PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Crito

 

To many, I think that will seem an irrational determination to believe something regardless of the evidence.

Like believing the OS regardless of all the evidence against it?

oh the hypocrisy....

Originally posted by lozenge
reply to post by Alfie1

 

FEMA AND NIST DON'T AGREE ON WTC7

^^
That's just a start. Lemme know if you want me to prove you wrong some more.

So, you slag off NIST as a "shady government agency" and when I ask you for professional bodies disputing NIST's findings you suggest a government agency ! Something is not gelling here.

Can you direct me please to any professional body or association in the western world, with relevant qualifications e.g. structural engineering, architecture etc, which is disputing NIST's findings about WTC 7 ?

reply to post by Alfie1


i'm sorry I thought that was what you were looking for!

i believe FEMA is qualified...

so since I proved you wrong you think something isn't "gelling"?

wtf...

anyway here ya go:
www.ae911truth.org...
georgewashington2.blogspot.com...
www.911summary.com...
www.911research.wtc7.net...
www.wanttoknow.info...

I can keep going... can you?

If they aren't qualified than I don't know who is!


[edit on 14-2-2010 by lozenge]

[edit on 14-2-2010 by lozenge]

reply to post by SPreston


Can you please give me more information about your statement that " some of the NIST scientists strongly disagree with the contrived NIST results. " ?

I assume we are talking about WTC 7 so it would be helpful if you could let me know which scientists exactly we are talking about. Thanks.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
reply to post by GenRadek

 

You need to learn some basic physics my friend.
Assuming that the speed of gravity in new york is the same as everywhere else on the planet, where on earth do you get 3.9 seconds from?

WTC collapsed in freefall mode in a little over 7 seconds, its on video

You repeatedly quote NIST yet they have been proven to have fabricated evidence to fit their theories.

Stop trying to belittle Richard Gage, he is an accomplished architecht, You are not, how do I know that? I just know.

PEACE,
RK

I wonder if anyone who criticizes the NIST and everything, ever bothers to read the reports first. Like actually going to the site and downloading the report and reading it line by line, and not going to infowars or rense, or any conspiracy site.
I was referring to how NIST analyzed the video that was suggesting "free-fall" and their conclusions. I apologize if I wasnt clear enough earlier.

www.nist.gov...

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 wtc.nist.gov...), 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 approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at wtc.nist.gov...).

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.

I have seen the NIST report and have also seen them describing the collapse against time during freeze frame video, Sorry pal but its an absolute joke, they start the clock well before the building starts to fall, but the extra time helps to prove their theory

Their evidence to support their computerized model was also fabricated to fit the desired result. One of the key investigators left during the investigation because he would not go along with the OS BS line they were told to come up with.

When you watch the video of the 2 NIST guys answering media questions that they find awkward. They are like jabbering idiots, just look at their NVC's.... I could go on and on but I fear your mind is set.

I do not go to Infowars or Rense (never have) please give me a little more credit

PEACE,
RK

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by lozenge
reply to post by Alfie1

 

FEMA AND NIST DON'T AGREE ON WTC7

^^
That's just a start. Lemme know if you want me to prove you wrong some more.

So, you slag off NIST as a "shady government agency" and when I ask you for professional bodies disputing NIST's findings you suggest a government agency ! Something is not gelling here.

Can you direct me please to any professional body or association in the western world, with relevant qualifications e.g. structural engineering, architecture etc, which is disputing NIST's findings about WTC 7 ?

I was at lunch and found a name on google of a group of people that dispute the OS - Richard Gage, leader of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

I havent had chance to look at there stuff yet but they seem to have the qualifications.

Not sure if that answers your question or not, something I am going to look at anyway as this seem worth a look.

reply to post by tempest501


Qualified to question the official story:

Daniel B. Barnum
Title: FAIA
License #: TX3741
Degree: BArch, Rice University
City: Houston
State: TX
Country: USA
Discipline: Architecture
Status: Degreed and Licensed

Paul Stevenson Oles
Title: FAIA
License #: MASSACHUSETTS 2754
Degree: MArch, Architecture, Yale
City: Santa Fe
State: NM
Country: USA
Discipline: Architecture
Status: Degreed and Licensed

Andrew Wolff
Title: Architect, AIA,LEED
License #: 30395 CA
Degree: M Arch, Yale University
City: Los Angeles
State: CA
Country: USA
Discipline: Architecture
Status: Degreed and Licensed

Andus H. Brandt
Title: Architect
License #: Cal. Architect's license C27998
Degree: B.A. Architecture
City: Berkeley
State: CA
Country: USA
Discipline: Architecture
Status: Degreed and Licensed

Name: Ahmad Khammash
Title: P.E.
License #: 62510
Degree: MSCE University of Texas - Arlington
City: Arlington
State: TX
Country: USA
Discipline: Engineering
Status: Degreed and Licensed

Need more - go to the website - there are over 1000 of them with Master or Bachelor Degrees in their field - what qualifications do you need? They all seem to be there!



