. [everything you need is contained in this post]
.. if 510 knot groundspeed = 515 TAS which equates to a CAS of 508 (at 1000 ft. alt.), working backwards, we could just as easily say that 360 CAS (Vmo Limit) = approx 358 kts GS (groundspeed) and 420 kts CAS (Vd Limit) = approx 418 kts GS (at 1000 ft alt that is), with a margin of error of +/- 1 knot. The outer OUTERmost flight envelop limit adds 15-20% (FAA FAR), so 1.2(418) = 501.6 kts GS or 8.4 kts / 9.6 mph LESS than the S Tower Plane's speed on final approach to impact (510 knots, margin of error +/- a knot ie: calc used multiple radar returns and other methods).
This is (501.6 kts GS at 1000 ft. alt.) however, the point AT which breakup and disintegration occurs, guaranteed, within a few seconds or something like that or somewhere between 1-10 seconds (read that somewhere for the "absolute load limit" - need to locate that to clarify with absolute precision - now included, below the line).
Please note that the groundspeed (although relative airspeed and pressure increases as the plane descends into the ever thicker air density near sea level) was maintained between 510-520 knots for just over one minute, and not for just a few seconds at the last moment.
Probability this was UA Flight 175 Reg N612UA piloted by Marwan al-Shehhi from the United Arab Emirates? Zero, or so close to zero, that it might as well be zero.
Now consider the South Tower awaiting a high precision impact at the lower level..
"For much of it's final descent, UAL175 maintained a descent rate between 4000 feet per minute and 8000 feet per minute. During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6000 feet, the aircraft groundspeed remained between 500 - 520 knots. As the aircraft made it's final descent to 1000 feet, it ACCELERATED and impacted Word Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed."
Further Reference (FAA FAR re: Aeroelasticity with a 15% margin past Vd/Md - I used 20% based on an older FAR listing)
Since the aircraft was not flying in level flight and was coming out of a fairly steep dive to level off and then pull a final 1.5 (+/- 2) g-force turn to impact, we must use as an ultimate load limit, the ultimate aeroelastic limit, which I've added to Vd/Md although the margin may in fact be referring to 20% of the ultimate operational limit or the Vmo, in which case we'd be looking at a CAS of.. 432 or a GS of 430 kts (at 1000 ft. alt.).
The structure must be able to withstand the ultimate load for at least 3 seconds without failure.
These are the allowed positive and negative g limits of the aircraft. Structural limits are based on the
strength of the aircraft structure. Under any loading, even 1 g, the aircraft structure will flex. A large
amount of airframe flexure will lead to permanent deformation (a bent airframe) or component failure. A
lesser amount of flexure affects the lifetime of the airframe due to metal fatigue, etc. The aircraft structural
limits are selected to ensure that g-loading induced flexure will not damage the airframe or shorten its
design life. Structural limits are also referred to as acceleration limits or limit load factors. Exceeding the
structural limits (overstress of aircraft) may or may not damage the aircraft. Numerous overstresses will
shorten the service life of the aircraft.
AEROELASTIC LIMITS
These define the maximum operating speeds in both KIAS and IMN of the aircraft. Above the aeroelastic
limits, structural damage or failure may occur as well as a loss of stability and/or control authority. The
aeroelastic limit is frequently referred to as the “Redline Airspeed.”
ULTIMATE STRUCTURAL LIMITS
These define the ultimate operating strength limits of the aircraft. Flight operations beyond the ultimate
structural limits will result in structural failure of some component of the aircraft. It should be noted that
the ultimate structural limits are outside the normal operating envelope (Vmo - 360KCAS) of the aircraft. The usual aircraft design rule is for the ultimate structural limit to be 150% of the structural limit. However, this may not be strictly true since the structural limits may reflect aircraft lifetime concerns (UA 175 Reg N612UA, built and delivered in 1983) while the ultimate structural limits do not.
CORNERING SPEED
This point is located at the intersection of the structural limit and the aerodynamic limit. Cornering speed
is the minimum speed where the limit load factor can be achieved. Cornering speed defines turning
performance of the aircraft at which the aircraft can achieve maximum turn rate and minimum turn radius.
At or below cornering speed, the aircraft cannot be overstressed; stall will occur first. Cornering speed
may also be referred to as maneuvering speed.
ENVELOPE
The envelope is constructed based on the variables of weight, altitude, configuration, and loading
(symmetrical or unsymmetrical).
WEIGHT
Weight will generally affect the structural limits and the aerodynamic limits. The aerodynamic limits are
based on stall speed of the aircraft. Changing weight changes stall speed and the aerodynamic limits.
Likewise, as weight change affects the allowable g’s, the structural limits will also be affected. When the
structural limits are affected, the ultimate structural limits are also affected. An aircraft is usually
structurally limited at low altitudes.
ALTITUDE
Changes in altitude will affect the aerodynamic limits and aeroelastic limits. As altitude changes, the
maximum Mach number and maximum IAS change. The ability to generate the necessary speed to
achieve maximum g is also affected as density decreases and thrust available is reduced. At higher
altitudes, an aircraft is usually aerodynamically limited due to lack of thrust and decreased density
1.5 Ultimate Load Limit. The Vmo/Mmo operating limit of a 767-222 is 360 KCAS/.86M. According to the above, theoretically, an aircraft (brand new) should be able to withstand an ULTIMATE LIMIT of 540 KCAS/1.29M for at least 3 seconds before the aircraft disintegrates.
This does not however account for issues involving aircraft lifetime (wear and tear) and doesn't factor g-loading or cornering. Therefore, we must revert back to the aeroelastic ultimate load limit of 1.2 max when considering the real world event itself.
Update: The 1.5 limit is a purely structural load limit (not aeroelastic) and therefore applies to g-force limits only, not airspeed limits.
Therefore we MUST revert to the aeroelastic ultimate load limit of 1.2 as per the following FAA FAR.
Edit: Here we are talking about it at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum. I invite you to sign up there and make a comment that you too "get it" and understand it now as I have finally come to, at last.
A Conversation With Richard Gage Of A&e49/11truth Re: South Tower Plane Speed Data & Analysis., Furthering Research on South Tower Plane Speed Data / Limits Analysis
Rob Balsamo's data and analysis was never in error. To be honest, I thought that he might have been trying to hide the ultimate load limit, but that's not the case, as you'll see in that thread.
Thanks Richard for your time and your consideration and all you have done and continue to do.
As to the South Tower Plane Speed Data as provided and analyzed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, I think you have something to work with now.
Thanks again.
Robert Rice aka NAM007 (with you in this fight for the truth, nothing more nothing less no matter what the implications).
It is an exciting analysis.
But I fear I would stumble when explaining the intricacies to a challenging audience.
Perhaps you could assist me in understanding this properly..step by step.
I suppose the estimated speed of UA175 would be a good starting point.
How is this gained? and more importantly ...how accurate is the 510knots (is radar estimate very accurate in these things)?
Thanks for your consideration, and for your time and willingness and openmindedness.
The best and easiest way to understand it (that the plane was not UA 175 and couldn't have been) is reached, first and foremost, by the simple, logical process of inductive and deductive reasoning, working backwards from the proof of CD in terms of the apparent causes and effects.
Strangely, just last night someone wanted to argue 9/11 with me, unprovoked (although they know I'm a "truther") and for them, CD was discounted as an option because Occam's razor suggests, in no uncertain terms, that the cause of the destruction ("collapse") of the buildings was the plane impacts. He was further convinced, having been so duped (and this is a scientifically minded person) that the "collapse" was and appeared to be "what you would expect". I did not have the time or the wherewithal to explain the data to him, because he was being obstinate and was not really curious or open minded, just wanted to prove me wrong, or worse, crazy (some people..).
This very same person was well aware that Building 7 was a case of controlled demolition, there was no problem there, but when it came to the twin towers, the apparent cause of the plane impacts was something that he could not shake in order to examine evidence that the twin towers also, were brought down with explosive CD, and did not in fact collapse as a direct and sole result of the plane impacts.
Therefore, the campaign has been a success, up to a point, to the point that the CD of the twin towers has been ignored if only because in those two cases, planes hit, then, the buildings "collapsed".
You can't "decouple" Building 7 from the twin towers, as you know. But in the same way, once you decouple the proof of CD and the plane impacts - setting them aside as if it's assumed that they were the hijacked airliners pilots by islamist extremist fundamentalist novice pilots (at Vmo + 148 kts) - then there's a big time problem with your fundamental hypothesis, which MUST include BOTH "data sets" to function as a viable alternative hypothesis and narrative to the official story capable of factoring all the data and information according to the proper use of Occam's Razor, right up to the meta events themselves (plane hit, buildings destroyed). I'm sure you can see that clearly.
CD from an apparent causal perspective, is strangely dependent therefore in terms of causation, or the lack thereof, upon the south tower plane speed data and analysis.
Your initial reaction might be to dismiss this idea but I invite you to look at the two events as they are apparently linked, and, as they are not, from the perspective of a detective, like Sherlock Holmes.
So pick up your pipe and smoke it, while I try to walk you through the evidence step by step and distilled down into the simplest of terms..
editing and adding - stay tuned.
..over the coming two weeks, I will return to make posts, with each containing one fundamental idea which will be explained properly and thoroughly. You can of course pose any questions you like as we go along. Bear in mind that the key to my own understanding and comprehension is that I was nothing but a curious layman seeking to understand the data and evidence. Therefore, if I can understand it as a layman, so can you and so can anyone you would seek to share it with. That's the reason to stick with this inquiry and follow it through to where it logically leads, running the tape back and forth both ways - before and after impact and destruction, as well as before and after the proof that the CD of the twin towers has become entirely SELF EVIDENT, resolving the question - "but what about the planes? Planes did hit the buildings! What are you saying that the planes were not the cause, you must be nuts!"
I'm sure you see and have encountered this dilemma more times than you can count. Thanks for coming back to this and for sticking around to grok it most fully.,
"All truth passes through three stages.." (Shopenheauer)
"For much of it's final descent, UAL175 maintained a descent rate between 4000 feet per minute and 8000 feet per minute. During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6000 feet, the aircraft groundspeed remained between 500 - 520 knots. As the aircraft made it's final descent to 1000 feet, it ACCELERATED and impacted Word Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed."
Now, for those of you who, in examining this data, might simply conclude that the NTBS Radar Data MUST be wrong and in error, please keep in mind that the NTSB used ASR radar from EWR, JFK, LGA, HPN as well as RADES for their analysis. The NTSB also did a video speed analysis which corresponds to their radar data study.
Those who feel the radar may be wrong therefore should not fly in or out of the NYTC terminal area as the same radar is used daily to assign speeds and vector aircraft for approaches to EWR, JFK, LGA and HPN.
I will check re: how accurate the radar returns are, but I think they're pretty accurate. There were also a couple of other analyses using plane motion studies, relative to the surrounding buildings, as well as based on frame rates, both of which pegged the speed at 586 mph (to within maybe 1 mph), which equals 509.2 knots. Therefore I think it's safe and fair to say that it's accurate to about +/- 1 knot. If you wish, I think I could find links to the supplementary speed studies.
stay tuned for more and for the beginning of the step by step explanation.
When we're done you'll have mastered this data and analysis and WILL be in a position to present it to a challenging audience, no problem. I will even be teaching you in the most simple terms how to use the aeronautical calculator, taking screen shots from it (which you can also do) to make it absolutely self evident in the most simplistic, and undebunkable, self evident terms.
Important Note: The plane's speed and targeting on the south tower is at the very CRUX of the official story itself as to the "cause" of the destruction of the buildings an hour and an hour and a half later.
Let me show you what I mean by the following statement,
The best and easiest way to understand it (that the plane was not UA 175 and couldn't have been) is reached, first and foremost, by the simple, logical process of inductive and deductive reasoning, working backwards from the proof of CD in terms of the apparent causes and effects.
using the official story itself to demonstrate the point.
The following News Archive item from the New York Times (which you can find and capture searching it with Google) illustrates the point.
While I have not proven the actual speed threshold at the lower impact level (to successfully break through the thicker perimeter exterior steel columns, at that level - 79th floor) exceeding such and such a speed (say 500+ knots), I do think it's fair to say that speed and inertia played a role in getting the plane through the outer wall to impact the core, while igniting that absolutely gargantuan fireball (which helps to create a suspension of disbelief as to the cause of the buidlings' destruction).
At the very least, from a logical, deductive POV, there is really no other explanation capable of answering the question - why so fast?
Please acknowledge receipt of these replies, and I'll proceed with the step by step explanation, while showing how you can, whenever needed, explain it in turn to other laymen (non pilots, non aeronautical engineers).
Pyrotechnic "shock and awe" GARTANTUAN FIREBALL DISPLAY. Note that this was the result of the slightly diagonal, turning impact, ejecting the fireball largely outside the building perimeter (plus additional fuel (and/or incendiary) within the body of the plane..? (ie: no seats?). The point here being, not the speculation, but the FACT that the plane impact was executed PERFECTLY, and was certainly not a fluke (as a one in a million shot) by a novice pilot.
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
We also still need to understand the accuracy (inherent error) in the estimated values.
I do not think -for the moment- +/-1knot can be correct.
(My own car's speed meter is off by 0-5mph and that's directly connected. The radar and frame rate estimates must, surely, be less accurate).
I think it would be easiest and most condusive to your inquiry, if you were to log in at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum and pose this question there, among others, in their Research Forum. And if Balsamo's a little gruff, don't let that phase you. He's been through so much to bring forward this data and evidence so it's understandable. To the contrary, I think if you were to make the inquiry there he would be most accomodating, and would be more than happy to provide you with all the fine detail you may need.
I will return with the step by step approach you asked for, which will involve the use of the aeronautical calculator to show how the flight envelope works through varying altitudes. Once you get that down pat, then you can create screenshots to clarify with precision for any audiance no matter how "challenging".
As far as I know, +/- a knot (or two maybe) is right.
It's 510 knots, with a range during it's descent, between 510 and 520 knots groundspeed, after which it actually accelerated (impossible without more powerful engines by orders of magnitude greater than standard) to retain a groundspeed, at the lower altitude (in near sea level air density) of approx 510 knots.
510 knots, at 1000 feet alt. = 508 KCAS (knots calibrated airspeed), which is a full 148 knots past Vmo (360KCAS) and 88 knots past the Vd design dive limit (420KCAS).
Re: built in margin. From what I've been able to gather, for a used aircraft, while maneuvering in flight, the safety range/margin is between Vmo/Mmo and Vd/Md, beyond which loss of flight control amid structural failure is imminent (unless the plane was seriously modified in a number of ways).
There are also numerous precedents for loss of flight control, structural failure and breakup, for which P4T have a very straightforward V-G diagram that you can also use during your presentations.
Please take the time to review the various videos and presentations by Pilots for Truth. Please join their forum, and ask some questions. As a layman I'm not fully qualified to answer all your questions.
What I can do, however, is explain the data in layman's terms and show you how to use the aeronautical calculator to make screenshots which will demonstrate the data and principals involved re: groundspeed to TAS, EAS, CAS and corresonding Mach # at higher altitude (for the same aerodynamic pressure on the airframe) to even further illustrate the point.
This absolutely proves, in no uncertain terms or well beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aircraft was not and could not have been UA175 piloted by Hani Hanjour's ex-room mate Marwan al-Shehhi. Especially in light of the self evident proof of CD of the twin towers.
Edit to add: Btw, evidence that the plane wasn't UA175 is not based on any eyewitness accounts, since the photographic record reveals that it was even painted up in the United Airlines livery. (pic to follow).
Analysis of the plane's length and proportion, although not entirely conclusive based on angles etc. suggest very strongly that the aircraft was not the 767-200 (222) version, but instead the 767-300 which is a little longer for and after of the wing. Can't really use that effectively as evidence howevever, even though it's true that the plane doesn't fit the profile for a 200 series 767.
Please join up at PFT's Forum and post to their Research area. Google is also your friend. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or the wherewithall to answer this question.
What I will do however, is come back and show you a step by step presentation method that layman will easily be able to comprehend when evaluating this data.
Frame rate analysis isn't as accurate as a motion analysis, relative to buildings in the foreground etc. and the "no planers" love the frame rates etc. without factoring in the excessive speed which produces all kinds of videographic effects.
All I know is there are two additional studies which corroborate the Radar Data from the NTSB analysis, measured in Mph, and to within one knot of the radar data. The folks at P4T including Rob can help you locate them no problem, while also answering any other questions you might have regarding the radar and how accurate it is.
Best regards,
NAM007
Edit: Please see my edits to the post above your latest reply, thanks.
THE Plane on final approach to impact with the South Tower on Tuesday, September 11th, 2001.
V-G Diagram. (note: corrected for CAS, calibrated airspeed, at 1000 ft. alt. for a TAS of 515 knots (very light headwind to the N/W) = 88 knots over Vd/Md, not 90, and 148 knots over Vmo, instead of 150).
So you're not just trying to be difficult or contrarion then I'll have to assume. : )
You'll note that according to the NTSB Radar Data Speed Impact Study, that during the plane's harrowing dive (under any circumstances), it was clocked by multiple radar returns, which as far as I know are pretty accurate, travelling in a range BETWEEN 510 and 520 knots..., where, at the end of it's dive, during the leveling out on final approach and target aquisitioning, it actually accelerated, to maintain the 510 knots groundspeed (515 TAS, 508 CAS) at the lower altitude, which it would have to do to retain that speed in the thicker, denser air nearer to sea level. So either way we're looking at a range of between 500 and 510 knots. Surely that's evident.
However, this would require, by necessity, some serious modifications, including engine power at least 3X greater than standard, because to accelerate well past the point where parasitic drag has overcome thrust (typically, even the Vd design dive limit of 420 KCAS can only be reached at altitude from a fairly steep dive) would not allow for an acceleration as the plane enters the thicker air in the lowest strata of the atmosphere nearer to sea level ie: the engines become "cups" or miniature metal parachutes where parasitic drag has already long overcome thrust capacity - call or reach out to Dwain Deets, ex NASA Dryden Flight Research Director, for additional info and clarification on this and other matters involving the physics and aerodynamics and jet propulsion involved. This is the main reason that John Lear is a "no planer" (if he really believes that nonsense). However, when you look into the science of jet propulsion, say through conversation with Deets, you'll come to realize that such a thing isn't impossible with sufficiently powerful engines, but again, by orders of magnitude greater than standard.
There's your smoking gun right there - the acceleration at the end of the dive while leveling out on final approach. Verify that, and you've got yourself a military grade 767-type remotely piloted drone aircraft painted up in the United Airllines livery (as they call the painjob), beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the self evident proof of CD, working backwards in regards to apparent causes and the lack thereof if you know what I mean.
Ref:
"The dive speed is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake."
The NTSB, instead of fudging the data, handed it over, as it was, almost with a wink and a nod with the reference to that final acceleration phase, which they should not have referenced and released to the public if they wanted to protect and guard the big lie. It's plain as day. In plane sight, so to speak.
I am not a contrarian good sir! I merely seek to understand the specifics (remember it was the exact specific measure of freefall speed that gave away WTC7's suspicious demise. if we had not determined that to within fractions of a second, we may not be here today).
which as far as I know are pretty accurate,
It is exactly this accuracy for the radar returns we need to build a robust case.
I'm glad you know all their accuracy levels after all. Please provide them. Thank you so much!
Once I have this foundation of data, I'd like your help determining the aircraft's expected capabilities.
But please bear with me, one step at a time. I first need to understand the speed the aircraft was actually doing, and how confident each of the relevant measures are (both radar and framerate types).
I'm not a pilot or an aeronautical engineer. The point was that they used multiple radar returns, and recorded the speed during the descent to be 510-520 knots, where, after the dive the plane ACCELERATED to retain a groundspeed of 510 knots to the point of impact, which it would have to do (increase airspeed) at the lower altitude near sea level to remain at the same groundspeed. This would be impossible, however, without much MUCH more powerful engines.
Richard, if you find this line of inquiry to be of interest, I encourage you to reach out to Dwain Deets and other pilots, including Rob Balsamo of P4T to pin everything down with the utmost precision.
You could start by reviewing some of the videos and info presented including "World Trade Center Attack".
You have the time and the wherewithal to do all the necessary research in this regard.
As to the aircraft's airspeed limitations and the boundaries of it's flight envelope, that I can explain in layman's terms, and I'd be happy to try to help out in that area.
So let's go with the 510 knot ground speed or to be conservative, between 500 and 510 knots, and closer to 510.
It's a good idea though I must say to get right into the radar recording technology, and how that number was arrived at, along with the two or more other studies which corroborates the radar speed, to within 3 mph, or 2.6 knots, where as far as I understand, the radar is the more accurate, pegging the speed at 510-520 knots throughout the dive, then, at 510 knots for the final approach as a result of a final acceleration at the lower altitude - an EXTRAORDINARY finding, and one that I created a new thread for in r/conspiracy.
I'm glad you know all their accuracy levels after all. Please provide them. Thank you so much!
I'm just doing my best to try to be most helpful, that's all, Richard (you're so much nicer 'in person').
The research itself is of course something that anyone can engage in and pursue.
Forgive me if I'm not a radar technician.
Sometimes it's the medium. Lack of social cues and all that.
I will come back to you with my step by step demonstration for a challenging audience, using 510 knots groundspeed, just to be as helpful as possible.
As to the radar, I don't know, but they tracked it at a speed of 510-520 knots for quite a while. It's not like they were out by any wide margin.. in truth I don't know the answer, nor do I see it as my responsibility to provide it as we're in this research all of us together, learning things from one another.
I suggest getting in touch with Dwain Deets and/or Rob Balsamo, among others, and pin it all right down. You're going to need it and soon, because we're reaching that stage now in the inquiry, once CD has become self evident, which it has or is fast becoming - that "the plane question" is going to come up more and more I would predict because it goes to the very hijacking of the principal of Occam's Razor embedded right into the design of the op itself where it is not sufficient to say simply that the CD has nothing to do with the plane impacts and fires. We can't sever that causal linkage without taking a look at one very suspicious flying plane that was really there and really did what it did, including accelerate in near level flight and near sea level air density while flying at Vmo + 148 knots, CAS and Vd + 88 knots CAS (the limits are measured in CAS so I converted it - will show you how if you check back in and stick around)
Talk to you soon.
Best regards, and thank you. Your organization is one I once prayed for, once we had the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which went haywire when Fetzer co-opted it and Stephen Jones had to leave, but that was the seed, which DRG planted in you.
And now here we all still are 13 years after the event.
I was part of a small team who worked up the research for Loose Change btw, not that I need any special praise.
I am very happy though that the 9/11 Truth Movement is turning into the little red engine that could, so to speak.
Our voice is being heard at long last, and we sure were a voice crying out in a wilderness back in early 2002.
It's working. The truth outs.
So thanks again for all you've done and continue to do with unrelenting persistence and perseverance.
The building 7 campaign can now be considered a great success. Let's not leave the twin towers out of the true story though just because they happened to have been successfully hit by aircraft.
It's in plain sight, plain as day. The NSTB handed over the truth, and just left it there awaiting discovery.
Please continue this line of inquiry.. for the sake of the truth about what really happened there on that beautiful fall day.
(My own car's speed meter is off by 0-5mph and that's directly connected. The radar and frame rate estimates must, surely, be less accurate).
And when, as a result, you end up going over the speed limit, a police officer will determine your precise speed, with radar, and then give you a ticket.
Hi Richard, presuming you ARE Richard Gage.. (please read this?)
Thanks for your reply. Much appreciated!
I've painstakingly covered those things and more in this OP and thread (it shouldn't take you long to go through and undestand the principals and data).
I'm a layman and I got it ok, although it took some refinement in presenting it carefully and thoroughly so that it can be clearly understood by other layman (non pilots, non aeronautical engineers). Part of the problem involves the relationship between TAS (true airspeed), CAS (calibrated airspeed), EAS (equivalent airspeed), and Mach # at the varying altitudes, where the flight envelope, measured in KCAS (knots calibrated airspeed) remains the same at all altitudes and throughout all flight regimes because it's a calc correlated to both TAS and EAS (TAS adjusted for both pressure and temp). I've tried my very best to take the confusion out of it and to present a clear case in that OP and thread's comments. I've even gone so far as to argue the other side who say that it's possible (however improbable).
The conversion you've asked for involves first groundspeed to TAS (true airspeed), where groundspeed + windspeed vector = TAS, adding approx 5 knots to the 510 groundspeed (very light headwind that day to the N/W) giving us a TAS of 515 knots at approx 1000 ft. alt. (and a corresponding CAS of 508 kts) bearing in mind that Vmo/Mmo is 360 kts (CAS)/.86M (above 23,000 ft alt) and Vd/Md is 420 KCAS/.91M.
Airspeed, not groundspeed, is the key to understanding the aerodynamics, and once we have that TAS, we've got what we need including the ability to caculate the CAS, which is what the limits are measure in.
GROUNDSPEED CALC (it was measured in knots, at 510 knots by the NTSB Radar Data Impact Speed Study).
I may have to get back to you on what VMO of 360KCAS and VD of 420 KCAS precisely works out to in groundspeed at 1000 ft alt, but near sea level it's almost the same where TAS, CAS and EAS are equal at sea level, so... let's see....
.. if 510 knot groundspeed = 515 TAS which equates to a CAS of 508, working backwards, we could just as easily say that 360 CAS = approx 358 kts GS (groundspeed) and 420 kts CAS = approx 418 kts GS (at 1000 ft alt that is). The outer OUTERmost flight envelop limit adds 15-20%, so 1.2(418) = 501.6 kts GS or 8.4 kts / 9.6 mph LESS than the S Tower Plane's speed on final approach to impact (510 knots). This is however the point beyond which breakup and disintegration occurs, within a few seconds or something like that or somewhere between 1-10 seconds (read that somewhere for the "absolute load limit).
The ultimate margin of engineered safety beyond which a phenomenon called flutter (and breakup) is inevitable, is 15-20% MAX past Vd/Md with a Mach 1.0 absoute limit at all altitudes respecting the lowest EAS (equivalent airspeed) or CAS through descent from 17,854 ft. Flutter onset can begin at Vmo + 40 knots (it's 31 for the Airbus a380 and I've extrapolated a bit to round up to 40 based on other comparisons with the Boeing, a slightly faster and more maneuverable aircraft) or 360 + 40 (400 kts) where beyond that, flutter and disintegration can begin at any time, and it absolutely assured 100% including disintegration, at no more than 504 knots KCAS Max MAX (20% over Vd).
Again THE plane, at a TAS of 515 kts was flying at a CAS of 508 kts so in theory however totally improbable (to the nth degree) it's perhaps not ENTIRELY absolutely "impossible", athough I'm not an aeronautical engineer like Dwain Deets or even a pilot, but from what I've learned, it's way WAYYYY out there in terms of a probability. So there's a problem and the government has some 'splaining to do..
This says nothing about stable flight control, or piloting, once Vmo/Mmo (360 KCAS) is exceeded by any appreciable degree/margin.
If you take the time to go through what's been presented there, you'll be fully up to speed (so to speak).
Have you noticed that oftentimes when the evidence for CD is presented that people exclaim - "But what about the planes?! we all SAW the plane hit the building, what do you mean that the plane impacts weren't at cause?"
It's a big time problem with the CD hypothesis, this notion that it relied upon successful hijackings and piloting to target(s), especially when the limitations involved (in the case of the south tower plane) would make that a one in a million (+++) event.
Proof of CD of the buildings is therefore complimentary to the evidence regarding the excessive speed of the south tower plane, not only in terms of the flight envelope limit being exceeded to the point of inevitable disintegration, but also in terms of stable flight control at such a speed, and piloting by a complete novice at such a speed including the successful navigation to target and final target aquisitioning. It's not believable, particularly in light of the evidence for CD of the twin towers moving backwards through the apparent cause and effect ie: there could be no room for an unknown, indeterminate outcome regarding hijackings when the south tower is awaiting a hit, lower down, to make the official story seem plausible/credible.
There's no escaping or evading this self evident truth.
This is very important, so I do hope you'll take the time to review what I've presented.
Otherwise, there's a big time incongruity at the heart of your (our) "theory" that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and you of all people serving as some sort of gatekeeper around the evidence regarding the south tower plane (that it was UA flight 175 succesfully piloted by a novice at such a speed) just isn't helpful to our cause, and would be absurd, imho. Don't be swayed by people like John Bursill or Jon Gold or the 911blogger people in spite of how supportive they've been in other areas. The rage and "debate" was all about the use of this data by the "no planer" people, to suggest, absurdly, that if it wasn't possible for a commercial airliner to perform in such a way, or be successfully piloted at such speed, that there was ah, ah hem, cough, no plane there at all to begin with! (ABSURD!)
As to John Lear - there's no way he's REALLY a no planer. He saw the "honey pot" and jumped right in to feed it as best he could (while trying to "hide" this data and evidence or render it as incredible and subject it to ridicule with the no planer bullshit by trying to make the plane "disappear"!) presumably to win brownie points with the deep state bastards.. No other conclusion can be drawn, same with that Brit ex MI5 guy, same with Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer although the honey pot has a certain pull on certain personality types who are unwittingly pulled into serving the wrong side by producing bad hypothesis capable of discrediting valid scientific data and observations. Fetzer did the same thing with the Zapruder film (which basically proved that Kennedy got his head blown off by a shot from the front ie: back, and to the left) during the JFK days, to raise reasonable doubt and to bring it into disrepute while gaining notoriety and attention for himself.
This data doesn't validate those folks however because there really was a real plane that hit the building, and, that penetrated the exterior steel columned framework, decellerated in a fraction of a second (hit the core structure) and detonated for that mega pyrotechnic shock-and-awe display - to lend a "credible" "suspension of disbelief" as to the cause of the destruction of the towers, in the case of the south tower, with a complimentary TIP/tilt over the impact area before recovering it's momentum in the implosion (you know the drill).
According to Lizeau of Controlled Demolition, such a feat is totally within the realm of CD.
Mark Loizeaux, the head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said:
"By differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance . . . . We'll have structures start facing north and end up going to the north-west." (Else, 2004)
We are now at the point where this question (what about the planes?!) is being raised time and again to make us all appear crazy.
"What about the planes - uh.. maybe they were at cause?!" I hear it all the time, it's Bill Meher's favorite joke re: "9/11 truthers". James Randi of JREF says the same thing. We need to throw it back in their faces.
I'm sure you see the dilemma, and hopefully, it's resolution, based in nothing but physics and science along with a healthy dose of common sense with the self evident proof of CD in hand. What it does not do, in the least, is discredit the evidence of CD, but only supports it and validates it as essential to the murderous hoax of 9/11. Except to the degree that the hypothesis leaves part of the narrative unresolved (what happened to the original planes and passengers?) which is where I suppose that the cell phone record comes into play, to show that at least some of the passengers were not in the sky at all at the time they placed those calls. I presume you've seen "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor"..?
That said, I can understand your reluctance because of the nature of the honeypots embedded into the operation itself, like a mind trap leading either one way, to the official story narrative, or the other, into the domain of the dreaded and discredited "conspiracy theories" (a term much maligned during the JFK days, and apparently made use of, even relied heavily on for the 9/11 operation), but this evidence, including CD isn't ultimately going anywhere unless and until the linkage to the plane impacts is made, and you're right that it needs to get simplified as much as possible.
P.S. I've used the 20% margin beyond Vd as the outer OUTERmost flight envelop limit instead of 15% as per the FAA FAR ref'd in the OP of that thread because the older FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation), from when the plane was engineered and certified listed it as being 20%
Although the plane circa 1983 had surely taken a beating over the years.
Bear in mind however, that the onset of flutter, and structural damage leading to eventual disintegration can begin at somewhere around 35 knots over the Vmo limit of 360 knots (KCAS) or 395 kts (lets round it up to 400 to be conservative), whereby this aircraft was travelling at 508 kts CAS or 148 kts past Vmo and 88 kts past the Vd design dive limit of 420 KCAS.
Hopefully, all that was helpful, and can provide some clarity regarding what we're really looking at here.
Best Regards,
NAM007 aka Robert Rice. If you're out there I'm out with you fighting the same fight.
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
we have all heard about the molten metal under the WTC's, and that debate seemed to revolve around whether the metal was aluminum or iron which is a red herring if you ask me. to me this molten granite seems much more suspicious.
ah, yes technically the granite is no longer molten and has solidified and cooled to such a degree that workers can work, setting up ladders, running fire hoses around, hosing down hot spots, pumping out water, etc which makes you wonder why that work is even necessary in the first place.
1) was this previously molten granite supposed to be the bedrock onto which the WTC buildings footings were put?
that looks like a very irregular surface from which to begin construction, especially on such a massive structure as the WTC! where is all the earth and/or building materials that once covered this previously molten granite?
2) given that you are an architect/engineer, how would you begin construction preparation given such an irregular surface as a your base?
3) why can't we see any evidence of whatever original WTC construction preparation work was done, either evidence of the removal of some of the previously molten granite or the filling-in with aggregate materials? the surface of the previously molten granite in the foreground of the picture doesn't look like it has ever been worked by human hands.
4) where would the building pilings/columns/footings be placed?
5) what is left of the original pilings/columns/footings?
(These are interesting questions; Please excuse my brief responses but the following are necessary for you to understand before we can get to more complex subjects such as tall building foundations)
technically the granite
not 'technically' ..actually.
not 'granite'...Mica
running fire hoses around, hosing down hot spots,
I believe I can see worker using one hose. I could not determine if it was actually a fire hose.
Nothing in this photograph would cause me to think anything shown is a 'hot spot' (whatever it is you mean by that).
if you happen to be in Manhattan any time go to Central park and enjoy the same Mica bedrock that actually breaks the surface over large areas. It looks exactly the type you have in your picture. There are such protrusions all over Manhattan island.
solidified and cooled to such a degree that workers
Its metamorphic rock. It solidified and cooled 100million years ago. I think you may be unique, globally, in concluding that those workers are 100million years old.
1) if by 'previously' you mean 100million years ago, then yes. In fact...almost the whole of Manhattan is built on it. Much of central Manhattan is located where it is in order to take advantage of the near-surface Mica bedrock that is necessary part of a stable foundation.
2) By preparing a foundation. Part of doing so requires digging down to and exposing the Mica bedrock, preparing it for the concrete. Then possibly using caissons to pour the foundation and steel rods to anchor it. (Knowing about foundation building will not inform your argument for the use of nuclear weapons on 9/11. For that you should get some evidence).
3) You would have to ask the photographer. (you could also ask them exactly what the workers were doing at the same time
4) & 5) could not be adequately answered without knowing exactly what location and when the photo was taken, and which building was there before and what is next planned to be built there.
However: I see no value in explaining the finer points/considerations of tall building foundation design, even if those points were given.
It has no bearing on whether/not a nuclear weapon was used on 9/11.
AE911Truth is working hard to obtain present and inform about the strongest, irrefutable evidence about what really happened to 3 steel framed buildings on 9/11.
So far nuclear weapons has no evidence.
and again...Its 100million year old Mica. Not granite.
there is another fire hose coiled up in the bottom right foreground. does the building in the background of this pic? http://oi55.tinypic.com/2j1k8wi.jpg
2 & 3) By preparing a foundation. Part of which required digging down to and exposing the Mica bedrock, preparing it for the concrete. Then possibly using caissons to pour the foundation and steel rods to anchor it.
where is the evidence for any of this work ever having been done? the surface of the once molten mica looks as un-touched the day it was formed. saying "ask the photographer" is a weasel-out. i prefer to ask #AE911Truth, being as how this is supposedly their area of expertise.
4 & 5) assuming this is actually a hole where one of the WTC towers once stood (and given the evidence, fwiw), we know the exact location and we know exactly what was to be built there. the WTC towers. (see also 2 & 3)
9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel
the debate is about whether the metal was iron or aluminum, and the alternative methods for making the metal molten. the debate is not about the question of whether the metal was recently molten or not.
but on the other hand you insist that there was no recently molten mica at the WTC site, in spite of the evidence?
i question your claim that the mica was molten 100 million years ago, as opposed to being molten on 9/11/2001, because
6) why would it be any more or less plausible that there was molten mica in the exact time and place where we know there was molten metal?
7) the surface of the once-molten mica in the foreground doesn't look like it has ever been worked by man or machine. how would that be possible if the mica was molten 100 million years ago, yet defaced by construction of the WTC complex?
8) can thermate / thermite / nanothermite etc alone explain making molten metal, molten mica, and turning concrete to dust? or explain high temperatures and heat for many weeks after 9/11/2001?
9) why would thermate, etc be necessary at all, other than to initiate the collapse, given that we know top-down progressive collapse is a tried and true method of controlled demolition, and likely would be the method of choice if the WTC complex had been brought down in an overt controlled demolition?
you seem to be of the impression that your picture shows exactly where the foundation of a building once stood.
I do not think that can be the case.
As I stated in a previous comment...the world trade center is built upon exactly the kind of mica bedrock visible in your picture.
Indeed: every tall building in Manhattan is founded on the same bedrock. This is why tall buildings in central Manhattan tend to be clustered together: they are all taking advantage of the 'patch/region' of mica bedrock which is relatively near the surface there.
I expect your particular picture is not showing an area of ground occupied/previously occupied by any of the 3 world trade center towers.
In fact..i expect no tall building has ever been located in that spot.
(i am actually inclined to suggest that your picture really looks like preparatory work for a new foundation to be built).
the surface of the once molten mica looks as un-touched the day it was formed.
well yes, absolutely correct..it would do, since (most likely) nothing has been built on that particular section before.
The protrusions in Central park also look that way.
Your position is interesting, but as your position is so heavily dependent on that picture being:
-the site of the world trade center, probably one of the towers or other wtc vicinity buildings
-and taken on or after 9/11
...I expect you should be able to clearly easily demonstrate those to be true.
If you cannot...your position is without foundation (no pun intended).
I look forward to your proofs for both, then we can take discussion further.
Note: I am sure you will understand that I am trying to respond to many people and therefore won't be able to engage unless you can provide the necessary proofs.
(I am sure it will be easy for you to get them though, and then i hope we can continue).
Building 6 had a huge crater in it. As seen from the air there are nearly cylindrical holes in two other buildings. They didn't fall down and they didn't get hit by jets.
In building six the pattern looks like a downward "punch" but the remnants of actual building material from the Twin Towers is very minimal inside the guts of that building.
I've been looking for an explanation. That's all I'm doing.
These outlying buildings didn't have fires, jets crashing and yet, given the extensive damage, they didn't fall down.
Do you know what caused those holes? I don't. I thought Richard might have a theory, at the very least. (sans the mini-nukes which I never intimated, implied, suggested or queried!)
TLDNR: Why are there cylindrical holes in those buildings?
My money is on tar-paper or whatever they used to insulate/waterproof the tops of flat buildings. If the rip is large enough, it looks kinda circular because the middle being pulled down by gravity.
Yep. I'm not implying the roof of the building is made entirely of tar paper or that tar paper would resist tons of falling debris. Just that if falling debris causes the collapse of the interior of the building without causing the walls to fall...like what happened to building 6... portions of the waterproofing (tar paper) probably won't fall in due to it's light weight. It will be unsupported from below however, thus causing the curved appearance of the hole. I'm not looking at a pic of building 6... I've just done roofing in the past lol.
I assume the general shape of the hole is a result of the shape of the thing that fell on it. However, if you look closely at the edges of the hole (on the roof level) the reason why it appears curved (rounded) and not jagged is probably hanging roof insulation. The inside looks plenty jagged. I think we're getting hung up on what "curved" means.
My question is: it seems people have started to become more receptive to "alternative" explanations of 9/11 in the last few years so, assuming that continues, what's the "next step" for you, your organization, and the public at large?
Hi Richard. I would like to hear your response to this question posed by /u/sacchetta:
5.) Thermite. Thermite, thermate, nano thermite, super-thermite and thermitic material; why does it keep changing? As I understand it is essentially iron oxide and aluminum, if the towers were turned to dust as we see in the videos and pictures, should we not expect there to be iron and aluminum dust in the debris since the towers were made out of iron and had aluminum cladding? It is claimed that there were non-ignited thermite chips found in the dust. If the heat was so intense then how didn’t it set off the thermite chips? Also shouldn’t there have been lots of bright flashes everywhere? Not just a glowing red substance pouring out of places, but a blinding light as seen in YouTube videos about thermite? How was it that the thermite was able to act so quickly, accurately and on time? From all the videos I’ve seen it appears to be rather slow and nowhere near the speed needed to bring anything down in sequence. Why was thermite not mentioned in Stephen E. Jones & Bob McIlvaine’s RFC? The word thermite is in a link within the document but that was added later, why would Jones not mention or discuss thermite within his RFC?
thermite cannot be lit by a normal fuse, you have to use a magnesium strip
edit: Also nanothermite has tiny particles, so it would react much faster than normal thermite. It can also be engineered to react quickly and explosively, instead of slowly melting the steel.
Why would the government go through a convoluted plan of crashing airplanes into buildings to then blow up said buildings with thermite in the end? Seems needlessly complicated with a ton of unpredictable variables.
Why not just plant a giant bomb or suicide bomb the buildings Instead of going the evil villain route?
The faked hijackings were necessary in order to blame the Muslims for it.
Look up PNAC, Project for a New American Century, to find out more about the master plan that 9/11 was a small part of. They called it their "new Pearl Harbor" as both events were staged for the maximum political impact and to start wars.
The public nature of the crash of airplanes was designed to create a dramatic event that would increase support for a war that was desired by both defense contractors and by NeoCons (their publically advocated "new Pearl Harbor") to effect change in the Middle East and get access to oil in the region. All of these ends were served by the event as it was described to us in the official NIST report and by the Bush administration. As they saw in the 1993 WTC bombing, if the event is too contained, it fails to gin up public sentiment and support for the desired end.
For mental health, at any level, we must excercise the use of the tools of discipline, which are four
1) Dedicate to truth and reality (even or perhaps especially when it's painful)
2) Delay of Gratification
3) Acceptance of Responsibility
4) Balancing (self control)
Plus, you cannot build a strong historical foundation if the cornerstone is based in murder, lies, brainwashing and all manner of overt and covert manipulation.
Liberty or freedom requires nothing less.
After all, what is freedom if it doesn't involve psychological freedom from oppression?
He means that he thinks there is not enough evidence to support the nuclear theory.
He also says that a theory should not be rejected due to a lack of evidence.
