Looks Like AE911 is Throwing in the Towel !!

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Lumenari

9/12 headlines should've been "Buildings demo'd by silent explosives"

Nanothermite doesn't explode though...

Just gets really hot.

Hot enough to cut through structural steel rather easily.

I'm out of this thread because of my earlier post...

The whole controlled demolition theory fell flat when introduced to a population that can't do math, much less think critically.

Have a good night.

Nanothermite again? Paint on? This is one of the theories that can be embraced only by those truly ignorant of thermodynamics. Steven Jones is one of them which is surprising because he is supposed to be a physicist.
Ask your brother what the Cp of structural steel is and ask him to estimate the mass of the structure. Then calculate the quantity of heat produced from a thin later of painted on thermite. Knowing this, he can determine that the steel would only warm slightly if the reaction could even be sustained on a heat sink like a steel beam.


Goodbye AE911, scammers of the technically challenged.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
The whole "controlled demolition" argument was out of gas pretty much as soon as it started.

Yea, since structural steel reaches an elasticity point about 500 degrees centigrade above what is possible with a hydrocarbon fire...

The whole controlled demolition theory fell flat when introduced to a population that can't do math, much less think critically.

In a few days I'll go back to the oilfield and see how many of our wellsite flares have melted because of the hydrocarbon fires they produce.

/facepalm

If the beams had bent due to heat and then failed, pieces of the towers would have collapsed some of the way but the WHOLE tower would NEVER have collapsed all the way down as one entity because all 240 core columns broke at the very same time.
If you want to complain about a population that cannot think critically, perhaps you should start with yourself.......

The roof of the towers was a 6ft thick concrete slab weighing in at 19,000 tons. When some of the support structure is weakened, enough that it can't hold 19,000 tons anymore, do you think the rest of the supporting structure in the rest of the building is gonna be able to stop it when gravity takes over?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux


Still forcing "visible core" falsehood i see. Debunked: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Still see you are posting blatant lies.

WTC 1 core collapse
m.youtube.com...

Visible core columns
www.dailymotion.com...

World Trade Centre Core Collapsing
m.youtube.com...

9/11 Footage shows core of both towers standing; Debunks Basement BombsTheory
m.youtube.com...

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

Collapse of the World Trade Center
Total progressive collapse

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse.[47] Once the collapse initiated, the mass of failing floors overwhelmed the floors below, causing a progressive series of floor failures which accelerated as the sequence progressed. Soon, large portions of the perimeter columns and possibly the cores were left without any lateral support, causing them to fall laterally towards the outside, pushed by the increasing pile of rubble. The result was that the walls peeled off and separated away from the buildings by a large distance (about 500 feet in some cases), hitting other neighboring buildings. Some connections broke as the bolts snapped, leaving many panels randomly scattered.[48] Significant parts of the naked cores (about 60 stories for the North Tower and 40 for the South Tower) remained standing for a few seconds before they also collapsed.[44]

The date still on the University of Alaska’s WTC 7 Evaluation page...

ine.uaf.edu...

Project Dates
May 1, 2015 - April 30, 2018

The project team doesn’t even bother updating the release date any longer.

I am guessing the towel is thrown in......

Strange Architectures and Engineers boasts how many professionals? And the WTC 7 Evaluation project rested on the shoulders of a departure chair of civil and environmental engineering and two PH students.

The below sounds more like dear john letter than anything?

www.wtc7evaluation.org...

Dr. Leroy Hulsey gave the following update on March 27, 2018:

To all who have been following the University of Alaska Fairbanks study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:

First, I would like to thank you for your interest in and support of the study.

We had planned to release our findings for public review early this year. However, research often takes unexpected turns, and the more complicated the problem, the more difficult it is to predict the completion date. We are still in the process of studying hypothetical collapse mechanisms and attempting to simulate the building’s failure. Our goal is to determine, with a high degree of confidence, the sequence of failures that may have caused the observed collapse and to rule out those mechanisms that could not have caused the observed collapse.

We will release our findings for public review when we are sure we fully understand the mechanisms that are likely to have caused the observed collapse and those that clearly did not occur and could not have caused the observed collapse. We expect to publish our findings later this year, but we will refrain from naming a completion date, given the unpredictability of the research process.

