University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

a reply to: neutronflux

You could easily be describing the US government down to the letter there.

a reply to: neutronflux

So you would call it inconsistent theory when government officials, law enforcement and intelligence have all stated they had given warnings with specific details?

One of the hijackers entered the US and boarded a doomed flight using his own name. That was on several watchlists.

originally posted by: neutronflux
My problem with truthers is not their claims the government lies. Its their inability to root out lies, deceat, and police their own movement. If they can't mind their own house why should they get to mind other homes?

What I don't like about so called OS believers.

(1) Many of them are payed off shills that would sell their own mother to a whore house for three dollars. Probably born in a whore house. LOL

(2) Just easily hypnotized by the media.

(3) Unable to put 2 plus 2 together. No level of critical thinking. Don't understand the basics of physics.

(4) Basically would be the lap dog of any tyrant, if they thought it would get them a discount at Denny's.

I could go on and on but you get the idea.

a reply to: eisegesis

I think it would have been wise to have a qualified engineer of the NIST walking along while this study is being done and inform this person about bottle-necks or new revelations in the study. This way the government can never say... but we didn't know or that the study is worthless.

I would very much like to know if this study can determine that there is no other option than "criminal forces" must have been used to bring that building down the way it did.

I hope that this proffessor can enjoy the final conclusions of this study and that these two studentshave a briljant carreer and life.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

(1) Many of them are payed off shills that

Why does someone who doesn't believe in a conspiracy have to be a paid shill ?

Do we need to do the math for you when it comes to the percentage of engineers in the conspiracy camp ?

a reply to: Doctor Smith

3) Unable to put 2 plus 2 together. No level of critical thinking. Don't understand the basics of physics.

Dont understand physics...??

Been to classes on building collapse, my instructors were FDNY battalion / deputy chiefs, most of whom were involved in operations at WTC

Got detailed explanation of why a building collapses during a fire

Its the conspiracy fringe which doesnt understand physics - especially part about how when you heat steel it loses structural
strength and becomes plastic and deforms.....

Bitching at me is not going to solve your problems, the truthers bad math, disregard of vedio evedance, and you movements inconstancies. Agian, if the reports are that erronous and full of lies should be easy to have them retracted and replaced by your own. If the popular mechanics articles are lies about truthers, should be easy to win a slander law suit. The truth should be worth and amount of time and money. Good luck!

Ever think federal agents have infiltrated the truther movement with the purpose of posting crazy ideas to discredit the movement. Trust nobody!

a reply to: neutronflux

Ever think federal agents have infiltrated the truther movement with the purpose of posting crazy ideas to discredit the movement. Trust nobody!

SHHHH!

You are giving the lunatic fringe ideas..........o

The whole lunatic truther OS'er thing is completely childish. These threads begin to look more like a classroom argument the further on they go.

I'm going with truthers work for the saudi government to pass blame from the saudi government to the US government. That's the ticket. Why else try to discredit reports being used to make future buildings safer. It is serious as a heart attacke truthers try to dicreat earnest WTC engineering reports with the hopes of making future buildings safer. Very sad.

a reply to: neutronflux

Self promoters use the faithful. There is no formal system of checks and balances, scientific method, peer review, and they claim third party review are also conspirators. No effort to police themselves to ensure their movements integrity. Seems more like a loose group of individuals that tolerate each other while finding ways to promote themselves.

I have to disagree.

This thread topic is not about Truthers.

Since very few ATS members believe Truthers are lairs, then I cannot call myself a Truther any longer.

Question: Do you believe in the official narratives?

a reply to: Informer1958

To be honest. Don't know what to believe. The government was either embarrassed at the incompetence of having this happen. Or embarrassed there were terrorists moles in our government that opened the doors to 911. (Mom was a nurse in the prison system and long go warned of the recruitment of violent musliums of prisoners. Connection and reason government wantsbto eliminate if a person is a felone from job applications?) Or in light of recent events, special relationships with the Saudi government was an avenue for 911. Just a gut feeling. No proof. But think it's a mixture of all three. Money and influence talks. I do believe the physics of the reports, I believe the jets and collateral damage took down the structures. Engineers are a competive bunch wanting to show who has the most knowledge. What college engineering department would not want to officially tear an erroneous government report or magazine article to academic shreads. What truther wouldn't want to win a huge slander lawsuit against popular mechanics or skeptic magazine?

a reply to: neutronflux

The government was either embarrassed at the incompetence of having this happen. Or embarrassed there were terrorists moles in our government that opened the doors to 911.

Perhaps, but that is only an assumption correct?

Or in light of recent events, special relationships with the Saudi government was an avenue for 911

My opinion is the Saudi could have played a part of 911, however I will not agree that is true, until the 28 page Report comes out.

I believe the jets and collateral damage took down the structures.

I have to kindly disagree, however the truth has yet to be told.

Because of the fraudulent NIST Report, we do not have the answers to what really happened to the WTC, until then it is only open for speculations and opinions. Neither side, the Truth movement or Official Narrative supporters has any real evidence to support their claims.

Engineers are a competive bunch wanting to show who has the most knowledge.

I have to kindly disagree.

I personally know quite a few Engineers and none of them have that kind of attitude.

What college engineering department would not want to officially tear an erroneous government report or magazine article to academic shreads.

Of course that will never be allowed, do to the fact that many or most Colleges get some kind of government funding.