I respectfully disagree with him, I think there is plenty of evidence to support the nukes were used on 9/11 theory. I have posted the supporting evidence as I have found it over the months and years, but I DO NOT have it collected in a nice, easy to present, format.
If you would like to criticize me for my methods, then all I can say to that is that I am still alive.
I was absolutely convinced for quite a while that it was a targeting laser light spot, BUT, after someone showed me the long version of the relevant video, I was forced to conclude, red-faced and to my chagrin, that it was nothing but floating paper (much closer to the camera) which was flying all over the place from the north tower impact.
No laser light spot / laser targeting, not visible anyway, so it's a non issue.
No. Find the video, and then keep looking for other version of the same one to find the longer version. Not targeting laser - floating paper. Trust me on this, but verify it if you must.
The real elephant in the room, aside from the self evident proof of the CD of the twin towers, is the excessive SPEED of the south tower plane.
No need to focus on the "pod" or the laser light spot, there is proof it wasn't UA 175.
I think that would be a huge piece of paper, feet wide, to look that size from such a distance. Also I don't see evidence of floating paper 18 minutes after the first hit. Paper would have fallen down by then. It is only after the second hit that you see falling paper again.
The paper was flying much closer to the camera than you might think from the edited clip that cuts out before you see how close the flying paper really is. Honest. I was absolutely convinced for some time that it was not a piece of paper, or a flying albatross for that matter. But it's paper. The long version of that video shows it. Just search around it shouldn't be too hard to find.
Wow, imagine what will happen when you realize that the trace elements measured by the USGS after 9/11 prove that the WTC destruction was a nuclear event. Not only will you be red faced about your error, you will also owe me a personal apology.
Do not worry, I'm not holding my breath. I expect that to happen some time way after hell freezes over.
I never said it wasn't. My 'error' was that you CHOSE to misunderstand me.
I'm sure you will assert that this misunderstanding was my fault as a bad author (or woman, or Mexican) and not your fault as a person jumping to conclusions.
Nukes in the BASEMENTS is what I was talking about. I'm sure the overall demolitions were achieved with several, or many, different kinds of explosives. There are pictures of diagonal cut offs that show that cutter charges were used which is exactly what we would expect to see in a professionally demolished building. Plus the thermite in the dust and the sounds of the explosions. I have been saying this for years. You misrepresented what I was asserting.
Did you see the video of the core column "dustifying" after most of the rest of that building came down? I believe THAT was the effect of a nuke. I was not talking about the explosions in your video; and I never said it was.
I really resent you for asserting that I hold a position that I do not hold and then publicly attacking me for it in a little 'group action' with your man buddies. As a woman I really resent that sort of behavior, it is dangerous and even life threatening. In my own case it triggers my PTSD, so it is not a bit funny. It is harassment.
You could have at any time asked me to clarify what I was saying, but instead you chose to misunderstand me and then viciously and repeatedly attack me personally.
I really resent being treated like that and I think you owe me a personal and PUBLIC apology. In fact, I think you should have me put back on the 911truth reddit - since you got me banned off of it with your little repeated attacks.
Are you a person who takes responsibility for what you do, or are you a person who mistreats strangers for no good reason and then moves on?
I'm a Girl Scout leader, how do you want to treat me? Because I WILL tell everybody about it, and we WILL have a permanent record of it.
BTW, the whole world is watching. I said eleven years ago that I had a plan to END WAR GLOBALLY based on the first amendment freedom of religion and the rule of law. It is a political action project that I call the walk of Jesus. You have heard of things I have been doing. Believe me, I know how to get attention. I also know how to lead big groups, one of the many skills I learned and put to use in Girl Scouts.
You sound absolutely insane and delusional, not unlike most of the Truthers. Newsflash: leading a girl scouts group is not like leading a world revolution.
The only people who seem to mock truth seekers are those who are overly confident that they have found truth themselves. If you still believe in 2014 what you believed in 2001, that isnt a sign of intelligence, its a sign of bull-headed stupidity.
Why do you tell untruths about 9/11; what's the motive exactly? Are you trying to protect Islam or did you have a beef with one specific group?
I know that 9/11 wasn't as accurate as it was portrayed but no amount of imagination can wish 2 planes and epic fire away. We did tests, what fire does to steel. With common charcoal you can forge steel and we know the fire in the towers was hotter than that. With weakened supports and physics we know for a fact that the buildings would have been doomed even without the mythic explosives.
Our government is fucked enough with real scandals and lies that we don't need to be making new ones and piling them on top. We need to stay truthful if we want change. I believe you are likely working for people who do not want change. If you make the people who suspect wrong doing spouting insane things then all suspicion sounds insane.
Everyone here is trying to "fight the man" meanwhile they are being programmed by him.
This message brought to you by common fucking sense.
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
Are you for real? Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt a steel structure that is 1400 feet tall. Even if it was FULL of jet fuel throughout the passenger compartment.
The jet fuel was not the only thing burning they said the fire was over 1500f early on growing over time and you don't have to melt steel only weaken it to cause a failure . Heat over time can change a metal's properties. Most steel gets pretty soft at 1000f. House fires can get 1200-1700f within 20min to an hour and offices can be variable and similar.
I've given this a LOT of thought over the years, and I'm just not at all satisfied with Richard's response, to be perfectly honest.
It doesn't make any sense not to be making a push in this direction.
It could BEGIN with the papers published over at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
I'm thinking something that would look like a report by a reputable, multidisciplined, architectual and engineering consulting company with expertise in building forensics and of course, structual engineering.
Then, out of the single, larger report, spin off some papers for review and publication..
Man would that ever get the ball rolling far and wide in a hurry - plus, it would invite replies in the form of attempted debunks of the singular, authoritative NIST debunk by A&E49/11T, which, from what I've come to understand, would simply not be possible or hold up under scientific scrutiny and analysis because they would have to violate the laws of physics to do so.
Everyone would be all over it.
It would bring the debate to a whole new level, while lending credibility to our movement and the work of A&E49/11T.
advanced explosive would put a higher percentage of it's energy into heat & light, and less into wasted sound energy.
Which would immediately be converted into sound as the surrounding air absorbed that heat and light. That's how a blast wave works. Were you kidding when you wrote that, or what?
Shouldn't we be hearing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel hitting the ground if thermite or any of its variants chopped the building to the ground? Does this mean explosives were not used at all?
Please provide a link to the thermite you speak of so I can take a listen.
The scientific community has endorsed the findings of NIST. It has been supported in dozens of peices of published scientific literature. Sure you can go over the report and find small mistakes or errors, but the scientific community has shown that it supports NIST's findings. Maybe the problem isn't with the NIST report, but the critiques of it that are biased towards a conspiracy.
Thank you so much /u/ambiguously_ironic. Who will answer our questions if the "truthers" don't? It's up to people like you and I (and all other redditors who want to know the truth) to discuss this info in the most productive way possible. It is people like us who sacrifice hours and hours of our time digging through anything just looking. You are the reason there is hope.
They do not release their model data for peer review, therefore their model is a fraud
see? this is what i'm talking about. You have some critique of the NIST report, and rather than just present that critique, or god forbid - your own data, a issue with the NIST report is twisted into evidence of an alternate hypothesis.
Maybe the problem isn't with the NIST report, but the critiques of it that are biased towards a conspiracy.
Like I said, the findings of the NIST report are widely accepted by the scientific community.
While I am not dismissing your point, in a large percentage of secondary schools in the US, the students' loans are financed by state issued loans. So, in effect, to maintain eligibility for federal and/or state funds, some may feel the pressure to not speak out or have specific content contrary to what the State/Federal Official Story™ is.
Excellent point about the building getting stronger as it progressed downwards. The bottom building columns are always bigger than the upper parts of those same columns, and as the building collapsed there was less weight to support because the building turned to dust and was blown every direction, even up.
Your an idiot, backing up anything will be futile and a waste of my precious energy, so have a nice life.
* You're.
I'm going to just chalk this up to me being right. Thermite isn't used in building demolition, given that you're unable to offer anything to counter that assertion.
But in that case they have clearly removed almost all of the supporting structure.
Also someone should show that video to Richard Gage... I'm fairly sure that top section of just a few floors shouldn't be able to destroy the building below it.. at least according to AE911
Dude, there's mountains of history out there that are factually more accurate and show how fucked up and also how good some governments have been throughout history. Check out the podcast the History of Rome. It's a good place to start on how and where democracies go wrong and he also talks about the bias of the historians at each period he's referring to. However, you don't have to start there, but please read something from respected historians, who put their own cultural beliefs aside and try to examine the past for what it was. Reading conveniently simplified and inaccurate history is really quite painful.
now that we know that a top-down progressive-collapse is indeed a known method of controlled demolition (from the video)...
and now that we know that massive amounts of explosives (and the "masses" of people involved in placing the explosives), are not necessarily required to do a controlled demolition, (as demonstrated in the 9/11 official story)...
can we say that a 9/11 controlled demolition is much, much easier than the 9/11 shills would have us believe?
and can we also say that a top-down progressive-collapse would be the method of choice for any planned controlled demolition of WTC1 and WTC2?
could you or anyone else point to any alternative method of controlled demolition that would be a better choice?
what would be the pros and cons of any alternative method of controlled demolition?
how would alternative controlled demolition methods look different than what we actually saw happen on 9/11
are we supposed to believe that 19 radical muslims just happened to choose a random angle of attack that coincidentally matches up perfectly with the method of choice for a planned controlled demolition?
You are the one who asked me if I trust FEMA. Your statements aren't making any sense. I am also talking about WTC7. Not 1/2. Please read statements before commenting on them.
Demolition of skyscrapers. Don't miss that distinction.
A charge or two taking out a bridge is one thing. Hundreds of sequenced charges nearly silently taking out the largest building on the planet is completely different.
Nobody said the report went through the peer review process; it was never intended to do so. However the scientific community have independently replicated NISTs results. You don't need the exact input data to check if its results are accurate, and most if not all papers pass peer review without the reviewers explicitly running through every calculation made in the experiment. Thats actual science, not the high school ideal that you've been taught. Do you expect the people who peer reviewed CERN's higgs experiment to pour over trillions of bits of data they accumulated? or recheck any experiment performed on the new 20 Petaflop supercomputer built at ORNL? no, they focus on replicable results, which means they generally make sure the experiment followed a clear and accurate methodology.
Hey saccheta, I actually enjoyed your posts a lot in this thread as they have challenged some of my beliefs and that is a good thing.
I'm wondering what you think about the implications of the gusts of wind and the anomolies in the Melissa Doi call you mentioned. Do you have any opinions of what these facts might imply? Or do you not even go there? I get the impression that you're not totally satisfied with either AE911's story or the offiical story.
This has nothing to do with the topic. You said I don't know what happened to WTC7. How do you know what I do/do not know? And why are you so afraid to tell me what I "don't know?" Is it because you know I'll refute you? Yes. Yes it is. I'll continue to wait.....And please, try to stay on topic.
Right, until the civilization is up and running, and then your Steve Jobs types come in and cherry-pick the fruits of everyone elses' cooperation. It's the fucking Randian cunts we have to watch out for in this world.
955 comments
82 Greg_Roberts_0985 2014-10-24
I am an engineering student in my final year (few months left)
Why are U.S students not being taught about the three worst building collapses in human history and why are professors scared to even talk about it?
Thanks for doing this.
Thanks for taking the time to do this.
89 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
4 Algee 2014-10-24
Are you claiming that the 911 conspiracy spreads to post-secondary institutions and the professors who teach there? Do you have any evidence of this?
19 STARVE_THE_BEAST 2014-10-24
Academia has long been the battleground of cultural marxist revolutionaries and ideologues working, knowingly or unknowingly, under the aegis of the financial elites. For over a decade, the establishment has dismissed skepticism of the official 9/11 story as pseudo-intellectualism at best and schizophrenic antisemitism at worst. In the highly charged, politicized, foundation-grant-suck-up environment that is academia, It doesn't take a genius to know that promoting alternative 9/11 theories in the classroom is tantamount to career suicide.
My question to you is, are you really dumb enough to be asking this question honestly and earnestly, or were you simply trying to rhetorically entrap Mr. Gage by mischaracterizing his remarks?
18 Algee 2014-10-24
Hes claiming that the people behind 911 dictate what is taught by university professors in the U.S. I did not mischaracterize his remark, that is what he said.
But please, keep the personal insults coming.
19 STARVE_THE_BEAST 2014-10-24
Sorry I should have said "naive", not "dumb". That was unnecessarily hostile, and for that I apologize.
That said, your original reply subtly exaggerated his comment to imply that those responsible for 9/11 have exerted direct operative control over the curriculum of post-secondary schools, whereas the reality is both more nuanced and more obvious: by already having the right sorts of people (aka people who like to avoid career suicide) established in positions of authority in government, media, and academia, skepticism of 9/11's official story simply became the intellectual taboo that it is today.
-4 inkw3ll 2014-10-24
It's not so much, "intellectual taboo" or elite influence. But simply more of an unwillingness to subscribe to the implied theory that 9/11 was an "inside job". Academia won't support this idea without unequivocal evidence.
2 emanking 2014-10-24
Determining whether 9/11 was an inside job is not the same as a scientific experiment. There's enough circumstantial evidence to pass judgement. People have been put to death with flimsier circumstantial evidence than that.
-1 inkw3ll 2014-10-24
I'm saying that the implication of an inside job based on circumstantial evidence and conjecture is not verifiable in the minds of Academia.
On the contrary, there's not enough evidence to pass judgement. Conjecture and circumstantial evidence should never be used as a substitute for unequivocal and irrefutable evidence.
I've said this before too: Innocent people have been put to death or incarcerated for seemingly "strong" circumstantial evidence. Some are lucky enough to have irrefutable DNA evidence vindicate their innocence. No matter how much circumstantial evidence there seems to be, it still does not irrefutably prove the ultimate idea that our government orchestrated and masterminded 9/11.
2 CaughtInTheNet 2014-10-24
it is academia itself that should be investigating the data and analyzing the evidence in order to come to the obvious conclusions.
-3 inkw3ll 2014-10-24
They already have and continue to do so. With that said, its their job to not buy into a theory until it is proven. These "obvious conclusions" aren't as airtight as you'd like to believe.
0 CaughtInTheNet 2014-10-24
Hence the importance of discussion and analysis of the scientific data.
1 inkw3ll 2014-10-24
Absolutely.. not taking anything away from the importance of that. However, the scientific data has yet to prove without the shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was the result of our governments own doing.
2 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Any small amount of research into the topic would serve you well.
7 [deleted] 2014-10-24
What are "cultural marxist revolutionaries"?
1 fuckyoua 2014-10-24
Bill Ayers types.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
What constitutes a "cultural marxist revolutionary"?
-1 STARVE_THE_BEAST 2014-10-24
In practice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tlltSlGItY
-2 STARVE_THE_BEAST 2014-10-24
http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/
6 [deleted] 2014-10-24
That's interesting but there are a ton of things just simply not true here.
Completely and utterly false. McCarthyism, for example.
Again, completely false. If you look at communism as an example, one potential position resulting from a marxist perspective, you'll find an explicitly anti-state system.
I'm not exactly sure how to address the claim that "political correctness" is totalitarian as the author doesn't even give us a clear exposition of what these "tenets" are. Just vague claims of "legal trouble".
No, this is not true. Do you agree with this statement? Because if you do, I'd like to know why. I don't know how someone who has studied marxism could arrive at this conclusion.
So political correctness is cultural marxism, but this still isn't defined. I don't know what the guy is talking about. I don't know what cultural marxism is or where this is expressed within such a framework.
Again, incorrect. A marxist analysis does not hold these prescriptive judgments on individuals based on class.
Again, I can't be certain of who this individual is referring to, but feminist theory does not at all express this black and white viewpoint.
This is begging the question with regards to property.
No, this is not true definitionally and this is not true legally unless you assume that the white student owns that position at the school by default of their being white.
In what way does "marxist economics" "give the answers they want"?
What is meant by this statement?
No this is incorrect. Marx was not attempting to make absolute predictions about all capitalist economies. He made observations about how this mode of production operates and made certain general predictions (eg the rate of profit prediction which was really just a revised argument already made by Ricardo and Smith before him).
-6 STARVE_THE_BEAST 2014-10-24
Honestly, I've no interest in debating the finer points of Marxism in theory, versus Marxism in practice, but I observe that you're far more concerned with the former than the latter. Which makes sense given that you're defending the honor of an ideology with a track-record of repression, balkanization, and dehumanization that is as reprehensible as it is long. So unless I'm terribly mistaken, nothing I say here will sour your taste for establishment-funded, state-sanctioned Kool-Aid masquerading as scholarship.
6 100wordanswer 2014-10-24
You just posted a link, he tore it to shreds, and that's your answer? Sounds like your more interested in holding your viewpoint than looking into historical accuracy or facts which your beliefs are founded on.
-6 STARVE_THE_BEAST 2014-10-24
No, I'm rather more interested in what people actually do than in the bullshit theories and sophistry they peddle to rationalize and/or disclaim said actions.
4 100wordanswer 2014-10-24
Dude, there's mountains of history out there that are factually more accurate and show how fucked up and also how good some governments have been throughout history. Check out the podcast the History of Rome. It's a good place to start on how and where democracies go wrong and he also talks about the bias of the historians at each period he's referring to. However, you don't have to start there, but please read something from respected historians, who put their own cultural beliefs aside and try to examine the past for what it was. Reading conveniently simplified and inaccurate history is really quite painful.
-2 STARVE_THE_BEAST 2014-10-24
More accurate than what? What claim are you replying to?
2 [deleted] 2014-10-24
What you're doing is fallaciously conflating "b" with "a" by asserting through non-sequitur that "a" necessarily leads to "b". You're also just sort of lazily implying ad hominem attacks to discredit "a" rather than detailing what exactly it is about either "a" or "b" you find wrong on its own merits (as any premise or argument ought to be evaluated).
You also demonstrate a severe ignorance of what exactly is being discussed (eg: marxism, communism, progressivism) and couch it all under this nebulous term of "political correctness", which is just an easy catch-all phrase for things you don't like other people talking about (which is really fucking ironic).
-1 STARVE_THE_BEAST 2014-10-24
Ok you're right this was all a chimera, pay no attention to the men behind the curtain or their mega-foundation-grant / CIA connections, move along, nothing to see or learn from any of these links...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#1970s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse#World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_to_Investigate_Tax-Exempt_Foundations_and_Comparable_Organizations#Dodd_report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM
http://www.namebase.org/steinem.html
http://www.msmagazine.com/Fall2013/Philanthropy.asp
Edit: Let's not forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Research_Project
0 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-10-24
Knowingly.
-1 asifinperson 2014-10-24
Not nearly as dumb as believing said pseudo-intellectualism.
-1 windingdreams 2014-10-24
In Howard Zinn's, "A People's History of the United States" Zinn has an excerpt from a church study group that found something like 70 higher learning institutions around the U.S. using material published by companies created, working with, and known to associate with the CIA.
3 Algee 2014-10-24
Well thats a pretty vague requirement for a connection with the CIA. If a electronics department uses something published by IBM, the whole school is suddenly suspect?
Also, its useful to note, theres currently 7,021 higher learning institutions in the U.S. so we are looking at less than 1% of schools.
-1 windingdreams 2014-10-24
This was also in the sixties, mind you.
-2 strapt313 2014-10-24
Yes. They all work for the state. People who get paid by the state and depend on the state to survive usually do everything they can to defend the institution that writes their paychecks.
1 Algee 2014-10-24
You are aware that post-secondary institutions are generally paid for by students and their professors are not employed by the government, right?
-1 JamesColesPardon 2014-10-24
While I am not dismissing your point, in a large percentage of secondary schools in the US, the students' loans are financed by state issued loans. So, in effect, to maintain eligibility for federal and/or state funds, some may feel the pressure to not speak out or have specific content contrary to what the State/Federal Official Story™ is.
1 Algee 2014-10-24
C'mon, you know how liberal and/or critical of the U.S. government some college courses are? also, have you read the requirements for approval for a institution to accept financial aid? They are pretty lax. got a accredited degree program? your in. got a program that provides training for gainful employment in a recognized occupation? your in. You don't even need the government to recognize it as school if its on a native reservation and run by natives.
-1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
0 Algee 2014-10-24
Good thing were not living in the 1500's anymore.
-2 Algee 2014-10-24
You are aware that post-secondary institutions are generally paid for by students and their professors are not employed by the government, right?
-2 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
0 Algee 2014-10-24
I could consider it pretty much non-existent myself.
-2 magic3383 2014-10-24
Could you?
5 Algee 2014-10-24
Derp. Would.
-2 EyeCrush 2014-10-24
Yeah, I guess that's what happens when you ignore what's in front of you, you can pretend it doesn't exist!
3 Algee 2014-10-24
Not at all. Theres no evidence that objectively claims the U.S. government was involved. Thats just the conspiracy bias that is ingrained in the 911 truth movement.
-2 EyeCrush 2014-10-24
I suppose if you're blind there isn't.
Listen: NATO shills are not welcome here. Get the fuck out.
2 100wordanswer 2014-10-24
I don't get why you won't make a list of objective evidence, but instead convert to calling people shills for trying to take you to task. Honestly, you behave like a Chinese government paid 50 Cent Army troll (when asked for proof, resort to ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies).
2 EyeCrush 2014-10-24
How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
-1 100wordanswer 2014-10-24
I just called you a 50 Cent Army troll and that's your rebuke? Pot, meet kettle. I guess we should just devolve to who's dad can beat up who's, because this is going nowhere fast
1 Algee 2014-10-24
Sure, list your objective evidence.
-3 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
3 Algee 2014-10-24
What chain? post-secondary isn't a subsidiary of the government.
-3 CaughtInTheNet 2014-10-24
the evidence is that they're not talking about it
2 Algee 2014-10-24
They aren't talking about concave earth theory either, that isn't evidence of a conspiracy.
1 CaughtInTheNet 2014-10-24
Concave earth theory doesn't have enough "data" to support even talking about it. 9/11 has plenty to warrant discussion and analysis. It isn't so much a "conspiracy" that they aren't talking about it but the overwhelming silence does speak to the fact that they are muzzled- whether through direct control or subtle, nuanced fear of repercussions.
-2 Algee 2014-10-24
Neither does the 911 truth movement. I could easily argue that a similar level of "data" is present in concave theory circles, does that mean it should be discussed in classrooms? Its not peered review science. Having a critique of the NIST report isn't evidence towards a government conspiracy, and isn't any more worthy of classroom discussion than a critique of the natural resonance explanation for the tacoma bridge collapse.
No. They are just as silent about concave earth theory, are they muzzled on that too?
3 CaughtInTheNet 2014-10-24
You lost credibility when you put the 9/11 issue on the same level of plausibility as the earth being hollow. This isn't about the discussion of the plethora of physical evidence and laws of physics anymore but merely a question of your cognitive dissonance. This discourse is passé.
1 Algee 2014-10-24
As someone with a degree in physics/engineering, I consider all pseudoscience to be on a similar level, be it the 911 truthers claiming newtons 3rd law was violated, or a concave earther talking about refracted light. The biggest difference is that the concave earthers actually have a better understanding of physics.
1 CaughtInTheNet 2014-10-24
Like i said, 2005 called- they're wondering where you are.
1 Algee 2014-10-24
Keep on living in that echo chamber.
-4 RedAnarchist 2014-10-24
Lol evidence?
Seriously this being the top question and answer should make everyone here do an objective double take and say "wait a minute...that's so dumb"
3 Algee 2014-10-24
Ask for evidence? thats a downvote!
2 KroganNuclearBomb 2014-10-24
Evidence for that claim?
1 sinominous 2014-10-24
i suppose you want peer-reviewed?
2 panda-est-ici 2014-10-24
Or just, you know... Any evidence.
0 KroganNuclearBomb 2014-10-24
Yes please!
-5 apocalypsychosis 2014-10-24
Are you saying the content of class lessons and lectures is determined by the pentagon, Halliburton, the Bush, bin Laden, and Rothschilds families? Or that the department of education was also part of it?
11 STARVE_THE_BEAST 2014-10-24
You have to go further back than that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Education_Board#Philosophy
6 ZombieAlpacaLips 2014-10-24
1913 was quite a year, eh?
3 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-10-24
Yes it was. As was 1776.
3 The_eye_in_the_sky 2014-10-24
great link, thanks
2 PrivilegeCheckmate 2014-10-24
This has been one of my favorite quotes for two decades.
Along with this:
-Walt Disney
Complete article: http://www.skewsme.com/disney_strike.html#axzz3H7oEWvG3
1 pc43893 2014-10-24
Funny how he profited from societal evolution proving him wrong before he was even born, making the life and career he had possible. Cooperation among "weaker" individuals is generally a more successful strategy than being "strong" and uncooperative, which is why even underdeveloped civilization as we experience it is possible.
2 PrivilegeCheckmate 2014-10-24
Right, until the civilization is up and running, and then your Steve Jobs types come in and cherry-pick the fruits of everyone elses' cooperation. It's the fucking Randian cunts we have to watch out for in this world.
2 autopornbot 2014-10-24
Jesus Christ! That may be the most insulting thing I've ever read. They may as well have just said "we want to keep the poor people poor so they can do the shit work for us."
2 heracleides 2014-10-24
Corporations and publishing companies are notorious for being involved with, starting and propagandizing war. And with consensus, it's either political suicide, or conformity.
2 Orangutan 2014-10-24
The Powell Memo (also known as the Powell Manifesto) Most notable about these institutions was their focus on education
The Powell Memo was first published August 23, 1971
2 TheUltimateSalesman 2014-10-24
I took a War Theory class and it was straight up propaganda.
21 scbeski 2014-10-24
Curious what kind of engineer you are..We learned all about WTC1,2,7 in my Engineering Forensics class (Civil/Structural here)..
10 gameoverplayer1 2014-10-24
And what did you learn?
40 scbeski 2014-10-24
The goal of a structural forensic investigation is to take the evidence at hand and to come up with the most probable explanation for the collapse/failure based on our understanding as engineers of the loading, geometries, and material properties involved.
Based on all information I've seen, and you know looking at the event 11 years after the fact (when I took the class), the "official NIST report" covers the most probable collapse scenarios for each building based on the evidence/information available. I know it's not what you want to hear, go ahead and downvote me.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that in a forensic investigation there are almost always questions after the fact that can't be resolved, because we never have 100% perfect information. Original design drawings get amended and Steve forgets to redline that one sheet, minor changes in the field occur during construction, some steel erector doesn't tighten a few bolts down fully, a building owner decides to change something small ten years in that changes the loading distribution, some minor defect gets worse over time, etc. etc. there are a million small things that can happen that affect our idealized frame analysis of a structure. The best that people can do is formulate the most likely hypothesis that explains the phenomenon without relying on Martians. If you want to claim Martians, you better have very strong evidence to back up your theory.
26 autopornbot 2014-10-24
But the NIST report did not "come up with" the idea that the buildings fell due to fire caused by airplane strikes - they started with that as an assumed fact, and then went on to find the most likely way that the buildings would have collapsed due to fire caused by airplane strikes.
They did not entertain any other possibility, and did not come up with the most probably explanation of the original cause. It's like doing an autopsy of a person who was shot in the chest, and assuming that the bullet killed them - even if the bullet wound appeared to be post-mortem, didn't bleed, or strike any major organs, and the body was also missing their head. "Well, we know they were shot, so obviously the bullet killed them - now let's figure out the most likely way they could have died from a bullet wound. Must have nicked an artery and bled to death internally" Then, the mortician writes up a report that tries to explain how the bullet killed them, completely ignoring the fact that the body had evidence that the person died because their head was chopped off - in fact, doesn't even mention the head in the autopsy. Just assumes the cause of death is the bullet because they were told the person died of a gunshot by the police beforehand - even though that policeman had blood all over him, a blood-soaked chainsaw in one hand, and the missing head in the other hand.
2 XisanXbeforeitsakiss 2014-10-24
so what is the head in this analogy? what is the no blood, or no vital organs? who is the policeman and what is the chainsaw and severed head in hand in your analogy?
-1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
3 Thyrotoxic 2014-10-24
The majority of the evidence doesn't support controlled demolition though. The whole premise of controlled demolition is absurd. How would they have managed to smuggle in the obscene amounts of explosives needed to bring down the towers? Why not just fly two planes full of explosives into the towers? Or full of jet fuel? Why not just pay al-Qaeda terrorists to fly a plane full of jet fuel into a building?
0 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 Thyrotoxic 2014-10-24
You mean an exorbitant amount of energy like thousands of tonnes collapsing? I think the problem with 9/11 truthers is a lack of a basic physics education.
0 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 Thyrotoxic 2014-10-24
Why are you conspiratards obsessed with this free fall speed thing? NIST admit it fell at free fall speed. If you did even the slightest amount of research you'd know this.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
It's only at free fall for a small amount of time. It's 40 per cent lower than free fall.
It manages to fall at essentially free fall as the force above is so huge that the building below cannot support its mass and collapses. Any reaction force from below is negligible. As you can see it takes a second for sufficient energy to build up. Buildings are built to take the force of just a few stories above them, not a moving mass.
Are you some sort of parody account? Top. Minds.
I actually have a degree in engineering that has a decent amount of focus on the structural side. I'm not an expert by any means but I actually have a background in the field.
Edit:Literally in the report. Floors 13 till 5 collapsed, the above floors where not supported.
-2 ButMuhHITLER 2014-10-24
Two words. Dancing Israelis.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
This is a good analogy. I've often used it myself. I've been conducting a forensic analysis of the World Trade Center dust, and it certainly does not point to fire as the mechanism of destruction. My dust samples do not contain a trace of thermite, though, which is a contradiction to the "traditional controlled demolition" theory promulgated by many in the 9/11 truth movement. Thermite is never used to demolish buildings, either, so there's that.
0 PhotoShopNewb 2014-10-24
But, if you assume the fire was started by anything other then the airplane fuel where is the hard evidence? The only evidence I hear about is a few people saw something strange happen a few days before hand or heard strange sounds.
You can say they were destroyed/covered up of course but then you are using abstract thinking. If you use photographic evidence then you need to take in ALL photographic evidence. There is substantially more photographic evidence that the planes hit the buildings and released their fuel than their are of virtually any other evidence. If the evidence is overwhelmingly one sided most of the merit will fall on that side.
So you have hard evidence and photographic evidence that it was the jet fuel on one side and theoretical circumstantial evidence on the other. The scientific method sides with hard evidence over any theory. It doesn't mean the theory is wrong it means that we only base fact on hard evidence.
2 autopornbot 2014-10-24
Well of course planes hit the buildings and the fuel burned. Like you said, there's plenty of proof of that.
What there isn't (solid) proof of is:
That those were the planes we were told they were.
That the planes were piloted by the suspects (and not by computer).
That the fires caused the 3 buildings to collapse.
I cannot prove an alternate story. But the official story has also not been proved. Any conclusion will be at least part theory (hypothesis, really), because so many things can't be known - the data is not there.
But I have never claimed that I know exactly what happened that day. I claim that the official story has holes and inconsistencies, and therefore is not fact.
To blindly believe what has been reported to us is a mistake. Why? Because we have a MASSIVE amount of evidence throughout history that the people who are in the position to give out that kind of information will always report what is beneficial to them (to the extent that they believe they can pull it off), regardless of its relationship with truth.
When I talk about "the government", I'm not talking about a cohesive group of public servants who are all working together and who all have the same knowledge and intent. Government by nature is a helter skelter collection of people and institutions with different purposes and goals, with different access to information, and with different agendas and people to whom they answer. Anyone who has had a government job knows that it's a huge clusterfuck.
People use that as evidence that no government could ever pull off a conspiracy.
But that's actually the reason that conspiracies can be put into effect. It's not a government acting as a single unit with hundreds of thousands of people complicit, all keeping their mouths shut. Conspiracies are almost always created by a very small group of people who work through the system to achieve a goal. Because of the chaos and complexity, many things can happen without anyone ever catching on.
As a "truther", my point of view is that the official story has problems. My goal is to question everything. Until someone can prove beyond any reasonable doubt what happened on 9/11/2001 and the days leading up to it and the aftermath, I am suspect of the story. Because it is very simple to look at the story and ask "who benefits from which version?"
The people who benefit from the official story are the same people who were neck deep in all of the events, calling the shots - the Bush administration used 9/11 to push their agenda of war with Iraq, increased power to spy on and detain and torture whoever they like, etc. - if you study the papers written by Cheney and Rumsfeld, you'll see very clearly that 9/11 was like Christmas to them as far as pushing agendas they have openly called for through their very long careers. So that group benefited hugely by 9/11, and by the acceptance of theofficial story.
The owner of WTC benefited massively. It's easy to find the details of the financial problems that those real estate holdings were causing him, and how 9/11 solved it and added a nice profit from insurance. So the official story is of extremely great value to Larry Silverstein. Like Woodward & Bernstein, "follow the money".
There are other people involved who benefited, but I think you see my point.
Bin Laden had less clear motive to orchestrate the events of 9/11. No one seems to analyze that angle. What did he gain? Attention, sure. Infamy, yes. Revenge? Only if you believe he is the Bond villain evil scheming caricature that he was portrayed as by the West. I can't really say what he was or wasn't, because the only information I have on him has been filtered through Western media and propaganda. Supposedly, his strategy was to lure the US into invading a Muslim country, anger Muslims against the West, and destabilize the US (and world) economy through a war of attrition. If that is true, then 9/11 was a major victory for Al-Qaeda.
But unlike the doctrines written by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove, those agendas aren't quite as indisputable. All of the position papers and statements from them, they stand by and it's very clear where they stood and what they have said through various think tanks and political forums. With OBL, there is more ambiguity - the CIA has admitted to authoring fake Bin Laden videos and propaganda. And everyone knows that there are allegations that he was some sort of CIA asset at one point in the past, and had ties to the players on the American side. There are some leads to a US-Saudi-hijackers link - the censored 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report for one (all of that is unsubstantiated, but it does open one to questioning the origins and agendas of the supposed "lone gunmen").
So Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda benefited as well, but there is some reason to be suspicious of parts of that story, and if it was purely a case of striking a blow at the Great Satan or whatever. It appears to be more complex, as things of this nature almost always are. And throughout history it has been the rule rather than the exception for the major players in world events to have ties and connections and multiple agendas.
When we talk about, see films about, or read history books about any government from the past, or outside of ours, it is never questioned that there are dirty dealings and false flags and double agents and corruption of all types. Lies, assassinations, and personal agendas. But for bad reasons, most people want to believe that our nation doesn't do those things. We are the first country in the history of the planet that is made up purely of "good guys" who never bend the rules, never pursue personal gain by manipulating the system, and who don't fight dirty. If one were to write the story of 9/11 but with the characters and period details changed to be about the Roman Empire or something, then we would all be perfectly fine questioning the absolute truth of what the government had told it's citizens. If it was Russia and Putin, we would all be like "those dirty fuckers!"
So when you look at MOTIVE, several groups stand out - and many (most?) of them are the ones who were neck deep in the events of 9/11, and also just happened to get everything they wanted as a result of 9/11.
When you look at MEANS, there are also many question marks. Would some of the richest and most powerful people in the world (Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld/Silverstein/Israeli power players) have the means to manipulate money and documents and stories and planes and high tech building explosives and stool pigeons? Absolutely. If you look at the "inside job" group, they are rich and powerful enough to do just about anything imaginable.
Now, on the other side, the "terrorists". What means did they have? The hijackers were very low sophistication level outsiders. Could they have managed to get into the US, get some quick and dirty flight training, avoid detection, get box cutters stashed onto the planes, and successfully maneuver 3 out of 4 planes into hitting their targets perfectly - so perfectly that two planes completely demolished three buildings through means that have never been done before or since, in all of the history of mankind? I see how it can be explained without any one step or situation sounding completely implausible, but taken as a whole, it's a pretty miraculous feat.
When you talk about OPPORTUNITY, did the hijackers have that? It appears that they did. At least we are told that they did. They all made it into the US, and despite being on watch lists and under some level of suspicion remained here (even past expired visas) long enough to pull it off. That's the story we're told. We're also told that they were able to board the planes without problem, and take them over and fly them without being stopped (except for the uber-patriotic wet dream flight 93, of course). We're told that they did. But again, for all that to happen without any one step along the way going South takes a lot of luck. A whole lot.
Did the "inside job" lot have the opportunity to create a false flag attack? The POTUS & his pals, the most powerful people in the world, can easily make their own opportunity. They have access to systems, people, and means of manipulation that most people can't fathom. They too would need everything to go right. But they have the ability to stack the odds in their favor.
So that's my macro view of why I am suspicious of the official story. When it comes to the NIST report specifically, I look at it in a similar way. Who is involved? What is their motivation? What assumptions are made? Are facts given flexibility, or are theories tested rigorously over and over again in order to eliminate all doubt? How many leaps of faith are required? Are they eager and forthcoming with their methods of coming to conclusions - or are they oddly secretive about how some numbers and ideas become presented as "fact", or are we just told that rigorous and state of the art methods were used (just don't ask us what they were!!!)? Do they explore every single possibility, or only the ones that lead to a preconceived notion? Do they thoroughly debunk any other possible explanations? Or do they just pretend that other hypotheses do not exist? Is evidence cherry picked to support a certain conclusion, or is every single bit of data investigated as thoroughly as possible?
NIST looks and acts sketchy. The have a very strong motivation to come to a certain conclusion. How much has the report affected the way buildings are designed and built, so that the same problems could be avoided in the future? Are they eager to show off their brilliant deductive work, and use it to change things?
I want proof, not "this is most likely if you only look at it from one angle". I don't have to prove an alternate theory in order to question the prevailing one - I only need a reasonable doubt. And there is lots of that.
10 Sowieso 2014-10-24
In this clip a demolition expert declares the collapse of building 7 a controlled demolition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKFBJ1j96to
11 scbeski 2014-10-24
Who's that guy and why should we care what he thinks? Why is your "expert" better than the others?
-7 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
11 scbeski 2014-10-24
Because I'm not a real person
-7 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
8 scbeski 2014-10-24
Too edgy for me bruh
3 Macbeth554 2014-10-24
Did you watch until the end, where he was told of the fires, and then told he couldn't explain it?
He didn't seem quite so sure of demolitions when he learned of fires that were uncontrolled.
Also, were you at all surprised that any sort of expert would make such a strong statement based on a video or two? I certainly was.
1 Sowieso 2014-10-24
Fair point.
I have watched the video until the end, but not recently. I accept I will never know the truth regarding the 911 attacks.
Im not trying to convince you, or anyone else for that matter, of anything.
I just wanted to share the video for people who have not seen it.
For me the video struck home (I hope I use the correct expression, non native english speaker here) because he speaks my native tongue and comes across as very convincing.
I am not at all surprised he based his statement on a video or two. He was an expert with his own controlled demolition company. An expert does not need much to recognize/see whats going on.
I was more surprised he died shortly after this interview in a single car accident on a quiet road.
1 comp00per 2014-10-24
Are we watching the same video? When he says, "Yes, that's odd. I can't explain it." I believe he's referring to, "So they'd have to do it while it was on fire." I think many who believe WTC 7 was a controlled demolition would agree that it seems unlikely the building was rigged for explosives while it was on fire.
1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
That same demolition expert says WTC1 and WTC2 were not controlled demolitions and were in fact natural collapses. He flat out says that CD is "impossible" based on what is seen in the dozens of collapse videos.
I notice that never seems to get brought up when Danny Jowenko is mentioned in these parts.
1 gabeh7 2014-10-24
and he was killed in a car accident.
9 Irradiance 2014-10-24
Are you saying that from a fully objective perspective, not thinking about the reasons or the conspiracies, that on comparing the NIST report with the contrary findings that have emerged since, that you find the NIST report to be more plausible?
For me, almost every single aspect of the official report is ludicrous to the extreme. Practically nothing about it rings true.
When you read a scientific article in an academic journal, do you just take it on face value? As an ex editor of academic journals, one gets used to spotting where the authors have massaged the interpretations and analysis to emphasize the correctness of their hypotheses. That's what I would call "subtle" lying. The NIST report is on the opposite end of the spectrum. It's so blatantly false that you can't even pick it apart (well, some have but the overwhelming sentiment is that the whole think should be discounted immediately).
7 scbeski 2014-10-24
It sounds like you're coming at this from a very biased perspective. I don't know if the CIA hired people to fly those planes or they were actually rednecks from Alabama and Cheney wanted to use them as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no insider knowledge or training that gives me any special insight into the motivations of the hijackers or political leadership of this country. I'll leave that to the people with master's degrees in middle eastern history and foreign policy of the United States.
All that I know is that I spent 6 years in university, getting a master's degree in structural engineering, and based on what I have seen, the NIST report gives the best explanation of the physical mechanism for the collapse of these buildings based on the evidence available. The criticisms of this theory that I have seen mostly derive from a combination of lack of understanding by the layman of structural engineering practices (and material science in particular), and trying to fit evidence to match preconceived biases.
In forensics, you are supposed to go into it with a blank slate absent of preconceived biases, follow where the evidence takes you to the most logical and justifiable conclusion. Most conspiracy theories related to the collapse of these buildings are heavily tainted with selectively using evidence to justify a preconceived story.
1 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
NIST said they didn't look for explosive residue because looking for something which isn't there is a waste of taxpayer money.. seriously, they did.
-4 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
11 scbeski 2014-10-24
LOL @ easy degree/big pay. If I wanted that, would've gone into finance.
And yes because working for a small local engineering firm is really working for the allegorical man.
-1 Viper_ACR 2014-10-24
Saving that for later
-5 windingdreams 2014-10-24
LOL@ being a teenager
7 moonrocks 2014-10-24
Right. His degree is in deceptive applied physics. QED.
Should we continue sending checks to Gage or to you?
5 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
What contrary findings? I don't think I've seen anything that could be called a contrary finding. Genuinely curious as I'm not aware of any actual study of the events that doesn't concur with the NIST findings
4 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
Have you given this kind of scrutiny towards the so-called "peer reviewed" article by Jones and Harrit?