Again, we thank you for your interest in our study and we appreciate your patience as we strive to bring a truly scientific answer to the important question of how WTC 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001.

Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey

Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of Alaska Fairbanks

a reply to: neutronflux

No, in other words I don’t really care what you think, not an issue to me

You believe what you want me I have another opinion
A plane so they say crashed into the pentagon, no debris, yeah right
A plane crashed into a field with no debris, yeah right

Your opinion is of no value or interest to me, thanks


What I don’t understand about the “people” who follow the terrorist narrative is they don’t have any questions, don’t have suspicions that maybe, don’t seem to think beyond what they are told. Don’t question the narrative, are like mindless lemmings who follow
I don’t get why some people just unquestionably accept the mainstream narrative completely

If they said I think terrorists but maybe, not sure, but unquestionably accepting, that’s strange

a reply to: Raggedyman

What I don’t understand about the “people” who follow the terrorist narrative is they don’t have any questions, don’t have suspicions that maybe, don’t seem to think beyond what they are told.

Maybe they have never been presented with an all encompassing alternative theory.
It's been almost 18 years. Where is it?
AE911 hasn't done it.
University of Alaska hasn't done it.

Just a bunch of random unsubstantiated claims.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Raggedyman

What I don’t understand about the “people” who follow the terrorist narrative is they don’t have any questions, don’t have suspicions that maybe, don’t seem to think beyond what they are told.

Maybe they have never been presented with an all encompassing alternative theory.
It's been almost 18 years. Where is it?
AE911 hasn't done it.
University of Alaska hasn't done it.

Just a bunch of random unsubstantiated claims.

Where is it, why has it been 18 years and I can’t find a definitive

It won’t go away, that’s the issue

a reply to: Raggedyman

If you read through all my posts, you would see I have questions about how the terrorists came to the USA, why they were allowed to stay, how they were sponsored by funneling money to them from the Middle East. Many people you would labeled “debunkers” have serious questions what role the mob might have played in the construction of the twin towers, quality of materials, the departures from building codes, and how money was saved by minimizing concrete usage. With people very concerned how government incompetence was glossed over with minimal accountability.

Unfortunately the truth movement is a distraction concerned with:
-fizzle no flash bombs
-paint on thermite
-thermite ceiling tiles.
-hologram jets with lasers and/or missiles
-dustification
-nuclear bombs
-WTC 7 suffered a chemical attack of its structure
-WTC fire extinguisher bombs
- There were no terrorists.
-There were no jest

There is real evidence of Middle Eastern interests funding a conspiracy against the USA, with a real efforts by the government trying to cover its own bottom over its incompetence. While the distraction of then truth movement charlatans pursing items with zero credibility backed by only pseudoscience and innuendo. With cries of donate now.

People are trying to get to the truth while you make blatantly false claims. And items like nukes at the WTC are low hanging fruit when it comes to debunking.

Why are you not concerned with the right out lies of the truth movement that cloud and cast skepticism on the real issues?

The truth movement failed because of it’s inability to police itself from charlatans, and it’s willingness to grasp at anything billed as a “smoking gun.”

The truth movement killed itself.

- Hmm, according to some witnesses, there was work done on some levels at the WTC just prior to the attack and security cams were turned off. Claims of dust particles everywhere in offices when people went in to work.
- All but 1 (shady) security camera videos at the Pentagon never released. For national security? lol
- Bush's first choice to head the 9/11 commission? Your friend Kissinger
- Did anyone profit on the stock market on that day and after?
- USA has the biggest airforce in the world and can't stop a single plane out of 4 over its airspace that day.Too busy...
- Decision makers in key places were new to the job or away somewhere thus creating confusion. Convenient.
- Not a shread of evidence of a plane crash in Pennsylvania. Weird
- Phone calls supposedly made from cell phone in a plane at 40,000 ft altitude. Proven impossible.
- One caller (flight attendant) ending her call whispering " It's a frame". Mind boggling.
- WTC beams laying on the ground seen cut a 45 degree angle. Not for clean up operations. lol
- Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan in the Middle East based on "TERRORISM" when most highjackers were supposedly from
Saudi Arabia... Yeap ok
- Again, review the PNAC document (link on previous post) exactly 1 year before the New Pearl Harbour. They let (made) it happen just like the old Pearl Harbour.
The list is endless and I could go on all day about discrepancies. I don't just look at the towers but at the whole picture and many suffered and died on that day because of TERRORISTS FROM WITHIN.