Question: What do you believe, or your opinion to what happened to WTC 7?

I think it was the collateral damage from the towers and the fuel burning in the basement. I not sure you could use shaped charges? Drilling columns with a hamner drill would take forever ever to embed charges. It would take one hell of a blast to obliterated chunks of concrete with signs of drilling. I know at the mines here it's just to move rocks, but there are always fragments theat show signs of the drilling? Also, if you connect a blasting circuit to soon without a protectivebcircuit it can go off prematurely from induced current. As in radar or a static charge? But why come close to making it look like a controlled demo. I would go more for a domino effect. Not sure if charges would make steel splinters. I understand a little about explosives. I don't understand thermite. Would it burn fast enough and consistent enough to be used in a controlled demo story after story? I know detonation cored burns like 20,000 feet a second?

originally posted by: neutronflux
I think it was the collateral damage from the towers and the fuel burning in the basement. I not sure you could use shaped charges? Drilling columns with a hamner drill would take forever ever to embed charges. It would take one hell of a blast to obliterated chunks of concrete with signs of drilling. I know at the mines here it's just to move rocks, but there are always fragments theat show signs of the drilling? Also, if you connect a blasting circuit to soon without a protectivebcircuit it can go off prematurely from induced current. As in radar or a static charge? But why come close to making it look like a controlled demo. I would go more for a domino effect. Not sure if charges would make steel splinters. I understand a little about explosives. I don't understand thermite. Would it burn fast enough and consistent enough to be used in a controlled demo story after story? I know detonation cored burns like 20,000 feet a second?

Realistically there would be absolutely no need for dems cord. Explosives can be set off via radio transmitting control units. The signal can also be coded so background interference won't detonate them prematurely. Another misconception is the requirement of charges on every floor. If the pancake theory is correct then by that logic you would only need to take out the columns on a couple of floors around the impact area. I highly doubt any charges on the impact areas would survive the blast and subsequent fires but you see my point. When an artillery shell is loaded into a breach and the propellant charge goes off a couple inches behind it, does the high ex inside the projectile go off in the barrel? No.

People also argue that it would take a huge team going undetected for months to set it up. That's utter crap on operations I've seen two men rig enough explosives to take down half a village in matter of hours. Obviously that sort of dem work is different to civilian demolition jobs. (They weren't blowing up villages I'd like to add). As for going unnoticed?

A terror suspect was arrested with a construction pass for the WTC complex and claimed he was in the basement working on sprinkler systems. This was dated for a couple of days before the 9th. Look up the murder case of Katherine Smith. Some unanswered questions there.

There was also the case of the geltin (ironic name) art group who were living in the towers on the actual impact floor in the months before 9/11. The group they were there on behalf of also had links to a man tied to Israeli intelligence. Some glaring unanswered questions there. They also had construction passes and actually admitted to removing a window among other things.

I don't think the towers fell because of explosives I have given a perfectly logical explanation of how and why they collapsed the way they did before which is far too long for me to type again. At the end of the day, two airliners flew into them for Pete's sake. What more do you need? However, the arguments as to why they couldn't have been rigged or brought down are just as flawed as the arguments for plane swaps etc.

a reply to: sg1642

Any amount of explosives with out drilling would stick out like a sore thumb. I image it takes four times more explosives strapped to a column to "cut" it than if you stick it into a hole. The explosion is going to be very pronounce due to the pressure wave following the path of least resistance to atmosphere. Who much explosives would it take to level a whole village. Now imagine placing that amount in the towers using one frieght elevator per tower in open spaces unnoticed? Or utility spaces become unusable because they are packed full of suspicious creates. That is sure to piss off the maintenance and janitor staff.

People miss the point of controlled demolition. How would they know which floors to put the explosives on and not have the jets set them off prematurely?

The towers pancaked due to multiple floors being damaged buy the jets. The fuel ignited and burned all the way to the lobby through the elevator shafts. Thus heating and weeking steel and introducing thermal stess thought the towers.

Controlled demolition logic is really deficient for building 7. If the building was not damaged and fire did not weaken the steel to the point of collapse, how did it fall? controlled demolition? Controlled demolition is not about a massive charge that obliteates a building for maximum shock value with least amount of efficiency. A massive charge that would frag the building would push it up and out in all directions. If it was a conspiracy, wouldn't the conspirators go for maxmium shock value? But that's a by thought.

Controlled demolition on a healthy building is about using the least amount of explosives through out the entire structure in perfect timing to drop the building into its own footprint. That takes planning, running wire, and drilling. I cannot figure out if truthers think a special ops team rigged building 7 to fall on the day of 911. Or it was rigged to blow over weeks?

On the surface it's either perfectly innocent or very damning.

Yes the possibility of demolition work is there regardless of what people say. Note I say possibility not proof.



Not only were Israeli intelligence all over the hijackers, they were in new York 'to document the event' unquote. That slip up on national Israeli TV is proof of foreknowledge.

Now were they carrying out surveillance on known extremists? Or were they handling them? You can be the judge of that.

I'm now starting to take issue with the term implode. It seems people use the term in a way setting off explosives is what draws a building in on its self. Its sort of a misnomer. The charges creat a pressure wave to pop a support. Once the structure cannot resist the strain, gravity pulls the building into its self straight towards the centure of the earth.