7 radii314 2014-10-24
let's assume every one of the scenarios you laid out occurred on that day - all of them, and more you didn't mention ... the fact that all three building fell at free-fall speeds into their own footprint is incalculably improbable
13 RenlyIsTheFury 2014-10-24
Especially WTC Building 7, which really had no catalyst to set off the free-fall collapse beside a relatively insignificant amount of debris falling on it. Not to mention, it was a much smaller building than the WTC 1 and 2, meaning that there were less floors and less metalwork on the interior overall, making the likelihood of an error a slight bit smaller overall. In a massive skyscraper like 1 and 2, it's honestly not that unlikely for something to have gone wrong in design, but WTC 7 was the size of a large hotel in a major city, really. I don't find it all that likely that expert engineers and builder that were in charge of building the WTC's, especially 7 would have made such a grave mistake as to make 7 fall from some debris. But I suppose that's just a theory, technically...
10 radii314 2014-10-24
many videos show the fall of 7 and it cleaves along vertical planes exactly as a controlled demo would
http://youtu.be/Atbrn4k55lA
2:10, 3:30, 4:09 and especially 6:45 shows it very clearly
-1 scbeski 2014-10-24
I love the critical experts on here that clearly have never even read the report. Nowhere is it claimed in the NIST report that damage from debris falling caused the collapse of Building 7. Fuck, if you just read the FAQ section you would know that.
The fires started by the falling debris which burned out of control due to the failure of the lower levels' sprinkler system (which was fed by a water main that was severed when WTC1 and 2 came down) caused thermal expansion of the girders which severed connections to a key column which failed due to euler buckling with the loss of lateral restraint blah blah blah. Just read the damn thing. They even go so far to say that even without any damage from debris the fire alone would likely have caused the collapse.
Thermal expansion is a real concern in design and can generate enormous stresses when not properly accounted for. It's one of the major reasons why roller supports and expansion joints are a thing in structural design. The design engineers likely assumed the sprinkler system would activate in time to put out a major fire before the girders could reach such temperatures and expand to such a degree. Structural design is based on likely situations, reducing the likelihood of collapse down to a certain acceptable threshold. There has to be an acceptable level of risk, otherwise you just dump money into a pit and burn it. What happened on 9/11 was not designed for, and the building failed.
1 gabeh7 2014-10-24
chinese and russian engineers knew about thermal expansion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoAT8Uq8-NM
the americans didn't teach that course unfortunately :(
-1 RenlyIsTheFury 2014-10-24
Maybe the NIST never reported that debris itself collapsed the WTC 7 building, but I hear people claim it all the time.
As for the claim that it was the fire that brought down the steel-framed WTC 7, that's also been refuted multiple times by engineering experts (I don't have the sources on-hand, I'm sure a quick Google search will get you what I can't). An office fire has never brought down any other skyscrapers, why would WTC 7, one of the most important buildings in NYC (the largest city in the United States) be built so shoddily?
3 dtiftw 2014-10-24
Controlled demolition has never brought down any other skyscrapers.
1 RenlyIsTheFury 2014-10-24
Technically correct, although the J.L. Hudson Dept. Store was something like 2/3 the size of WTC 7, so nearly close enough. And made of the same steel frame as WTC 7.
Controlled demolition has brought down plenty of steel-made buildings of the same design as 7, but not as large, you're correct in that.
3 dtiftw 2014-10-24
And this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg
is what the J.L. Hudson Department Store demo looks like. Weeks of prep work to wrap columns in explosive, and the demo itself had loud explosive bangs (the type that accompany controlled demolition).
Saying that controlled demolition brought down WTC 7 requires far more proof than saying that similar buildings have been brought down. There isn't a single record of a controlled demolition of a skyscraper the size of WTC 7, and even less evidence that such an undertaking could happen in secret without conventional explosives.
2 RenlyIsTheFury 2014-10-24
There have been hundreds of reports from witnesses of both the major two towers, and WTC 7 saying they heard loud "bomb-like" noises just before each of the towers fell. IIRC, I saw a first-hand video where they actually caught the sound, but of course that kind of thing is very easy to fake, so it should be taken worth a grain of salt, really.
Also, there are reports (indisputable) that 'repair crews' were doing maintenance on elevator shafts in the WTC, and that they had access to the core of the building when doing so. Reports indicate (disputable, of course) that it's very easily possible for a group of infiltrators posing as the repair crew could have planted Thermite, C4, or another highly explosive, corrosive, or thermal device/element on to the frame of the WTC buildings.
I'm not saying to believe one way or the other on the WTC 1 and 2 buildings just from what I'm saying I've read (I can't seem to find the same sources I see myself for some reason, but I've scrolled through others saying the exact same thing- Google is magical), I'm just saying that all things considered, it is extremely curious and unlikely that all these things fell in to place to bring down the towers and 7.
Another important thing that continues to catch my attention: Larry Silverstein, temporary owner of the World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5 as of July 2001, took out an insurance policy and actually won twice the amount that he should have gotten from the WTC lease's insurance policy due to the (highly bullshit, in my opinion) idea that there were actually two attacks. Plus, Silverstein was, of course, not in the building as he usually was in the morning on September 11th, 2001, but that one (of the two) is more likely to be coincidental. Although, worth noting, there were also no survivors from the level of the restaurant he usually spent his time.
1 scbeski 2014-10-24
Well, those people are dumb.
I'd love to see the arguments by and credentials of these so-called engineering experts. Most of the engineers I've seen in AE9/11 are like..biomedical engineers..who know about as much about this topic as I do about pacemakers or prosthetics, zilch.
As for the last argument, it's wholly illogical. It's always the first time for something to happen...until it happens. Ever heard of Galloping Gertie? Structures can behave very differently based on their individual design parameters, and fires have their own sets of characteristics. Just because there hadn't been a fire that had brought down a high rise building, doesn't mean that there couldn't be a fire that could bring down a high rise building, especially in a building where the sole fire protection system malfunctioned due to the cutting of its supply for the lower 20 stories.
3 windingdreams 2014-10-24
First ones ever, all in the same day! What crazy odds!
But please, continue attacking these engineers characters. Very brave.
1 thereisnosuchthing 2014-10-24
I am going to give you an interesting experiment to do:
Go and build a platform on top of 4 support columns made of reinforced steel beams, then build a couple more levels on top of it. Use something foor the flooring that will allow very hot fires to burn next to two of the support beams, or 3 of the 4. See how the thing falls.
Guess what, it won't pancake down in on itself, it will begin to weaken on one side and the weight on top will bend the steel until the structure begins twisting over, eventually the top will fall off to one side. What happened on 9/11 makes no sense in the context that we have been offered in the officially-offered conspiracy theory(which is literally what it is). It's the most ridiculous theory out there, on par with "aliens shot laser beams at it from space weapons platforms".
1 scbeski 2014-10-24
Great, let me go throw that together in my backyard.
A single bay with completely different loading will not behave like an entire structure, ughhhhhhhhh.
2 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
It did happen, though. What this means is that whatever equations you set up to do the calculations weren't appropriate. I'd start with the concept that the buildings fell within their own footprint. They most certainly did not! Those buildings exploded all over lower Manhattan. They didn't fall into their own footprints. In fact, if you look at early pictures of Ground Zero, the area where WTC 1 and WTC 2 used to be contained the least amount of debris. There weren't tall piles of building debris in the footprints of the buildings. The debris was scattered widely. Again. This does not happen with controlled demolition.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet.
2 LesbianChimera 2014-10-24
"Small debris field."
-1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
Yes. A "small debris field." Are you questioning the statement?
-2 LesbianChimera 2014-10-24
Yes, I am questioning the statement. You are full of shit if you think that was a small debris field.
Who the fuck do you work for, anyway?
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
The statement was not mine for you to question. Here, I accidentally left off the quotation marks and the name behind the statement. Let me fix that for you....
"The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)
So I guess we should fix your statement as well. Let me do that for you.
"FEMA is full of shit if they think that was a small debris field. Who the fuck do they work for, anyway?"
Hope this helps!
-1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
Not really.
2 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
Take it up with FEMA. Their quote, not mine.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
You trust FEMA?
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
I'm proving the point that even they admit to a "small debris field" with an approximate radius of 70 feet. What do they have to gain by lying here? Especially when any/all evidence supports their statement.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
Wow. I just presume that everyone else is telling the truth, because I am. I stood two blocks away from Ground Zero, and couldn't see anything above the footprints of either WTC 1 or WTC 2 above a ten foot fence. Nobody is lying here, as far as I know. Certainly not me.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
You are the one who asked me if I trust FEMA. Your statements aren't making any sense. I am also talking about WTC7. Not 1/2. Please read statements before commenting on them.
0 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
My statements are the truth. The WTC "Twin Towers" did not fall into their footprints. The exterior of WTC 7 fell mostly into its footprint, but by 5:30PM, most of the building was already destroyed. As much as you mention WTC 7, I guarantee you that you will still be confused if you only pay attention to what happened to WTC 7 at 5:30PM. If you learn what happened to this building during the day (even before noon), you won't be able to accept the controlled demolition story. I repeat, it really is you who is confused, because you agree with the "bombs in the building" theory. It didn't happen!
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
The statement I posted that you responded to was about WTC7 and WTC7 alone. Therefore, your statement about the "Twin Towers" is irrelevant and an (obvious) attempt at a topic shift. Do try and stay on topic.
Again, your entire, well thought out reply of "Not really." is completely wrong. Since my quote was directly and obviously referring to WTC7.
Oh please...enough with the suspense! Do tell!!
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
You shouldn't rely on me or anyone else to inform you of what happened to WTC 7 during the day leading up to the events at 5:30PM. You should learn for yourself. I will tell you that one of the things you will learn is that the interior of WTC 7 was being destroyed hours before the exterior showed much damage at all. This is not consistent with controlled demolitions, by the way.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
I'm not relying on you. You have clearly shown that you aren't able to "inform me" of anything. You claimed that I don't know what happened. So, tell me what I don't know!
The whole interior? Some of the interior? Source? Proof? Take a firm stance here. Why are you afraid to get specific? Is it because you know I'll refute you?
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
This is the internet. This is Reddit. Still, I'm not your monkey. Find out what happened to WTC 7 before noon on 9/11/2001 ON YOUR OWN.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
If you had something to prove, you'd have done so already. You are backing away from your claims because you know I'll refute you.
Fixed that for you. Nice try though.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
Not really. I'm just not that interested in talking science to an aggressively negative listener.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
You can dress it up any way you like. I genuinely asked you to show me what you claim that I don't know. (Not sure how you know what I do/do not know.) There is no aggression on my end. I provided a statement about WTC7. You claimed it was incorrect by incorrectly shifting the topic to WTC 1 and 2. Then, when I revealed this to you, you claimed I do not know about WTC7. So, again....please do tell. I'm genuinely interested here!
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
OK, no problem. You do agree with the statement, "Not everything that glows orange is glowing orange because it is hot. Sometimes things glow orange without high heat. An example of this is the computer pixels I'm looking at."
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
This has nothing to do with the topic. You said I don't know what happened to WTC7. How do you know what I do/do not know? And why are you so afraid to tell me what I "don't know?" Is it because you know I'll refute you? Yes. Yes it is. I'll continue to wait.....And please, try to stay on topic.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
You really think I'm afraid? This makes no sense. I'm asking IF you know what happened to WTC 7 early on during the day. I'm not saying that you don't know. I have no idea what you know.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
Yes, that is exactly what I think because that is exactly what you are conveying. If you had something to prove or "teach" me, you would have done so. But instead, you claim that I don't know what happened to WTC7. So please, stop stalling and tell me!
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
I already told you, WTC 7 was destroyed on the inside BEFORE 5:30PM. You already know this. You may not have considered it before, but you're already aware of this.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
Destroyed by what? And you're claiming this "destruction" caused the collapse? Why are you so afraid to be specific. You messaged me, now prove your point already. You've had days now. I'm waiting...
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
I'm talking about the timing of the destruction of WTC 7. I don't know what caused it.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
You don't know what caused it, but you know it happened. Translation: you don't know what you're talking about, yet you're trying to educate people. NIST lists thermal expansion as the sole reason for the global collapse of WTC7. So you are incorrect. I do know what happened to WTC7 (according to the "official story") And the "official story" is ridiculous. Next time you want to "inform" me of what happened, hopefully you'll actually have something to say! Have a good one!
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
You're not trying to say that WTC 7 was perfectly fine up until 5:30PM, so I don't understand the nature of your vitriol. That building was destroyed on the inside before 5:30PM. What you call a collapse is really just the collapse of the exterior.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
Nope. I didn't say that at all. So you putting words in my mouth serves no purpose other than a weak attempt at giving you the chance to finally disprove something. Try refuting my actual words.
The "official story" states that thermal expansion is the sole cause for the global collapse of WTC7. Not damage from WTC1. The "official story" also withholds their entire proof of this theory. Making it an unproven fairy tale. Sorry to be the one to tell you.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
I've been conducting a forensic analysis of the destruction of the World Trade Center for 13 years from the streets of lower Manhattan. I haven't been doing internet searches and calling it research.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
The fact that you made this particular comment on an internet forum is quite comical. I guess I should just take your word for it, huh? Just like NIST (the "official story") who never proved their claims/theories as well?
I hope in your 13 years of "forensic analysis" you found a way to account for the VOC spikes measured at ground zero. The "official story" hasn't been able to account for them.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
If you are implying that the WTC was destroyed with a mechanism that involved high heat, I beg to differ. The WTC was destroyed from the inside out, over time, at low temperature.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
I am not implying anything. That is the statement of NIST (the "official story") I couldn't care less about your non-sourced opinion that lacks any/all evidence. The "official story" states that WTC7 globally collapsed due to thermal expansion. Not due to damage from WTC1. You're right, it is laughable. That may be the only thing you're right about. However, you have even less evidence than NIST. And that's a pretty tough accomplishment.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
Bombs didn't destroy WTC 7.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
Did I say "bombs?"
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
Twist much? Frame your responses in straight out sentences instead of making me guess whether or not you said a particular word.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
No, I don't twist. You tried putting words in my mouth, again. I asked you to stop doing that. It's childish and reveals that you have no argument. Here's a "straight out sentence" for you:
I posted a statement that WTC7 had a small debris field. You said "not really." Then, when I revealed that the statement I posted was from the "official story," you started to run away from your own statement. You then tried using WTC1 and 2 as examples because you knew you were wrong, but couldn't admit it for some reason.
so, again,
"The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. " - FEMA - straight out sentence.
Additionally, NIST (the "official story") states that:
"The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event—the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections" - NIST - straight out sentence
"This is the first known instance where fire-induced local damage (i.e.,buckling failure of Column 79; one of 82 columns in WTC 7) led to the collapse of an entire tall building" - NIST - straight out sentence
"21. Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?
The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings." - NIST - straight out sentence
As for the "bombs" statement, yes, there is direct evidence that the "official story" cannot account for the government measured VOC spikes/dates.
"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4
So, the "official story" does not support the evidence. Thermite does. And yes, WTC7 did have a small debris radius.
Hope this helps!
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
You're talking about a small radius. I'm talking about a small height. Two different things.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
No, you're "twisting" and back pedaling, again.
My statement:
Your response:
Sorry. This would be easier for you if I couldn't easily go back and see what you wrote. It's all right there.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
You're confused and speaking in fragments, so cannot expect to get a decent conversation out of it.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
I'm not confused. I literally proved you wrong. I showed you our exact conversation. And you don't like it. So you feign confusion. You're not fooling anyone. Sorry.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
WTC 7 was being destroyed at noon on 9/11.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
"The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event—the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections" - NIST - straight out sentence
"This is the first known instance where fire-induced local damage (i.e.,buckling failure of Column 79; one of 82 columns in WTC 7) led to the collapse of an entire tall building" - NIST - straight out sentence
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
That is nothing new.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
Who said it was? Are you ever going to get around to proving something? Why are you so afraid to back up your statements?
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
I'm telling you that WTC 7 was being destroyed at noon on 9/11.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
Except you continue to conveniently leave out the "how" section. Stop stalling and prove your statements.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
I'm not proving anything. You'll have to do that for yourself. I'm just telling you the facts. WTC 7 was being destroyed early on during the day on 9/11, before noon and continuing up until 5:30PM.
0 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
You have nothing to prove. You have told me 0 facts. Which is exactly why you are too scared to get into specifics. You are fooling 0 people. Thanks though!
0 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
WTC 7 was destroyed early on during the day on 9/11, before 5:30PM.
0 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
Prove it.
0 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
That's impossible, and a waste of my effort. Do your own research.
0 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
So you know a "fact" that is "impossible" to "prove?" I think you need a dictionary. You aren't fooling anyone.
0 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
Take a look at any pictures you find of WTC 7 during the day.
0 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
Already have. And?
-1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
What do you see?
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
A building with a standard office fire inside. And?
2 911truth104 2014-10-24
And the exact parameters for your definition of Standard vs. Non-Standard office fire?
Please provide all the specifics so that any individual can use the same rules to make the same distinctions as you would, thx.
you must include the difference is such things as (and not only these):
footprint size
Duration
Temperature
Materials for fuel
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
These are just those listed by NIST. Hope this helps!
0 LesbianChimera 2014-10-24
This should be amusing to see how he slithers away from answering.
Just as I suspected: he chose not to answer. Typical.
-1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
Not true.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
Why not?
1 Prozac20mg 2014-10-24
No buildings of that size have ever been demolished. So know one really knows the out come. I'd say they " fell within their footprint " fairly well considering they were at the time the largest buildings on earth.
2 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
My point is that relatively little of the debris of WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell "into their footprints". The vast majority of the material fell outside the footprint of those two buildings. Most of it was in the form of this incredible dust, but there were lots of steel beams left over, too. Only a minority of these steel beams ended up in the footprints of either of the Twin Towers. I walked down to Ground Zero from my apartment on Day 3 after the attacks, and you could barely see anything above a ten foot fence. Over to one side, you could see some taller pieces sticking up, but where WTC 1 and WTC 2 used to be? Nothing. You couldn't see a thing from street level two blocks away above that ten foot fence. The debris pile over the footprints was rather short.
1 thereisnosuchthing 2014-10-24
I think you misunderstand what is being implied by "into their own footprint". Obviously there was too much dust and matter for it to all fit within the square that the building stood on. What he is saying is that the top pancaked down onto the "bottom"(lower half of the structure after failure). This would require a universal, across-the-boards failure, not a fire weakening steal on one side, or two sides, at one specific level of the building.
Ever played Jenga? Have you ever seen the tower collapse straight down in on itself after pulling one piece or two pieces? Go build a model with modern engineering standards and light a couple of floors on fire, see which way it falls and how the weight distribution forces it off to one side.
Things just do not happen the way NIST said 9/11 happened. It is a joke to believe otherwise.
0 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
Yeah, but with Jenga (and every example of controlled demolition), you end up with the highest point of the debris pile centered in the middle, right below the center of mass of the building. This did not happen with 9/11. The low point of the debris pile was above the footprints of each of the Twin Towers. This is not how it is commonly described. It's commonly described as having mostly fallen WITHIN the footprint, when the vast majority of it fell OUTSIDE the footprint (of each of the Twin Towers).
1 thereisnosuchthing 2014-10-24
How is the point you are making relevant? It stems from a base of you being pedantic and nit-picking meaningless misinterpretations of phrases (like "into it's own footprint") instead of accepting and understanding the obvious and correct suggestion that is implied by it's use.
Of COURSE that many stories of a super-structure aren't going to all be contained in it's original "footprint" during or at the end of a total collapse. Obviously. That isn't actually relevant to the use of the phrase "into it's own footprint", and you should really be smart enough to realize what is actually being (correctly) implied in it's use, instead of being self-sabotaging and needlessly technical. If you need someone to explain to you what it means, look up a video of the event occuring and see how the towers tops fall right in on themselves and remain going straight down that way throughout the whole event. They don't weaken on one side and topple over, they don't weaken on multiple sides and twist/crunch under the increasing weight now lacking load-bearing support columns to hold them up - the building loses support at every critical point at exactly the same time all the way down. Do you know how we know that? Because it's on video, and how those towers behaved is not how tall structures which are weakened at one point on one level(or multiple individual points at a few levels, in the course of a pure accident or fires) behave. Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but fires simply don't do that.
If I am having a heart attack and say "I'm having a heart attack" - right now, you would be the doctor coming up to me and saying "no you're not because your heart isn't conscious and can't attack you so that isn't actually happening and you're wrong". The point that doctor(you) is making is not actually relevant, and is really, really stupid - even though it's technically correct in that my heart is not actually conscious and cannot therefor "attack me".
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
I was just reporting my own experience. I walked to Ground Zero from my apartment on Day 3 after the attacks, expecting to see a pile of debris. But instead, there was a ten foot fence, and you couldn't see anything above either footprint. You could see some tall pieces leaning over on the side (to the north). You could see an amazing amount of fumes. But where the Twin Towers were? You couldn't see anything above that ten foot fence. This is a direct report from someone who was standing right there, looking at where the WTC used to be.
1 thereisnosuchthing 2014-10-24
Yeah, the authorities in NYC got rid of the evidence pretty quickly. The whole event was captured on video tape, so that's what I'm referring to.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
OK. I'm just telling you what I saw with my own eyes.
1 thereisnosuchthing 2014-10-24
OK. I'm just telling you what is on video as the event happens, because that's what we are talking about, not what was going on there 3 days later.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
The debris pile was very short, especially above the footprints of the Twin Towers. This is important, because it goes against the "controlled demolition" hypothesis.
1 Prozac20mg 2014-10-24
I'm just saying no building if that size has ever been demoed by explosives ( or airplanes ) so we really have no comparison. All the conjecture in the world won't give us the answer to what it would look like.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
Size doesn't matter when it comes to a hydrocarbon fire. The smallest and the largest hydrocarbon fire burn at the same maximum temperature, which is far too low to significantly weakens steel, even the tiniest amount of steel.
1 Prozac20mg 2014-10-24
Yes I fully agree. I was only arguing that it doesn't make sense ( to me ) to say the towers didn't come down within their own foot print b/c we have never demoed anything that size so there is no comparison. The argument that they were not demolished by explosives b/c they didn't fall right is kinda a no go b/c you can't point and say " there. That's what blowing up the tallest structure in the world ( with another next door also coming down ) looks like. Were they hit by planes, definitely. Did the collapse get helped along by explosives? That is the question. And even if you had a comparison of size by demolition you'd have to first fly jetliners into them to get an accurate comparison.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
One thing, though, is that the towers didn't come down in their own footprint. If you look at pictures taken immediately after the damage, even before WTC 7 fell, you'll note that there isn't a TALL pile of debris centered over the footprints of WTC 1 and 2. It's rather short actually. The debris fell almost entirely outside the footprints of those buildings. This is evidence of explosions, although not necessarily explosives. You don't need to fly airliners into a gigantic building to test whether or not they could damage it. All you have to do is smash an aluminum baseball bat against a single steel beam. Go ahead. Bring some friends and take turns. Bring 100 aluminum baseball bats. No matter how many times you smash that same steel beam, it will always ruin the baseball bat and stay almost untouched. In a collision, what gets destroyed is the physically weaker object.
1 Prozac20mg 2014-10-24
Yes. I agree. The physically weaker object usually takes the brunt ( I say usually because wierd stuff happens during tornadoes but this was not those conditions ). I don't mind talking about it. Maybe I should be clear and say I don't know what brought them down but I'm fairly positive it was much more than the aircraft. My argument is only.... We don't have a demolition of this magnitude to use as a comparison so saying that the buildings did or did not stay within their respective foot prints to proove it was or was not a demolition seems invalid. There are many other good facts having to do with physics and melting points and such that would seem to indicate that there was much more going on than the crashes. The only major problem I have us explaining away the amount of people that would have to keep quiet about the job. That's a hard one.
1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
I agree with what you're saying nearly 100%. That last point about an "amount" of people that would have to keep quiet about the job is an important point. If you add in a grand conspiracy, it's hard to say how it could stay a secret. If you're talking about advanced weaponry controlled from a secure and undisclosed location, then keeping it a secret is much easier, because it's fewer people.
-1 radii314 2014-10-24
well the lore around 9/11 has almost gotten to the point physicists are at with fierce debates about superstring theory vs. brane theory vs. steady-state vs. great attractor vs. quantum gravity etc. etc. - learned people fight eloquently for their positions yet none of us gets to know the truth ... with 9/11 there is a lot that is very dirty about that day within the U.S. gov't, israeli gov't, Saudi gov't. and others and some of them know the truth
0 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
Really? That's what everyone with an opinion seems to say about 9/11. "It must have been an inside job. It must have been a government behind the attacks." For this reason, I want you to consider the opposite view, that it wasn't an inside job. Maybe it was a small group of people. Maybe they weren't associated with the United States, Israel, or any other government. I know you probably think I'm ridiculous for even suggesting it, but the inside job theory hasn't produced anything in the 12+ years it's been around.
1 radii314 2014-10-24
the inside job theory has produced a mountain of evidence, mostly circumstantial (but that's enough to convict a lot of murderers) and is the majority opinion of people around the world by a wide margin
the best-case scenario for those who wish to believe the official story is that saudi hijackers under direction of KSM (for al queda) were independent cells and pulled off the spectacular attacks - this scenario indicts israel the most because their mossad agents so closely shadowed some of the alleged hijackers that they practically lived together
2 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
The inside job hasn't produced much good evidence. Physical evidence. Documentary evidence. Even eyewitness evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be good evidence, if it is supported by these other types of evidence.
0 scbeski 2014-10-24
Who is claiming that they fell at free-fall speeds?
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
6 radii314 2014-10-24
many videos show the fall of 7 and your own eyes can see the freefall speed, and it cleaves along vertical planes exactly as a controlled demo would
http://youtu.be/Atbrn4k55lA
2:10, 3:30, 4:09 and especially 6:45 shows it very clearly
3 scbeski 2014-10-24
There's at least one angle that allows you to see the mechanical penthouse on the roof that is supported by interior columns. This is our one visible clue from the outside of what is happening on the interior of the building. It clearly collapses in an irregular fashion (either west to east or east to west, can't remember), and prior to the exterior of the building beginning to collapse. This suggests a complete interior collapse, followed by the interior member framing pulling the exterior walls down with it.
The freefall claim is thoroughly debunked. Measurements of the roof line using video tracking software as it collapses shows that it is significantly slower than freefall speed. There's a section in the FAQ that addresses this. Furthermore, if the hypothesis of an internal column collapse preceding the collapse of the exterior columns/walls is correct, much of the beginning of the collapse is not being included in the time measurement. By the time the collapse visibly begins from many angles from the exterior, the building is significantly overstressed due to the loss of the interior framing and offers very little resistance to the loads acting upon it, hence why it would appear to collapse at near free fall speeds.
3 STARVE_THE_BEAST 2014-10-24
Not true, even NIST acknowledges WTC 7 free-fall now:
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
2 scbeski 2014-10-24
Did you ignore parts (1) and (3)?
1 STARVE_THE_BEAST 2014-10-24
Simultaneous, synchronized free-fall of the entire facade for even 8 floors means no structural support / resistance across the whole of the falling facade, which is exactly what happens in a controlled demolition, as opposed to NIST's fictive, undisclosed, non-peer reviewed progressive collapse speculation.
2 scbeski 2014-10-24
The interior columns and structural framing failed prior to the collapse of the exterior. This is shown by the collapse of the mechanical penthouse prior to the visible collapse of the exterior walls. By the time the exterior collapse reaches those 8 floors, not only is the entire interior of the building gone, but momentum of the upper exterior wall weight is crushing down, not surprising that it would reach free-fall speeds for that intermediate stage of the collapse.
1 STARVE_THE_BEAST 2014-10-24
You must have missed the part where I wrote:
There's no way an "internal" collapse caused by localized failure points would be so near-perfectly symmetrical. Come on.
0 radii314 2014-10-24
or if the lacing of detonator cord that is going off within the central structure fires first the vibration alone could topple that roof area inward seen falling in sequence first (and/or through weakening of the central supports) ... then the drop - clearly the central 60%-70% of the building pulls down the outer sections
5 windingdreams 2014-10-24
Interesting rhetoric at the end. Couple loose bolts and tower seven came down due to a small roof fire that collapsed an awning.
It must have been a very magic day in New York, several other steel buildings, built far, far before the twin towers, have burned to husks in multiple day long fires, never even came close to falling.
Small roof fire taking out a modern steel building in a complete free fall demolition event? You have to be intentionally thick or scared of the idea to let that one squeek by.
I know, it's scary. The government sold us out and killed people to further their war industry. Time to put our big boy pants on and deal with it.
-1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
8 khamul787 2014-10-24
That's about as far away from what he said as possible, and you know it. Don't be a prick just because he disagrees with you and happens to be a professional in a relevant field.
3 scbeski 2014-10-24
Amazing how you can twist things to fit your pre-established worldview
2 Viper_ACR 2014-10-24
...what?
It seems to me that the class highlighted critical thinking.
-1 Middleman79 2014-10-24
I'm going to go with controlled demolition, because I have eyes.
2 dtiftw 2014-10-24
So people who study structural engineering don't have eyes?
1 Viper_ACR 2014-10-24
How do you know your eyes don't deceive you?
-5 gonucksgo 2014-10-24
No.
No they do not.
Not in the least.
You've entered an incorrect key. Please try again.
5 scbeski 2014-10-24
Thanks for your edifying addition to the discussion.
61 welder621 2014-10-24
I am a welder fabricator for a big firm in Germany, can you explain why their were 45 degree cuts on some of the structural beams on the demolition site?
A contractor would never do this as it is a risk to life, one would cut straight through and lift away, not risk a 100ton beam sliding away from them.
Non one in Germany believes the official story, we have already had a out of control government in our history, it appears the U.S people are allowing the current administration to do what ever it likes.
40 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 KnightKrawler 2014-10-24
When a lumberjack does it they make 2 separate angled cuts, not one. The "Lumberjack Theory" seems a bit flimsy.
-4 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Welder dude specifically said they would never cut beams at a 45 because the beam might get away from them. I dont recall ever seeing a tree be cut like those beams were cut. Usually a tree has a wedge cut on the side you want the tree to fall and the a second cut is made from the other side.
http://www.husqvarna.com/files/Husqvarna/WIP/ChainsawBook/P27_1.jpg
-8 ridestraight 2014-10-24
German citizens were attacked from within to catapult War. The same here and you go off about Lumberjacks felling trees!
Please exhibit some vigilance in here and respond with some integrity.
EDIT: Pile on the down-votes. Richard Gage is telling you that the cuts at Ground Zero were performed in the clean-up phase. Did I miss some detail here Richard Gage, reddit?
How many workers at Ground Zero were killed on site, by mismanaged debris handling or removal? One. Just one. Answer the questions put forth by sacchetta.
-5 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Thank you again /u/ridestraight!
8 JamesColesPardon 2014-10-24
I have often posted about how I believe I can at least attempt to empathize with German citizens during the rise of the Reich. It's scary.
7 5arge 2014-10-24
It's true. Right now, we Americans feel the helplessness that Germans felt when they knew the evil things going on but were unable to stop it.
2 JamesColesPardon 2014-10-24
There's a way, I think. But the window for it is closing and I fear it may already be too late.
2 escapefromdigg 2014-10-24
And the willful blindness of most of the population...
0 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
14 Cadaverlanche 2014-10-24
Americans happily vote fascist authoritarians into office every time an election comes around. Republicans still claim that Bush did a good job, and Democrats still claim that Obama is a great president. Both sides are fully supportive of the illusion being sold to them.
7 autopornbot 2014-10-24
We didn't elect Bush. He lost to Gore and manipulated the election to win it.
When Bush was president, there was more anger and hatred for his administration, more disapproval of it than any I had ever experienced (I remember back to Carter). Obama is disliked by a lot of people, but not as much as Bush was.
1 OWNtheNWO 2014-10-24
hesrightyouknow.jpg
2 radicalextremetruth 2014-10-24
except hitler was fighting the bankers.
2 JamesColesPardon 2014-10-24
And look what happened to him.
3 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
These angle cuts were seen in images of Ground Zero taken during the clean up period, when they were removing building debris. They probably weren't caused by the destructive process itself.
-1 NoLibs4 2014-10-24
Exactly this. Plus, "lifting away" wasn't that feasible on top of a hue pile of unstable rubble.
1 thereisnosuchthing 2014-10-24
is the "4" at the end of your account name indication that it's 1 of 4(and probably more) accounts that you use to spam and shill with?
1 NoLibs4 2014-10-24
No. I just liked how the 4 looked.
1 Orangutan 2014-10-24
"45 degree cuts on some of the structural beams" [Pictures]
45 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
18 shadowofashadow 2014-10-24
Incredible. Thanks for sharing. Also speaks some sense to all of those people who say "yeah well AE911 only has a few thousands members so everyone else must disagree!".
-3 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
6 Meekin33 2014-10-24
Since I do not know much about planes, are the planes that crashed into the towers similar to the B52? You had also mention different designs. I would assume that Bc a plane hits one building and the building survives, that a building with a different design may fair differently? Assuming of course all other factors equal.
10 7ech7onic 2014-10-24
The B-25 that crashed into the Empire State Building weighed 19,480 lbs empty and had a top speed of 272 mph.
The 767-200s that crashed into the WTC weighed 176,650 lbs empty and had a top speed of 567 mph.
Source: Wikipedia
2 IAMAnEMTAMA 2014-10-24
Amazing how you can be so skeptical about the NIST report but when this anonymous internet user claims his dad's friends don't believe the official story you eat it right up. Where's your skepticism gone?
3 metaliving 2014-10-24
Well, I'm a civil engineer outside the US and in my experience, almost nobody in the field distrusts the official story. The thing is, NIST ran simulations, collected all possible data, and came to conclusions with that. Conspiracy theories in this case throw out a conclusion and then make an incoherent rambling to back those conclusions.
6 PraeterNational 2014-10-24
And then, in the case of WTC7, refused to release the inputs the their models citing "public safety" concerns. How would showing how these buildings collapsed, and therefore what standards for other building might need to be changed, endanger public safety?
-2 metaliving 2014-10-24
See, now this is an argument that's compelling and not just bullshit. I don't like that they didn't release the input files. Yes, they more or less detail how they get the data, but I ddidn't like not having all the inputs. But I'd say, given the testing done, and the information released, it's not a really big deal. It just means you have to collect your own data from all the footage released just like they did in order to run your own simulation.
But I'd like to mention one thing about the conspiracy theory about 9-11. It's not a theory. It's thousands of them. That's why we "shills" can't disprove everyone of them, because they range from "there were no planes" to "the orbital invisible teapot did it". So there isn't a falsable theory. Unlike NIST's which is falsable. It probably isn't 100% accurate, but it's the more plausible scenario.
2 Thevents 2014-10-24
If you agree that the reason for collapse of building 7 was "thermal expansion" of a single beam, and if you agree, as NIST stated, that no one ever knew before that thermal expansion could be the cause of a building collapse - then explain how on Earth it is possible that anyone could possible know before hand that the building would collapse. Foreknowledge of that type is impossible. Period.
How could the failure of a single beam which led to a progressive collapse cause a collapse that happens at absolute freefall for 2.5 seconds? That is also impossible.
5 metaliving 2014-10-24
Thermal expasion can be the cause of a collapse, that's why you have to leave "gaps" in the structures, for thermal expansion. And yes, thermal expansion + weakened steel can make a building fall, especially when it has lost some lateral support, which makes the buckling easier.
And again with the fucking freefall, you guys are fucking delusional and pulling facts out of your ass. You are saying WTC 7 would take 2.5 seconds to fall at free fall speed. So basically, you're saying WTC 7 was 30.6 meters tall, which is the height from where something would reach the ground in 2.5 seconds at free fall speed (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y%3D%281%2F2%29*9.81*2.5%5E2).
Please, you don't know shit about the simplest of high school physics. So don't go around like you know what foreknowledge is impossible, or as if you know anything about structural engineering.
1 Thevents 2014-10-24
You are lying or NIST is lying. Shyam Sunder the lead investigator said "The study has identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse. For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a structural collapse."
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/RemarksSunderAug212008briefing.pdf
So given that FACT how is it possible that anyone that day itself could have had foreknowledge that it would collapse. You are plain and simply a fucking idiot or a liar if you don't see the problem here.
No, dumbass. I said that there was 2.5 seconds of free fall. Not that the whole building collapsed in 2.5 seconds.
Actually its you that doesn't if you don't get how by its very nature a progressive collapse can't involve any amount of free fall. In this case 2.5 seconds. That would mean that in an instant it was as if 8 stories of structural components were simply not there. By its very nature a progressive collapse can't happen in an instant.
0 metaliving 2014-10-24
It probably is the first time it actually happens, but thermal expansion has been taken into account for steel buildings since long time ago. It's important even in concrete buildings, as I recall seeing the gaps for thermal expansion in the EHE-98 (Spanish standard for concrete buildings back in 98). I really don't know if it's never caused a collapse, but it has definetely caused damage before (such as cracks in concrete buildings or deformations in steel ones). And this is not the usaual thermal expansion, we're not talking "it's summer and it's hot outside" expansion, we're talking about a really hot fire.
By the way, people seem to forget a fucking skyscrapper fell near this building, that's some structural stress to be taken into acount.
Okay, so there was free fall during 2.5 seconds. I'm going to throw a [citation needed] just to learn a bit about it.
And by the way, if it wasn't a demolition caused by the fires, what was it? The NIST report tested for blasts, but really, anyone who has been near any decent amount of explosives when they go off knows that explosives are loud as fuck. And if it wasn't a controlled demolition with explosives, what was it?
-4 EyeCrush 2014-10-24
So, you're a shill? Get the fuck out.
The thing is, simulations mean NOTHING as they can easily be manipulated. They never told ANYONE what data they used for the simulations. They REFUSE to release the data they used for the simulations.
3 metaliving 2014-10-24
Got called a shill, thank god I'm not playing the /r/conspiracy drinking game.
Not a shill, just a person who's read the official version. Unlike you. You say they never told anyone what data they used. Except it's totally detailed in the NIST report. You don't get that long of a report saying "A wizard did it". They detailed their data, the programs they used for simulating, where did they obtain that data and how they obtained it. A simple read of the NIST "short" report (the one with the hundred and something pages) would make you to quit blatantly lying (although unknowingly). The data is all there. You just have to want to look at it.
By the way, all the arguments for the official version have been peer reviewed. Haven't seen any peer reviewed article against. I'd guess it's because peer reviewed articles demand you use the scientific method, instead of saying things for the fun of it.
-3 EyeCrush 2014-10-24
Bull. Shit. You fucking liar. Fuck you.
How does it feel to be a traitor to your own countrymen? Fucking shill piece of garbage.
3 metaliving 2014-10-24
Wow, nice arguments. /r/conspiracy never dissappoints.
About how does it feel to be a traitor to my own countrymen, I really don't know. You may want to come oversea to ask them instead of me.
Ooh shit, so the ad hominem didn't work, what now?
-2 EyeCrush 2014-10-24
The fuck does /r/conspiracy have to do with anything?
Fucking JTRIG SHILL.
How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
0 metaliving 2014-10-24
You have a point, it's not the subreddit, it's the individual retard. In this case /u/EyeCrush . /r/conspiracy just has to do with it because a lot of people like you just try to discredit any opinion different from yours with "omg, paid shill, fuck you".
Sadly, I'm not paid for debunking this shit. Sadly, NIST report being accurate (which it is) doesn't prove who is behind the attacks (only who carried them out). And sadly, 9/11 not being a false flag conspiracy (which most likely isn't) doesn't end with some other conspiracies out there.
The thing is, trying to fight a scientififc paper with bullshit, just discredits that particular opinion, and by association, any other related opinion on that topic. So you're just hurting your "cause", "crusade" or whatever you want to call it.
-1 EyeCrush 2014-10-24
No. It is not accurate. It's a complete fabrication. Again, if you weren't a shill, you would admit this.
NIST released no scientific paper. You must think people are really stupid.
5 metaliving 2014-10-24
Ok, so you say NIST report is a fabrication. That's an affirmation, isn't it? So, if you know the least bit about the scientific method, you know that the burden of proof lies with you.
So please, tell me a thing in the NIST report that is wrong. To do so, if you were so nice, I'd like you to link me to the report and telling me in which page there is that supossed lie.
By the way, you keep on going with the ad hominem shill argument. Funny enough, the US went all the way across the pond to get recently graduated civil engineering students to agree with them. That's what I call being thorough.
-2 EyeCrush 2014-10-24
The entire report is one big lie.
Jet fuel burns at 1000 degrees at the most. Steel requires 2800 degrees to melt.
Also, all supports in a skyscraper have to fail at the exact same time to cause the building to go into free fall. This can only be done with explosives.
For the rest, look at Richard Gage's material. He lays it all out, along with thousands of other architects and engineers who do not support the official story.
5 metaliving 2014-10-24
First, I was really confused with your use of degrees there. I assumed we were talking Celsius (which the report uses most of the time) or Kelvin (international system). Farenheit are just not widely used in science.
Second of all, you just proved you haven't read a single word of the official version. Nowhere in the official version does it say that steel melted. NOWHERE. And if you find any page of the official report saying the steel melted because of the fires, please, point me to it.
Third, you just proved your total disregard of facts, saying the building goes into free fall. For starters it doesn't. The official report goes on about how they calculate the falling time, and thus the speed, but we don't even have to go that "sciency" to disprove this bullshit. You just need to see the debris ejected lateraly. They fall faster than the rest of the building. So either those debris have some magical acceleration on the y axis to make them accelerate at more than 9,81 m/s2 or they were falling at free fall speed and the building wasn't.
2200 architects and engineers support different parts of Richard Gage's theories. Thousands worked in the official report, from all over the world. So it's not a numbers game. But if you want to play the numbers game, you just have to see, 2200 architects and engineers think it was a demolition, the majority of us don't (at least in my experience, and I probably know more engineers than you do).
As always, you'll dismiss most of my message and you'll try to fight a small part of my argument. I don't mind, it just goes to show what happens when you try to disprove science with made up facts.
-2 EyeCrush 2014-10-24
For a fire to bring down a skyscraper, it would have to melt the steel. The NIST report cites the fires as THE reason as to why Building 7 fell at free fall speed, a building that was not hit by any airplanes.
So, I guess you haven't really bothered to read the NIST reports like you claim.
1 metaliving 2014-10-24
As I said, you disregarded my comment, moved on with your agenda, which I'll continue to disprove.
For a fire to bring down a skyskraper, it wouldn't have to melt the steel. It would have to weaken it. Melting happens at 1538ºC, the huge dip in strenght starts at 430ºC and ends at more or less 700-800ºC where steel has lost most of its strenght.