a reply to: pteridine

Nanothermite again? Paint on? This is one of the theories that can be embraced only by those truly ignorant of thermodynamics. Steven Jones is one of them which is surprising because he is supposed to be a physicist.
Ask your brother what the Cp of structural steel is and ask him to estimate the mass of the structure. Then calculate the quantity of heat produced from a thin later of painted on thermite. Knowing this, he can determine that the steel would only warm slightly if the reaction could even be sustained on a heat sink like a steel beam. .

Well the official story states that sustained office fires alone warmed the steel above slightly, triggering the total heat sink failure...

a reply to: openedeyesandears

Hmm, according to some witnesses, there was work done on some levels at the WTC just prior to the attack and security cams were turned off. Claims of dust particles everywhere in offices when people went in to work.

What security cameras? What buildings? What floors out of a possible 247 floors beteen WTC 1, 2, and 7? Witnesses witnessing work is only evidence of work being performed. Can you point to physical evidence of cut columns at the WTC?

All but 1 (shady) security camera videos at the Pentagon never released. For national security? lol

What exactly was a camera system at the Pentagon supposed to capture of an attach from the sky when the camera system was installed to monitor ground entrance foot traffic, and gate traffic?

Blink Comparator Views of
the Plane at the Pentagon

By David Chandler, based on prior work by Ken Jenkins
911speakout.org...

Note that when barrel distortion is eliminated, the image compression near the edge of the field is eliminated, so the plane appears longer, with proportions resembling a 757. (Remember, the plane is also moving toward us at about a 45 degree angle.)

One feature of the plane image helps us identify it as an American Airlines plane. Note the purple stripe along the side of the plane. American Airlines planes have parallel red and blue stripes. At the small scale of the original image it is quite likely that this purple stripe is a merger of the color information from a red and a blue stripe.

www.judicialwatch.org...

Judicial Watch lawsuit to obtain previously unseen footage of Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004, seeking all records pertaining to camera recordings from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation.On May 16, 2006, Judicial Watch forced the Department of Defense to release video footage of American Airlines flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11. The videos had been kept secret by the DoD until Judicial Watch filed the FOIA request and, eventually, a lawsuit stating that the DoD had “no legal basis” to refuse release of the footage. On September 15, 2006, Judicial Watch released videos from the CITGO gas station near the Pentagon, which was released by the FBI in response to the FOIA request.Judicial Watch is committed to completing the public record of the 9/11 attacks.

The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras
www.9-11tv.org...

Why very few cameras captured the impact event

There are a number of valid reasons why only 4 of the 85 videos were released by the FBI in response to a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request filed in 2004, which was fulfilled in 2006. Because of a number of factors (listed below and detailed in the footnotes) only 2 of the 85 cameras captured any useful footage of the plane-impact event[1].

Most of those 85 cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question.
Most cameras were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which cause some geometric distortion and render distant objects at very low resolution.
Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras had low spacial resolution.
In 2001, most surveillance cameras recorded at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), in the range of one to eight frames per second. By comparison, American TV is most often 30 frames/second.
The high speed of the plane, accelerating to around 550 mph, resulted in image blurring, and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (one frame/sec).

a reply to: openedeyesandears

Not a shread of evidence of a plane crash in Pennsylvania. Weird

Blatantly falsehood by you


Here are some items that are fact.

Why do you choose to not give the complete details of the flight 93 crash? You completely rely on the suppression of facts to try to push your false narrative.

Ignore the fact the impact area of buried wreckage was actually 85 feet by 85 feet wide. Up to 40 feet deep.

Ignores the fact the soft ground was conducive to the force of impact pushing the wreckage deep into the ground, then being back filled by the unstable soil. The ground was able to absorb the impact instead of being carved out by the fractured fuselage.