The NIST report cites the fires as being the reason as to why WTC7 fell. Nowhere does it say it fell at free fall speed. And if you could find any scientific paper saying WTC7 fell at free fall speed, please, do enlighten me. But if you want a scientific paper calculating the speed at which WTC7 fell, I refer you to the official report on WTC7 by the NIST, chapter 3.6 "Timing of collapse initiation and progression".
-2 EyeCrush 2014-10-24
So you haven't seen the videos of it falling? Again, the NIST report purposely leaves out a lot of information.
WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I
The only way for a building to fall into its footprint like that at freefall speed is for ALL supports to fail at the EXACT same time. Sorry, but the fire wasn't widespread enough for that.
You've disproved nothing.
MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg
5 metaliving 2014-10-24
Seriously, that video is full of shit. Hey, let's have this one camera angle that only shows 60% of the building, it's not like the official report took data from all different sources available. And more so, seeing as I have indisputable proof, let's send this for peer review. Except, what has more ground in science... a closed comment youtube video.
I've disproved nothing? Free fall speed in both the towers and WTC7, and your claim of steel having to melt for a building to fall. By the way, it's not me who's saying the official version is false, then never actually bringing the official version.
Seeing as you're going to keep with the "shill" argument and disregarding any data I give, and you just move on with the next argument in your list, I'm going to head off to sleep. And don't think I'm trying to change your mind about this. You're a conspiratard. You're too far gone. I just hope that if anyone is reading this AMA with doubts of both sides, he or she will see the arguments for and against. And on one side he's just going to read "Shill shill shil shill, omg lizardking", which makes me rest easy.
But hey, I'm all open for discussion still. You're saying that all the report is a one big lie. Ok, you don't make a big lie without smaller lies. The lie starts somewhere.
So please, link me to a mistake or deliberate error or lie in the official report. Page and everything, as to avoid what happened before, saying "the official report says steel melted" when it doesn't. So as to keep the discussion true to the report (which you say is false), if you're going to fight the official version, tell me where is it wrong, instead of making strawmen.
-2 EyeCrush 2014-10-24
If you're going to continue to ignore what I say, then I am done here. Fuck off.
9/11: WTC Building 7 collapse video compilation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA&feature=youtu.be
2 metaliving 2014-10-24
Ok good, so now I'm the one ignoring what you say. Funny enough, you just try to take my argument and use it yourself, as to show I'm the one ignoring you, not the opossite.
And now to address this last video. What message are you trying to convey with it? It's just a series of videos of the building falling, and definitely not at free fall speed. I don't know how many controlled demolitions would demolish first the east penthouse and then the rest of the building, but if you watch 2:35 on your own video, you can see the first of the 3 columns buckling and thus the east penthouse falling. Then, after a few seconds and a new load distribution, the other 2 major columns give up. Just like NIST report said, ovserved and simulated.
By the way, dindn't think of going this route yesterday: Okay, let's say the NIST report is "one big lie". What is your theory about 9-11. Cause I don't know which theory you think it's true. See, there's only one official version, but there are like 20-30 different conspiracy theories. And most of the time, people seem to think all of them are true, even when they are not compatible, either between them or with reality.
-2 EyeCrush 2014-10-24
Yes, it IS falling at free fall speed. Sorry you don't have the knowledge necessary to understand that.
If you would've watched the previous links I posted, you would've understood that.
Hello, architects and engineers for 9/11 truth? Have you read ANYTHING they've said?
1 metaliving 2014-10-24
Ok, so let's say it's free fall speed (although it's been proven time and again it isn't). What caused the building to fall? WHAT? Was it thermite? Lasers? Was it an explosion? What was it, and why is there no evidence whatsoever of it?
-1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 metaliving 2014-10-24
I love your arguments. Have a nice life, kiddo.
5 IAMAnEMTAMA 2014-10-24
What about the part where he disproves your claim that the steel was melted and points out that steel loses much of its strength when heated to a certain temperature? Do you have a response to that at least?
2 destraht 2014-10-24
I know two Professional Engineers (PE) who don't believe the story at all but they make a lot of money from the state and also the good old boy network could decide that they are crazy if they made an issue. So they sit quietly.
39 sacchetta 2014-10-24
I was hoping I could get you to address a few things:
1.) Lack of sound on 9/11. Explosions are faster than the speed of sound, and cause a loud bang. This is an example of a recent controlled demolition. Mic clipping (when the signal gets overloaded it distorts and it is called “clipping”) can be seen and heard in the video linked. Why can we hear conversations as WTC 7 is destroyed? Why is there no evident clipping on most of the WTC tower destruction videos? How can explosives be that quiet, furthermore how is it that the amount of explosive power needed to turn 2 110 story buildings and a 47 story building into dust failed to overcome all foreground noise?
2.) Molten metal. The claim is that molten metal flowed through the site however there are no pictures. When the site began to be watered down and when the storm came days later the site was soaked. Water expands at about 1600X’s it’s original volume when it hits a surface at 100°C, why were there no steam explosions in these “hot spots”? In addition, how was earth moving equipment able to operate on these hotspots? Their hydraulics would have seized up way before reaching the NASA “hot spots” temperatures of around 700°C. We saw pictures of material glowing on the ground surrounded by paper, how is it that metal so hot it is glowing, ignores the paper around it?
3.) Seismic data. Why did the destruction of the towers (1,2 & 7) not result in a Seismic Signal that was of enough significance? How is it that there was no primary or secondary wave for the destruction of any of the towers? Only surface waves were present (earth recovering from weight lifted off). As I understand you are an architect from the San Francisco Bay Area, how is an architect from a very active earthquake region is not instantly interested in the seismographic data? If the buildings came down due controlled demolitions wouldn’t the seismic data be the smoking gun?
4.) Lack of debris. This is a picture taken before 5:20pm on 9/11 (we know this because WTC 7 is standing in the back left). The tiny 1-2 story WTC 1 “pile” is seen at the right center of the picture, it is dwarfed by the 8 story WTC 6 building (seen in the back right behind WTC 1). How does explosives or thermite, thermate, nano thermite, super-thermite or thermitic material account for the lack of debris? The twin towers were made out of around 5700 outer column prefabricated units, why is that not reflected in this photo or in the one mentioned before? Surely there was no steel removed or “shipped to China” when this picture was taken, again how does a controlled demolition and thermite or its variants result in this?
5.) Thermite. Thermite, thermate, nano thermite, super-thermite and thermitic material; why does it keep changing? As I understand it is essentially iron oxide and aluminum, if the towers were turned to dust as we see in the videos and pictures, should we not expect there to be iron and aluminum dust in the debris since the towers were made out of iron and had aluminum cladding? It is claimed that there were non-ignited thermite chips found in the dust. If the heat was so intense then how didn’t it set off the thermite chips? Also shouldn’t there have been lots of bright flashes everywhere? Not just a glowing red substance pouring out of places, but a blinding light as seen in YouTube videos about thermite? How was it that the thermite was able to act so quickly, accurately and on time? From all the videos I’ve seen it appears to be rather slow and nowhere near the speed needed to bring anything down in sequence. Why was thermite not mentioned in Stephen E. Jones & Bob McIlvaine’s RFC? The word thermite is in a link within the document but that was added later, why would Jones not mention or discuss thermite within his RFC?
6.) 1400+ Destroyed cars. I have seen an interview of yours where you say falling pieces of thermite fell onto the cars and burned them, how does this explain abrupt boundaries, plastic materials not melting, rubber not melting, missing door handles, entire engines missing or flipped cars. If thermite was falling and was hot enough to cause the destruction of 1400 cars, then why were people not burned, why was paper all over the ground not burned and why where there leaves on the trees above or right next to these destroyed cars? These vehicles were on West Broadway behind WTC 7 (building on the front right) so we know this image was taken before 5:20pm and was a good distance from WTC 1 & 2. How can such destruction be attributed to thermite or fire?
Hopefully I have listed a few of my fellow redditors concerns above. If there is any information that I have gotten wrong feel free to PM me with the proper evidence. WTC 1 Turning Into Dust Slow Motion HD
13 shadowofashadow 2014-10-24
How can you say this?
What is going on in this video?
http://youtu.be/OmuzyWC60eE
-2 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Something is glowing and dripping from the tower? How do we know what it is or what is causing a glow? I don't have samples of that substance, I don't know any one who does. Please link me to a analysis of samples of molten metal or solid metal that was molten.
18 canihaveahint 2014-10-24
Uhh. You asked for pictures.
-2 sacchetta 2014-10-24
And I was linked to a video of a glowing substance dripping out of a building. I don't know what temperature it is or what the material itself is. How can I say that that is concrete evidence? Or enough evidence to base any claims on?
12 canihaveahint 2014-10-24
It's what you asked for though. When you move the goalposts like that it makes me sad :(
1 sometimes_jerkbag 2014-10-24
Cheer up; science cares not for your emotions dude..
1 canihaveahint 2014-10-24
Dude...
0 sacchetta 2014-10-24
If I bring video or pictorial evidence into a courtroom I need to have the permission of the original creator for it to be admissible evidence (I am no lawyer but this is my understanding).
In that sense how is a bit of glowing dripping material proof for extreme heat and presence of molten metal, where is the corroborating evidence for this conclusion? Especially when we don't have the video creator's permission?
8 FormalPants 2014-10-24
You're refusing the video you specifically requested because you lack permission from the creator to form opinions about it?
Are you retarded?
6 BloodWillow 2014-10-24
Well it certainly isn't orange Kool-Aid. Here are some expert, eyewitnesses for ya.
Oh, and it's pretty well known about the heat at ground zero. Mind you that image was captured almost a week after 9/11, so it's safe to say those temperatures were higher moments after the event.
-4 sacchetta 2014-10-24
You must not have gone through my original statement where I linked the NASA photo. Again if there were rivers of molten steel, WHERE were the steam explosions? The site was drenched so how could the water not encounter any of these hotspots and result in a steam explosion?
The NASA image indicates some form of data, how can we conclude that it is extreme heat when there was not a single steam explosion?
Where did all this molten metal go to? Is there a giant metal block somewhere that was made from molten metal run off? How did a collapse/bombs/molten metal not result in any significant damage to the bathtub? Clean up had to be halted because the earth moving equipment was damaging the bathtub. How does earth moving equipment damage something that 2 110 story buildings didn't?
3 BloodWillow 2014-10-24
Here is the evidence of extreme heat. As to where the rest of the evidence went, the answer is China and India.
Edit: Added India and fixed a word.
-1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
This picture was taken before 5:20pm (WTC 7 is standing in the background). WTC 5 is 8 stories and it towers over the rubble. Did the steel get shipped to China before WTC 7 was destroyed? Is there any receipts or any kind of documented evidence for the idea that all the steel was shipped to China? Please provide links or references to a place where I can obtain them, I will be happy to look at it.
There should be around 5700 outer column prefabrication units. Why is this not consistent with what we see on the ground immediately after the event and a couple weeks later?
And once again. If water converts into steam at approximately 100°C, then why was there not one steam explosion during the 90 or 99 days that those 700°C+ temperatures were present. The site had continuos water being poured on it and it rained on the 14th. How did this not cause a single steam explosion. If temperatures were as high as NASA has inferred, why aren't these water pools boiling? According to that NASA data is should be 819°F right there. That picture was also taken on 9/11.
This is a LIDAR composite image that shows the site on the 16th-23rd of September 2001. How do you get rid of almost 1 million tonnes of debris that quickly? If you download a picture collection and look through it you will be able to start placing them in a rough order by looking at the environment around it (certain things move and it gives you a timeline). Anyways if you do that you will begin to see that there was not much rubble to begin with. You begin to realize that the videos aren't lying, the building is mostly turning to dust before it hits the ground.
As for the "meteorite" does that account for anywhere close to 200 000 tons of steel? I don't have a sample of it, if you have a few reports on it I'd love to see them just PM me the links.
3 BloodWillow 2014-10-24
It's obvious there is no pleasing you, but I shall try.
I don't know what you are getting at here. No smartass, they didn't move the steel out of there on the day of 9/11. Most of the debris from the buildings are sitting in their respected footprints and surrounding vicinity.
Here is a link describing the amount Chinese and Indian corporations purchased of ground zero steel thanks to Bloomberg and the Port Authority. Let's do the math from the article. China gets 50,000 tons and India gets four shipments of 33,000 tons each. That's a total of 182,000 tons of steel.
??? Other than just spouting bullshit, do you have an alternative theory/inference for the source and intensity of those heat signatures produced in that image? Please link to your sources for me.
As for the 'meteorite' please explain how something like that came to be outside of extreme heat. Don't forget to link to your sources please.
-1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
The amount of debris that you see in the picture taken before WTC 7 was destroyed is consistent with what you see in ground zero during the next weeks. In other words, clean up was much much slower than people are led to believe and they assume that after weeks most of the debris belonging to the towers had been cleaned out and shipped off. In reality the majority of the debris wasn't on the ground to begin with, it had turned to dust before a gravity driven collapse was a possibility.
This picture was taken on the 13th. That ambulance is ground level parked in front of WTC 1. You can see the base of WTC 1. When comparing it with other pictures you find that it is only a few stories high. How can this be? Where is all the material? Some suggest it is in its basement. In WTC 1 there were 14 people in stairwell B scattered over the bottom few stories. All 14 survived, which means that if 110 stories had to fall into its own footprint it they would have to carefully navigate around a single stairwell. Here is a photo of WTC 2's basement on the 18th. It looks considerably empty. So if the debris isn't on the ground and it's not in the basement, where is the debris? Dust cloud.
I don't know what that material is. I don't have a sample, I don't have a bunch of scientific papers on it. I would be happy to get some. There are many ways to fuse materials, why do we assume that heat would have did that when we don't have any court admissible evidence about it. I really don't want to speculate on things that I don't have any information on. And if that was as hot as it needed to be to melt together, where was a single steam explosion when all the water was draining through the site?
How can the NASA information be pertaining to heat when there was workers and water where the temperature was supposedly around 700°C? When water hits something at a a temperature greater than 100°C it expands in volume by 1600X's, why was there not a single steam explosion if all this molten metal, thermite and meteors were present. If temperatures are as high as stated in the NASA data (especially for 99 days) how can we conceive that there was not a single steam explosion when the water hit the 700°C temperatures?
3 BloodWillow 2014-10-24
The collapse turned steel into dust? Without explosives? By what process did this occur? Last I checked metal tends to bend, flex, and shatter when stressed. What mechanism pulverized steel into dust? Show me your source. I want to see math here.
Where is the debris? You tell me. I say it's right there. The burden of proof is on you. If you insist that metal turned to dust, without explosives, show me your facts.
Way to dodge the question. Asking for perfect information is a sure sign your motives are less than genuine here. Truth appears to be less important than your agenda. (Put in a good word for me)
Now answer the question. Enough bullshit. How was that hunk of steel, concrete, and carbonized materials formed without heat? You say there are many ways to fuse those materials. Put up or shut up. Outside of heat, and/or extreme pressure (which will produce heat) I don't know of any other way.
Edit: a word
1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
You're right. I am completely wrong.
3 TexasMojo 2014-10-24
Other office fires have burned much hotter and longer than those in the Twin Towers. Please provide me one photograph as evidence for this "mysterious dropping glow" coming from any other office fire, ever, in the history of the planet.
2 shadowofashadow 2014-10-24
What do you propose, other than molten metal, could produce a glowing, dripping effect like that?
2 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 FormalPants 2014-10-24
Did you even bother to read the very first sentence there?
-1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Why do I have to theorize? There is something there that is glowing and dripping, we don't have samples so how can I conclude. Glowing doesn't just happen to hot material.
5 shadowofashadow 2014-10-24
I'm not trying to get you here or be a prick or anything. I honestly cannot think of anything else that would be present in that situation that would be glowing and dripping. From all my experience as a human being I cannot fathom anything other than molten metal.
This may be my own lack of epxerience or knowledge which is why I ask, because I have no idea what you might even imagine it could be.
We don't have an analysis of lots of things that day but some thing don't require an analysis, we can figure them out based on our knowledge of the world. I'm just wondering if this is one of those things. I mean, we all know that the fireball upon impact was caused largely by the fuel in the plane. Did we have an analysis of that? No, but we know it.
2 sacchetta 2014-10-24
I understand. I have personally carefully gone through 6000+ photos, the crime scene is VERY different from what we are being told by many. A dripping glowing substance on video does not prove that there is molten metal or thermite. If it was molten metal, that still will not explain how 2 110 story buildings turn almost entirely into dust and leave no significant seismic signal, make little sound and leave next to no debris compared.
1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-10-24
I'm assuming you've looked into Judy Woods' work. I'm curious what you think of it if so.
-2 sacchetta 2014-10-24
I would really like to stay away from talking about Dr. Judy Wood for this AMA. It seems that it invokes the same response from Richard and it is counter-productive. I used only evidence that stands alone so it can't be mixed in with character assassination. PM me if you need anymore information. Thanks
-1 ridestraight 2014-10-24
Since Richard must not respect you or your questions perhaps you can direct my old addled brain to your theory about the craters in some of the other buildings. I'm getting older by the second and I cannot find any scientific discussion about these other buildings deformation!
Please and thank you!
1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Material missing from WTC 6 and WTC 5 is mind boggling. I think the smoking gun is WTC 4. What can cause a building like that to have most of it's main body "erased"?
Feel free to PM with any questions or if you are in need of evidence. Thanks for the support!
2 ridestraight 2014-10-24
What can we do to compel Engineers and Architects to address the entire Ground Zero fiasco?
There's more there than meets the eye!
Your thread is incredible! Thank you!
1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
No no, thank you. Do not stop looking. This is our future.
All we can do is confront them. Hold their feet to the fire, use evidence that anyone can verify for themselves.
-1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-10-24
Wasn't trying to badger you or anything it's just that it's obvious you've done a lot of research on this subject and your questions were well thought out - was just curious what you thought of the DEW hypothesis.
Discussion of Judy Wood really does seem to bring out the worst in people - almost like there were a deliberate campaign in place to smear and discredit her...
3 axolotl_peyotl 2014-10-24
I got attacked by multiple users for just mentioning her work (not her name) last week in a comment. I didn't even say I supported it. I also have never made a single post about Judy Wood in all my years here.
Yet for some reason, I had multiple users saying I wasn't fit to be a mod here, and had folks combing through my past posts in an attempt to "discredit" me...and for just mentioning the DEW hypothesis in a comment as an aside!
It was truly bizarre, especially since I was attacked by several folks that I thought I trusted.
2 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-10-24
Yeah - always a red flag for me when I see people angrily deriding someone or something. If she's wrong, she's wrong - shouldn't be so hard to disprove her theory if it's as wildly inaccurate as some people have claimed right? But why get so angry about it? Why ridicule someone just for mentioning her name or suggesting that maybe some really fucking advanced technology was used that day?
Bottom line is that, if I'm being honest, I've never seen satisfactory answers to a couple of /u/sacchetta's questions either.
Where did the towers go?
1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Where did the towers go?
Thank you so much /u/ambiguously_ironic. Who will answer our questions if the "truthers" don't? It's up to people like you and I (and all other redditors who want to know the truth) to discuss this info in the most productive way possible. It is people like us who sacrifice hours and hours of our time digging through anything just looking. You are the reason there is hope.
2 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-10-24
Thank you for the kind words - right back at you my friend. I just PM'd you.
1 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
He was attacked for mentioning judy wood theories because he has also have peddled other disinformation such as:
Violates rules #3 and #11 of this subreddit.
another one of his submissions, entitled:
which also violates rule #3 and #11
Spreading this for WHAT EVER reason does injustice to this subreddit and muddies the water. This is indefensible as a mod.
1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Why must someone face those circumstances when they are coming forward with evidence you can verify for themselves.
There is a saying "the flak is always thickest when you are right on top of the enemy". If you have indisputable irrefutable evidence do not be discouraged from discussing it. Just approach it with much caution so that the information doesn't get muddled up.
1 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
You were attacked for mentioning judy wood theories because you also have peddled other disinformation such as:
Violates rules #3 and #11 of this subreddit.
another one of your submissions, entitled:
which also violates rule #3 and #11
Spreading this for WHAT EVER reason does injustice to this subreddit and muddies the water. You have been proven to be untrustworthy just by these alone. Your only response is to insinuate that I am somehow associated with Bipolardouche0.
edit: were you also in charge of the AMA that was a disaster (45 min late/Clusterfuck) because Richard wasn't properly prepared? This was truly bizarre
1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
I really want to stay away from the Dr. Judy Wood connection for this AMA. Like you said it brings out the worst in people and diverts them from anything. If you PM me I will be happy to share any evidence I have accumulated (gigs and gigs of it so I may have to link you to where I found them).
0 dtiftw 2014-10-24
How about molten glass?
2 FormalPants 2014-10-24
Good catch. Though melting point is 1400-1650 centigrade.
Not sure how this compares to the fires that day.
Edit: TIL steel melts before glass.
-1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Where is the molten glass? Please provide links
4 dtiftw 2014-10-24
I'm just responding to someone who can't conceive of anything else that can be "glowing and dripping".
0 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Sorry about that hah!
1 elvnsword 2014-10-24
Ok, I will take that bait... if it is Molten Glass that is even MORE unlikely then Molten Steel... Glass in a Skyscraper is double paned, reinforced Tempered Glass... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toughened_glass
That means it has a melt temp of 1,328 °F a molten flow would be viable at 1,500 °F.
Jet fuel, the catalyst to the burn in the buildings has a max thermo signature of 1796 °F. It is PLAUSIBLE that is glass melting out of the WTC.
HOWEVER, neither of those temperatures are anywhere NEAR the 2,010 °F neccasary to bring Steel to melting point.
As for the weakening arguement, the design of the WTC is widely used, and would make all three WTC buildings that fell that day the only Steel highrises to ever have subcumb to fire.
-1 smitteh 2014-10-24
Just ignore this guy, it's some 13 year old kid getting off on himself cause he thinks he's outsmarting everyone with technicalities..
2 FormalPants 2014-10-24
Because theorizing is the foundation of all human learning, knowledge and understanding?
I mean, you still don't have too, but that seems like a decent reason.
Why not postulate an alternative hypothesis?
1 windingdreams 2014-10-24
It's probably glow sticks, you are right!
-2 Dr__House 2014-10-24
Molten Aluminum, probably from the plane and various computers in the tower and other things.
9 WTCMolybdenum4753 2014-10-24
OSHA has the answer.
-1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
This doesn't look like a crane.
1 WTCMolybdenum4753 2014-10-24
Maybe that picture is one of the reasons OSHA brought in experts?
3 sacchetta 2014-10-24
They brought in experts that made the hydraulics not seize up? How did this machine get even close to the temperature steel glows at without seizing up? Heat rises and the excavator is reaching from above.
1 WTCMolybdenum4753 2014-10-24
I provided what OSHA explained. Maybe further research on the subject will reveal the answer to your question?
-1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
If that was the temperature why was there not a single steam explosion at any time while the site was watered down and rained on?
4 SovereignMan 2014-10-24
@ sacchetta:
That's a textbook example of a Gish Gallop. You know darn well that he could not possibly answer all of those questions properly in the allotted time we had here.
2 thewayitis 2014-10-24
Sound relevant clips
There were recorded explosions
Bomb vibrations recorded prior to plane hitting
Eye witness testimony
Thermite is pretty quiet
More eyewitness testimony
Seismic evidence recorded
1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Take those videos to court and try to use them as evidence, see how far you can get. I've seen them all before many times, the first one is pretty surreal. The sound, the guys reaction. Doesn't something not seem right? Doesn't the explosion sound odd? And the guy with the masks reaction makes me even more uneasy. I don't dismiss witness testimony, but from going through a lot of them I've begin to see that they are using words within their normal vocabulary to describe things that are extraordinary. People said they were picked up, by God or an angel or a gust and floated down staircases and they floated down a block or dove under a ESU truck and when they finally got up to come out the vehicle above them was gone. FirefighterTodd Heaney said "When I got to the front of the building, it tossed rigs down the street like it was- lie they were toys. They were upside down, on fire". We assume or are told that the tower falling created gusts strong enough to pick up and throw a firetruck down the block. Why are there still leaves on the trees? Wind strong enough to throw a firetruck would strip a tree of it's leaves right? And wouldn't fire burn the leaves off? Not to mention burn all the paper around it setting the whole street on fire? These people are using the words they know to describe something that happened to them. And it seems to be the same with hearing "explosions" and seeing "fire and smoke".
Consider this 911 call from Melissa Doi. She was on the 83rd floor of WTC 2. She says that the floor is completely engulfed, and its very very very very hot. She says "OF COURSE THERE IS SMOKE" and we can't breath. Not once during the whole conversation do you hear someone coughing. "Everybody is having trouble breathing some people are worse" "Of course this is smoke! I can't breathe" "I think there is fire I don't see it it's too hot". When people overheat they get sluggish while their bodies shut down, she has an excited tone. And if the building is filled with smoke then how are they alive? How are they not coughing? Smoke is what usually kills people in the fire, it displaces the oxygen as well as consumes it all. And there is always coughing. My point is many many witnesses are describing things in the best way they can and it's important to really think about their situation by looking into the conditions surrounding them.
This is a graphic of the approximate size of WTC 1, 2 & 7 and the Seattle kingdome as a reference. The seismic reading is listed. WTC 1 2.3, WTC 2 2.1 and WTC .6. The Seattle kingdome had the same seismic impact as WTC 1 (2.3) but the towers had 30X's the potential energy of the kingdome, how is it that the towers didn't make a bigger impact? How is it that WTC 7 had such a small signal. Also seen in the picture are solid blocks at the bottom 20 floors, 16 floors and 36 feet. This is the size the building should have been in order to get such a low seismic signal. The picture above was created using data from the Palisades in New York. Also all 3 towers only created surface waves. There was no primary or secondary wave, I can't find the links explaining the lack of primary or secondary waves but you can look at the kingdomes wave side by side and see the differences.
And thermite is pretty slow. Most people that I run into say that thermite plus explosives brought the buildings down, so I was more or less referring to the sound of the explosions since thermite is just a cutting agent. Hopefully I addressed some of your concerns. Have a good one
1 shadowofashadow 2014-10-24
Hey saccheta, I actually enjoyed your posts a lot in this thread as they have challenged some of my beliefs and that is a good thing.
I'm wondering what you think about the implications of the gusts of wind and the anomolies in the Melissa Doi call you mentioned. Do you have any opinions of what these facts might imply? Or do you not even go there? I get the impression that you're not totally satisfied with either AE911's story or the offiical story.
1 I_askthequestions 2014-10-24
I must add that many of the things you describe are absolutely not explained by the official story.
Look here for EA911's answer to the Judy Wood's story, which you seem to refer to.
4 sacchetta 2014-10-24
I am talking about evidence. I have cited my sources/provided links. I have read that article a while ago. What I have stated above stands alone and does not need to be attached to Dr. Judy Wood.
The linked article does not answer any of my questions. It is dancing around a couple, that's it.
0 ridestraight 2014-10-24
Exactly this!
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
2 sacchetta 2014-10-24
You're absolutely right. I am an awful person.
1 SneakyTikiz 2014-10-24
Dude you can do a simple youtube search of firefighters talking about hearing secondary explosions throughout the basements, this should be common knowledge by now, sad.
-8 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Hey sacchetta
I want to try and answer questions from as many different people as possible, and seems I already caused a delay. You can find answers to these questions by doing a little research, and there's a lot of information on AE911Truth.org
20 Allergic2Antisemites 2014-10-24
"Thanks for asking the tough questions, but I'm not going to answer them. Go Google it or look at the ads on my website."
Aaaaand that's a wrap folks!
edit: mods don't like people criticizing bad answers apparently.
comment up https://archive.today/iiZUb
commment removed https://archive.today/i2VQw
10 axolotl_peyotl 2014-10-24
Your comment was picked up by the automoderator and I've approved it.
Not everything is a conspiracy ;)
-1 George_Tenet 2014-10-24
yes it is!!
1 axolotl_peyotl 2014-10-24
oh you.
-4 George_Tenet 2014-10-24
we should exchange PM's like, weekly
0 axolotl_peyotl 2014-10-24
If by PM you mean Pusillanimous Macaroni then I'm already a step ahead of ya.
4 JamesColesPardon 2014-10-24
You're back up buddy. They are good questions, and I understand your frustration but also Richard's point of view. Hopefully him and his team can respond to your question at some point later on or at a later time, while still being able to converse with all of us while we're here.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
7 JamesColesPardon 2014-10-24
I must say I'm pretty disappointed. Not even sure if it"s worth responding to his response to my question, as it appears he barely took the time to answer it to begin with.
0 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Thanks, I spent a lot of time compiling my questions and did very careful research involving evidence only. It means a lot to see other people help me out
5 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Excellent, if you can address any of that above that would be awesome. Pick any one, I have looked on the site, many many times I even have your report for the Toronto Hearings right in front of me.
Can you at least address some of those things that are not mentioned on the site. The sites explanations aren't in any way satisfying and when else will I get the chance to speak to an expert like yourself?
3 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Hey Sacchetta,
If you could pick one of your points for discussion that would allow me more time for the other questioners.
3 ridestraight 2014-10-24
Pick one: Answer his questions! You pick one! Just one!
We have all the time in the world.
4 [deleted] 2014-10-24
I would not wish to be accused of deliberately avoiding any particular one.
0 ridestraight 2014-10-24
Here's the solution: Answer all of them to the best of your ability.
We'll wait.
EDIT: Still waiting.
1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
My first point about lack of sound. And any of those other points you wish to address.
1.) Lack of sound on 9/11. Explosions are faster than the speed of sound, and cause a loud bang. This is an example of a recent controlled demolition. Mic clipping (when the signal gets overloaded it distorts and it is called “clipping”) can be seen and heard in the video linked. Why can we hear conversations as WTC 7 is destroyed? Why is there no evident clipping on most of the WTC tower destruction videos? How can explosives be that quiet, furthermore how is it that the amount of explosive power needed to turn 2 110 story buildings and a 47 story building into dust failed to overcome all foreground noise?
1 rippleffect81 2014-10-24
http://youtu.be/0YvrKfWkxdw
1 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
Maybe not very near WTC7 and definitely (in my opinion) not anywhere near 5:20pm.
3 rippleffect81 2014-10-24
The fireman says "we gotta get back, 7 is exploding! "....
IMO, this was before 5:20 and after the tower collapses.
-1 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
The fireman says something... It could be a lot of things. It's unclear in most of the versions I've heard.
If WTC7 were a controlled demolition then the explosions would have been very close to the collapse time at 5:20pm - certainly not the many hours earlier when it seems this video was shot.
2 rippleffect81 2014-10-24
Your username checks out. Night night termite
0 sacchetta 2014-10-24
First off, this sounds like it was pulled right from a sound library. Please provide other links of videos that pick up this sound. (I've seen this video many times)
I never disputed that people heard what sounded like explosions throughout the day. I just want to address that it doesn't happen as the towers are being turned into dust. And in general that bombs cannot turn a building to dust.
When a building is going to be demolished there is a very careful process of removing almost EVERYTHING from that building. Why? Because anything that is in front of a window will turn into a projectile and will be accelerated faster than the speed of sound. Why don't the buildings around the towers look like they have been machine gunned? There are even many windows have have a round hole through the first pane but the second is untouched. Note that the marble is completely missing. Why is there not much damage to other buildings above about 20 stories. Did only the bottom part of the towers explode with gentle bombs that made no sound, moved slower than the speed of sound and put debris through a circular hole in one pane of glass without going through the other?
2 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
My recollection from a longer version of that video is that it wasn't that near WTC7 (it's about 5 blocks away) and it wasn't anywhere near the time of the WTC7 collapse.
I don't know how to validate the time (I believe it has been done before though) but just looking at the shadow length alone suggests this was much earlier in the day (the sun was only 9 degrees from the horizon at 5:20pm - here's what the shadows at that time actually looked like.
-1 rippleffect81 2014-10-24
Pulled from a sound library? I'm done here. Night night termite
0 Orangutan 2014-10-24
WTC 7 loud EXPLOSION on audio (heard by firemen)
Kevin Mcpadden 9/11 First Responder: Building 7 Countdown, Explosions, Controlled Demolition
9/11 FireFighters - THREE Explosions After Plane Hit WTC
Firefighters discuss the detonated Bombs in WTC on 9/11
-3 sacchetta 2014-10-24
In the WTC 7 how do we know when it took place. The streets are covered in dust so it was after 1 of the towers was turned into dust. It could have been after both towers were though. I had posted this in a comment before:
First off, this sounds like it was pulled right from a sound library. Please provide other links of videos that pick up this sound. (I've seen this video many times) I never disputed that people heard what sounded like explosions throughout the day. I just want to address that it doesn't happen as the towers are being turned into dust. And in general that bombs cannot turn a building to dust. When a building is going to be demolished there is a very careful process of removing almost EVERYTHING from that building. Why? Because anything that is in front of a window will turn into a projectile and will be accelerated faster than the speed of sound. Why don't the buildings around the towers look like they have been machine gunned? There are even many windows have have a round hole through the first pane but the second is untouched. Note that the marble is completely missing. Why is there not much damage to other buildings above about 20 stories. Did only the bottom part of the towers explode with gentle bombs that made no sound, moved slower than the speed of sound and put debris through a circular hole in one pane of glass without going through the other?
Also firefighters report that their scott packs were spontaneously combusting. Could this not account for the loud bangs?
First Responder Statement: FIREFIGHTER TODD HEANEY File No. 9110255, 238 WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW FIREFIGHTER TODD HEANEY Interview Date: December 6, 2001
[Emphasis added.] A. ..."I remember getting a drink of water out of their cooler there, and then we just started to put out the car fires, and the rigs were going, ambulances. I mean, there must have been 50 of these things burning heavily. The Scott cylinders and the oxygen cylinders were all letting go. They were all blowing up left and right."
First Responder Statement: FIREFIGHTER PATRICK SULLIVAN File No. 9110235, 227 WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW FIREFIGHTER PATRICK SULLIVAN Interview Date: December 5, 2001
[Emphasis added.] A. ..." There was a Deputy Chief's rig on fire that was extended to 113's rig. There was a big ambulance, like a rescue company truck, but it wasn't a rescue company truck. It was a huge ambulance. It must have had Scott bottles or oxygen bottles on it. These were going off. You would hear the air go SSS boom and they were exploding. So we stretched a line and tried to put that out. He could only use booster water."
-1 canihaveahint 2014-10-24
Is dude an expert on microphone technology?
0 sacchetta 2014-10-24
I am an audio engineer. Mics that have preamps built into a camera often have a smaller dynamic range, causing things to clip easier. In the link of the controlled demolition in Ottawa I posted I used professional recording equipment and there was still no way around clipping. If there is a controlled demolition going off near you there is NO mistake in what is happening. Those blasts hit you right in the core and rattle your teeth, and they certainly clip microphones and make any other noise around you inaudible.
-3 ridestraight 2014-10-24
He's now a video forensics expert, evidently, so sure. Why not?
1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
I'm not sure if you are talking about me or Richard. However I do work on video projects too (not that that would qualify me to state that a glowing red dripping material is molten metal since I don't have any court admissible evidence supporting that).
1 ridestraight 2014-10-24
Richard called out a post for submitting a fake video.
So no. Not you.
0 sacchetta 2014-10-24
My bad!
2 ridestraight 2014-10-24
All good.
So appreciated your clear, concise, nearly first in line questions for Mr. Gage. Have a bad taste in my mouth from his reply to your post and the over-all theater of this AMA.
Perhaps I just need food and a nap. Thank you for posting here! Saved your contribution!
-3 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Hey sacchetta,
Thank you for bearing with me. I noted you spent a lot of time compiling questions, and |I am sorry I have to ask you to focus on just one.
Your question breaks down into 3 separate ones, but i think you're point is that explosives would have produced louder sounds than is apparent in videos(?)
I must admit you raise a good point. I am not sure what the sound characteristics of something like nanothermite might be but and advanced explosive would put a higher percentage of it's energy into heat & light, and less into wasted sound energy.
9 MaturinTheTurtle 2014-10-24
Which would immediately be converted into sound as the surrounding air absorbed that heat and light. That's how a blast wave works. Were you kidding when you wrote that, or what?
4 sacchetta 2014-10-24
I was hoping he would provide a better answer after all the effort trying to get him to address any of my points.
7 MaturinTheTurtle 2014-10-24
Either the guy's an idiot, or he was making fun of you, or he just didn't care when he wrote that reply. Your guess is as good as mine which it is.
2 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 MaturinTheTurtle 2014-10-24
That's not my complaint. My only complaint is that the guy said "advanced explosives" could be quiet. That's nonsense. If sincere, it shows a profound ignorance of just what an explosion is. And if not sincere, then it's smug and dismissive as hell.
1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
For this demolition I was 1000 feet away. No one was allowed to be in front of us, in fact I had a pass so I could stand there, most people had to be at least another 100 feet behind that. My main point is, when there is a controlled demolition with explosives there is no mistaking it. It rattles you and the one I was at was only 11 stories high. I can't imagine what 110 stories feels like. Why didn't EVERY witness close emphatically insist they heard explosions.
1 Rockran 2014-10-24
If many of the cameras were able to pick up the noise of the collapse, they'd have been able to pick up any detonations.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 Rockran 2014-10-24
Claims I'm getting sidetracked, gets sidetracked and ignores my point.
2 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
0 Rockran 2014-10-24
I stick to the topic and you fart in the wind.
2 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
0 Rockran 2014-10-24
Not yet.
I'm just waiting for you to address why the cameras didn't pick up any explosions when they were capable of picking up the noise of the building falling.
Pls answer so I may have tears of laughter.
2 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
0 Rockran 2014-10-24
Stop trying to sidetrack.
If the videos show no explosions, and witnesses claim there were explosions, video evidence trumps witness testimony.
If there were explosions, they would occur prior to the collapse (to cause it) and wouldn't have other sounds to compete with so they'd be heard quite clearly on video, even at distance.
8 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
Do you have examples of these nearly soundless advanced explosives that would be suitable for building demolition?
5 sacchetta 2014-10-24
I would love to see some too!
1 TexasMojo 2014-10-24
Thermite isn't an explosive in the classic sense of the word. It just burns really, really hot really fast.
Here's a link to a "Brainiacs show in England where they play with some thermite. There IS a bang when they pair it with liquid CO2, but absolutely no bang when they put it on the engine block of a car.
Thermite works by burning incredibly hot, not exploding.
1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
Which makes it completely unsuitable for building demolition. How do you sequence something like that?
How do you make it so that the thermite doesn't burn through the casing holding it to the column before it burns through the column you are severing?
I've watched thermite experiments too. A 3 kilogram pile sitting on a horizontal piece of beam barely made a scratch. How much would be needed to take down a 110 story building? How do you get it into the building? How do you get access to the support columns on all 110 stories (or even half of them) without destroying the fully occupied office space?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
https://encrypted.google.com/patents/US5532449
demonstration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmA59hQnoOU
very little. the official story admitted that the WTC1 and WTC2 came down in a "progressive collapse", but failed to admit that this is actually a known, tried-and-true method of controlled demolition.
therefore, as demonstrated in the official story of 9/11, there is no Thermate/ Thermite necessary, given that the progressive collapse will do the work for you, once the collapse is initiated.
so, for a progressive collapse controlled demolition, the crew would only need access to whatever floors that airplanes allegedly hit.
1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
Patenting something is not the same as using it in practical application. List me all the buildings destroyed over the last 15 years using thermite or a variation of it.
Shouldn't take long, because there are none.
The columns used in that "demonstration" are nowhere near the size of the trade center columns, so it's a useless demonstration.
Also notice the blindingly bright light when the thermite is ignited? Yeah, there was nothing at all like that on 9/11.
This is literally the most idiotic thing I've read in a while, so congratulations I guess.
What if the planes are off target by a dozen floors?
How do you keep the thermite from immediately igniting once the massive fireball of an airplane explosion envelops them?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
WTC1
WTC2
testimony of the man who found thermite or variation of it. Jeff Farrer Physicist
1 of 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23n0Vr_A1TQ
2 of 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJwE65Y32Y4
3 of 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZNSXC3KVeE
its a demonstration of proof of concept to answer your question of
i dont believe that muslim extremists were piloting the aircraft, so i don't think they would have missed their mark, kinda like the fancy flying that hit the pentagon.
thats not how thermite ignites.
1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!
You guys absolutely kill me.
The man who found thermite and promptly shared that discovery with...nobody.
How long ago was that? 6 years now? And not a single independent lab on the planet has ever laid eyes on this magic powder, let alone been able to test it.
Except that the columns are nowhere near the size of the trade center columns, so you haven't proven that thermite could do the job without melting through the casings...casings that would have been attached to every single support column you intend on severing with your magic powder.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
care to address what he says?
he put it on video and shared it on youtube.
this is actually a valid point.
before this AMA, i would have thought Richard Gage to be a good guy, but his reaction to evidence that doesn't fit his narrative makes me skeptical of his bias toward pushing the thermite theory over the mini nuke theory, kinda like how loose change is a misdirection, with its "revelation" of Operation NorthWoods, which may or may not have been a forgery custom created for loose change. convenient, huh?
that was amply demonstrated. the goalposts are moving from "can't shape charge thermate" to "experiment isn't the same size as WTC"
in any event, the official story is that airplanes hit the twin towers, and the damage from the impact weakened the buildings such that the upper floors progressive collapsed all the way to the ground, or lower.
we are supposed to believe that a progressive collapse and a controlled demolition are two different things, when in fact progressive collapse is a form of controlled demolition.
this is why, according to the official story, a progressive collapse brought down the buildings (without explosives)
and why, according to conspiracy theorists, a progressive collapse brought down the buildings, as a controlled demolition, perhaps with some explosives (theoretically no explosives even necessary, according to official story)
1 TexasMojo 2014-10-24
We should sue the Battelle Memorial Institute
Because they have a "Linear Thermite Charge"
They say its used for :
Wow. Something like that might even explain those tarballs of mixed steel and concrete that could not have possibly occurred due to fuel or office fires.
As far as who and how, remember these words from Sherlock Holmes:
And since its physically impossible for a building to accelerate its fall through a standing structure, the government's story is, quite simply, impossible.
1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
How many skyscraper demolitions has this amazing thermite charge been used for?
I'm going to go ahead and say zero.
1 TexasMojo 2014-10-24
Your contention was that it could not be used for demolition.
Apparently you were wrong.
1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
Demolition of skyscrapers. Don't miss that distinction.
A charge or two taking out a bridge is one thing. Hundreds of sequenced charges nearly silently taking out the largest building on the planet is completely different.
1 TexasMojo 2014-10-24
So you've devolved into hiding behind distinctions without a difference. Got it.
I also notice you've never posted any proof that other skyscraper, burning much hotter and longer, show any signs of the "molten metal waterfall" observed in the Twin Towers collapse.
Nor does the official explanation have anything to say about the large chunks of fused concrete and metal. An office fire can't cause that, even with hydrocarbon accelerants.
-2 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Shouldn't we be hearing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel hitting the ground if thermite or any of its variants chopped the building to the ground? Does this mean explosives were not used at all?
Please provide a link to the thermite you speak of so I can take a listen.
34 good_question_idiot 2014-10-24
Thank you for your time. I'm new to all of this, so please excuse my ignorance: Is it possible to set up a large-scale controlled demolition without people on the street, or overnight cleaning crews in the buildings seeing the demolition being set up well in advance of the demolition?
28 Z0di 2014-10-24
There was construction the weekend before, and all security systems had to be shut down for it. (Just in case no one told you or you were unaware.)
27 Orangutan 2014-10-24
Demolition Access To The WTC Towers:
Full Story: Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects
2 WTCMolybdenum4753 2014-10-24
Scott Forbes discusses the WTC power down.
Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down -
“I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work.” Scott Forbes
26 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
6 BeastPenguin 2014-10-24
Just to add, if you are installing explosives, the wiring could be easily hidden under the guise of network cables.
4 shmegegy 2014-10-24
or an elevator refit
4 SovereignMan 2014-10-24
Wireless detonators were also a possibility.
1 radii314 2014-10-24
good point - detonation cord could easily be bundled with wiring and blend right in
1 NEWNHLISLAME 2014-10-24
Might I also add that there are eye witness accounts of a power down by the Port Authority. This occurred the weekend before 9/11. This left the entire building accessible for contractors to work on installation of explosives.
1 realmistergray 2014-10-24
Please look into "Gelatin: The B Thing", it will connect most of the demolition dots.
0 Algee 2014-10-24
To follow up on that question, how many explosives do you expect were used in the towers? extrapolating from the Harrit et al. study, specifically from the .1% unreacted nano-thermite they found in the dust, I estimate there must have been at least a few hundred tons of thermite in the towers.
-7 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Sorry but WTF does this mean? Are you talking about holograms?
14 33degree 2014-10-24
Richard Grove worked at the WTC when this happened. He explains how he thinks it happened here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFJwVxqD4A4
1 truthwilgetushiled 2014-10-24
she explains https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G43zl4fzDQg
31 NAM007 2014-10-24
Hi Richard,
Thanks for all you work and efforts.
My questions is - with all the resources now available to A&E49/11T, why hasn't there been an effort to put forward, as a single point of reference, a comprehensive rebuttal to the NIST Report(s), along with Engineering and Science papers submitted for peer review and publication?
Also, given the height of the twin towers, and the timed speed of their destruction (to within about 6 seconds of absolute free fall in nothging but air), isn't there a straightforward proof requiring nothing more than grade 10 level physics (ie: laws of motion), along with a simple thought experiment, and if so, where's the physics paper for that?
Thank you.
26 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
34 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
I think the point was to have a rebuttal that is "submitted for peer review and publication".
There are a million sites purporting to "debunk" the official story with various pseudoscience. Without a proper published peer reviewed response, most people will end up lumping all of those sites together, including stuff like directed energy weapons and mini nukes, and tarring the whole movement as silly.
11 NAM007 2014-10-24
I agree with this.
I've given this a LOT of thought over the years, and I'm just not at all satisfied with Richard's response, to be perfectly honest.
It doesn't make any sense not to be making a push in this direction.
It could BEGIN with the papers published over at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
I'm thinking something that would look like a report by a reputable, multidisciplined, architectual and engineering consulting company with expertise in building forensics and of course, structual engineering.
Then, out of the single, larger report, spin off some papers for review and publication..
Man would that ever get the ball rolling far and wide in a hurry - plus, it would invite replies in the form of attempted debunks of the singular, authoritative NIST debunk by A&E49/11T, which, from what I've come to understand, would simply not be possible or hold up under scientific scrutiny and analysis because they would have to violate the laws of physics to do so.
Everyone would be all over it.
It would bring the debate to a whole new level, while lending credibility to our movement and the work of A&E49/11T.
7 danxmason 2014-10-24
I have seen dozens of valid medical studies rejected by journals (ie peer review) simply because they go against medical dogma. There are major powers which subvert paradigm change under the guise of "peer-review"
3 NAM007 2014-10-24
I'd tend to believe that.
1 crazymusicman 2014-10-24
example? just curious not trying to be confrontational.
1 danxmason 2014-10-24
How would I show you an example if they were rejected by the journals?
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
Curious though why the attempt hasn't been made to produce papers and then submit them.
1 danxmason 2014-10-24
Produce papers and submit them where?
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
Various engineering and science periodicals and magazines.
1 danxmason 2014-10-24
What makes you think the attempt hasn't been made?
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
Can you show me anything to indicate that a persistent and concerted effort along these lines HAS been made?
3 heracleides 2014-10-24
That will never happen. By being reputable, you are concerning yourself with image and getting involved in politics and tragedy is not only risky but taking an opposing side is political suicide. This is a contradiction.
1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
This may be the only time I'll ever say this, but I agree with you 100%.
0 NAM007 2014-10-24
From our lips (typing fingers) to their ears (eyes)...
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
"The Destruction of the Twin Towers, and Building 7, on September 11, 2001, Why the Official Government Report is a Fraud." by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
or something along those lines..
As to the published papers, and the book - we could then send out an info package, by mail, to every single member of the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers), which could be done.
The number of signatories to A&E would then climb to over 10,000..
Lots of news headlines, interviews, etc., etc. taking the debate to a whole new level both in the US, and globally.
1 Algee 2014-10-24
The scientific community has endorsed the findings of NIST. It has been supported in dozens of peices of published scientific literature. Sure you can go over the report and find small mistakes or errors, but the scientific community has shown that it supports NIST's findings. Maybe the problem isn't with the NIST report, but the critiques of it that are biased towards a conspiracy.
4 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
What?
and the kicker
They do not release their model data for peer review, therefore their model is a fraud and the investigation is compromised.
1 Algee 2014-10-24
see? this is what i'm talking about. You have some critique of the NIST report, and rather than just present that critique, or god forbid - your own data, a issue with the NIST report is twisted into evidence of an alternate hypothesis.
Like I said, the findings of the NIST report are widely accepted by the scientific community.
0 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
How can anyone peer-review their data if they don't release their data? Nobody in the scientific community can accept a report in which they can't replicate. They won't release the model data, therefore it is a fraud. Period.
0 Algee 2014-10-24
Their results are what matters. For example, if someone performed elemental analysis on a sample (say, the WTC dust) to determine its composition and presented their results, but wouldn't release their samples(just like Harrit), the study is not considered a fraud. Its considered a fraud when other people repeat the experiment with their own samples and can't replicate the original papers results. Or even better, when they can point out mistakes in the original paper.
But like I said, the findings of the NIST report are widely accepted by the scientific community. Other people in relevant fields have created their own collapse models that independently corraberate NISTs findings.
1 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
How can anyone peer-review their results if they don't release their data? Nobody in the scientific community can accept a report in which they can't replicate...
basic....science....101.....
0 Algee 2014-10-24
Nobody said the report went through the peer review process; it was never intended to do so. However the scientific community have independently replicated NISTs results. You don't need the exact input data to check if its results are accurate, and most if not all papers pass peer review without the reviewers explicitly running through every calculation made in the experiment. Thats actual science, not the high school ideal that you've been taught. Do you expect the people who peer reviewed CERN's higgs experiment to pour over trillions of bits of data they accumulated? or recheck any experiment performed on the new 20 Petaflop supercomputer built at ORNL? no, they focus on replicable results, which means they generally make sure the experiment followed a clear and accurate methodology.
1 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
Lol? Investigations of murders have different standards for investigation, considering they are not science projects for research...they are crimes and need irrefutable evidence. NISTs investigation is more than refutable.
Faith based models are not answers. They're coverups
0 Algee 2014-10-24
Do you even know what the NIST report set out to do?
1 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
Yes, let me help you. I read it.
On October 1, 2002 Congress passed the "National Construction Safety Team Act" which authorized NIST to assemble teams and investigate the collapses of the World Trade Center Buildings.
Link: www.nist.gov/cfo/legislation/Natl_Const_S_Team_PL.pdf
NIST released the public comment version of its "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" in August of 2008 and the comment period closed 2 weeks later on Sept 2008. Note: The report I am referencing here is NCSTAR1A, a summary, and if you were to read it all it’s about 77 pages.
In October of 2008 NIST released its final version of "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7".
After reviewing the Draft for public comment and the final release of NCSTAR 1A it is important to note the changes that were made for section 3.6 as an example of how NIST incorporated Freefall into their report. http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/
"Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”)
Why is this an issue? Because the lead NIST engineers said free fall could NOT happen in a natural collapse. http://youtu.be/J_mqJUsqeLA
This alone warrants a new investigation!!!
Second point:
Alright, so. The standard called “full disclosure” in which all data and methodologies to support a hypothesis are to be shared so that other scientists can independently verify (replicate) the results has been violated.
In this case, although the software is available, NIST has withheld the data. If the model in the report is to be considered scientific and valid for supporting statements and conclusions in the report then the standard of “full disclosure” must be met.
I called Michael Newman (NIST Public and Business Affairs) via telephone and from email confirmation by Patrick Gallagher (NIST Director). The document below is authentic and, put plainly, makes the model faith-based. The investigation is therefore compromised.
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/53294969?access_key=key-1re522bsseuevgfs6lca
edit: you claim that I am plagiarizing, when in fact I am not. But good try with the false accusation.
1 Algee 2014-10-24
Well, you claim to have read it, then cut and pasted some text you found online rather than demonstrate some individual thought. Its really telling when you clearly don't even know what NIST set out to do, then try to pass some text you found on-line as your own response.
Its clear you haven't read it because you've compared it to murder investigations, and can't seem to grasp that it was never meant to be submitted for peer review.
If you decided to exercise free thought for a change, rather than parroting what others have told you, you can find the NIST report here. And on that page they list the objectives:
Its goals read the exact same way as any investigation into any engineering disaster, not murder investigations or scientific papers. They try and figure out what the problems were so that they can improve the safety of others. Are you also calling every investigation into airline disasters (which have drasticly improved airline safety) a fraud since they never were submitted for peer review?
If you want to complain about peer review, lets talk about Harrit's thermite paper, or perhaps science that intend on (and passed) peer-review that independently confirms NISTs fire induced collapse model.
-2 AutoModerator 2014-10-24
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
Well...
But despite the unusual/unnecessary obstructions, rebuttals that are "submitted for peer review and publication" do exist.
http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Some-Misunderstandings-Related-to-WTC-Collapse-Analysis.pdf
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4
9 NAM007 2014-10-24
Hi Richard,
I was thinking alone the lines of an authoritative book combining all the evidence and findings which shows/proves the NIST Report to be false, along with a series of peer-review papers to be published in credible Engineering and Science publications/journals.
It sure would help the movement.
Maybe by the year 2020?
4 SteezeWhiz 2014-10-24
This is a tremendous idea. The difficult part would come from finding a publishing company willing to distribute the book on a mass scale.
12 shadowofashadow 2014-10-24
Maybe we can crowd-publish it? Release it for free online and get people to print it and distribute it around town.
8 thefuckingtoe 2014-10-24
That's a cause I'd donate to.
5 NAM007 2014-10-24
Could crowd FUND it also, no problem.
5 crebrous 2014-10-24
Publishers haven't been gatekeepers since 2001
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
Use the same one who published David Ray Griffin's books.
5 dtiftw 2014-10-24
Scientific papers that have been peer-reviewed and published? How about a comprehensive model that refutes the NIST's?
It's one thing to say that "those in power" are preventing you from getting published, but it's a little disingenuous when you haven't submitted anything.
11 NAM007 2014-10-24
NIST never offered any such model for the "collapse" nor did they even effectively deal with it, offering a collapse initiation hypothesis only, while declaring that what ensued thereafter was "inevtiable".
See Building a Better Mirage - NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
2 dtiftw 2014-10-24
From the A&E website:
I would assume that given their search for forensic evidence, a model demonstrating how controlled demolition is a better explanation would be an effective tool.
Jim Hoffman, website designer, is not a reputable source or qualified expert nor does he have any training whatsoever in mechanical or structural engineering, demolition or physics.
4 [deleted] 2014-10-24
I am not a supporter of Jim Hoffman at this point.
I find his analyses detract from the evidence.
3 dtiftw 2014-10-24
How about answering my actual question?
Are you working on a model or scientific papers to rebut the NIST's findings? How far along are you? What kind of people do you have working on it?
-5 EyeCrush 2014-10-24
The NIST's fabrications debunk themselves.
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
Hoffman's analysis and points are valid, and as to that model, there will be one some day, but if you had any idea how complex it would be, you'd realize why they haven't made one yet. NIST however, had the neccessary resources to make one, but decided not to.
2 dtiftw 2014-10-24
Are they working on one? Is there progress?
2 NAM007 2014-10-24
As far as I know, no.
Someday there will be one though and then we'll all owe a debt of gratitude to A&E4-9/11T and the 9/11 Truth Movement for keeping this issue alive on on the table, because there can be no model of what happened to the twin towers capable of supporting the "global collapse" hypothesis. The laws of motion forbid it, absent the use of explosives.
-2 ridestraight 2014-10-24
Your failure to gain traction, a foothold is your failure to address sincere rebuttal to germane questions posited here.
24 Cats_Love_Me_ 2014-10-24
Hello Richard, i am a student (who gained employment today in a NYC establishment!!) studying Civil and Structural Engineering.
We had an open day the other day for all the engineering students, our section had five FAIA members who openly joked that the official reports were a joke and not worth bothering with, such that it could damage our learning.
This had probably 100+ students start to question the official account, 9/11 had never come up, ever, in our studies.
The lecturers refuse to talk about the event on campus, administration will not meet with the student body to discuss the benefits of learning about the engineering aspects in regards the three skyscrapers collapse.
May i ask, where is this pressure coming from and how do you think engineering students can best address it?
Thanks for your time
13 smokinbluebear 2014-10-24
Peter Dale Scott addresses this issue in his articles, lectures and books:
In American history there are two types of events. There are ordinary events which the information systems of the country can understand and transmit. There are also deep events, or meta-events, which the mainstream information systems of the country cannot digest. I mean by a “deep event” one in which it is clear from the outset that there are aspects which will not be dealt with in the mainstream media, and will be studied only by those so-called “conspiracy theorists” who specialize in deep history.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/ProfScottJFK,911,andWar.pdf
further reading at r/TSBD
10 NAM007 2014-10-24
I'd like to make a comment here, not to speak for Richard.
The psychological nature of the Big Lie carries with it it's own self-sensoring, because the only alternative hypothesis is "unimaginable" and all but impossible to reconcile with.
It's not some conspiracy between the schools and the deep state shadow government, as has been implied elsewhere in this thread.
20 Orangutan 2014-10-24
"The great masses of the people . . .will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." -- J. Edgar Hoover, former FBI director
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." -- Marshall McLuhan
7 smokinbluebear 2014-10-24
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
--Voltaire
8 Irradiance 2014-10-24
To accept any hypothesis that runs contrary to the Big Lie is to unravel all of it. To unravel all of it is to be just another "conspiracy theorist." There's no middle ground. You either traverse the rabbit hole to its ultimate depth or stay out of it altogether.
Not sure if that's by design or just serendipity for TPTB.
-2 ct_warlock 2014-10-24
I don't think that holds water outside the US.
Would the other 95% of the population really care as much if the US government had done it?
As a non-US guy, I don't have a personal stake in whether their government killed thousands of its own people on this particular day.
But then I get told "I'm afraid to face up to the truth, because it would be too shocking". Not really. It would only be shocking that the US government had perpetrated such a bone-headed plan.
2 FormalPants 2014-10-24
In what way was the plan boneheaded?
7 alllie 2014-10-24
Their careers would be destroyed if they openly questioned it.
0 ct_warlock 2014-10-24
More like they don't want to become entrapped in endless arguments from students who have gotten into "9/11 truth", and now won't listen to opposing opinions.
-3 windingdreams 2014-10-24
You are trying to believe so hard, protect your complacent world view. Sad.
0 ct_warlock 2014-10-24
Why would it affect me, a non-US citizen, if the US government killed a few of its own people?
Answer - it wouldn't. 45,000 people are dying every month in the Democratic Republic of Congo - a total of 5.4 million dead over the past decade.
9/11 is just a tiny blip as far as I'm concerned. Get over yourselves.
21 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
Hey Richard, does your organization plan on publicly releasing a peer reviewed collapse model supporting your alternate hypothesis? If not, why not?
14 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
7 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
I thought the major complaint with NIST was that they hadn't released their collapse model.
5 SovereignMan 2014-10-24
They did release a model. What they refused to release was all of the data they used to create their model.
12 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
Then how on earth would Richard know whether the NIST model supported their alternate hypothesis?
If the complaint with NIST is that they released a flawed, substandard, incorrect or incomplete set of collapse information (model and underlying data), then why has AE911Truth not attempted to release a model of their own?
4 SovereignMan 2014-10-24
They certainly could but without access to all of the data it would be as worthless as the NIST version.
0 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
This makes NISTs investigation fraudulent and model invalid. This makes AE911's call for a real investigation and their demolition hypothesis the only other alternative to NISTs fake science.
2 thelivingbanned 2014-10-24
this is from memory so forgive me if it's not entirely accurate, NISTs model showed a partial collapse. the problem with the full collapse model is that it had to have included free fall motion of the building, which is impossible with the exception of pro demolition. It didn't support their preconcieved conclusion of collapse due to stressed hot beams, so they omitted it from the report.
-3 ridestraight 2014-10-24
Zing!
15 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
Some questions:
1) Why did we not hear explosions in the WTC 7 videos? There are many reports of explosions in the twin towers during the collapses, however it does not seem the same for WTC. There also isn't much visible evidence of brightly burning thermite.
2) Some debunkers claim that independent researchers and scientists have done their own investigations and have agreed with NIST, how do you respond to such claims?
3) If AE911truths goal is to spread awareness of the truth, why have they not written any peer reviewed papers proving their claims? Surely this would help spread awareness.
4) How do you believe explosives were planted in WTC 7, 1 and 2 seem plausible to fit with explosives, however WTC7 seems like a much harder job
5) What do you think in the strongest piece of evidence proving the official story is wrong and explosives were used?
6) Last question, you might not be able to answer this though. Seeing as there was much controversy over the peer review of the nanothermite paper, would it not have been best to republish the paper in a different journal? Why was this not done? (sorry if you cannot answer this).
EDIT: I thought of 1 more :) sorry. Do you have any opinions on the group 'project for the new american century' and their infamous quote of a 'new pearl harbour'?
4 I_askthequestions 2014-10-24
I don't know if you get answers from Gage, but some of your questions are answered by experiments in these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/user/physicsandreason/videos
2 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Hey Lookingfortruths,
I believe I should thank you for requesting this session.
I hope you'll forgive me for not spending time on all your questions. I'm glad that the issues of 9/11 are important enough to you that you consider such things.
Briefly, you make some good points, and as evidence grows explanations for all these things will, I expect, emerge.
5 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
Thanks.
So I assume you are equating this to some kind of function of the Nanothermite which allowed it to act quitely?
4 [deleted] 2014-10-24
That is my assumption, yes.
3 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
Is Neils Harrit still looking into this? I know Mark Bassile is still doing some research
2 moonrocks 2014-10-24
You could put this to rest by using your architectural knowledge to demonstate silent explosives. Have the PTB pressured you off youtube? You demoed the collapse with cardboard boxes there. Wouldn't showcasing the physics with a bowling ball a few inches above your head shame the liars into admitting the truth?
14 Orangutan 2014-10-24
Were any of the members of Congress receptive to your message on your trip to Washington D.C.?
29 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
5 jafbm 2014-10-24
You didn't make a big enough
bribecampaign contribution, obviouslyWhen in China...if you want to get anything done quickly and locally, you pay a bribe. They don't call it that, they call it a "service fee" but it's a bribe.
Same here. If you want your politician to do something noteworthy or helpful, you have to make a significant financial commitment.
You haven't done that
13 [deleted] 2014-10-24
you may have a point.
5 smitteh 2014-10-24
And this is why America will inevitably collapse.
2 smokinbluebear 2014-10-24
I think the members of congress who questioned 9/11 were all railroaded out of office.
0 gethereddout 2014-10-24
This made me laugh pretty loud.
11 Allergic2Antisemites 2014-10-24
Someone else wrote this, I'd love to see your answers.
And, uh, thanks for doing this?
7 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
7 dtiftw 2014-10-24
Are you willing to be transparent (like we expect from all nonprofits) and give us specific numbers?
How much did you receive in donations in 2013, how much went to you personally (salary, travel, etc.), and how much was allocated to actual research?
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
4 shadowofashadow 2014-10-24
Does Gage live in New York? $100k is supposed to be pretty average there.
0 dtiftw 2014-10-24
It's the same question asked of any non-profit whose mission is research. If people donate expecting research, it's entirely reasonable to find out what research is being done with their donations.
11 BigBrownBeav 2014-10-24
Mr. Gage,
I've always believed that science is ultimately going to break the case open. Can you explain in layman's terms why the gravity fed collapse theory is not possible?
-5 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Hey BigBrownBeav,
Thank you for your question.
Its really quite simple.
Imagine the 2 towers after they were hit: there's an upper section and of course the larger, lower section.
As an analogy imagine you are standing with a large bowling ball resting on your head. Your head can support the weight, right?
Now imagine that same bowling ball drops 6inches onto your head. can you still resist the bowling ball?
Yes of course you can.
Its really that simple, but you'd be amazed how many people don't understand simple physics.
This is why it is so important we bring people's attention to these issues.
20 Macbeth554 2014-10-24
Wait, if you drop a bowling ball, even from only 6 inches, onto your head, it is going to do a hell of a lot more damage than if you just rest it on your head. Your body may not collapse, but you're going to be hurting.
Is this really the analogy you want to use to argue against the gravity fed theory? I mean, it is so easy to show it is full of baloney. Put anything on your head. Then drop it on your head. Which one cases more damage?
Your body might be able to resist the bowling ball (as in you will still be standing), but there will be far more damage done to your body.
13 futilerebel 2014-10-24
He should have been clearer that "resisting" the bowling ball means that, once it makes contact with your head, it will not experience constant downward acceleration (as the towers did) because your head is providing an upward force on it. It sounds like he means that dropping the bowling ball from a height will not affect you at all.
3 username_deleted 2014-10-24
It is a fundamentally flawed understanding of physics that this guy is pedaling. We are interested in kinetic force, NOT static weight. I want you to do an experiment at home. Take the thickest book you have and a styrofoam cup. Place the book gently on top of the cup. It holds! Now take that book and drop it onto the cup. Cup is crushed. The top floors built up momentum (as an actual engineering term) as the floors damaged by the planes gave way. The amount of force required to stop that momentum is directly proportional to how fast you want to stop said material. The impact deceleration between two steel bodies is incredibly high (in other words, it takes a very short period of time for the velocity of the moving body to reach zero in the initial direction of movement) That means the amount of force imparted on the stationary object is much, MUCH higher than the original forces induced by the same weight. So it isn't a matter of the lower structure being able to support the weight of the structure above, it is a matter of the supporting structure trying to decelerate the falling part of the building. Simply put, if this guy is actually arguing what his example implies he is arguing, he has ABSOLUTELY no idea what he's talking about.
-1 futilerebel 2014-10-24
It's "peddling", not "pedaling". And your analogy is flawed. You needed to lift up the book in order to subsequently drop it onto the cup. The top floors of the towers did not experience any such magical upward motion before falling.
2 username_deleted 2014-10-24
What it did experience was the collapse of several stories WHERE A PLANE FLEW THROUGH THE BUILDING. I might have used the wrong "peddling" but I know my engineering, and I know this guy is wrong.
1 futilerebel 2014-10-24
His explanation was poor, as I've already noted above. His use of the word "resist" is unclear; he's referring to this problem: http://youtu.be/NiHeCjZlkr8.
Anyway, the towers were built to withstand an airliner impact. Furthermore, WTC7 was not hit by an airplane and still collapsed. How do you explain that, when no steel-frame high-rise, outside these 3, has ever collapsed due to fire?
1 username_deleted 2014-10-24
I have addressed the airliner argument in other posts. The planes were travelling over twice as fast (three times as fast in the case of flight 175) as the design constraint. Given the masses of the planes, that translates into TEN TIMES more kinetic energy absorption as the design limit. To add to that, the building design did not account for several thousands of gallons of Jet A burning for an hour at 1500F. So let's review; the impact was ten times more energetic than the design limit, taking out a large fraction of the structure (the WTC buildings had a load carrying exterior, so these plane impacts were particularly devastating to integrity) then the remaining structural material was heated to 1500F. At that temperature, structural steel loses around 70% of its strength. So you have a ~60% compromised structure with its remaining structure being massively weakened by heating. That adds up to one screwed building. Also, the building did NOT accelerate at 1g. The lower structure DID provide resistive force, but if you complete the momentum equations, once the upper part of the building started to fall, the force needed to stop it was multiple times the structural limit, i.e. The structure failed when struck. I haven't read as much about wtc 7, but I do know the estimated temperatures were comparable. Even if falling debris damaged a smaller portion of the structure, the heat would have still made the building collapse. The reason it hasn't happened before is because none of the other buildings had structural compromise added to the equation.
1 futilerebel 2014-10-24
Where are you getting this? According to this document and its sources (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html), the towers were designed to withstand an impact from a jet traveling at least 600 mph, which is faster than either jet was traveling.
Again, incorrect, but even if it weren't... how is this relevant? Obviously the towers survived the initial impact. The kinetic energy didn't knock the towers down; it was transferred into destructive force on the columns, windows, and other materials in the tower, leaving only the tower as it was, with some minor structural damage and some fires. WTC engineers have said that "one could cut away all the first-story columns on one side of the building, and part way from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100-mph wind force from any direction." (http://rethink911.org/evidence/twin-towers/implausibility-of-the-official-theory-twin-towers/). Obviously the planes did less damage than this. The point is that the towers were extremely over-engineered, and just judging from the damage that was visible, there's no way the towers would have collapsed, especially straight down through the path of greatest resistance, while spewing out large sections of steel supports radially in all directions at high speeds.
No. First of all, most of the jet fuel was consumed by the giant ball of flame you see immediately following the impact. The remaining fires could not have been much hotter than ~500F (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm), which is not hot enough to melt, or significantly weaken, steel. Again, even if it was, in order for the building to collapse straight down like it did and not sideways (like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1oceE_67MM, or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqRN63iDTqA), the columns that failed would have needed to fail in a perfectly symmetric way; that is, the columns on the opposite side of the tower from where the plane hit collapsed at the same time as those on the same side. How is that even remotely likely?
No one said this. The towers experienced constant downward acceleration. That is, there wasn't a "jolt" when the falling part of the building met the solid, undamaged part of the building. This is impossible if you assume that the lower portion of the tower was completely undamaged.
And actually, WTC7 did experience free-fall, which is acknowledged by NIST (http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm). Again, how do you explain this without explosives?
2 username_deleted 2014-10-24
I got my speed from a scholarly article released by The National Academy of Engineering. You got yours from a conspiracy website. I want you to reflect on that, but I doubt you will.
I don't even know where to begin to explain how wrong this is. You have absolutely no understanding of the energy content of hydrocarbon fuel.
Again completely false. Where did you get your degree in forensic structural engineering? Cascade failure of beams that hot would occur quickly enough that it may as well have happened all at once. There doesn't NEED to be a jolt, and there wouldn't be, considering once the top of the building started falling the forces needed to cause said visible jolt are astronomical. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
Finally, we weren't talking about WTC7 now, were we? Yes, it did experience MOMENTARY freefall, and if you read even a few sentences of the report past what you're referring to, the free fall acceleration duration almost perfectly coincides with the amount of time it would've taken for the falling structure to hit more sound structure. A catastrophic failure of a load bearing member means just that. One second it provides resistive force, the next second there is no resistance. So momentarily the above structure falls.
I'm done with this conversation, because it is obvious all of the information you have regarding the collapse was gleaned from conspiracy websites, and you have convinced yourself they are the only reliable source. That makes civilized discourse impossible. So you are entitled to your beliefs, and I'm going to stop trying to change them, but that doesn't make them right
2 jhrf 2014-10-24
What if we lit a fire in your throat and upper abdomen that burnt for half an hour before we dropped the ball on your head?
2 lastresort08 2014-10-24
Resistance here doesn't mean "no damage done", but rather resisting the force of gravity. I think he should have phrased it much better than he did there.
0 Macbeth554 2014-10-24
Sure, but given enough damage, and you won't be resisting gravity anymore.
A horrible analogy anyway you look at it. It wasn't worded poorly, the analogy itself is in agreement with the gravity theory.
3 lastresort08 2014-10-24
You would still be resisting gravity. If you are standing, you are by definition, resisting gravity.
It is not about damage at all. If I am correct, he is talking about free-fall, and about how free-fall (i.e. at the rate of gravity) is not possible when there is something resisting the gravity. For example, if you are jumping from the top of a building and there are a bunch of blankets in your way, you won't be free-falling, as the blankets would be resisting the force at which you are falling.
Now this is my understanding of what he was trying to say, but yeah its really confusing the way it is phrased, and so only he really knows for sure. If he was speaking in terms of damage done the person, clearly a bowling ball falling from any significant height is going to be damaging to the person, and so that would make hardly any sense in terms of an analogy. You wouldn't need to be that smart of a person to know that. So I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, by saying he likely didn't mean that.
0 Macbeth554 2014-10-24
I understand what resisting gravity means. That why I said, given enough damage you wouldn't be resisting gravity, or standing at all.
An average person might be able to remain standing if an average bowling ball dropped on then from 6 inches, but increase either the weight or the distance and that average person won't be resisting gravity for long.
You're reading into this a lot of you add in free fall speed. That isn't at all what he said.
In short, a terrible analogy anyway you look at.
2 lastresort08 2014-10-24
I think we are both looking at it in a different way. I am only concerned with the effect the object has on the force, and you seem to be concerned with the effect the force has on the object. But yeah, we can both agree that it is a terrible analogy.
-1 monkeylogic42 2014-10-24
Holy hell... two posts in and richards logical flaws exposed with no decent rebuttal. Glad i didnt have to waste my time with the rest of his bs.
17 Algee 2014-10-24
That analogy doesn't scale at all. Its simple physics. You drop a object from 6" its going to have much less energy/momentum than if you drop it from 12 feet. You don't need to scale distances down, since a building falling 12feet is going to increase the energy by the same factor as any object would (ignoring air resistance).
Also, it doesnt account for the fact that the supports in a building need to be attached/aligned to support the rest of the structure. After it started falling it would be a miracle if the broken supports somehow all reconnected allowing the impact to be distributed evenly across the remaining support structure. Otherwise parts of floor XX is trying to support every floor above it, which is not something the WTC was designed to handle. The load was distributed to the core columns.
15 Orangutan 2014-10-24
The World Trade Center engineers said, “one could cut away all the first-story columns on one side of the building, and part way from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100-mph wind force from any direction.”
Frank De Martini - Manager WTC Construction & Project Management - World Trade Center "designed to withstand multiple airliner impacts"
WTC 1988 structural engineer Charlie Thornton says WTC would not collapse
3 Algee 2014-10-24
Yea but could it withstand a 12 foot drop? Even if the support beams reconnected somehow, and you gave it another 12 feet of compression to absorb the impact it would effectively double the total load on the rest of the structure.
2 futilerebel 2014-10-24
I think his point is that the 12 foot drop would not happen.
5 Algee 2014-10-24
Why? Theres video evidence of the exterior columns in the towers bowing and snapping. Thats actually happening right at the floor joists of the 79th floor in that picture, so I guess I am wrong. It would collapse about 2 stories, not one, minus a few feet of sag before the columns snapped, that puts it closer to about 20 feet rather than 12.
Let me advise you not to try dropping a bowling ball on your head from this height, it would result in literal brain damage.
3 futilerebel 2014-10-24
Yes, I agree that Orangutan's reply does not address why the tower continued collapsing after it started to. What I'm saying is that the quote from the WTC engineers (“one could cut away all the first-story columns on one side of the building, and part way from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100-mph wind force from any direction”) implies that the damage caused by just an airplane was not sufficient to start the collapse.
9 Algee 2014-10-24
Exactly, It wasn't sufficient. We know this because the towers did not immediately collapse. The fires in combination with the damaged support structures initiated the collapse.
2 purplesmoke44 2014-10-24
Yea but also they said that Titanic couldn't sink either.
-1 bArs_ 2014-10-24
No. He says it would not knock it over. Those are two completely different things.
2 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Even if an entire floor was completely, spontaneously removed, the part of the building above the missing floor would have no more potential energy than it did with the floor there. But an entire floor wasnt removed, most of the building was perfectly intact with zero air gap between the crushing part (top of building) and the crushed part (bottom of building). Since we know that the lower part of the building was pushing up exactly as hard as the upper part was pushing down, we would expect the upper part to disintegrate in about as much fall as the height of the upper section. Instead what we saw was the upper part disintegrate the lower part all the way to the ground. At some point, the upper part of the building should have disintegrated enough to not be able to crush the bottom part.
3 youareaspastic 2014-10-24
Except for all that kinetic energy right?
and that's where your theory falls apart. What is 'disintegration' to you? Where does all the mass from the top floor go?
1 NominalCaboose 2014-10-24
I believe down is the answer.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
kinetic energy comes at the expense of potential energy. there was never any more or less potential energy before or after the plane hit.
Where does all the mass from the dust come from?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/GJS-WTC033.jpg
can't get something from nothing.
3 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
What if you drop that same bowling ball from 12 feet. Will your skull, neck and spine be intact?
12 macmac360 2014-10-24
maybe not, but the bowling ball will not crush an entire human body, I think that was his point.
-3 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
You can do this experiment with bricks. Stack a pile of bricks, drop a brick.
The top brick and the falling brick break, the rest stay perfectly fine.
15 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
Do you really think that is a valid comparison? Dropping one solid object onto another solid object is not the same as dropping tons of unsupported weight onto a structure that is 88% air and made up of hundreds of individual pieces attached together.
12 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
If you wanna say the towers are made of 88% air, why is that so called 'unsupported weight' not also made up of 88% air, like it's lower portion? Is the top piece made of indestructible material while the lower portion is made up of feathers?
Lol, they are equal. The same building.
Even if they were different, there's no dropping anyway, because the top portion of the tower exploded before the bottom collapsed. (many claim it was a pile driver type scenario, which is clearly debunked here: http://youtu.be/nUDoGuLpirc)
2 Tor_Coolguy 2014-10-24
You're confusing weight and density. Something can be 88% air and still be heavy. The upper portion was the same weight regardless of its density, but the density of the bottom is relevant because it effects its stability.
0 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
They're made of the same thing, they are the same building.
http://youtu.be/nUDoGuLpirc the top portion exploded, there was no impossible pile driver collapse. It is clear in this video.
-3 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
No...no it didn't.
5 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
How did the buildings turn to pyroclastic clouds of dust?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dew/dewpics/911wtc1blowupconcretefull.jpg
0 ct_warlock 2014-10-24
A pyroclastic flow (also known scientifically as a pyroclastic density current) is a fast-moving current of hot gas and rock (collectively known as tephra), which reaches speeds moving away from a volcano of up to 700 km/h (450 mph). The gas can reach temperatures of about 1,000 °C (1,830 °F).
I didn't see anyone being incinerated by what essentially was just big clouds of fast-moving dust.
There was nothing "pyroclastic" about them at all.
This smacks of people borrowing scientific-sounding terms to add a credible sound to their arguments, instead of just sticking to the facts, even if they're not as exciting sounding.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
pyroclastic makes the official story even less believable, right?
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1726&bih=986&q=9%2F11+pyroclastic+flow&oq=9%2F11+pyroclastic+flow&gs_l=img
1 ct_warlock 2014-10-24
No, it makes your claim that there were pyroclastic flows present not believable. At all.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
What pops up when you google 9/11 pyroclastic flow?
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1726&bih=986&q=9%2F11+pyroclastic+flow&oq=9%2F11+pyroclastic+flow&gs_l=img
Sorry if I trust google more than a random redditor.
1 ct_warlock 2014-10-24
So, what exactly is the difference between a large cloud of dust and a pyroclastic flow in your opinion? Or are they just the same? I'm wondering if this is just a misunderstanding based on unfamiliar nomenclature.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
would you say that this pic kinda-sorta looks like a volcano erupting?
2 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
Yes it did. http://youtu.be/nUDoGuLpirc
It is clear in this video. Did you watch it?
-1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
Nope, sorry, no explosion there.
You do have quite a vivid imagination though.
7 murtokala 2014-10-24
The stores are pretty much equal to each other. So if two equal objects collide an equal force is applied to both, so they should destruct each other at approximately the same rate. So the upper part that began falling should have diminished completely after it had traveled by it's height into the bottom part. After that there should be nothing left to continue the collapse.
If there was a weak part in the bottom part of the building which would have severed we would have seen the collapse continue from that point, but it didn't happen like that either. It was like a pile driver crushed the building down. I didn't see that pile driver anywhere.
Even if the top part of the bottom portion of the building was heavily severed because of the fires, the collapse would still have slowed down until there is nothing left to do more damage. But the buildings were destroyed to the first floor and beyond, absolutely nothing left.
I'm not an expert on the matter, but my common sense says what happened is very unprobable or even impossible.
Looking forward for the day when we have the capability to reconstruct the scenario in a computer model, down to very little details.
1 youareaspastic 2014-10-24
Diminished into what?
2 BigBrownBeav 2014-10-24
Oblivion
0 murtokala 2014-10-24
Into each other. If you have a line of ten men that are somewhat equally sized and ask the first one to fight everyone, one at a time, to death, how far would you think he gets?
2 youareaspastic 2014-10-24
Haha, completely tangential analogy but I guess it still proves my point- the guy who starts fighting will get beaten up, but he will still get a few hits down to the 4th or 5th person in line.
So the force of the top falling is just 'diminished' into the bottom portion right? Considering the top floors were speeding up as they fell (due to gravitational acceleration) and gathering mass from collecting the next floors on the way down, would you say with confidence that you know the lower floors have the structural integrity to resist that load?
If you haven't already, try reading the NIST FAQs. They explain the physical concepts behind the building collapse quite clearly http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm.
EDIT: For a quick briefer on the difference between static and dynamic loads, check this out: http://www.pdhcenter.com/courses/s164/s164content.pdf. The collapse of the towers should make sense then.
1 murtokala 2014-10-24
Great you liked it =)
I was more thinking he would get to second or first. One at a time I said, not trying to hustle his way down slapping everyone.
The speeding up part is one thing that I don't get either. There seemed to be absolutely no resistance to the top part making it's way through.
Yes I would say that eventually the force from the top part would diminish into the bottom after the mutual destruction ends. In case of WTC that didn't happen for some reason and the collapse continued to the bottom. If it was not assisted, the top part should have slowed while going into the bottom part and at the same time keep getting smaller and smaller. I could see the "mass gathering" part happening if the building didn't have those columns in the middle to support the structure. I can't say with confidence that I know anything about WTC except that they don't exist anymore, but it still seems obvious to me that the columns would have had the integrity to support the load from that small portion that begun falling. But what happened looks like they didn't and immediately were destroyed without any effort.
Edit: read the NIST FAQ. Not much in it except that what they say about the bottom part not being able to resist the load. Also that 40 stories of core colums were standing for a long time after the collapse is interesting, would like to see the images / video footage for that.
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
What do you mean by "diminished completely"? Are you referring to the speed of the moving pile, or are you referring to the amount of rubble?
I don't know why I'm bothering wasting my time, but here is a quick "back of the napkin" calculation that I've seen in a couple places to explain the speed of the collapse.
When the first tower finally buckled at the point of impact of the plane, the top section would have dropped at near free fall speed through nothing but air for roughly 12 feet at least. In that amount of time, that 35 story pile of rubble would have gotten to around 19mph.
Now, that 35 story pile of rubble moving at 19mph impacts the first floor of the structure beneath it. Here is where the "equal and opposite" physics stuff comes in. The amount of force necessary to pulverize the first floor impacted is equal to the amount of force needed to slow down that falling pile slightly. So, the first floor impacted is pulverized and the pile is slowed down to something like 11mph.
Once that first intact floor collapses, it's weight is added to the falling mass. Now instead of 35 floors worth of rubble, you have 36. Also, once that first floor gives way, the rubble has another 12 feet worth of air to fall through before impacting the second intact floor. So now you have 36 floors worth of rubble starting out at 11mph. By the time it impacts the second intact floor, the pile is moving at ~27mph.
So with every floor destroyed, the rubble pile grows in mass and increases in speed.
3 murtokala 2014-10-24
I like that you are wasting your time.
What you say indeed sounds plausible. I need to think about that.
The core columns are there though and somewhat or completely prevent that kind of pancaking and acceleration between impacts.
Cannot make my mind, will need to think about this more.
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
The core columns for both towers stood for a few seconds after the building collapsed. 40 stories worth in one tower and 60 stories worth for the other.
The reason they were still standing is because the floors peeled themselves away from the core and perimeter columns as they collapsed on themselves. That's also the reason why the collapse inside the building seemed to outpace the collapse of the shell.
1 murtokala 2014-10-24
Yeah I read that from the NIST FAQ but haven't seen images of video of that. If you have, can you point me to one?
1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
http://imgur.com/4uUxiDq
http://imgur.com/qdJfQFm
http://www.usavsus.info/WTC-911/WTC08-46_wtc1spiretodustjg4.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I47Nv74mTwI
1 murtokala 2014-10-24
Interesting, thanks. This actually does challenge my view.
What is your view on WTC7? We don't need to go there, but it would be interesting to know.
1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
At first glance it's certainly counterintuitive. Buildings don't normally collapse from office fires.