Title: Memories of Flight 93 crash still fresh at 5-year anniversary

www.post-gazette.com...


Veteran FBI agent Michael Soohy had been to airplane crash scenes before, and he thought he knew what to expect: chaos, bodies, a hulking wreck of a jet.

"I don't think anyone expected to see what they didn't see," said the 50-year-old who grew up near Johnstown. "It's almost like a dart hitting a pile of flour. ... The plane went in, and the stuff back-filled right over it."

How did all the wreckage, DNA, and personal items end up at the flight 93 crash site? Right number of engines and correct nomenclature.

How did the flight recorders end up at the site buried 15 and 25 feet deep.

What created the fire damage and extensive debris field of passenger plane wreckage.

Recognizable piece of fuselage ended up 900 feet from crash site.

Human remains recovered from site and surrounding trees.

Where did flight 93 and the passengers end up in the no crash narrative.

Ignoring that the position of flight 93 was visually verified by other flights and tracked by radar to the crash site.

No ACARS logs of flight 93 transmitting an ACARS message after flight 93 crash.

Eyewitness accounts of a passenger jet on collision course to crash site. Accounts verified by physical evidence of crashed passenger jet.

Claims the crash site was caused by an object rogue from a live fire military exercise. You will not name a live fire exercise that included a cruise missile or missile. You will not state what live fire range the object originated from. The investigations that would result from a missile leaving and / or missing its target on a live fire range. No missile parts or missile engines found at the flight 93 crash site.

The persons questioning the crash of flight 93 have had their inquiries answered by frank and transparent responses. Information based on citing sources and physical evidence.

The persons questioning the crash of flight 93 have only provided:

Quotes out of context from persons that concluded flight 93 crashed at Shanksville.

Giving false dimensions concerning the crash site and will not acknowledge the extensive impact area revealed by the excavation of buried wreckage.

Will not provide answers to questions concerning the eyewitness who said the object that crashed was to small for flight 93.

Personal favorite. Individual stating they had to correct what "debunkers" believed were wing trenches are drainage ditches. This is truely a statement of ignorance. One, the official account was flight 93 hit nose and right wing first and the drainage ditches were never thought to be caused by the wings. Two, the individual would not reply if wreckage / buried wreckage was recovered from the ditches. Three, person never provided quotes and sources of "debunkers" who were confused about the nature of the ditches. Four, my internet search only revealed persons trying to prove flight 93 did not crash referring to the ditches as wing scars.


Quotes by Miller greatly taken out of context. It's expected that a high speed jetliner crash will fragment and leave human remains almost impossible to ID by sight, not whole bodies. Please give a Miller quote that the wreckage of flight 93 held not human remains or victims.


There is no proof in the ACARS log of flight 93 transmitting an ACARS message after the crash!!!!!!!

originally posted by: Infoshill

a reply to: pteridine

Nanothermite again? Paint on? This is one of the theories that can be embraced only by those truly ignorant of thermodynamics. Steven Jones is one of them which is surprising because he is supposed to be a physicist.
Ask your brother what the Cp of structural steel is and ask him to estimate the mass of the structure. Then calculate the quantity of heat produced from a thin later of painted on thermite. Knowing this, he can determine that the steel would only warm slightly if the reaction could even be sustained on a heat sink like a steel beam. .

Well the official story states that sustained office fires alone warmed the steel above slightly, triggering total the heat sink failure...

Then please quote the released NIST WTC 1, 2, and WTC 7 studies that make such a statement.

a reply to: openedeyesandears

Phone calls supposedly made from cell phone in a plane at 40,000 ft altitude. Proven impossible.

Another blatant falsehood by you. Please state what specific phone calls where made from 40,000 ft using cell phones.

a reply to: neutronflux

Please quote the NIST reports that make such a statement.

You know full well there is no such statement in the NIST Dossier, like any sacred scripture it is open to interpretation...

a reply to: Infoshill

You mean an office fire like this causing the building to collapse …??

Plasko Building Tehran

www.youtube.com...

or maybe this

Sao Paulo

www.youtube.com...

What was that about fire cant cause building to collapse

And they didn't each have a jet airliner hit the building t