The thing is, the fires on September 11th weren't normal at all. First of all, the fire suppression systems were completely severed by the first 2 towers collapsing, so the fires in WTC 7 had free reign to burn out of control without a drop of water. Secondly, the fires were going on as many as a dozen non contiguous floors or more, fed by office furnishings and diesel powered generators, and burned for over 7 hours.
The FDNY personnel onsite could see the building in major distress 3 hours before it came down. They had a structural engineer onsite consulting, and not only did he predict that the building was going to collapse, but he also nailed the exact timeframe for the collapse.
Clearly the thought of a controlled demolition that would have been a major shock to everyone onsite doesn't jive with the reality on the ground. Given that other structural engineers have done their own collapse models separate from NIST and come to essentially the same conclusion, I'm OK with deferring to the experts and the people on the ground on this one.
5 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Because dropping 1 pillow onto a pile of 10 pillows and watching the 10 pillows be crushed flat would be a better illustration?
1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
Whatever you say.
0 MaturinTheTurtle 2014-10-24
Except we aren't talking about pillows. We're talking about a building. Analogies end up being pretty useless. If you sever the supports holding up the top of a building, that building collapses.
2 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
If you cut a tree trunk, is the part of the trunk below your cut any weaker than it was before you cut?
1 MaturinTheTurtle 2014-10-24
2 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
http://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1oq3mt/im_david_abel_a_veteran_boston_globe_reporter_who/
http://np.reddit.com/user/davabel /u/davabel
3 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
the top section is exactly that aswell. Remember, the top section and the bottom section are made of exactly the same stuff. In fact, the building got stronger as it progressed downwards.
3 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Excellent point about the building getting stronger as it progressed downwards. The bottom building columns are always bigger than the upper parts of those same columns, and as the building collapsed there was less weight to support because the building turned to dust and was blown every direction, even up.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dew/dewpics/911wtc1blowupconcretefull.jpg
2 murtokala 2014-10-24
That picture really tells more than a thousand official theories.
Just wondering how fast would a concrete block need to be smashed against another to produce only dust.
The destruction power has been something so unbelievable. An ash castle collapsing would produce a similar view, but a solid object falling apart, no way in this universe.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
this is exactly the physics question we have been posing to each other lately. if you were given a hammer and a cement block, how much physical labor would it take to hammer that block to a fine power? your arm would get tired before the job was done.
also interesting is why the cement turned to dust instead of randomly sized broken pieces.
this is one reason the official story doesn't hold up. but it may also be part of the reason that the Thermite/Thermite theory doesn't hold up.
molten granite is another.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2j1k8wi&s=7
1 youareaspastic 2014-10-24
Sure, the top brick and falling brick break - what happens to the rest of the energy in the collision? Unless all matter is ejected upwards and to the sides (which it isn't) the force of the impact still has to be applied to the bricks below the top brick.
Try that same thought experiment except under the column of bricks, you are holding it up. Would you really expect to feel no extra load when the brick is dropped?
2 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
The use of simple physics can prove that the WTC was not destroyed a gravity driven collapse, but simple physics may not be sufficient to explain what did destroy the WTC. Knowing what didn't happen is the first step, but it is a baby step. The real meat is finding out what did destroy the WTC. Knowing that it wasn't jet plane crash isn't enough.
3 [deleted] 2014-10-24
I agree.
We do have evidence for military grade explosives.
1 BigBrownBeav 2014-10-24
Hey Richard, Thanks again.
I had an idea for a meme about two pop cans, one on top of another. Something like, "Could the top can crush the bottom can?".
Are the same forces at work with the pop can analogy as a skyscraper? Obviously the top can couldn't crush the bottom can. But does adding weight (like skyscraper heavy) increase the chance gravity could assist in the downward destruction?
3 [deleted] 2014-10-24
To make a better analogy for the towers, I would suggest making the bottom can stronger material than the top can.
0 BigBrownBeav 2014-10-24
Heh, so a Foster's King Can on the bottom and a Molson Cold Shots can on top. Check.
I think it's a good way maybe for something to "click" in peoples minds about how impossible it is for something of equal weight and density to destroy itself from gravity alone. For whatever reasons people (myself included) believe this. Once it clicks in peoples minds it seems ridiculous.
1 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
Do the experiment and film it :D Stack some (full) cans in a pile, hold them together with glue or something, then drop a can onto the top one. It would probably get crumpled up a bit, but no fall straight through the entire stack of cans :D
John cole done this experiment with bricks,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s&list=UUp2dy_49nEgXFbuWJdJuxxw#t=393
-1 bilbobaggens 2014-10-24
Do you get trolled alot, Richard Gage?
-1 friendlylooking 2014-10-24
As long as you weigh that evidence with the counter evidence to explosives, you'll end up at the right conclusion.
1 BigBrownBeav 2014-10-24
Thank you.
0 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Imho, the stack of bricks analogy is more appropriate to illustrate your point.
http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2jqcvm/serious_how_do_you_who_believe_that_wtc_7_was/cledqq1?context=3
0 7ech7onic 2014-10-24
As an analogy imagine a nail with a large hammer resting on it. The nail can support the weight, right? Now imagine that same hammer drops 6inches onto the nail. can it still resist the hammer? No of course it can't.
4 junnies 2014-10-24
if you simply drop the hammer onto the nail with the force of gravity alone, the nail might be 'pushed' in slightly, but i seriously doubt it will be driven in. for it to be driven in, you'd have to apply much more additional force than gravity.
for instance, when i see nails being hammered in real-life, the hammer is either swung with significant additional force from the human musculature to drive the nail in, or repeated hammerings are required to gradually push the nail in.
and in any case, the hammer is FAR HEAVIER than the nail. a more accurate analogy to the WTC, where a fraction of the entire building caused the collapse of the entire building, would be the nail resting on the hammer, and dropping the nail onto the hammer. in a hundred percent of the cases, i believe the nail will bounce off the hammer.
2 BigBrownBeav 2014-10-24
For your analogy to be correct you would need to hit another hammer facing upwards. Imagine that.
1 futilerebel 2014-10-24
Yes it can. Saying the nail will "resist" the hammer is not the same thing as saying that the nail will not move. See this for clarification: What a Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like: http://youtu.be/NiHeCjZlkr8
0 hyahya 2014-10-24
That's....not how physics works...
I mean, that's almost as bad as the "two concrete blocks" example. Of course the bottom one doesn't collapse, it's a solid structure.
The towers weren't solid structures. It's not a case of "the top X floors vs the bottom Y floors" either, it's a case of "the top X floors vs the 1 floor below them".
-1 scbeski 2014-10-24
God this so, so wrong. Respect to you for figuring out how to make $100k/year by spewing this bullshit though
1 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
It is actually a perfect example and put into terms for the unedcuated to digest.
Equal and Opposite Reaction. Have you ever heard of Newton's basic laws of physics?
4 scbeski 2014-10-24
Ughhhhhh. No, Newton who? The guy with the fig cookies??
Because everything there is to know about physics, engineering, and material science was taught in 10th grade physics. There's no reason at all that people go on to study for 4 years of undergraduate and another 2-7 years of graduate school to master these topics.
2 reboticon 2014-10-24
That sarcasm is going to fly right over a bunch of heads.
0 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Because /u/scbeski has a 10th grade understanding of physics, etc and hes arguing against a professional in the field?
0 reboticon 2014-10-24
Ya.
This one also flew over some heads.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Why didnt the potential energy of the top section of the building crush the lower section of the building long before an airplane hit it, like during the construction of WTC?
1 youareaspastic 2014-10-24
Dynamic vs. static load. Seriously, it's not rocket science. What do you think actually happens in a controlled demolition? What you're postulating would mean controlled demolitions are violating Newton's third law too.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Dynamic vs. static load
so, as the static load (potential energy) of the upper part of the building started to collapse and became a dynamic load (kinetic energy), did the floors below the collapse experience an increase in load, a decrease in load, or did the load stay they same?
What do you think actually happens in a controlled demolition?
the building support super structure is systematically, symmetrically removed, hense the phrase "controlled" demolition. asymmetrical failure should cause asymmetrical collapse. if you were sitting in a 4 legged chair and one of the legs broke, which way would you fall?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fms8r2dRu_8
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
This is a video of a top-down controlled demolition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s
as an engineer, if you were given the job of demolishing the old WTC complex to make room for a new WTC complex, how exactly would you do that demolition job? would you use a top-down controlled demolition on WTC1 and WTC2?
1 AutoModerator 2014-10-24
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
http://np.reddit.com/user/youareaspastic
redditor for 1 month
Join Us! http://np.reddit.com/r/911Truth+Engineering/new
-1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Thats...not how physics works on orders of that magnitude
9 SteezeWhiz 2014-10-24
Hey Richard! Huge fan here.
Have you watched 9/11- The New Pearl Harbor? In my opinion it is by far the most comprehensive investigative documentary surrounding the events of 9/11 ever made. If you haven't, I implore you to watch it as soon as you get some time for a 5 hour documentary (yes, 5 hours). If you have (or when you watch it), would you consider having AE911Truth endorse the film? It does not have nearly the publicity that it deserves, and the filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco encourages free duplication and distribution of the film, so there would be no legal issue to sort out.
Thanks for doing this AMA by the way!
10 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
7 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
What did you not like about the new pearl harbour doc? I thought it was one of the best videos I have seen on the subject
7 Sister_Lauren 2014-10-24
Gage is fully committed to NOT looking at who might be guilty.
If you ever wondered why he is not threatened by the powers that be, I'd suggest that was the reason. He looks at the evidence of what happened, NOT at the evidence of who did it or why.
It is a conscious choice on his part and he freely admits to it.
1 TokingMessiah 2014-10-24
Hey - I know you from AlterNet!
0 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
I spent several years just looking at the physical evidence of 9/11, and most data points suggest that the official story was a big lie. After it occured to me that proving the Pythagorean theorem in new ways doesnt make it any more true, I moved on to looking for alternative suspects. I didnt make the same mistake with Boston, and as soon as it was evident that it was a false flag, started looking for alternative suspects http://friendfeed.com/groups/search?q=0p6dBMB #0p6dBMB
0 shmegegy 2014-10-24
I'm sure it's the impossible passenger planes and the pentagon. but pilots for 911 truth have done an excellent job making the case for shenanigans.
4 SteezeWhiz 2014-10-24
I find that astonishing. What is there not to like? They also praise AE911Truth heavily throughout the discussion of the tower collapses...
-4 24isnotreal 2014-10-24
Gage is being very smart hear. He understands that all of the information that supports the Inside Job theory which has been gathered by so many film makers and amateur researchers is nonsense, so naturally, he distances himself from it.
He will only defend his own theory about the three towers that collapsed. He is not as certain about the Inside Job theory as most keyboard warriors are.
4 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
It's called credibility, and many people here, including mods, do not give a F about it. We should use Mr. Gage as an example on how to carry ourselves and ideas.
Richard Gage only deals in sourced facts and newtonian physics. No theories. That's why he is successful.
2 SteezeWhiz 2014-10-24
9/11 The New Pearl Harbor does not fall into that category. All of the material is objective, sourced in real-time, and compared to the opposing arguments. Also, I'm shocked at your inability to realize that his thesis is that 9/11 was an inside job.
1 windingdreams 2014-10-24
Lern 2 tipe
-1 24isnotreal 2014-10-24
Nothing wrong with my typing. Learn to spell. :)
3 gethereddout 2014-10-24
I'm curious, why didn't you enjoy meeting Griffin? His books strike me as exceptionally well researched, and you guys are essentially on the same side here, no?
9 WTCMolybdenum4753 2014-10-24
Mr. Gage,
If the remains of WTC7 were separated from WTC 1&2...
"A separate field has been created for the remains of 7 World Trade Center,...
Do you happen know why didn't NIST get access? NIST didn't recover ANY STEEL from building 7.
Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the truth.
5 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
5 NAM007 2014-10-24
Doubtful.
7 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Could you please give a small list of some of the top false information that is being put out there, or some of the theories that have maybe purposely muddied the waters.(like nukes). Thank you for your dedication.
9 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
3 Playaguy 2014-10-24
There is indisputable evidence that direct energy weapons have been in existence since before 9-11.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8yfa7WnLlCU
2 sacchetta 2014-10-24
ARA and SAIC are both manufacturers of directed energy weapons and parts. They were also 2 of the biggest contractors NIST used in their investigation.
2 Playaguy 2014-10-24
I am all for evidence based conclusions. But to say that it is ironic that a person with what the mainstream would consider is a far out theory, dismisses another theory because it is too far out, is an understatement.
7 apocalypsychosis 2014-10-24
2 questions
What amount of nano thermite is required to cut a single typical beam in WTC7 - that is what volume would that occupy and how much would it weigh?
Also, how does scaling affect the amount of force applied by objects in motion, or how much support they require to remain intact?
5 ct_warlock 2014-10-24
Also, how much nano thermite existed on the planet prior to 2001?
What facility would have been large and specialised enough to manufacture that much?
6 axolotl_peyotl 2014-10-24
YES WE'LL DO IT LIVE!!!!!
/u/smokinbluebear couldn't be here and asked someone to submit their question:
We know the WTC steel was quickly shipped off--much of it to be recycled in China and India--but, what were the most important pieces to analyze for a proper investigation? and what percentage of these pieces were investigators given access to? was WTC 7 handled the same as the Twin Towers?
Wondering if you think the victims (and their families) have been silenced with a non-disclosure agreement which Feinberg’s 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund may have contained...
Richard Gage's response:
6 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Thanks for your hard work, Richard. I was impressed by your recent appearance on CSPAN.
My question might seem an odd one but I hope not. In your experience, what's the best piece of evidence you've found that convinces your peers and colleagues to question the government narrative? Is it in video form, statistical form or some other medium?
I hope my question makes sense. Thanks again.
4 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Hi americandreamsicle
Thank you for your question.
The best piece of evidence is simply this: WTC7.
6 dubgong 2014-10-24
Hey Richard, Thanks again for doing this?
I'm wonder what your thought are on this
Here is a slow motion .Gif
11 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Hey dubgong,
Thank you for your question.
Is that a video of one fo the towers?
I have studied many videos of both the collapses of the North and South towers and have not seen this particular anomaly before.
I am speculating of course, but I would say this is fake.
If you can find any evidence that this existed prior to, say, 2003..It would be helpful.
I have doubts when something like this only emerges in 2014. I'm sure you're aware of a fake video in which WTC7 was seen to have obvious scattered explosions, and a Flying Saucer.
(but just because I am skeptical doesnt mean you're wrong: keep gathering evidence!)
3 dubgong 2014-10-24
I Also saw that you said you're on your phone.
The video I sent you of the blast was set with a time stamp and doesn't work on mobile. If you have time the part with the blast starts around 1:10.
1 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
it is visible in full videos of the molten metal dripping
3 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Perhaps the video ridestraight provided is not clear...but it did not resemble the same molten material (steel) dripping from the tower.
it looked to me like it was being ejected: a squib.
And i have not seen that before.
1 SovereignMan 2014-10-24
Lookingfortruths was saying that it's shown in the same video but is actually at a different part of the building.
1 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
if you slow down the video footage it is clearly visible behind the molten metal. It is a bright 'squid' of molten looking material, the exact same as in the gif
0 hellogoodbye321 2014-10-24
Speculation- Perhaps Unexploded thermite being scattered and exploding at a certain ratio when mixing with air. Such as an air pocket forming in the burning material and exploding. Or molten metal may have came in contact with water, which rapidly expands as it turns to steam, and would cause the molten metal to effectively explode or scatter.
Steel Mill Wet Charge
-3 ridestraight 2014-10-24
I didn't provide a video. Dubgong did and out of hand you claimed it to be fake.
Get out of your bubble, Richard, please.
-5 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Squibs are explosions, they are faster reactions than the "squibs" that are ejected from the towers.
Water tanks were located on selected floors so that it wouldn't have to be constantly pumped up. Isn't this a more viable expiation for these "squibs" since they are travelling at a much much slower speed than an explosive displaces material?
And again. Why don't these squibs make an audible sound.
0 dubgong 2014-10-24
Wow. People always say this but it's awesome you responded.
The link was posted on this subreddit the other day and was put up to debate. It was actually posted after it was announced you'd be doing this AMA. I was curious to see your reaction. The video seems to follow the molten Metal and there just happens to be a blast. I had never seen that video before and was curious if you had. If I find any more info about it how would I keep in touch with you?
3 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
Whoa, I have 100s of videos on my HD from a FOIA release from NIST. Where is this blast from? Never seen that molten squib clip...
2 Orangutan 2014-10-24
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/contact.html
-6 ridestraight 2014-10-24
Fake? Now he's an expert in video debunking but cannot answer reasonable questions put forth by sacchetta!
Can someone please verify that this AMA is really Richard Gage?
1 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
I messaged the mods earlier, apparently it is verified
-2 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Thank you so much /u/ridestraight
-1 ridestraight 2014-10-24
You're welcome! Any small effort to push Richard, this thread, your sincere, researched query.
I'm half loosing what's left of my brain matter here, so my apology upfront. Quite punchy.
Aaarrrggghhhhhhhhh...
-4 sacchetta 2014-10-24
It is a life changing experience when you really begin to look into that day. It effects everyone everywhere at all times. Don't stop your positive contributions!
6 shmegegy 2014-10-24
Hi Richard.
The DSC results for the thermitic material in the dust are remarkable. What is the insurance company's response to this evidence after paying out billions for a crime they didn't investigate?
6 avirdi123 2014-10-24
Hi Richard,
My question is, do you realistically think the truth will ever come out to the mass public? It's kinda disheartening to see how close minded a lot of people are, even in the face of strong evidence. I wish I knew more people like the ones around this sub because frankly it's a little lonely.
Sorry my question doesn't relate to architecture or engineering. I don't for one second believe the official story, so I don't have anything technical to ask about.
Thanks a lot for doing this. Takes serious cojones and I wish you even more success in the future.
8 Orangutan 2014-10-24
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead
1 avirdi123 2014-10-24
I appreciate the reply but realistically has it ever happened? Are there cases where a small group of people have caused a massive difference using honest and peaceful means?
I sincerely do hope so..
3 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Christianity was started by one guy and a small group of followers
2 Sister_Lauren 2014-10-24
Buddhism was started by one guy too.
2 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
RIP Edward Lawson
1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJUIz9o0EzM
2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdOqcDdR2XY
1 avirdi123 2014-10-24
That whole shebang was anything but peaceful.
2 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
we killed jesus and we are proud of it!
http://youtu.be/hefIti-uFUo?t=46s
1 Sister_Lauren 2014-10-24
The American revolution is a good example, not that it was honest or peaceful.
1 avirdi123 2014-10-24
Lol yeah revolutions don't seem to be very clean practices. Then again it wouldn't be a revolution it it wasn't violent..
Kinda makes you wonder what we would end up having to do if the people suddenly wanted a change. Would you say it would be peaceful in our day and age?
6 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
2 seriouslytaken 2014-10-24
Denial is a powerful human emotion.
1 dizturbd 2014-10-24
So is faith in something that you've only been told to believe.
6 Robot_Apocalypse 2014-10-24
One of the arguments that I hear a great deal is regarding the explosive charges which can be observed as debris/explosions coming off the building traveling down just below the line of collapse. To my mind I have always thought it reasonable that rather than exploding charges this is actually debris being blown out of the building as a result of the air evacuating the collapsing levels. When you have a whole floor worth of space which you are collapsing in a second it is likely to violently push out all the air right?
5 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
Hey Richard,
Your appearance on cspan was a big deal. How did they go about contacting you for an appearance? Were you surprised? And what was their reaction, if any? Any follow ups? Great interview, avoided the theories and stuck to the irrefutable evidence. That video has been viewed 210,000 times on cspan website alone.
Link: http://www.c-span.org/video/?320748-5/washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth
3 Orangutan 2014-10-24
This did pretty well as well: http://video.pbs.org/video/2270078138/
5 EmmaWilliamsxxx 2014-10-24
I do not have a question, but thank you so much for doing this, you really are a hero.
-2 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
6 axolotl_peyotl 2014-10-24
IT'S A TRAP.
6 EmmaWilliamsxxx 2014-10-24
Yep, but i am way to stupid for you, i cut hair for a living ha :)
Talking about 9/11 with my customers has passed many an hour.
5 avirdi123 2014-10-24
I would totally get my hair cut from you! ;)
5 jtazr45 2014-10-24
Thank you so much for your time! When did you start believing that the events of 9/11 were not what the media portrayed, from that day until now?
5 George_Tenet 2014-10-24
Thanks for being here Richard, i have 2 QUICK questions
1) when you woke up this morning, did you know what a "limited hangout" was? [if you answer no, give it a google... or , ok here it is
2) and for the 9/11 question. Do you think a plane hit the Pentagon?
1 Middleman79 2014-10-24
Not answering his questions but the pentagon crash is so obviously bullshit. Look at the pictures of the MH17 airliner crash in Ukraine. There's debris everywhere. There was a small bit of an engine on the pentagon lawn. It's surprising how stupid or oblivious people are. "A huge plane crashed into a building. Then all the parts of the plane just evaporated and all that was left was a huge hole. Move along now. Nothing to see here."
-1 TheGhostOfDusty 2014-10-24
/r/LimitlessHangup
5 spiritmeetthesoul 2014-10-24
Hi Richard, I'm thrilled to be to ask you a question. According to one poll 65% of Canadians support the bombing of ISIS. If in 2014 you haven't got that war is racket yet, I think it's safe to say you probably never will. So this says to me that the majority of the population has decided to remain ignorant about the ongoing militarism of this country and it's allies. What am I do to? The world is collapsing into total war and the future looks bleak from so many angles, how can help people see what's going on, to look deeper, when the vast majority of the people don't want to talk about it (and those who do can't help but being irrational?) Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks for your great work, which is indisputable, so much so that I wonder why the powers that be let you get away with it. You once said you've never been threatened, has this changed? I'm really surprised that there aren't attempts to shut you down. You are living proof that freedom of expression is still alive and well in your country. Please comment. Thanks!
1 Orangutan 2014-10-24
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." - JFK
"...it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"What you do may be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963
4 AssuredlyAThrowAway 2014-10-24
Hi Mr. Gage,
Thank you for taking the time to be here with us today.
What, in your mind, is the most glaring factual inaccuracy contained with the 9/11 commission report?
5 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
6 AssuredlyAThrowAway 2014-10-24
Thank you for your reply Richard;
I absolutely agree that the work done by those skeptics and professionals subsequent to the report is crucial to determining the truth of what occurred that day; I asked about the report only with regards to what information (or lack there) contained within your organization might hope to one day correct or perhaps expand upon. For example, the NIST failing to provide the data behind their collapse model of building 7.
6 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
2 thefuckingtoe 2014-10-24
How can you compare your model to a hidden model? Remember, NIST won't release their analysis data because it would 'jeopardize public safety.'
2 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
This is absolutely true and a number of other groups have produced their own models that validate NIST's... When could we expect to see AE911's - I mean you've had eight years?
3 apocalypsychosis 2014-10-24
Do did you read it?
Honestly this is your answer?
You ad hominem attack it by calling it the "Omission Report", and then you say it's hard to get past the first page.
Followed by "its what's not in the report that matters most of all.". Well then, what is important about the report? Just that we listen to what you and many others online say about the people who wrote the report and what's in it?
Holy crap this is unprofessional and disappointing. People are asking questions so they can answer the debunkers questions like "why no sounds of explosions when WTC7 fell?", and then you ask us to re-watch the zillions of hours of video on ae911truth.org? Why don't you just ask us to purchase some t-shirts and mugs while we're at it?
4 danstrand 2014-10-24
Hi Richard,
What would you say is the strongest evidence proving the official story wrong?
9 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
0 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Many of us are starting to doubt the Thermite theory because it doesn't seem to explain how WTC1 /WTC2 were reduced to dust. The mini nuke theory seems to be gaining popularity
http://youtu.be/qZomMV4BVVU
0 shmegegy 2014-10-24
they weren't reduced to dust, but there was a signifcant amount of dust.produced from the explosions.
there were little pieces of things, lots of paper and steel that was corroded sulfidated and eutectic mixtures.. the iron spherules and chips of nanothermitic material in the dust does fit the collapse just fine. thermitic materials are used in demolition
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/thermite-has-historically-been-used-for-demolition-at-least-twice.2856/
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
disappeared into its own dust
http://youtu.be/qhyu-fZ2nRA?t=55s
2 shmegegy 2014-10-24
look closely at that footage. see all those flashes of light. and the voluminous hot gas/dust clouds?
very typical of explosive demoliton. it fits.
-2 danstrand 2014-10-24
So that is still the smoking gun, but if people still don't understand the fallacies in their arguments, will they ever?
2 Orangutan 2014-10-24
The Facts Speak for Themselves
7 Facts about WTC Building 7
4 WTCMolybdenum4753 2014-10-24
Mr. Gage,
What amount of nano thermite was found at the WTC site? Why didn't NIST and the experts they brought in make note of this?
6 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
2 apocalypsychosis 2014-10-24
What amount of nanothermite is necessary to cut a beam like inside of WTC7?
3 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
John cole done some experiments, you can find them on his youtube channel (physics and reason). It is a smaller piece of steel, and only uses normal thermite, but it gives you some idea about how much will cut steel.
3 SovereignMan 2014-10-24
This may help: 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
2 alllie 2014-10-24
Professor Cole did a great set of experiments there.
1 apocalypsychosis 2014-10-24
That's ridiculous.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Why do people cling to the idea that a covert controlled demolition would be magnitudes more difficult to pull off than an overt controlled demolition?
a covert controlled demolition would take thousands of people, yet an overt controlled demolition may only take dozens?
If you want to know why 9/11 happened, just look at what the politicians did with it.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
2 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
Why? It takes a proper demolitions team weeks to setup a controlled demolition which includes placing hundreds of high energy charges, running miles of det cord, but more importantly removing a massive amount of the structure maually.
Clearly it was impossible to remove any of the structure manually - that work couldn't have gone unnoticed - so if anything the explosive load would have to be even higher. Instead of using a supersonic high explosive as it typical in demolition (which would have been obvious from the sounds) they apparently had to use some sort of thermite - which has never been used in building demolition.
So this team of however many people rigged a building to collapse, unnoticed and without any of the typical structural preparation, and did it with basically untested incendiary materials? To me it seems to be a massive leap of faith to believe that.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
so on the one hand, it would take weeks of careful preparation and lots and lots of explosives to bring down a building like #WTC1 in a controlled demolition,
but on the other hand, a random airplane crash can somehow accomplish in minutes the same thing that would normally take weeks of careful preparation and lots and lots of explosives to accomplish?
you can't really have it both ways. either buildings come down relatively easy from being randomly hit by a plane, or buildings don't come down very easily and require lots and lots of explosives for a controlled demolition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM
2 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
Well sure, if you'd been able to model the dynamics of the collapse well enough in advance I guess it might have been possible to know that removing only a small section could result in the collapse.
However if it was vital to destroy the building in a very specific way then you'd have to emulate the existing wisdom on demolition. For the Twin Towers especially it would require incredible precision to deliver the result that some claim would be impossible without explosives.
Also, frankly, you can have it both ways either. It was either possible for a small localised failure to create the collapse we saw, or it could only happen as observed if it were a classic controlled demolition. If the latter then it would need a lot of explosive power.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
you mean like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s
1 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
That is an awesome video!
But in that case they have clearly removed almost all of the supporting structure.
Also someone should show that video to Richard Gage... I'm fairly sure that top section of just a few floors shouldn't be able to destroy the building below it.. at least according to AE911
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
now that we know that a top-down progressive-collapse is indeed a known method of controlled demolition (from the video)...
and now that we know that massive amounts of explosives (and the "masses" of people involved in placing the explosives), are not necessarily required to do a controlled demolition, (as demonstrated in the 9/11 official story)...
can we say that a 9/11 controlled demolition is much, much easier than the 9/11 shills would have us believe?
and can we also say that a top-down progressive-collapse would be the method of choice for any planned controlled demolition of WTC1 and WTC2?
could you or anyone else point to any alternative method of controlled demolition that would be a better choice?
what would be the pros and cons of any alternative method of controlled demolition?
how would alternative controlled demolition methods look different than what we actually saw happen on 9/11
are we supposed to believe that 19 radical muslims just happened to choose a random angle of attack that coincidentally matches up perfectly with the method of choice for a planned controlled demolition?
0 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
3 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
I'm very curious to see a citation for the thermite thing, because I've never seen any evidence or documentation for thermite being involved in demolition.
As for radio detonators - yup, it's possible, but we're talking about hundreds of carefully synchronised detonations. Probably not impossible, but certainly not simple either - and none of these carefully placed charges could afford to be damaged by the fires left to burn uncontrolled for seven hours.
2 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
https://encrypted.google.com/patents/US7555986
1 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
Yes - there are two patents for various types of thermite-based cutters I think.
Still no evidence that thermite is actually used in demolition. A few people from the demolition industry in the past have said very explicitly that it's not.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE - http://AE911Truth.org
Jeff Farrer Physicist
1 of 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23n0Vr_A1TQ
2 of 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJwE65Y32Y4
3 of 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZNSXC3KVeE .
0 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
2 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
Seriously? You're going to tell me I'm wrong and then refuse to back that up? Come on.
I will restate then - thermite is not a compound that is used in demolition. Tell me how I'm wrong?
0 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
* You're.
I'm going to just chalk this up to me being right. Thermite isn't used in building demolition, given that you're unable to offer anything to counter that assertion.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
What? Where? They usually use jackhammers, skid loaders and traditional cutting tools for that as far as I'm aware.
Even if thermite were used in that context (and I'm not at all convinced that it is) it seems a far cry from being the primary charge to initiate and control collapse.
1 dtiftw 2014-10-24
If you're a professional, it should be easy to support what you said. What's your evidence for the use of thermite in building demolition?
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 dtiftw 2014-10-24
You can't prove a negative.
It was your original assertion that it is used in demoltions. It is up to you to defend your assertion.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 dtiftw 2014-10-24
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 dtiftw 2014-10-24
That's not a source. That is a poorly-edited video of controlled demolitions and a description of thermite. There's zero evidence presented that thermite is used for controlled demo.
0 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 dtiftw 2014-10-24
Tell me where in the video there is evidence of thermite used for demolition.
0 24isnotreal 2014-10-24
Yes, please do tell us where in the video there is evidence of thermite used for demolition.
0 Sister_Lauren 2014-10-24
As to why anyone would want to destroy the WTC towers, you have to look at issues like rents (not happening) and the cost of asbestos removal. The twin towers were money losers that needed to be demolished in order to get rid of them and make way for new buildings. The asbestos made that prohibitively expensive.
It is not actually hard to find this out, I'm surprised you didn't already know it.
2 apocalypsychosis 2014-10-24
Then why are they rebuilding?
3 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
Well they are rebuilding less floor space, so if those issue were real then it could make sense. Of course it seems a pretty dramatic way to resolve that issue and it cost a LOT of money this way... Hard to believe that it makes financial sense.
0 WTCMolybdenum4753 2014-10-24
Thank you Richard,
Follow-up question.
Was the quantity of unreacted thermite around 10 tons?
4 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
0 Orangutan 2014-10-24
Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
4 Algee 2014-10-24
1) How do you account for the thousands of ironworkers and civilians that helped with the cleanup (starting the same day as the attacks) that did not notice or document any evidence of explosives in the debris?
2) Have you done any studies of known controlled demolitions to determine if freefall is typical in a controlled demolition? Since highrise controlled demolitions only use explosives on a fraction of the floors, you wouldn't expect true free fall throughout the whole collapse. So have you compared the collapse profile of WTC7 to known controlled demolitions to see if they follow a similar acceleration?
7 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
With regard to number two - it seems to be a known truth in the 9/11 Truth movement that "only controlled demolition" could account for free fall and yet, as you say, I don't think free fall is typically observed in implosions (with the exception of things like chimney's that are toppled).
I've not seen anyone actually study the matter though.
1 SteezeWhiz 2014-10-24
Addressing your second question, they wouldn't be very good at their jobs if they haven't.
3 Algee 2014-10-24
I've analyzed NIST's data on the collapse of WTC7 myself to determine a more accurate collapse profile than what they presented. You can see my results here. I would love to see it compared to a known CD.
1 Sister_Lauren 2014-10-24
I'd like to hear about any other ways to bring down a building.
0 Algee 2014-10-24
What do you think happens in a controlled demolition? the explosives only cut small sections of the support structure, leaving gravity to take down the rest of the structure. For example, the demolition of a 29 story building (33 floors with basements) only put charges on 9 floors. That means about 70% of floors in the structure were unaffected by explosives. That also happens to be the tallest building ever destroyed by CD.
In this case, fire helped take out a section of the support structure.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Because nobody noticed or mentioned the molten metal under the WTC? Lemme guess; the airplane hit the building with enormous energy that was immediately converted to heat energy and melted the aircraft. http://google.com/search?q=molten+wtc
1 Algee 2014-10-24
I'm talking about the miles of det cord required, or the cuts made by the explosives. You would think the ironworkers who got there on the night of the 11th would have noticed right away that some non-insignificant section of the columns were already cut. If I rigged a 110 story building with explosives, I sure as fuck wouldn't let anyone not on the inside near the rubble.
what? you know theres plenty of ways that the metal could have gotten red hot in that pile right?
-1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
really? care to explain away the molten granite too?
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1726&bih=986&q=9%2F11+molten+granite&oq=9%2F11+molten+granite&gs_l=img.3...1077.4786.0.4999.19.6.0.13.13.0.81.346.6.6.0....0...1ac.1.56.img..7.12.354.kHRozmH4sMA#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=R_VG-Ys3o0oocM%253A%3BrfBWclE2MxmYrM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi55.tinypic.com%252F2j1k8wi.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fletsrollforums.com%252Fwtc-nuclear-demolition-t26354.html%3B712%3B534
3 Algee 2014-10-24
Thats bedrock. Also, contrary to the "nukes!" theory that this is always mentioned with, the hole was under WTC4 which was demolished sometime after september 11th.
1 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
I've asked many people, no one has ever answered... So I'l ask you...
The molten metal was allegedly days or even weeks after the collapse. It's asserted that "simple office fires" or "jet fuel" would be unable to produce molten metal.... So how would thermite or any controlled demolition explain this curious event?
While it's certainly true that thermite will melt steel, that melting will only continue for as long as the reaction is taking place. Once the fuel is consumed and the reaction stops so does the melting - things cool down and solidify again.
How then could thermite explain molten metal days or weeks after the collapse?
2 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
this is a very good question. considering that a body would begin to cool immediately after the fuel source is taken away, the only explanation is that there was a lot of energy, and a lot of heat/ high temperature.
even the iron in the casting process in a foundry goes from as liquid as water to solidified enough to manipulate in only a few hours.
also, it has come to my attention that there was molten granite under WTC, which is another highly suspicious fact.
http://themillenniumreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2j1k8wi.jpg
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1726&bih=986&q=9%2F11+molten+granite&oq=9%2F11+molten+granite&gs_l=img
0 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
Well yes, and if you look at what it takes to create massive heat from traditional combustion, the key is usually insulation and ventilation from below. It seems likely to me that the debris pile, pilling air from the subway tunnels, could have generated such conditions.
Although that said the documentation for the 'flowing rivers of molten metal' is pretty limited - the reality of what was happening beneath the debris seems far from clear I think.
Yeah I saw those pictures too, along with the claim that there were 15 kiloton nuclear weapons below the towers - verified by Edward Snowden it was claimed, if I recall.
I'm no geologist, but that looks more like erosion than melting to me. My impression is that melted granite would have a much more glassy appearance. There's also not a lot of context for the images.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
i was hoping to verify that the molten granite images were indeed from underneath the WTC. i was pondering the holes in the granite. were those previously subway tunnels?
http://oi55.tinypic.com/2j1k8wi.jpg
1 IAMAnEMTAMA 2014-10-24
Pretty sure that's bedrock you're looking at
1 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
Honestly it's hard to know what we're looking at there. There are voids that seem sort of like tunnels, but the scale send off.
Knowing more about the photos and have a wider range of angles might make it easier to figure out what we're seeing.
It doesn't immediately scream "nuclear blast crater" to me, but I don't really have a concept of what that would actually look like anyway.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
http://youtu.be/qZomMV4BVVU?t=12m51s
https://twitter.com/frogetteca/status/515389425145352192
3 Orangutan 2014-10-24
Do you still employ an advertising or marketing professional to help get your brand/message out as efficiently as possible?
3 septicman 2014-10-24
Hi Mr Gage,
More than anything I just want to say thank you for doing what you do (at no doubt great personal sacrifice) and I truly hope that one day, somehow, we find the truth of that terrible day.
Thank you!
0 Orangutan 2014-10-24
Share the link: www.AE911Truth.org
3 obnoxious_commenter 2014-10-24
What is the most effective way to organize groups like yours?
In particular, a group focused on revealing the truth about certain events.
3 jafbm 2014-10-24
Is there a possibility that you're wrong?
16 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
2 BloodWillow 2014-10-24
This, Richard, was one of your best comments. Thank you for your work, sacrifice, and courage.
-1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Is there a possibility that the official story is a big pack of lies?
3 Bacore 2014-10-24
Larry Silverstein was quoted as saying ".... and the decision was made to pull it." concerning Bldg 7. If, as NIST says, fire caused the collapse of #7, what was Mr. Sivlerstein saying needed to be pulled?
2 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
This is the wrong question, and shills will always reply that "pull it" meant get the firefighters out and let the building burn...
The correct question to ask is "what did Larry Silverstein mean when he said he watched #WTC7 collapse? Thats a little harder for the shills to explain away.
1 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
Well the problem is that the interview has been edited - aside from "...maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull is, ahh, and they made that decision to pull..." it's impossible to know exactly what the full interview actually was. There is very clearly an audio edit immediately before "and then we watched the building" - he could have said any number of things in there, and the editors have compressed it for the sake of brevity.
It's perhaps surprising that an unedited extract of the interview was never released to counter this persistent talking point, but I'm not sure how long it was between that documentary going to air and the "pull it" quote becoming such a big deal, so it's very possible that the original footage was no longer in existence by then.
1 Orangutan 2014-10-24
Larry Silverstein says 'PULL IT'
3 tjskydive 2014-10-24
I would love to see a BLDG 7 simulator. Let folks "x" out which columns to cut and then run the simulation to demonstrate what the result might look like. Bare bones simulation with simple physics only. Have you ever looked into an interactive demonstration like this?
2 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
I suspect the work in building something like that would be massive... If they were to expend any energy on simulations to support their argument they'd be better of focusing on actual physics simulations to release for peer review.
2 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
4 SovereignMan 2014-10-24
Please resubmit your question without the insults.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 SovereignMan 2014-10-24
You're welcome.
0 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-10-24
When were you made a mod again?
Edit: I'm asking earnestly, I noticed that the question comes off somewhat confrontationally at first glance.
0 AssuredlyAThrowAway 2014-10-24
/u/SovereignMan was kind enough to join the mod team for this ama, as he has a substantial amount of knowledge and insight surrounding 9/11 (along with a keen eye for spotting trolls).
-1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-10-24
Definitely a good idea - like I just told him, I wish he'd stick around longer.
0 SovereignMan 2014-10-24
I'm here as a mod specifically and only for this AMA.
-1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-10-24
Cool - I wish you'd stick around longer.
2 The_eye_in_the_sky 2014-10-24
I have no question, I want to say thank you for all of your hard work and effort in trying to bring truth to people. We need more organised groups like AE911.
0 Orangutan 2014-10-24
Share the link: www.AE911Truth.org
2 LBJ_to_K-Love_for_3 2014-10-24
Rudy Dent is a huge addition to your list of supporters, do you know of any others (9/11 firefighters/victims) he may pull into the fight with you? We need more like him.
1 Orangutan 2014-10-24
www.firefightersfor911truth.org/
https://www.facebook.com/firefightersfor911truth
2 WTCMolybdenum4753 2014-10-24
Mr. Gage,
Why won't Jonathan Barnett give Steve Jones a sample of the steel they found that had a eutectic reaction? Will he provide samples to anyone else?
The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel
2 dhs2020 2014-10-24
Richard Gage:
Would Israeli companies and agents have the capability to pull this off, considering Silverstein & co.'s connections?
2 Thevents 2014-10-24
Hey Richard.
In countries like Egypt only a tiny minority of the population believes in the official story, and if I am not mistaken even the President of Egypt at one point expressed doubts. So in places like that were questioning the official story is more socially acceptable why don't engineering departments at universities ever look into the facts? Or do they?
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Hi Thevents,
I don't know if engineering departments in Egypt do or not.
2 panda-est-ici 2014-10-24
Hey thanks for the AMA.
What is your educational and experiential background that makes you believe you are qualified to comment and analyze these areas, so that your opinion trumps that of the vast majority of technical and educational professionals in the field?
-3 [deleted] 2014-10-24
My experience is more than a decade of evidence proving the official story to be impossible.
3 panda-est-ici 2014-10-24
I guess what I am asking is what did you do before you got into this area. What were your occupations that were relevant to this field prior to 9/11? What is your educational background?
0 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
seeing as he is an architect, I think he has the relevant knowledge..
from their website:
'Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect of 25 years, a member of the American Institute of Architects'
4 panda-est-ici 2014-10-24
It's my area but I was always under the impression that an architect Which handles mainly aesthetic design is not the same as a structural engineer which calculates loading, geometries, and material properties. Maybe I am incorrect in this assumption.
2 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
I would have assumed that an architect would have some knowledge of structural design, also if you were working with structural engineers for 20+ years on designs, I would assume that you would pick up some of this knowledge as well.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
people have become very skeptical and cynical. they have high expectations for evidence, and your answer didn't deliver.
as much as you probably know about some aspects of 9/11, there is as much that you probably don't know.
my experience is similar to yours, which is why i know theres much more to learn about 9/11
join us! http://911truth.reddit.com
2 sunflowerblues 2014-10-24
The nazi party burning down the reichstag building and blaming it on communists did not come to light until the Nazi regime was destroyed.
2 unclescham 2014-10-24
How do we know the communists didn't burn it down? The Nazi's haven't written any of their own history.
1 shmegegy 2014-10-24
when will that happen do you think?
2 skywalk818 2014-10-24
You know its a conspiracy when it has been 10 years plus since it happened and you still have the same question you had when it happened unanswered 10 years plus later. Its that simple.
Nothing to add. There has been coverup and the official story don't answer any of the scientific community questions.
1 Orangutan 2014-10-24
Has there been any follow up from any of the journalists that have let you on their shows in the past such as Fox in Detroit, KMPH in California, or Peter Slen of C-SPAN?
1 Orangutan 2014-10-24
What campaigns and events can we look forward to in the future from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?
1 seriouslytaken 2014-10-24
What facts really highlight to you the untold story of 9/11? (ie, like WTC7)
0 Orangutan 2014-10-24
7 Facts about WTC Building 7
Solving the Mystery of WTC 7
1 fg578g56gf5x9f5gnk9g 2014-10-24
Thanks for doing this, the U.S public really need to start questioning their government.
1 comment_wisely 2014-10-24
Hi Richard, thank you for joining us for an AMA!
While I don't have a question directly related to A&E, I am curious about your conspiracy theory perspectives. What are your views on some more "accepted" theories, such as the NWO, depopulation agendas, chemtrails, central banking, and mainstream media manipulation? Do you think 9-11 opened up your mind to these possibilities or were you thinking about them before? Do your co-workers and volunteers share similar theories?
0 Sister_Lauren 2014-10-24
Have you researched the drug war? Until you research that topic, you are just scratching the surface.
1 33degree 2014-10-24
Do you have any information or insight on Able Danger? Have you ever read the book Operation Dark Heart?
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-10-24
Good afternoon Richard, Thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to help educate us!
My question is: Could you please share your thoughts on Judy Wood? I've noticed her work being disseminated on this website without much scientific proof to back it up.
Your C-Span interview is the most precise q & a I've ever seen from a truth advocate. Thank you for all you are doing and have done for the truth movement.
4 apocalypsychosis 2014-10-24
I think he already did in one other question.
4 axolotl_peyotl 2014-10-24
He's addressed it several times already, actually.
0 JamesColesPardon 2014-10-24
Happy cake day bud.
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-10-24
Thanks fellow truth seeker.
1 truthington 2014-10-24
Do you worry about being suicided? Do you find other repercussions for proclaiming the truth?
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
We never did learn the names listed in DC madam Debbie Palfrey's little black book. She was suicided after she said shed sell the contents of her little black book to help pay for her legal expenses. Oddly enough, her "suicide" seemed to help dismiss any cases against those whose names were in the little black book. How could they convict a prostitute/pimp without convicting the johns? It takes two to tango.
0 Sister_Lauren 2014-10-24
Dick Cheney was in her book, what more do you need to know about it?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
thats a visual i didn't need. time for some brain bleach
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
0 Orangutan 2014-10-24
Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects
9/11 Conspiracy: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed!
1 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
What do you think are the best ways we as a community can get public support for the movement?
1 alllie 2014-10-24
Damn I'm sorry I missed this. But thanks to Mr.Gage.
1 billoster_ 2014-10-24
I am late to the conversation as usual but I'd just like to say thank you Mr.Gage and to all the others trying to reveal the truth. You are heros amongst men!
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 madrogp 2014-10-24
Don't you fear for your life? If you truly believed the US government was corrupt enough to drop a few massive buildings and kill many Americans that this post would get you killed. Why wouldn't the government just erase you and your post. As well any anything that was said on the internet. Why wouldn't you be arrested, disappear, or killed if the US government did this?
1 reddithing 2014-10-24
Hey Mr. Gage, I have been questioning the 9/11 event for years and all I get is no way your an idiot and I almost believed them. What in your opinion is the best way to get it across to people in normal conversation without credentials or evidence? Also what in your opinion is the smoking gun that this is a false flag operation? The exact thing e.g. the way it fell, the nano thermite etc.
1 Maritimer86 2014-10-24
Why won't you sit in front of a panel of real Engineers and Architects, on film, and debate them on the subject? I'm not talking about a few guys from Popular Mechanics. I'm talking about guys who work in this profession for a living and have extensive experience with real, Professionally Registered credentials...
0 Orangutan 2014-10-24
Any plans in place to get an appearance on NPR like the successful campaigns that worked to get on PBS and C-SPAN?
9 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
2 WTCMolybdenum4753 2014-10-24
Watch this space! --> Amy Goodman Democracy Now!!
0 User_Name13 2014-10-24
Hello Mr. Gage, my question is what you think of former Senator Bob Graham discussing the redacted 28 pages of material from the 9/11 Commission Report ?
Former Senator Graham has stated that what is in those 28 redacted pages directly links Saudi Arabia to the 9/11 hijackers. If that is the case, do you think that a grassroots effort by your organization could place pressure on certain key elected officials to introduce more bipartisan legislation to get the 28 pages declassified ?
In other words, could it really be that simple ? Now I'm aware how secretive the federal government is with their classified documents, like how there are still documents that relate to the Kennedy assassination that are classified. Do you think that the 28 classified pages could be the holy grail of the 9/11 truth movement ?
0 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
Hey Richard, many theories get thrown around in discussions here, specifically Judy Wood's space beam stuff which you have thoroughly debunked on your website http://www.ae911truth.org/faqs/505-faq-3.html
Considering some people are just researchers, rather than professional engineers etc, many can be sucked into baseless theories that "sound good" because they do not understand certain observations. Could you explain to the users here why it it critical to have verifiable facts and tangible sources, all backed up by multiple credentialed experts and how that has made your organization and E.S.O documentary so successful? And is there any expert that supports your group who caused huge breakthroughs for 9/11 truth? Dr. Bob Bowman and Dr. Lynn Margulis are amazing! May they rest in peace. Great work
5 axolotl_peyotl 2014-10-24
Since he already answered this question in the previous thread, here's his response so he doesn't have to answer it again:
4 [deleted] 2014-10-24
hey 9-11-2001
Thank you for your question.
I want to engage as many different people as possible so I hope you'll understand if I don't answer any more of your questions, but I think either yourself or someone else asked something similar.
Please see my response.
0 JamesColesPardon 2014-10-24
Richard,
First off, I would like to thank you for your courage in speaking out about such an important issue and what many of us here establish as our ‘Kennedy Moment,’ who here remember that day extremely vividly. Most here from the US will agree that this event was both a crucial and pivotal moment for not only geopolitics as it was for us in our individual lives.
Again, most of us here have researched the event extensively and can all agree that at the very least, the facts of that day are not supported by our government’s Official Version.™ While not getting into the specifics of the events, we all agree that our government used the events as an excuse to pass legislation that has greatly limited our civil liberties, and have set of a chain of events that has forever expanded our police state in both the militarization of local police forces and the establishment of an entirely new governmental department dedicated to ‘keeping us safe.’ This has also expanded the surveillance state that has expanded exponentially in the past 13 years with the global applications of the internet.
I for one am no longer satisfied with being just knowledgeable and content with ‘knowing’ what really happened (as well as being disgusted by what it has done to this country and planet with the cascade of events that have taken place), I am eager for change in our current system, but know full well that the pervasive effects of unlimited campaign financing effectively make those who are not career politicians with access to these types of monies, silenced.
By your estimation, what percentage of the American public who were affected by that day agree with the above statements? I imagine we both agree that our current representatives will not open a new, independent, criminal investigation for the events on 9/11 due to the taboo nature of the subject in American culture and dialogue.
A representative democracy or republic was meant initially as a system of government for regular people to serve their people, and it was regarded as a privilege. Career politicians are diametrically opposed to how this system is supposed to work, as they are dependent on their campaign financiers to fund the PR machine required to keep them in power. With the advent of services such as kickstarter and indigogo, could your foresee a system where candidates are crowdfunded (and possibly unified by certain key issues), and legislation can be organized in an open-source manner? I believe if this is feasible, the time is NOW.
With that being said (and I apologize for the lengthiness of the comment already), do you agree that at this point, the only real way for a new investigation to occur is for our governmental system to be repaired? For this, the only remedy I can imagine is a complete reboot, with career politicians being voted out and individuals free of the shackles of corporate money replacing them, who will finally be able to represent their constituents properly, and who can open a new criminal investigation, and slowly roll back the legislative behemoth implemented in the 13 years since 9/11. In my view, this can only be established by motivated citizens who are unhappy with the status quo, and are willing to unite with others who may not agree politically or ideologically on what the mainstream media state as ‘major issues,’ for the greater good.
Could you see this happening? Again, thank you for all that you do for those that are unable to speak out for fear of being socially ostracized and difficult to employ in certain fields (I am in academia myself).
All the best,
Jim
0 canihaveahint 2014-10-24
Dear Sir,
What the hardest thing a Hydrocarbon fuel CAN melt (drippy melt not softy melt) at regular atmospheric pressure and O2 levels?
2 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
-2 canihaveahint 2014-10-24
Dude... I stumped the smartest guy in the room. You owe me pizza.
3 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Someone once asked Albert Einstein a trivial question like "what's the distance from the earth to the moon?"
Einstein didnt know, and replied with something like "who gives a shit? If I need to know ill look it up"
1 canihaveahint 2014-10-24
U understand that hydrocarbon fuel can't melt steel right?
0 [deleted] 2014-10-24
1) On 9/11 the steel didnt melt (into liquid). it reached high enough temperature for long enough to compromise its structural strength;
2) Presumably 4000years ago they used nanothermite to make steel did they? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel#Ancient_steel
and blacksmiths who fashioned semi-molten steel into blades just had loads of nanothermite delivered? then set it on fire?
2 canihaveahint 2014-10-24
lol... nope
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
yeah, just like Harley Dude explains it
http://youtu.be/aldyfSFjOFc?t=48s
0 Pec0sb1ll 2014-10-24
Hello Richard, Thank you for doing an AMA!
Is the ideal outcome of the 911truth movement to have a third party investigation? A whole new investigation done by people who would not have profited from this event? I am very much "a believer" and would like to see this happen, and those responsible brought to justice.
0 NAM007 2014-10-24
The Plane Impacts: A Fake Cause in a Murderous Hoax.
(Edit: don't allow the downvoting to dissuade you from considering the information presented herein - when over the target we always take some flak!)
Hi Richard,
I have one more question and one that I feel is very important to answer, in light of all the evidence for CD of the twin towers.
What do you think of the evidence provided by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, via the NTSB Radar Data, that the south tower impact plane could not possibly have been a hijacked UA Flight 175 piloted by Marwan al-Shehhi, and must therefore have been a highly modified 767-type aircraft, remotely piloted to the target?
Evidence that the plane that hit the south tower was a highly modified, remotely piloted, military-grade 767-type Aircraft - A Question for Pilots.
Is that evidence not complimentary to the evidence that the twin towers were brought down by explosives initiated from around the impact areas?
After all, if the buildings were prepped in advanced to be destroyed with explosives, then it hardly makes any sense whatsoever to suggest that all they required, to be destroyed as they were and to complete the murderous hoax, was a successful hijacking with boxcutters, and successful navigation and piloting to the target.
Question: Why so fast? Further context re: the official explantion - (must read).
2 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
2 shmegegy 2014-10-24
we can eliminate the passenger planes from the equation by their impossibility.
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
But not a highly modified and very REAL 767-type aircraft, flying like a fighter jet.
1 ilevakam316 2014-10-24
How is it impossible?
2 shmegegy 2014-10-24
did you watch skygate, or any of the pilots for truth videos? it's beyond the realm of possibililty for those aircraft to perform like that, not to mention with rookie pilots.
also, where are the black boxes, the plane parts identified by serial number?
1 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
So do you believe hijackers actually flew the planes?
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
He MUST think that the plane was taken over from on-board control (hijacker locked out of flight control) and flown by wire ie: remotely.
If so, very VERY risky indeed (with the pre-wired building waiting for impact) to fly such an aircraft (unmodified commercial airliner) through that dive and final approach to target - at Vmo + 148kts, and Vd + 88kts.
It's absurd.
No rational, thinking person, with access to the data, could go along with that contention.
With evidence of CD of the twin towers in hand, there is just NO WAY that he could possibly think that the plane was a hijacked aircraft flown to the target by a piss-poor novice "pilot", not a chance. He's not a dummy.
For the operation, the way it played out, there could be no room for such an unknown, indeterminate outcome.
I'm really at a loss here... (shakes head in wonder).
Some people, like those at 911Blogger, think, wrongly, that positing remotely piloted drone aircraft is somehow discrediting to the movement, when the truth of the matter, based on an objective analysis of all available info and data, including evidence for CD of the twin towers, is just the opposite, since the implication is that the 9/11 truth movement is saying on the on hand, that the buildings were destroyed with explosives initiated from around the impact areas, and on the other, that the operation relied upon successful hijackings and piloting to the targets by complete novices.
2 Sister_Lauren 2014-10-24
Maybe people just get it wrong sometimes without being deliberate disinformation agents. It is not like this stuff is all that easy to figure out. Even you are not always correct. A little humility would be nice.
IM(well educated)O, the planes were remote controlled and the hijackings were a big bs cover up story.
We could discuss the evidence to support my assertions, or you could attack me for having opinions while not having a clue how much homework I did in order to come up with them. Your choice.
2 NAM007 2014-10-24
P.S. I'm sorry if I was ever nasty or harsh with you. We are entitled to research and think what we want, and even be wrong, it happens.
Sorry for being a meanie elswewhere Lauren.
God bless,
NAM007
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
That can happen.
1 Xans77 2014-10-24
Beautifully said, however.... hypothetically, if you knew a terrorist cell were going to impact a tower, and cause a construction nightmare ('cause you know those suckers would just keep standing), then pre rigging them in anticipation wouldn't be that much of a stretch. Melt the cores with thermite and let gravity and a few charges do the rest... I think we can have it both ways. Rigged for explosion, and anticipating collision, from first a nut job hijacker, followed by an exquisitely delivered drone.
FWIW- I remember sitting in my Dads office at the DOJ in 1994. I was 17 and ironically enough... 'conscripted in my local counterculture'.
A significant concern at the time, and a likely motivation for all of this , was the need for better wire tapping and data analytics. Encryption was a problem. The scale of digital growth was a problem. CALEA wasn't cutting it. All of these people cared about "us".
Russia warned us of the Atta attack. DIA and CIA knew of it. FBI had a glimpse... 911 was sudo judo. We pulled those planes in, pulled the towers down, and pulled the wool over everyone's eyes... Or tried to anyway. A/e911 needs to accept drone aircraft, and truthers at large might benefit from accepting that we did have a foreign enemy that day. I don't know what happened fully, but I'm happy to help obliterate the obfuscation.
Also, with a degree in radiological sciences, I can assure you that any discussion of mini nukes is a red herring. The isotopes presented are not even close to the quantities, or integral decay chain products with associated half lives of true 'fallout'.
No planes, no terrorists, directed energy, and mini nukes are complete distractions.
Sorry this is jumbled. iPads at 2am, lol
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
They sure were eh?
I think you've got it about right.
It might take 100 years but it will be recognized eventually by everyone.
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
Richard,
I find that absolutely incredible that you may believe that the plane that hit the south tower was a hijacked UA Flight 175, piloted (@ Vmo + 148kts) by someone the 9/11 Commission considered to be no more skilled or trained than Hani Hanjour, especially in light of all the evidence for the CD of the twin towers.
You'll note that I said nothing about "no planes" or any such nonsense/disinfo.
There's nothing wrong with Rob Balsamo's data and evidence, as you might see from the link I offered. There may be things wrong with his personality and interpersonal approach and style, mind you, but the info and science is totally 100% valid.
check it out
P.S. Are you really Richard Gage? There wasn't the usual twitter photo given for other reddit AmA's. I simply cannot fathom how you'd be unable to think this all the way through, causally - moviong backward from the evidence and proof of CD of the twin towers, to the plane impacts and their approach.
So in other words, you think that the buildings were prepped and ready for explosive demolition, whereby all that was required was a successful hijacking (with boxcutters) and piloting to the target (at Vmo + 148 kts).. to set the stage for the official story as to the apparant causal mechanism of the twin towers' destruction? Huh?!
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
This belongs here I think
Question: Why so fast?
There's a final piece of this puzzle in terms of the nature and levels of the impacts as well as timing in regards to the subsequent destruction of the buildings about an hour and an hour and a half later that really needs to be addressed here to complete this heinous puzzle and "mystery" (to the degree that you can't quite see it yet).
New York Times, Archives
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER CRASHES; First Tower to Fall Was Hit At Higher Speed, Study Finds.
By ERIC LIPTON and JAMES GLANZ
Published: February 23, 2002
Researchers trying to explain why the World Trade Center's south tower fell first, though struck second, are focusing on new calculations showing that the passenger jet that hit the south tower had been flying as fast as 586 miles an hour, about 100 miles an hour faster than the other hijacked plane.
The speed of the two planes at impact has been painstakingly estimated using a mix of video, radar and even the recorded sounds of the planes passing overhead.
Two sets of estimates, by government and private scientists, have surfaced, but both show that the plane that hit the south tower at 9:02 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, approached the trade center at extremely high speed, much faster than American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m.
In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.
''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. ''It's off the chart.''
The speed of the planes is far from the only factor that will be important in explaining why the south tower, which was struck between the 78th and 84th floors, fell within 56 minutes and the north tower, which was hit between the 94th and 99th floors, stood for 102 minutes.
Ultimately, it was the combination of structural damage and the fires, fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel, that brought the buildings down.
The south tower was also hit at a lower point, meaning there was more weight bearing down on the damaged floors.
But the difference in the towers' survival times, which translated into a difference in the amount of time tenants and rescue personnel had to get out, could be related in part to the planes' speeds, researchers said.
''Clearly one plane came in faster and had more energy,'' Dr. Jerome Connor, a professor of civil engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is studying the collapses, said of the new calculations, in which he was not directly involved.
''If one building had more damage, it would take less for the heat to build up enough for it to come down,'' Dr. Connor said. ''That would help explain why the building that was hit second, fell first.''
The high speed of United Flight 175 may also have complicated the hijackers' mission, because it would have been more difficult to make accurate adjustments in the plane's direction, several pilots said. Loud and repeated alarms would also have been sounding in the cockpit.
''The faster you go, the less time and room you have for error,'' said Tim O'Toole, a former 767 pilot and staff engineer in safety department of the Air Line Pilots Association.
The flight data recorders from the two planes have not been found; Boeing officials said these so-called black boxes are not designed to survive the forces they encountered in the collapse.
"off the chart".
The "collapse"..
The South Tower was hit much lower, across multiple floors (78-82), and at a much higher rate of speed (by 85 knots or 100mph) than that at which the North Tower was hit - that must explain it - how the towers fell and why the 2nd one hit, fell first.. followed by the North Tower in the exact same manner about a half hour later (burned longer). Of course! After all, it could only be as a direct and sole result of the plane impacts (the attack) that the twin towers were completely destroyed. To say otherwise would be crazy and makes no sense..
Returning to look at the design parameters of exterior perimeter steel columned framework of the twin towers.
"..oh, now I get it." "Why so fast?"
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
The main idea here is that the south tower plane had to attain a certain critical speed to successfully break thorugh the perimeter steel columns at the lower level (around the 79th floor) ie: thicker, whereas the north tower plane, which impacted around the 95th floor level, although still very fast at 425 knots or just over the Vd limit of 420 knots, did not require as much speed to break through at the higher level where the exterior columns are not as thick (tapered thinner towards the uppermost stories for weight loading purposes).
This was done to help create the narrative as to the causal mechanism of destruction for both towers, as per the article cited ie: building hit lower, although hit second, fell first.
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
I've noticed your edit.
Please check out the evidence as I've provided in the link I offered. Perhaps that might help clarify a little further.
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
Hi Richard,
Thanks for answering or attempting a brief reply to my question.
Are you familiar with an individual by the name of Dwain Deets, because he's very familiar with your work and that of your group. Might he even be a member of A&E49/11Truth?
More info here: (in case you're still checking your mailbox from the recent AMA).
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2kn63y/nasa_dryden_aerospace_projects_director_declares/
What are your thoughts upon review of this information, and have you ever watched any of the videos from pilots for 9/11 truth or checked out the listing of pilots who question 9/11?
I'll have to presume that you're sincere in this notion that there's "no evidence for that" (modified Boeing 767-type aircraft, remotely piloted) but to be perfectly honest, I can't understand why you would think that way. It just doesn't make any sense to me, at all.
And isn't CD (controlled demo) itself tangential evidence suggesting nothing less within the context of "operational success"..?
0 AutoModerator 2014-10-24
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0 [deleted] 2014-10-24
I find the explanations more complex than they would need to be.
Here is all that is needed:
A)-establish aircraft's groundspeed/possible range of value for groundspeed... in knots.
also present the margin of error associated with the above
B)-present aircraft's actual physical capability (not just a certification) in terms of groundspeed in knots
again, present any margin of error associated with the same
4 things. That's it.
If you can, please do so. I look forward to receiving it.
3 NAM007 2014-10-24
Hi Richard,
In case you were unwilling or didn't have the time to read my longgg post, below this one, here you go! re: your request. [everything you need is contained in this post]
Please note that the groundspeed (although relative airspeed and pressure increases as the plane descends into the ever thicker air density near sea level) was maintained between 510-520 knots for just over one minute, and not for just a few seconds at the last moment.
Probability this was UA Flight 175 Reg N612UA piloted by Marwan al-Shehhi from the United Arab Emirates? Zero, or so close to zero, that it might as well be zero.
Now consider the South Tower awaiting a high precision impact at the lower level..
I rest my case.
Reference Material:
Boeing A1NM TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/a8694be7b7ac6c178625731e006944bc/$FILE/A1NM%20Rev%2026.pdf
Airspeed Limits: VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points. VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
NTSB Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--UA175_AA11 NTSB (NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD)
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175.pdf
"For much of it's final descent, UAL175 maintained a descent rate between 4000 feet per minute and 8000 feet per minute. During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6000 feet, the aircraft groundspeed remained between 500 - 520 knots. As the aircraft made it's final descent to 1000 feet, it ACCELERATED and impacted Word Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed."
Further Reference (FAA FAR re: Aeroelasticity with a 15% margin past Vd/Md - I used 20% based on an older FAR listing)
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/1AF764F921FAD01C862568E900643105?OpenDocument
Re: Ultimate Load Limits
Since the aircraft was not flying in level flight and was coming out of a fairly steep dive to level off and then pull a final 1.5 (+/- 2) g-force turn to impact, we must use as an ultimate load limit, the ultimate aeroelastic limit, which I've added to Vd/Md although the margin may in fact be referring to 20% of the ultimate operational limit or the Vmo, in which case we'd be looking at a CAS of.. 432 or a GS of 430 kts (at 1000 ft. alt.).
The structure must be able to withstand the ultimate load for at least 3 seconds without failure.
FAR Structural Design Criteria
http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/structures/FAR301.html
STRUCTURAL LIMITS
These are the allowed positive and negative g limits of the aircraft. Structural limits are based on the strength of the aircraft structure. Under any loading, even 1 g, the aircraft structure will flex. A large amount of airframe flexure will lead to permanent deformation (a bent airframe) or component failure. A lesser amount of flexure affects the lifetime of the airframe due to metal fatigue, etc. The aircraft structural limits are selected to ensure that g-loading induced flexure will not damage the airframe or shorten its design life. Structural limits are also referred to as acceleration limits or limit load factors. Exceeding the structural limits (overstress of aircraft) may or may not damage the aircraft. Numerous overstresses will shorten the service life of the aircraft.
AEROELASTIC LIMITS
These define the maximum operating speeds in both KIAS and IMN of the aircraft. Above the aeroelastic limits, structural damage or failure may occur as well as a loss of stability and/or control authority. The aeroelastic limit is frequently referred to as the “Redline Airspeed.”
ULTIMATE STRUCTURAL LIMITS
These define the ultimate operating strength limits of the aircraft. Flight operations beyond the ultimate structural limits will result in structural failure of some component of the aircraft. It should be noted that the ultimate structural limits are outside the normal operating envelope (Vmo - 360KCAS) of the aircraft. The usual aircraft design rule is for the ultimate structural limit to be 150% of the structural limit. However, this may not be strictly true since the structural limits may reflect aircraft lifetime concerns (UA 175 Reg N612UA, built and delivered in 1983) while the ultimate structural limits do not.
CORNERING SPEED
This point is located at the intersection of the structural limit and the aerodynamic limit. Cornering speed is the minimum speed where the limit load factor can be achieved. Cornering speed defines turning performance of the aircraft at which the aircraft can achieve maximum turn rate and minimum turn radius. At or below cornering speed, the aircraft cannot be overstressed; stall will occur first. Cornering speed may also be referred to as maneuvering speed.
ENVELOPE
The envelope is constructed based on the variables of weight, altitude, configuration, and loading (symmetrical or unsymmetrical).
WEIGHT
Weight will generally affect the structural limits and the aerodynamic limits. The aerodynamic limits are based on stall speed of the aircraft. Changing weight changes stall speed and the aerodynamic limits. Likewise, as weight change affects the allowable g’s, the structural limits will also be affected. When the structural limits are affected, the ultimate structural limits are also affected. An aircraft is usually structurally limited at low altitudes.
ALTITUDE
Changes in altitude will affect the aerodynamic limits and aeroelastic limits. As altitude changes, the maximum Mach number and maximum IAS change. The ability to generate the necessary speed to achieve maximum g is also affected as density decreases and thrust available is reduced. At higher altitudes, an aircraft is usually aerodynamically limited due to lack of thrust and decreased density
1.5 Ultimate Load Limit. The Vmo/Mmo operating limit of a 767-222 is 360 KCAS/.86M. According to the above, theoretically, an aircraft (brand new) should be able to withstand an ULTIMATE LIMIT of 540 KCAS/1.29M for at least 3 seconds before the aircraft disintegrates.
http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/structures/loads.html
This does not however account for issues involving aircraft lifetime (wear and tear) and doesn't factor g-loading or cornering. Therefore, we must revert back to the aeroelastic ultimate load limit of 1.2 max when considering the real world event itself.
Update: The 1.5 limit is a purely structural load limit (not aeroelastic) and therefore applies to g-force limits only, not airspeed limits.
Therefore we MUST revert to the aeroelastic ultimate load limit of 1.2 as per the following FAA FAR.
editing
2 NAM007 2014-10-24
Invite your thoughts..?
Edit: Here we are talking about it at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum. I invite you to sign up there and make a comment that you too "get it" and understand it now as I have finally come to, at last.
A Conversation With Richard Gage Of A&e49/11truth Re: South Tower Plane Speed Data & Analysis., Furthering Research on South Tower Plane Speed Data / Limits Analysis
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22818&st=0#entry10813571
Rob Balsamo's data and analysis was never in error. To be honest, I thought that he might have been trying to hide the ultimate load limit, but that's not the case, as you'll see in that thread.
Thanks Richard for your time and your consideration and all you have done and continue to do.
As to the South Tower Plane Speed Data as provided and analyzed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, I think you have something to work with now.
Thanks again.
Robert Rice aka NAM007 (with you in this fight for the truth, nothing more nothing less no matter what the implications).
-1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Of 911blogger fame?
an honor.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
It is an exciting analysis.
But I fear I would stumble when explaining the intricacies to a challenging audience.
Perhaps you could assist me in understanding this properly..step by step.
I suppose the estimated speed of UA175 would be a good starting point.
How is this gained? and more importantly ...how accurate is the 510knots (is radar estimate very accurate in these things)?
2 NAM007 2014-10-24
Hi Richard,
Thanks for your consideration, and for your time and willingness and openmindedness.
The best and easiest way to understand it (that the plane was not UA 175 and couldn't have been) is reached, first and foremost, by the simple, logical process of inductive and deductive reasoning, working backwards from the proof of CD in terms of the apparent causes and effects.
Strangely, just last night someone wanted to argue 9/11 with me, unprovoked (although they know I'm a "truther") and for them, CD was discounted as an option because Occam's razor suggests, in no uncertain terms, that the cause of the destruction ("collapse") of the buildings was the plane impacts. He was further convinced, having been so duped (and this is a scientifically minded person) that the "collapse" was and appeared to be "what you would expect". I did not have the time or the wherewithal to explain the data to him, because he was being obstinate and was not really curious or open minded, just wanted to prove me wrong, or worse, crazy (some people..).
This very same person was well aware that Building 7 was a case of controlled demolition, there was no problem there, but when it came to the twin towers, the apparent cause of the plane impacts was something that he could not shake in order to examine evidence that the twin towers also, were brought down with explosive CD, and did not in fact collapse as a direct and sole result of the plane impacts.
Therefore, the campaign has been a success, up to a point, to the point that the CD of the twin towers has been ignored if only because in those two cases, planes hit, then, the buildings "collapsed".
You can't "decouple" Building 7 from the twin towers, as you know. But in the same way, once you decouple the proof of CD and the plane impacts - setting them aside as if it's assumed that they were the hijacked airliners pilots by islamist extremist fundamentalist novice pilots (at Vmo + 148 kts) - then there's a big time problem with your fundamental hypothesis, which MUST include BOTH "data sets" to function as a viable alternative hypothesis and narrative to the official story capable of factoring all the data and information according to the proper use of Occam's Razor, right up to the meta events themselves (plane hit, buildings destroyed). I'm sure you can see that clearly.
CD from an apparent causal perspective, is strangely dependent therefore in terms of causation, or the lack thereof, upon the south tower plane speed data and analysis.
Your initial reaction might be to dismiss this idea but I invite you to look at the two events as they are apparently linked, and, as they are not, from the perspective of a detective, like Sherlock Holmes.
So pick up your pipe and smoke it, while I try to walk you through the evidence step by step and distilled down into the simplest of terms..
editing and adding - stay tuned.
..over the coming two weeks, I will return to make posts, with each containing one fundamental idea which will be explained properly and thoroughly. You can of course pose any questions you like as we go along. Bear in mind that the key to my own understanding and comprehension is that I was nothing but a curious layman seeking to understand the data and evidence. Therefore, if I can understand it as a layman, so can you and so can anyone you would seek to share it with. That's the reason to stick with this inquiry and follow it through to where it logically leads, running the tape back and forth both ways - before and after impact and destruction, as well as before and after the proof that the CD of the twin towers has become entirely SELF EVIDENT, resolving the question - "but what about the planes? Planes did hit the buildings! What are you saying that the planes were not the cause, you must be nuts!"
I'm sure you see and have encountered this dilemma more times than you can count. Thanks for coming back to this and for sticking around to grok it most fully.,
"All truth passes through three stages.." (Shopenheauer)
Best regards,
NAM007
2 NAM007 2014-10-24
Your first question.
Now, for those of you who, in examining this data, might simply conclude that the NTBS Radar Data MUST be wrong and in error, please keep in mind that the NTSB used ASR radar from EWR, JFK, LGA, HPN as well as RADES for their analysis. The NTSB also did a video speed analysis which corresponds to their radar data study.
Those who feel the radar may be wrong therefore should not fly in or out of the NYTC terminal area as the same radar is used daily to assign speeds and vector aircraft for approaches to EWR, JFK, LGA and HPN.
I will check re: how accurate the radar returns are, but I think they're pretty accurate. There were also a couple of other analyses using plane motion studies, relative to the surrounding buildings, as well as based on frame rates, both of which pegged the speed at 586 mph (to within maybe 1 mph), which equals 509.2 knots. Therefore I think it's safe and fair to say that it's accurate to about +/- 1 knot. If you wish, I think I could find links to the supplementary speed studies.
stay tuned for more and for the beginning of the step by step explanation.
When we're done you'll have mastered this data and analysis and WILL be in a position to present it to a challenging audience, no problem. I will even be teaching you in the most simple terms how to use the aeronautical calculator, taking screen shots from it (which you can also do) to make it absolutely self evident in the most simplistic, and undebunkable, self evident terms.
Hang in there with me, thanks.
2 NAM007 2014-10-24
Important Note: The plane's speed and targeting on the south tower is at the very CRUX of the official story itself as to the "cause" of the destruction of the buildings an hour and an hour and a half later.
Let me show you what I mean by the following statement,
using the official story itself to demonstrate the point.
The following News Archive item from the New York Times (which you can find and capture searching it with Google) illustrates the point.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2kn63y/nasa_dryden_aerospace_projects_director_declares/clmx8m2
While I have not proven the actual speed threshold at the lower impact level (to successfully break through the thicker perimeter exterior steel columns, at that level - 79th floor) exceeding such and such a speed (say 500+ knots), I do think it's fair to say that speed and inertia played a role in getting the plane through the outer wall to impact the core, while igniting that absolutely gargantuan fireball (which helps to create a suspension of disbelief as to the cause of the buidlings' destruction).
At the very least, from a logical, deductive POV, there is really no other explanation capable of answering the question - why so fast?
Please acknowledge receipt of these replies, and I'll proceed with the step by step explanation, while showing how you can, whenever needed, explain it in turn to other laymen (non pilots, non aeronautical engineers).
Regards,
NAM007
South tower plane - final approach through impact with WTC #2 - video (MUST SEE).
Pyrotechnic "shock and awe" GARTANTUAN FIREBALL DISPLAY. Note that this was the result of the slightly diagonal, turning impact, ejecting the fireball largely outside the building perimeter (plus additional fuel (and/or incendiary) within the body of the plane..? (ie: no seats?). The point here being, not the speculation, but the FACT that the plane impact was executed PERFECTLY, and was certainly not a fluke (as a one in a million shot) by a novice pilot.
Pilots discuss difficulty of 9/11 attack - Dan Govatos.
0 AutoModerator 2014-10-24
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
Powerful information. Approx. 510knots groundspeed.
I fear challengers would try to find a source that contradicts.
what were the individual values for groundspeed from:
EWR?
JFK?
LGA?
HPN?
RADES?
and studies which were 'well as based on frame rates'? ( I think I found one which i linked below. it suggests 503mph/437knots)
If there are other 'frame rate analyses' to include here that would avoid any surprises in future.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf
We also still need to understand the accuracy (inherent error) in the estimated values.
I do not think -for the moment- +/-1knot can be correct.
(My own car's speed meter is off by 0-5mph and that's directly connected. The radar and frame rate estimates must, surely, be less accurate).
Thank you.
2 NAM007 2014-10-24
Hi Richard,
I think it would be easiest and most condusive to your inquiry, if you were to log in at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum and pose this question there, among others, in their Research Forum. And if Balsamo's a little gruff, don't let that phase you. He's been through so much to bring forward this data and evidence so it's understandable. To the contrary, I think if you were to make the inquiry there he would be most accomodating, and would be more than happy to provide you with all the fine detail you may need.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/
There were two other analysis which pegged it at precisely 586 mph. I don't think the one you referenced is reliable.
This one references one of those studies, although it would require further research to pin down the research paper itself.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2kn63y/nasa_dryden_aerospace_projects_director_declares/clmx8m2
I will return with the step by step approach you asked for, which will involve the use of the aeronautical calculator to show how the flight envelope works through varying altitudes. Once you get that down pat, then you can create screenshots to clarify with precision for any audiance no matter how "challenging".
As far as I know, +/- a knot (or two maybe) is right.
It's 510 knots, with a range during it's descent, between 510 and 520 knots groundspeed, after which it actually accelerated (impossible without more powerful engines by orders of magnitude greater than standard) to retain a groundspeed, at the lower altitude (in near sea level air density) of approx 510 knots.
510 knots, at 1000 feet alt. = 508 KCAS (knots calibrated airspeed), which is a full 148 knots past Vmo (360KCAS) and 88 knots past the Vd design dive limit (420KCAS).
Re: built in margin. From what I've been able to gather, for a used aircraft, while maneuvering in flight, the safety range/margin is between Vmo/Mmo and Vd/Md, beyond which loss of flight control amid structural failure is imminent (unless the plane was seriously modified in a number of ways).
There are also numerous precedents for loss of flight control, structural failure and breakup, for which P4T have a very straightforward V-G diagram that you can also use during your presentations.
Please take the time to review the various videos and presentations by Pilots for Truth. Please join their forum, and ask some questions. As a layman I'm not fully qualified to answer all your questions.
What I can do, however, is explain the data in layman's terms and show you how to use the aeronautical calculator to make screenshots which will demonstrate the data and principals involved re: groundspeed to TAS, EAS, CAS and corresonding Mach # at higher altitude (for the same aerodynamic pressure on the airframe) to even further illustrate the point.
This absolutely proves, in no uncertain terms or well beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aircraft was not and could not have been UA175 piloted by Hani Hanjour's ex-room mate Marwan al-Shehhi. Especially in light of the self evident proof of CD of the twin towers.
Edit to add: Btw, evidence that the plane wasn't UA175 is not based on any eyewitness accounts, since the photographic record reveals that it was even painted up in the United Airlines livery. (pic to follow).
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/File:Flight_175_Traub1.jpg (paste the url into your browser to view).
Analysis of the plane's length and proportion, although not entirely conclusive based on angles etc. suggest very strongly that the aircraft was not the 767-200 (222) version, but instead the 767-300 which is a little longer for and after of the wing. Can't really use that effectively as evidence howevever, even though it's true that the plane doesn't fit the profile for a 200 series 767.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
I just want to proceed gradually, and not leave room for doubt.
I'd like the estimate numbers for the other radar and frame rate analyses.
(and the error margins of those techniques).
2 NAM007 2014-10-24
Please join up at PFT's Forum and post to their Research area. Google is also your friend. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or the wherewithall to answer this question.
What I will do however, is come back and show you a step by step presentation method that layman will easily be able to comprehend when evaluating this data.
Frame rate analysis isn't as accurate as a motion analysis, relative to buildings in the foreground etc. and the "no planers" love the frame rates etc. without factoring in the excessive speed which produces all kinds of videographic effects.
All I know is there are two additional studies which corroborate the Radar Data from the NTSB analysis, measured in Mph, and to within one knot of the radar data. The folks at P4T including Rob can help you locate them no problem, while also answering any other questions you might have regarding the radar and how accurate it is.
Best regards,
NAM007
Edit: Please see my edits to the post above your latest reply, thanks.
THE Plane on final approach to impact with the South Tower on Tuesday, September 11th, 2001.
V-G Diagram. (note: corrected for CAS, calibrated airspeed, at 1000 ft. alt. for a TAS of 515 knots (very light headwind to the N/W) = 88 knots over Vd/Md, not 90, and 148 knots over Vmo, instead of 150).
2 NAM007 2014-10-24
Hi Richard,
So you're not just trying to be difficult or contrarion then I'll have to assume. : )
You'll note that according to the NTSB Radar Data Speed Impact Study, that during the plane's harrowing dive (under any circumstances), it was clocked by multiple radar returns, which as far as I know are pretty accurate, travelling in a range BETWEEN 510 and 520 knots..., where, at the end of it's dive, during the leveling out on final approach and target aquisitioning, it actually accelerated, to maintain the 510 knots groundspeed (515 TAS, 508 CAS) at the lower altitude, which it would have to do to retain that speed in the thicker, denser air nearer to sea level. So either way we're looking at a range of between 500 and 510 knots. Surely that's evident.
However, this would require, by necessity, some serious modifications, including engine power at least 3X greater than standard, because to accelerate well past the point where parasitic drag has overcome thrust (typically, even the Vd design dive limit of 420 KCAS can only be reached at altitude from a fairly steep dive) would not allow for an acceleration as the plane enters the thicker air in the lowest strata of the atmosphere nearer to sea level ie: the engines become "cups" or miniature metal parachutes where parasitic drag has already long overcome thrust capacity - call or reach out to Dwain Deets, ex NASA Dryden Flight Research Director, for additional info and clarification on this and other matters involving the physics and aerodynamics and jet propulsion involved. This is the main reason that John Lear is a "no planer" (if he really believes that nonsense). However, when you look into the science of jet propulsion, say through conversation with Deets, you'll come to realize that such a thing isn't impossible with sufficiently powerful engines, but again, by orders of magnitude greater than standard.
There's your smoking gun right there - the acceleration at the end of the dive while leveling out on final approach. Verify that, and you've got yourself a military grade 767-type remotely piloted drone aircraft painted up in the United Airllines livery (as they call the painjob), beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the self evident proof of CD, working backwards in regards to apparent causes and the lack thereof if you know what I mean.
Ref:
"The dive speed is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake."
http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/airbus-a380/
The NTSB, instead of fudging the data, handed it over, as it was, almost with a wink and a nod with the reference to that final acceleration phase, which they should not have referenced and released to the public if they wanted to protect and guard the big lie. It's plain as day. In plane sight, so to speak.
Best regards,
NAM007
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
I am not a contrarian good sir! I merely seek to understand the specifics (remember it was the exact specific measure of freefall speed that gave away WTC7's suspicious demise. if we had not determined that to within fractions of a second, we may not be here today).
It is exactly this accuracy for the radar returns we need to build a robust case.
I'm glad you know all their accuracy levels after all. Please provide them. Thank you so much!
Once I have this foundation of data, I'd like your help determining the aircraft's expected capabilities. But please bear with me, one step at a time. I first need to understand the speed the aircraft was actually doing, and how confident each of the relevant measures are (both radar and framerate types).
2 NAM007 2014-10-24
Hi Richard,
I'm not a pilot or an aeronautical engineer. The point was that they used multiple radar returns, and recorded the speed during the descent to be 510-520 knots, where, after the dive the plane ACCELERATED to retain a groundspeed of 510 knots to the point of impact, which it would have to do (increase airspeed) at the lower altitude near sea level to remain at the same groundspeed. This would be impossible, however, without much MUCH more powerful engines.
Richard, if you find this line of inquiry to be of interest, I encourage you to reach out to Dwain Deets and other pilots, including Rob Balsamo of P4T to pin everything down with the utmost precision.
You could start by reviewing some of the videos and info presented including "World Trade Center Attack".
You have the time and the wherewithal to do all the necessary research in this regard.
As to the aircraft's airspeed limitations and the boundaries of it's flight envelope, that I can explain in layman's terms, and I'd be happy to try to help out in that area.
So let's go with the 510 knot ground speed or to be conservative, between 500 and 510 knots, and closer to 510.
It's a good idea though I must say to get right into the radar recording technology, and how that number was arrived at, along with the two or more other studies which corroborates the radar speed, to within 3 mph, or 2.6 knots, where as far as I understand, the radar is the more accurate, pegging the speed at 510-520 knots throughout the dive, then, at 510 knots for the final approach as a result of a final acceleration at the lower altitude - an EXTRAORDINARY finding, and one that I created a new thread for in r/conspiracy.
The 9/11 Smoking Gun: NTSB Radar Report - At 590 Mph, the Plane then ACCELERATED, in near level flight, near sea level, to retain a 510 knots groundspeed, before hitting the South Tower at around the 79th floor level.
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
I'm just doing my best to try to be most helpful, that's all, Richard (you're so much nicer 'in person').
The research itself is of course something that anyone can engage in and pursue.
Forgive me if I'm not a radar technician.
Sometimes it's the medium. Lack of social cues and all that.
I will come back to you with my step by step demonstration for a challenging audience, using 510 knots groundspeed, just to be as helpful as possible.
As to the radar, I don't know, but they tracked it at a speed of 510-520 knots for quite a while. It's not like they were out by any wide margin.. in truth I don't know the answer, nor do I see it as my responsibility to provide it as we're in this research all of us together, learning things from one another.
I suggest getting in touch with Dwain Deets and/or Rob Balsamo, among others, and pin it all right down. You're going to need it and soon, because we're reaching that stage now in the inquiry, once CD has become self evident, which it has or is fast becoming - that "the plane question" is going to come up more and more I would predict because it goes to the very hijacking of the principal of Occam's Razor embedded right into the design of the op itself where it is not sufficient to say simply that the CD has nothing to do with the plane impacts and fires. We can't sever that causal linkage without taking a look at one very suspicious flying plane that was really there and really did what it did, including accelerate in near level flight and near sea level air density while flying at Vmo + 148 knots, CAS and Vd + 88 knots CAS (the limits are measured in CAS so I converted it - will show you how if you check back in and stick around)
Talk to you soon.
Best regards, and thank you. Your organization is one I once prayed for, once we had the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which went haywire when Fetzer co-opted it and Stephen Jones had to leave, but that was the seed, which DRG planted in you.
And now here we all still are 13 years after the event.
I was part of a small team who worked up the research for Loose Change btw, not that I need any special praise.
I am very happy though that the 9/11 Truth Movement is turning into the little red engine that could, so to speak.
Our voice is being heard at long last, and we sure were a voice crying out in a wilderness back in early 2002.
It's working. The truth outs.
So thanks again for all you've done and continue to do with unrelenting persistence and perseverance.
The building 7 campaign can now be considered a great success. Let's not leave the twin towers out of the true story though just because they happened to have been successfully hit by aircraft.
It's in plain sight, plain as day. The NSTB handed over the truth, and just left it there awaiting discovery.
Please continue this line of inquiry.. for the sake of the truth about what really happened there on that beautiful fall day.
NAM007
2 NAM007 2014-10-24
And when, as a result, you end up going over the speed limit, a police officer will determine your precise speed, with radar, and then give you a ticket.
2 NAM007 2014-10-24
Hi Richard, presuming you ARE Richard Gage.. (please read this?)
Thanks for your reply. Much appreciated!
I've painstakingly covered those things and more in this OP and thread (it shouldn't take you long to go through and undestand the principals and data).
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2kn63y/nasa_dryden_aerospace_projects_director_declares/
I'm a layman and I got it ok, although it took some refinement in presenting it carefully and thoroughly so that it can be clearly understood by other layman (non pilots, non aeronautical engineers). Part of the problem involves the relationship between TAS (true airspeed), CAS (calibrated airspeed), EAS (equivalent airspeed), and Mach # at the varying altitudes, where the flight envelope, measured in KCAS (knots calibrated airspeed) remains the same at all altitudes and throughout all flight regimes because it's a calc correlated to both TAS and EAS (TAS adjusted for both pressure and temp). I've tried my very best to take the confusion out of it and to present a clear case in that OP and thread's comments. I've even gone so far as to argue the other side who say that it's possible (however improbable).
The conversion you've asked for involves first groundspeed to TAS (true airspeed), where groundspeed + windspeed vector = TAS, adding approx 5 knots to the 510 groundspeed (very light headwind that day to the N/W) giving us a TAS of 515 knots at approx 1000 ft. alt. (and a corresponding CAS of 508 kts) bearing in mind that Vmo/Mmo is 360 kts (CAS)/.86M (above 23,000 ft alt) and Vd/Md is 420 KCAS/.91M.
Airspeed, not groundspeed, is the key to understanding the aerodynamics, and once we have that TAS, we've got what we need including the ability to caculate the CAS, which is what the limits are measure in.
GROUNDSPEED CALC (it was measured in knots, at 510 knots by the NTSB Radar Data Impact Speed Study).
I may have to get back to you on what VMO of 360KCAS and VD of 420 KCAS precisely works out to in groundspeed at 1000 ft alt, but near sea level it's almost the same where TAS, CAS and EAS are equal at sea level, so... let's see....
.. if 510 knot groundspeed = 515 TAS which equates to a CAS of 508, working backwards, we could just as easily say that 360 CAS = approx 358 kts GS (groundspeed) and 420 kts CAS = approx 418 kts GS (at 1000 ft alt that is). The outer OUTERmost flight envelop limit adds 15-20%, so 1.2(418) = 501.6 kts GS or 8.4 kts / 9.6 mph LESS than the S Tower Plane's speed on final approach to impact (510 knots). This is however the point beyond which breakup and disintegration occurs, within a few seconds or something like that or somewhere between 1-10 seconds (read that somewhere for the "absolute load limit).
The ultimate margin of engineered safety beyond which a phenomenon called flutter (and breakup) is inevitable, is 15-20% MAX past Vd/Md with a Mach 1.0 absoute limit at all altitudes respecting the lowest EAS (equivalent airspeed) or CAS through descent from 17,854 ft. Flutter onset can begin at Vmo + 40 knots (it's 31 for the Airbus a380 and I've extrapolated a bit to round up to 40 based on other comparisons with the Boeing, a slightly faster and more maneuverable aircraft) or 360 + 40 (400 kts) where beyond that, flutter and disintegration can begin at any time, and it absolutely assured 100% including disintegration, at no more than 504 knots KCAS Max MAX (20% over Vd).
Again THE plane, at a TAS of 515 kts was flying at a CAS of 508 kts so in theory however totally improbable (to the nth degree) it's perhaps not ENTIRELY absolutely "impossible", athough I'm not an aeronautical engineer like Dwain Deets or even a pilot, but from what I've learned, it's way WAYYYY out there in terms of a probability. So there's a problem and the government has some 'splaining to do..
This says nothing about stable flight control, or piloting, once Vmo/Mmo (360 KCAS) is exceeded by any appreciable degree/margin.
If you take the time to go through what's been presented there, you'll be fully up to speed (so to speak).
Have you noticed that oftentimes when the evidence for CD is presented that people exclaim - "But what about the planes?! we all SAW the plane hit the building, what do you mean that the plane impacts weren't at cause?"
It's a big time problem with the CD hypothesis, this notion that it relied upon successful hijackings and piloting to target(s), especially when the limitations involved (in the case of the south tower plane) would make that a one in a million (+++) event.
Proof of CD of the buildings is therefore complimentary to the evidence regarding the excessive speed of the south tower plane, not only in terms of the flight envelope limit being exceeded to the point of inevitable disintegration, but also in terms of stable flight control at such a speed, and piloting by a complete novice at such a speed including the successful navigation to target and final target aquisitioning. It's not believable, particularly in light of the evidence for CD of the twin towers moving backwards through the apparent cause and effect ie: there could be no room for an unknown, indeterminate outcome regarding hijackings when the south tower is awaiting a hit, lower down, to make the official story seem plausible/credible.
There's no escaping or evading this self evident truth.
This is very important, so I do hope you'll take the time to review what I've presented.
Otherwise, there's a big time incongruity at the heart of your (our) "theory" that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and you of all people serving as some sort of gatekeeper around the evidence regarding the south tower plane (that it was UA flight 175 succesfully piloted by a novice at such a speed) just isn't helpful to our cause, and would be absurd, imho. Don't be swayed by people like John Bursill or Jon Gold or the 911blogger people in spite of how supportive they've been in other areas. The rage and "debate" was all about the use of this data by the "no planer" people, to suggest, absurdly, that if it wasn't possible for a commercial airliner to perform in such a way, or be successfully piloted at such speed, that there was ah, ah hem, cough, no plane there at all to begin with! (ABSURD!)
As to John Lear - there's no way he's REALLY a no planer. He saw the "honey pot" and jumped right in to feed it as best he could (while trying to "hide" this data and evidence or render it as incredible and subject it to ridicule with the no planer bullshit by trying to make the plane "disappear"!) presumably to win brownie points with the deep state bastards.. No other conclusion can be drawn, same with that Brit ex MI5 guy, same with Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer although the honey pot has a certain pull on certain personality types who are unwittingly pulled into serving the wrong side by producing bad hypothesis capable of discrediting valid scientific data and observations. Fetzer did the same thing with the Zapruder film (which basically proved that Kennedy got his head blown off by a shot from the front ie: back, and to the left) during the JFK days, to raise reasonable doubt and to bring it into disrepute while gaining notoriety and attention for himself.
This data doesn't validate those folks however because there really was a real plane that hit the building, and, that penetrated the exterior steel columned framework, decellerated in a fraction of a second (hit the core structure) and detonated for that mega pyrotechnic shock-and-awe display - to lend a "credible" "suspension of disbelief" as to the cause of the destruction of the towers, in the case of the south tower, with a complimentary TIP/tilt over the impact area before recovering it's momentum in the implosion (you know the drill).
According to Lizeau of Controlled Demolition, such a feat is totally within the realm of CD.
Mark Loizeaux, the head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said:
"By differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance . . . . We'll have structures start facing north and end up going to the north-west." (Else, 2004)
We are now at the point where this question (what about the planes?!) is being raised time and again to make us all appear crazy.
"What about the planes - uh.. maybe they were at cause?!" I hear it all the time, it's Bill Meher's favorite joke re: "9/11 truthers". James Randi of JREF says the same thing. We need to throw it back in their faces.
I'm sure you see the dilemma, and hopefully, it's resolution, based in nothing but physics and science along with a healthy dose of common sense with the self evident proof of CD in hand. What it does not do, in the least, is discredit the evidence of CD, but only supports it and validates it as essential to the murderous hoax of 9/11. Except to the degree that the hypothesis leaves part of the narrative unresolved (what happened to the original planes and passengers?) which is where I suppose that the cell phone record comes into play, to show that at least some of the passengers were not in the sky at all at the time they placed those calls. I presume you've seen "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor"..?
That said, I can understand your reluctance because of the nature of the honeypots embedded into the operation itself, like a mind trap leading either one way, to the official story narrative, or the other, into the domain of the dreaded and discredited "conspiracy theories" (a term much maligned during the JFK days, and apparently made use of, even relied heavily on for the 9/11 operation), but this evidence, including CD isn't ultimately going anywhere unless and until the linkage to the plane impacts is made, and you're right that it needs to get simplified as much as possible.
2 NAM007 2014-10-24
P.S. I've used the 20% margin beyond Vd as the outer OUTERmost flight envelop limit instead of 15% as per the FAA FAR ref'd in the OP of that thread because the older FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation), from when the plane was engineered and certified listed it as being 20%
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c380651443808e32aa15c684c954c990&node=se14.1.25_1303&rgn=div8
Although the plane circa 1983 had surely taken a beating over the years.
Bear in mind however, that the onset of flutter, and structural damage leading to eventual disintegration can begin at somewhere around 35 knots over the Vmo limit of 360 knots (KCAS) or 395 kts (lets round it up to 400 to be conservative), whereby this aircraft was travelling at 508 kts CAS or 148 kts past Vmo and 88 kts past the Vd design dive limit of 420 KCAS.
Hopefully, all that was helpful, and can provide some clarity regarding what we're really looking at here.
Best Regards,
NAM007 aka Robert Rice. If you're out there I'm out with you fighting the same fight.
0 AutoModerator 2014-10-24
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0 thefuzznews 2014-10-24
Richard, have the powers to be threatened you at all?
0 alllie 2014-10-24
If the truth was proved what do you think would happen. Do you think we could actually bring them to justice short of revolution?
0 alllie 2014-10-24
I went to http://www.ae911truth.org/ and while I made a contribution I couldn't see how to order the Experts Speak Out CD. (This was may a year ago.)
3 Orangutan 2014-10-24
http://911expertsspeakout.org/watch_film.html
0 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
hi richard gage, what do you think of the molten granite under WTC? i don't think Thermate Thermite, could explain this
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2j1k8wi&s=7#.VEvHbl6mCf0
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1726&bih=986&q=9%2F11+molten+granite&oq=9%2F11+molten+granite&gs_l=img
we have all heard about the molten metal under the WTC's, and that debate seemed to revolve around whether the metal was aluminum or iron which is a red herring if you ask me. to me this molten granite seems much more suspicious.
2 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
0 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
ah, yes technically the granite is no longer molten and has solidified and cooled to such a degree that workers can work, setting up ladders, running fire hoses around, hosing down hot spots, pumping out water, etc which makes you wonder why that work is even necessary in the first place.
http://oi55.tinypic.com/2j1k8wi.jpg
my next questions,
1) was this previously molten granite supposed to be the bedrock onto which the WTC buildings footings were put? that looks like a very irregular surface from which to begin construction, especially on such a massive structure as the WTC! where is all the earth and/or building materials that once covered this previously molten granite?
2) given that you are an architect/engineer, how would you begin construction preparation given such an irregular surface as a your base?
3) why can't we see any evidence of whatever original WTC construction preparation work was done, either evidence of the removal of some of the previously molten granite or the filling-in with aggregate materials? the surface of the previously molten granite in the foreground of the picture doesn't look like it has ever been worked by human hands.
4) where would the building pilings/columns/footings be placed?
5) what is left of the original pilings/columns/footings?
EDIT:
fake /u/Richard_Gage replied with this
(These are interesting questions; Please excuse my brief responses but the following are necessary for you to understand before we can get to more complex subjects such as tall building foundations)
not 'technically' ..actually. not 'granite'...Mica
I believe I can see worker using one hose. I could not determine if it was actually a fire hose. Nothing in this photograph would cause me to think anything shown is a 'hot spot' (whatever it is you mean by that).
if you happen to be in Manhattan any time go to Central park and enjoy the same Mica bedrock that actually breaks the surface over large areas. It looks exactly the type you have in your picture. There are such protrusions all over Manhattan island.
Its metamorphic rock. It solidified and cooled 100million years ago. I think you may be unique, globally, in concluding that those workers are 100million years old.
1) if by 'previously' you mean 100million years ago, then yes. In fact...almost the whole of Manhattan is built on it. Much of central Manhattan is located where it is in order to take advantage of the near-surface Mica bedrock that is necessary part of a stable foundation.
2) By preparing a foundation. Part of doing so requires digging down to and exposing the Mica bedrock, preparing it for the concrete. Then possibly using caissons to pour the foundation and steel rods to anchor it. (Knowing about foundation building will not inform your argument for the use of nuclear weapons on 9/11. For that you should get some evidence).
3) You would have to ask the photographer. (you could also ask them exactly what the workers were doing at the same time
4) & 5) could not be adequately answered without knowing exactly what location and when the photo was taken, and which building was there before and what is next planned to be built there. However: I see no value in explaining the finer points/considerations of tall building foundation design, even if those points were given. It has no bearing on whether/not a nuclear weapon was used on 9/11.
AE911Truth is working hard to obtain present and inform about the strongest, irrefutable evidence about what really happened to 3 steel framed buildings on 9/11.
So far nuclear weapons has no evidence.
and again...Its 100million year old Mica. Not granite.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
0 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
there is another fire hose coiled up in the bottom right foreground. does the building in the background of this pic? http://oi55.tinypic.com/2j1k8wi.jpg
look like the building in the background dog this pic? http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpg/b3c15b7919cc21c5b2f3408e055ff28d29f0bdf.jpg
side by side https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B05qeFkCEAAPU4m.png:large
2 & 3) By preparing a foundation. Part of which required digging down to and exposing the Mica bedrock, preparing it for the concrete. Then possibly using caissons to pour the foundation and steel rods to anchor it.
where is the evidence for any of this work ever having been done? the surface of the once molten mica looks as un-touched the day it was formed. saying "ask the photographer" is a weasel-out. i prefer to ask #AE911Truth, being as how this is supposedly their area of expertise.
4 & 5) assuming this is actually a hole where one of the WTC towers once stood (and given the evidence, fwiw), we know the exact location and we know exactly what was to be built there. the WTC towers. (see also 2 & 3)
9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
so on the one hand, there is no debate between us on the fact that there was molten metal at WTC "ground zero", (and given the evidence, fwiw)
http://s662.photobucket.com/user/911conspiracytv/media/meteorites_side-by-side.jpg.html
the debate is about whether the metal was iron or aluminum, and the alternative methods for making the metal molten. the debate is not about the question of whether the metal was recently molten or not.
but on the other hand you insist that there was no recently molten mica at the WTC site, in spite of the evidence?
i question your claim that the mica was molten 100 million years ago, as opposed to being molten on 9/11/2001, because
6) why would it be any more or less plausible that there was molten mica in the exact time and place where we know there was molten metal?
7) the surface of the once-molten mica in the foreground doesn't look like it has ever been worked by man or machine. how would that be possible if the mica was molten 100 million years ago, yet defaced by construction of the WTC complex?
8) can thermate / thermite / nanothermite etc alone explain making molten metal, molten mica, and turning concrete to dust? or explain high temperatures and heat for many weeks after 9/11/2001?
9) why would thermate, etc be necessary at all, other than to initiate the collapse, given that we know top-down progressive collapse is a tried and true method of controlled demolition, and likely would be the method of choice if the WTC complex had been brought down in an overt controlled demolition?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s
10) theoretically, could an underground nuclear explosion make mica molten?
EDIT
fake /u/Richard_Gage replied with this
you seem to be of the impression that your picture shows exactly where the foundation of a building once stood. I do not think that can be the case.
As I stated in a previous comment...the world trade center is built upon exactly the kind of mica bedrock visible in your picture. Indeed: every tall building in Manhattan is founded on the same bedrock. This is why tall buildings in central Manhattan tend to be clustered together: they are all taking advantage of the 'patch/region' of mica bedrock which is relatively near the surface there.
I expect your particular picture is not showing an area of ground occupied/previously occupied by any of the 3 world trade center towers. In fact..i expect no tall building has ever been located in that spot. (i am actually inclined to suggest that your picture really looks like preparatory work for a new foundation to be built).
well yes, absolutely correct..it would do, since (most likely) nothing has been built on that particular section before. The protrusions in Central park also look that way.
Your position is interesting, but as your position is so heavily dependent on that picture being: -the site of the world trade center, probably one of the towers or other wtc vicinity buildings
-and taken on or after 9/11
...I expect you should be able to clearly easily demonstrate those to be true. If you cannot...your position is without foundation (no pun intended).
I look forward to your proofs for both, then we can take discussion further.
Note: I am sure you will understand that I am trying to respond to many people and therefore won't be able to engage unless you can provide the necessary proofs.
(I am sure it will be easy for you to get them though, and then i hope we can continue).
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
ok, so it looks like they call this thing a "pot hole"
pic http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/23/article-0-02C2ECC500000578-922_468x703_popup.jpg
zoom on pothole http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/23/article-1060043-02C3FC4B00000578-535_468x314_popup.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1060043/Pictured-The-40ft-pothole-shows-Ground-Zero-site-Ice-Age-glacier.html#ixzz1bCUdjgaT
more pics of pot holes, but with totally different creation narrative
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM3bHgTBxGo
hat tip http://letsrollforums.com/mystery-foundation-hole-under-t26637.html
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
so it turns out OP is an impostor, and is NOT #RichardGage of #AE911Truth
http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2nplhx/the_rconspiracy_ama_conspiracy_messages_from/
-1 ridestraight 2014-10-24
Can you please address the craters in the other buildings that didn't fall down?
6 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
0 ridestraight 2014-10-24
Building 6 had a huge crater in it. As seen from the air there are nearly cylindrical holes in two other buildings. They didn't fall down and they didn't get hit by jets.
5 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
-1 ridestraight 2014-10-24
I didn't ask you what others hypothesis/theory had been put forth.
What do you think, as an engineer, studying 9/11 for thirteen years now, caused the deformation in those buildings?!
EDIT: You inferred mini-nukes. I'm asking for your theory.
2 canihaveahint 2014-10-24
Didn't a bunch of falling stuff fall on it?
1 ridestraight 2014-10-24
Go look at the photos. Yes. Stuff fell on them.
In building six the pattern looks like a downward "punch" but the remnants of actual building material from the Twin Towers is very minimal inside the guts of that building.
I've been looking for an explanation. That's all I'm doing.
These outlying buildings didn't have fires, jets crashing and yet, given the extensive damage, they didn't fall down.
Do you know what caused those holes? I don't. I thought Richard might have a theory, at the very least. (sans the mini-nukes which I never intimated, implied, suggested or queried!)
TLDNR: Why are there cylindrical holes in those buildings?
1 canihaveahint 2014-10-24
My money is on tar-paper or whatever they used to insulate/waterproof the tops of flat buildings. If the rip is large enough, it looks kinda circular because the middle being pulled down by gravity.
1 ridestraight 2014-10-24
Tar paper.
1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-10-24
Ha! I actually laughed out loud when I saw the words "tar paper" too.
1 ridestraight 2014-10-24
TIL: Tar paper makes holes look circular because of gravity
1 canihaveahint 2014-10-24
Yep. I'm not implying the roof of the building is made entirely of tar paper or that tar paper would resist tons of falling debris. Just that if falling debris causes the collapse of the interior of the building without causing the walls to fall...like what happened to building 6... portions of the waterproofing (tar paper) probably won't fall in due to it's light weight. It will be unsupported from below however, thus causing the curved appearance of the hole. I'm not looking at a pic of building 6... I've just done roofing in the past lol.
1 ridestraight 2014-10-24
Just a few photos:
http://www.nc911truth.org/foto/wtc6.html
1 canihaveahint 2014-10-24
I assume the general shape of the hole is a result of the shape of the thing that fell on it. However, if you look closely at the edges of the hole (on the roof level) the reason why it appears curved (rounded) and not jagged is probably hanging roof insulation. The inside looks plenty jagged. I think we're getting hung up on what "curved" means.
1 ridestraight 2014-10-24
Try this photo, once it loads click on it, the zoom quality is quite good:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg
BTW, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm looking for answers to this anomaly, as are others, concerning everything 9/11.
-1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-10-24
Hey Richard, thanks for doing this.
My question is: it seems people have started to become more receptive to "alternative" explanations of 9/11 in the last few years so, assuming that continues, what's the "next step" for you, your organization, and the public at large?
-1 Bill_Murray2014 2014-10-24
Hi Richard. I would like to hear your response to this question posed by /u/sacchetta:
5.) Thermite. Thermite, thermate, nano thermite, super-thermite and thermitic material; why does it keep changing? As I understand it is essentially iron oxide and aluminum, if the towers were turned to dust as we see in the videos and pictures, should we not expect there to be iron and aluminum dust in the debris since the towers were made out of iron and had aluminum cladding? It is claimed that there were non-ignited thermite chips found in the dust. If the heat was so intense then how didn’t it set off the thermite chips? Also shouldn’t there have been lots of bright flashes everywhere? Not just a glowing red substance pouring out of places, but a blinding light as seen in YouTube videos about thermite? How was it that the thermite was able to act so quickly, accurately and on time? From all the videos I’ve seen it appears to be rather slow and nowhere near the speed needed to bring anything down in sequence. Why was thermite not mentioned in Stephen E. Jones & Bob McIlvaine’s RFC? The word thermite is in a link within the document but that was added later, why would Jones not mention or discuss thermite within his RFC?
Thanks.
2 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
thermite cannot be lit by a normal fuse, you have to use a magnesium strip
edit: Also nanothermite has tiny particles, so it would react much faster than normal thermite. It can also be engineered to react quickly and explosively, instead of slowly melting the steel.
1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Thank you for the support
2 Bill_Murray2014 2014-10-24
You're welcome! Shame he didn't respond to the question in the end.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
0 Bill_Murray2014 2014-10-24
Lol, what?
-1 Dick_Gage 2014-10-24
Richard,
Why would the government go through a convoluted plan of crashing airplanes into buildings to then blow up said buildings with thermite in the end? Seems needlessly complicated with a ton of unpredictable variables.
Why not just plant a giant bomb or suicide bomb the buildings Instead of going the evil villain route?
3 Sister_Lauren 2014-10-24
The faked hijackings were necessary in order to blame the Muslims for it.
Look up PNAC, Project for a New American Century, to find out more about the master plan that 9/11 was a small part of. They called it their "new Pearl Harbor" as both events were staged for the maximum political impact and to start wars.
3 curmudgeon99 2014-10-24
The public nature of the crash of airplanes was designed to create a dramatic event that would increase support for a war that was desired by both defense contractors and by NeoCons (their publically advocated "new Pearl Harbor") to effect change in the Middle East and get access to oil in the region. All of these ends were served by the event as it was described to us in the official NIST report and by the Bush administration. As they saw in the 1993 WTC bombing, if the event is too contained, it fails to gin up public sentiment and support for the desired end.
-1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Redditor for 5 hours.
5 Dick_Gage 2014-10-24
Yes that is true. Does it make my question invalid?
0 curmudgeon99 2014-10-24
No it makes you a shill user.
-1 NotsoElite4 2014-10-24
What will the truth bring us? or rather how it would benefit us?
3 NAM007 2014-10-24
Historical learning, for the sake of all the victims and everything that ensued from The Policy - about what NOT to do and NOT to be, and never again.
They and we deserve the truth about what happened there.
In loving memory of Kevin Cosgrove.
Never forget.
-1 NotsoElite4 2014-10-24
As a society, what will the future gain from revealing this past?
4 NAM007 2014-10-24
For mental health, at any level, we must excercise the use of the tools of discipline, which are four
1) Dedicate to truth and reality (even or perhaps especially when it's painful)
2) Delay of Gratification
3) Acceptance of Responsibility
4) Balancing (self control)
Plus, you cannot build a strong historical foundation if the cornerstone is based in murder, lies, brainwashing and all manner of overt and covert manipulation.
Liberty or freedom requires nothing less.
After all, what is freedom if it doesn't involve psychological freedom from oppression?
Think of it as a reverse psy-op, as the antidote.
-1 corruptcake 2014-10-24
I'm not sure if you're still taking questions, but I have one thats a little different:
What is your opinion on artists who are basically selling parts of the buildings dug up from Ground Zero? For example: www.sancrete.com
I know probably not the most thrilling question of the bunch, but I would just love your opinion on it. Thanks!
-1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
http://friendfeed.com/jsil/6db9017a/herkimer14-on-guys-it-wasn-t-fair-that-somebody
-2 LetsHackReality 2014-10-24
Richard, do you feel there is sufficient evidence to corroborate Russian allegations that "micro-nukes" were used in the demolition?
5 [deleted] 2014-10-24
[deleted]
0 ridestraight 2014-10-24
This is as clear as mud. Could you clarify this statement? Please!
3 Sister_Lauren 2014-10-24
He means that he thinks there is not enough evidence to support the nuclear theory. He also says that a theory should not be rejected due to a lack of evidence.
I respectfully disagree with him, I think there is plenty of evidence to support the nukes were used on 9/11 theory. I have posted the supporting evidence as I have found it over the months and years, but I DO NOT have it collected in a nice, easy to present, format.
If you would like to criticize me for my methods, then all I can say to that is that I am still alive.
0 ridestraight 2014-10-24
I'm sorry, are you speaking for Gage?
And you and I have not had any exchange in here. How in the hell could I criticize you for any method or the ability to inhale/exhale?
1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-10-24
What a turd of an answer and response you got for this question. Makes me think you may be onto something.
1 LetsHackReality 2014-10-24
Maybe.
Ran across some info supporting it, lots of links within: http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/proven-9-11-nukes-us-government-involvement/
0 NAM007 2014-10-24
No. (on Richard's behalf)
-2 alllie 2014-10-24
There's a video showing what might be laser targeting. Has anyone done any study of that?
(Sorry so many shills are on this comment thread. They are not typical of our sub.)
-1 NAM007 2014-10-24
I have studied it, at great length.
I was absolutely convinced for quite a while that it was a targeting laser light spot, BUT, after someone showed me the long version of the relevant video, I was forced to conclude, red-faced and to my chagrin, that it was nothing but floating paper (much closer to the camera) which was flying all over the place from the north tower impact.
No laser light spot / laser targeting, not visible anyway, so it's a non issue.
0 alllie 2014-10-24
Do you have a link?
-1 NAM007 2014-10-24
No. Find the video, and then keep looking for other version of the same one to find the longer version. Not targeting laser - floating paper. Trust me on this, but verify it if you must.
The real elephant in the room, aside from the self evident proof of the CD of the twin towers, is the excessive SPEED of the south tower plane.
No need to focus on the "pod" or the laser light spot, there is proof it wasn't UA 175.
0 alllie 2014-10-24
I think that would be a huge piece of paper, feet wide, to look that size from such a distance. Also I don't see evidence of floating paper 18 minutes after the first hit. Paper would have fallen down by then. It is only after the second hit that you see falling paper again.
1 NAM007 2014-10-24
The paper was flying much closer to the camera than you might think from the edited clip that cuts out before you see how close the flying paper really is. Honest. I was absolutely convinced for some time that it was not a piece of paper, or a flying albatross for that matter. But it's paper. The long version of that video shows it. Just search around it shouldn't be too hard to find.
-2 Sister_Lauren 2014-10-24
Wow, imagine what will happen when you realize that the trace elements measured by the USGS after 9/11 prove that the WTC destruction was a nuclear event. Not only will you be red faced about your error, you will also owe me a personal apology.
Do not worry, I'm not holding my breath. I expect that to happen some time way after hell freezes over.
3 NAM007 2014-10-24
That wasn't called for.
Re: explosives - just watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
Are those tiny nukes going off?
Yet, it IS an explosive demolition.
I admitted when I was in error - could you?
0 Sister_Lauren 2014-10-24
I never said it wasn't. My 'error' was that you CHOSE to misunderstand me.
I'm sure you will assert that this misunderstanding was my fault as a bad author (or woman, or Mexican) and not your fault as a person jumping to conclusions.
Nukes in the BASEMENTS is what I was talking about. I'm sure the overall demolitions were achieved with several, or many, different kinds of explosives. There are pictures of diagonal cut offs that show that cutter charges were used which is exactly what we would expect to see in a professionally demolished building. Plus the thermite in the dust and the sounds of the explosions. I have been saying this for years. You misrepresented what I was asserting.
Did you see the video of the core column "dustifying" after most of the rest of that building came down? I believe THAT was the effect of a nuke. I was not talking about the explosions in your video; and I never said it was.
I really resent you for asserting that I hold a position that I do not hold and then publicly attacking me for it in a little 'group action' with your man buddies. As a woman I really resent that sort of behavior, it is dangerous and even life threatening. In my own case it triggers my PTSD, so it is not a bit funny. It is harassment.
You could have at any time asked me to clarify what I was saying, but instead you chose to misunderstand me and then viciously and repeatedly attack me personally.
I really resent being treated like that and I think you owe me a personal and PUBLIC apology. In fact, I think you should have me put back on the 911truth reddit - since you got me banned off of it with your little repeated attacks.
Are you a person who takes responsibility for what you do, or are you a person who mistreats strangers for no good reason and then moves on?
I'm a Girl Scout leader, how do you want to treat me? Because I WILL tell everybody about it, and we WILL have a permanent record of it.
BTW, the whole world is watching. I said eleven years ago that I had a plan to END WAR GLOBALLY based on the first amendment freedom of religion and the rule of law. It is a political action project that I call the walk of Jesus. You have heard of things I have been doing. Believe me, I know how to get attention. I also know how to lead big groups, one of the many skills I learned and put to use in Girl Scouts.
You owe me an apology.
1 TurboGrits 2014-10-24
You sound absolutely insane and delusional, not unlike most of the Truthers. Newsflash: leading a girl scouts group is not like leading a world revolution.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
The only people who seem to mock truth seekers are those who are overly confident that they have found truth themselves. If you still believe in 2014 what you believed in 2001, that isnt a sign of intelligence, its a sign of bull-headed stupidity.
-3 ridestraight 2014-10-24
What a colossal cluster fuck. Wouldn't give this man the time of day ever again.
Pompous ass.
EDIT: Dream great dreams! Dream well!
-3 fzombie 2014-10-24
Why do you tell untruths about 9/11; what's the motive exactly? Are you trying to protect Islam or did you have a beef with one specific group?
I know that 9/11 wasn't as accurate as it was portrayed but no amount of imagination can wish 2 planes and epic fire away. We did tests, what fire does to steel. With common charcoal you can forge steel and we know the fire in the towers was hotter than that. With weakened supports and physics we know for a fact that the buildings would have been doomed even without the mythic explosives.
Our government is fucked enough with real scandals and lies that we don't need to be making new ones and piling them on top. We need to stay truthful if we want change. I believe you are likely working for people who do not want change. If you make the people who suspect wrong doing spouting insane things then all suspicion sounds insane.
Everyone here is trying to "fight the man" meanwhile they are being programmed by him.
This message brought to you by common fucking sense.
2 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Hollywood special effects. Turns out King Kong didnt really exist.
1 fzombie 2014-10-24
hollywood special effects cant change reality in real time, thousands of witnesses and videos don't lie
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
you mean like this guy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P_qU2J8DvU
1 AutoModerator 2014-10-24
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2 dizturbd 2014-10-24
Common fucking sense?
Are you for real? Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt a steel structure that is 1400 feet tall. Even if it was FULL of jet fuel throughout the passenger compartment.
1 fzombie 2014-10-24
The jet fuel was not the only thing burning they said the fire was over 1500f early on growing over time and you don't have to melt steel only weaken it to cause a failure . Heat over time can change a metal's properties. Most steel gets pretty soft at 1000f. House fires can get 1200-1700f within 20min to an hour and offices can be variable and similar.
-3 bigtobuk 2014-10-24
Why are you such an idiot?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
because OP is an impostor?
which i guess makes you the idiot, huh?
1 bigtobuk 2014-10-24
You're a little late bud
11 NAM007 2014-10-24
I agree with this.
I've given this a LOT of thought over the years, and I'm just not at all satisfied with Richard's response, to be perfectly honest.
It doesn't make any sense not to be making a push in this direction.
It could BEGIN with the papers published over at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
I'm thinking something that would look like a report by a reputable, multidisciplined, architectual and engineering consulting company with expertise in building forensics and of course, structual engineering.
Then, out of the single, larger report, spin off some papers for review and publication..
Man would that ever get the ball rolling far and wide in a hurry - plus, it would invite replies in the form of attempted debunks of the singular, authoritative NIST debunk by A&E49/11T, which, from what I've come to understand, would simply not be possible or hold up under scientific scrutiny and analysis because they would have to violate the laws of physics to do so.
Everyone would be all over it.
It would bring the debate to a whole new level, while lending credibility to our movement and the work of A&E49/11T.
1 SovereignMan 2014-10-24
You're welcome.
9 MaturinTheTurtle 2014-10-24
Which would immediately be converted into sound as the surrounding air absorbed that heat and light. That's how a blast wave works. Were you kidding when you wrote that, or what?
8 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
Do you have examples of these nearly soundless advanced explosives that would be suitable for building demolition?
-2 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Shouldn't we be hearing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel hitting the ground if thermite or any of its variants chopped the building to the ground? Does this mean explosives were not used at all?
Please provide a link to the thermite you speak of so I can take a listen.
1 Algee 2014-10-24
The scientific community has endorsed the findings of NIST. It has been supported in dozens of peices of published scientific literature. Sure you can go over the report and find small mistakes or errors, but the scientific community has shown that it supports NIST's findings. Maybe the problem isn't with the NIST report, but the critiques of it that are biased towards a conspiracy.
1 sacchetta 2014-10-24
Where did the towers go?
Thank you so much /u/ambiguously_ironic. Who will answer our questions if the "truthers" don't? It's up to people like you and I (and all other redditors who want to know the truth) to discuss this info in the most productive way possible. It is people like us who sacrifice hours and hours of our time digging through anything just looking. You are the reason there is hope.
0 Orangutan 2014-10-24
Share the link: www.AE911Truth.org
7 smokinbluebear 2014-10-24
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
--Voltaire
1 Algee 2014-10-24
see? this is what i'm talking about. You have some critique of the NIST report, and rather than just present that critique, or god forbid - your own data, a issue with the NIST report is twisted into evidence of an alternate hypothesis.
Like I said, the findings of the NIST report are widely accepted by the scientific community.
-1 JamesColesPardon 2014-10-24
While I am not dismissing your point, in a large percentage of secondary schools in the US, the students' loans are financed by state issued loans. So, in effect, to maintain eligibility for federal and/or state funds, some may feel the pressure to not speak out or have specific content contrary to what the State/Federal Official Story™ is.
3 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
Excellent point about the building getting stronger as it progressed downwards. The bottom building columns are always bigger than the upper parts of those same columns, and as the building collapsed there was less weight to support because the building turned to dust and was blown every direction, even up.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dew/dewpics/911wtc1blowupconcretefull.jpg
2 BloodWillow 2014-10-24
This, Richard, was one of your best comments. Thank you for your work, sacrifice, and courage.
11 scbeski 2014-10-24
LOL @ easy degree/big pay. If I wanted that, would've gone into finance.
And yes because working for a small local engineering firm is really working for the allegorical man.
7 moonrocks 2014-10-24
Right. His degree is in deceptive applied physics. QED.
Should we continue sending checks to Gage or to you?
2 seriouslytaken 2014-10-24
Denial is a powerful human emotion.
3 Playaguy 2014-10-24
There is indisputable evidence that direct energy weapons have been in existence since before 9-11.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8yfa7WnLlCU
1 9-11-2001 2014-10-24
He was attacked for mentioning judy wood theories because he has also have peddled other disinformation such as:
Violates rules #3 and #11 of this subreddit.
another one of his submissions, entitled:
which also violates rule #3 and #11
Spreading this for WHAT EVER reason does injustice to this subreddit and muddies the water. This is indefensible as a mod.
0 Macbeth554 2014-10-24
Sure, but given enough damage, and you won't be resisting gravity anymore.
A horrible analogy anyway you look at it. It wasn't worded poorly, the analogy itself is in agreement with the gravity theory.
1 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
* You're.
I'm going to just chalk this up to me being right. Thermite isn't used in building demolition, given that you're unable to offer anything to counter that assertion.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
Well...
But despite the unusual/unnecessary obstructions, rebuttals that are "submitted for peer review and publication" do exist.
http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Some-Misunderstandings-Related-to-WTC-Collapse-Analysis.pdf
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
disappeared into its own dust
http://youtu.be/qhyu-fZ2nRA?t=55s
1 thinkmorebetterer 2014-10-24
That is an awesome video!
But in that case they have clearly removed almost all of the supporting structure.
Also someone should show that video to Richard Gage... I'm fairly sure that top section of just a few floors shouldn't be able to destroy the building below it.. at least according to AE911
4 100wordanswer 2014-10-24
Dude, there's mountains of history out there that are factually more accurate and show how fucked up and also how good some governments have been throughout history. Check out the podcast the History of Rome. It's a good place to start on how and where democracies go wrong and he also talks about the bias of the historians at each period he's referring to. However, you don't have to start there, but please read something from respected historians, who put their own cultural beliefs aside and try to examine the past for what it was. Reading conveniently simplified and inaccurate history is really quite painful.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2014-10-24
now that we know that a top-down progressive-collapse is indeed a known method of controlled demolition (from the video)...
and now that we know that massive amounts of explosives (and the "masses" of people involved in placing the explosives), are not necessarily required to do a controlled demolition, (as demonstrated in the 9/11 official story)...
can we say that a 9/11 controlled demolition is much, much easier than the 9/11 shills would have us believe?
and can we also say that a top-down progressive-collapse would be the method of choice for any planned controlled demolition of WTC1 and WTC2?
could you or anyone else point to any alternative method of controlled demolition that would be a better choice?
what would be the pros and cons of any alternative method of controlled demolition?
how would alternative controlled demolition methods look different than what we actually saw happen on 9/11
are we supposed to believe that 19 radical muslims just happened to choose a random angle of attack that coincidentally matches up perfectly with the method of choice for a planned controlled demolition?
0 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
seeing as he is an architect, I think he has the relevant knowledge..
from their website:
'Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect of 25 years, a member of the American Institute of Architects'
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
You are the one who asked me if I trust FEMA. Your statements aren't making any sense. I am also talking about WTC7. Not 1/2. Please read statements before commenting on them.
1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2014-10-24
Demolition of skyscrapers. Don't miss that distinction.
A charge or two taking out a bridge is one thing. Hundreds of sequenced charges nearly silently taking out the largest building on the planet is completely different.
1 scbeski 2014-10-24
Great, let me go throw that together in my backyard.
A single bay with completely different loading will not behave like an entire structure, ughhhhhhhhh.
0 Algee 2014-10-24
Nobody said the report went through the peer review process; it was never intended to do so. However the scientific community have independently replicated NISTs results. You don't need the exact input data to check if its results are accurate, and most if not all papers pass peer review without the reviewers explicitly running through every calculation made in the experiment. Thats actual science, not the high school ideal that you've been taught. Do you expect the people who peer reviewed CERN's higgs experiment to pour over trillions of bits of data they accumulated? or recheck any experiment performed on the new 20 Petaflop supercomputer built at ORNL? no, they focus on replicable results, which means they generally make sure the experiment followed a clear and accurate methodology.
1 shadowofashadow 2014-10-24
Hey saccheta, I actually enjoyed your posts a lot in this thread as they have challenged some of my beliefs and that is a good thing.
I'm wondering what you think about the implications of the gusts of wind and the anomolies in the Melissa Doi call you mentioned. Do you have any opinions of what these facts might imply? Or do you not even go there? I get the impression that you're not totally satisfied with either AE911's story or the offiical story.
1 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
This has nothing to do with the topic. You said I don't know what happened to WTC7. How do you know what I do/do not know? And why are you so afraid to tell me what I "don't know?" Is it because you know I'll refute you? Yes. Yes it is. I'll continue to wait.....And please, try to stay on topic.
0 PhrygianMode 2014-10-24
Prove it.
2 PrivilegeCheckmate 2014-10-24
Right, until the civilization is up and running, and then your Steve Jobs types come in and cherry-pick the fruits of everyone elses' cooperation. It's the fucking Randian cunts we have to watch out for in this world.
1 Lookingfortruths 2014-10-24
NIST said they didn't look for explosive residue because looking for something which isn't there is a waste of taxpayer money.. seriously, they did.