The Petition signers page

www.ae911truth.org...

Yep, and here is an update from them:

Updates: Major Press Conference: Feb 19
1,000+ Architects & Engineers
demand a new 9/11 WTC investigation!
•Host an AE911Truth Press Conference in your city on Feb 19

•Luncheon price-hike delayed to Feb. 16 - last chance

•A/E conference (2-6pm) now open to all petition signers

•David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones attendance confirmed.

•Submit the AE911Truth Petition to your congressional reps

•LIVE webcast via webinar at AE911Truth.org - watch in real time!

As of January 2010, over 1,000 architects and engineers have signed our petition demanding a truly independent investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11. This petition, along with AE911Truth literature and DVDs, will be presented to every Member of Congress on the same day by the 14,000 active supporters of AE911Truth.

To underscore the importance of this milestone achievement, AE911Truth is launching a massive publicity campaign world-wide and holding a major Press Conference in San Francisco, California on February 19, 2010 followed by an informative Keynote Luncheon to include David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones. We will also host a strategy and team development conference featuring our Architect and Engineer petition signers - many of whom will be flying in to San Francisco to join us. All petition signers are now welcome and encouraged to attend this very important mini-conference.

This will be a day of events that you won't want to miss!
•DATE: February 19, 2010

•TIME: 11am – 6pm

•PLACE: Marines' Memorial Club & Hotel,
609 Sutter St.
San Francisco, CA


PROGRAM:


11:00 am - Press Conference
Richard Gage, AIA, accompanied by other distinguished speakers and prominent petition signers, will announce this milestone event with a brief dynamic presentation of the evidence which has convinced over 1,000 architects and engineers to support the demand for a real investigation. The presentation will be followed by Q&A. Press kits will be distributed.

•Open to the Public - Free


[edit on 14-2-2010 by arizonascott]

Actually the NIST model is null and void because since a high school physics teacher forced NIST to admit to 2.25 seconds of freefall, NIST admitted to an 8 story freefall drop, and nowhere in the NIST model is the missing (broken up, destroyed, exploded) 8 story section allowing freefall for 2.25 seconds represented.

NIST is such a sham and a disgrace to the American taxpayers.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3abd8190fbe1.jpg[/atsimg]

NIST Model
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/82ed4f992152.jpg[/atsimg]

NIST Model
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6b3a23848587.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by SPreston

 

Can you please give me more information about your statement that " some of the NIST scientists strongly disagree with the contrived NIST results. " ?

I assume we are talking about WTC 7 so it would be helpful if you could let me know which scientists exactly we are talking about. Thanks.

One of the former NIST scientists was Dr. James Quintiere. I forget the others offhand. But they are familiar with NIST procedure and ability and want a peer review on NIST's work on the WTC.

NIST is such a sham and a disgrace to the American taxpayers.

Everything about their work on the WTC is dishonest and unscientific.

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST's failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. "And that building was not hit by anything," noted Dr. Quintiere. "It's more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!"

World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST's failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7's collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."

www.ae911truth.org...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3abd8190fbe1.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by lozenge
reply to post by Alfie1

 

i'm sorry I thought that was what you were looking for!

i believe FEMA is qualified...

so since I proved you wrong you think something isn't "gelling"?

wtf...

anyway here ya go:
www.ae911truth.org...
georgewashington2.blogspot.com...
www.911summary.com...
www.911research.wtc7.net...
www.wanttoknow.info...

I can keep going... can you?

If they aren't qualified than I don't know who is!


[edit on 14-2-2010 by lozenge]

[edit on 14-2-2010 by lozenge]

I have looked at your sources but I didn't see a single professional association referenced.

I don't know how to make it plainer. I am not asking about individuals or conspiracy sites but professional associations with relevant expertise, like the American Society of Civil Engineers or the Institute of Structural Engineers in UK, who are disputing NIST's WTC 7 findings.

It would seem there isn't one in the western world. Surely, if NIST's findings are so blatantly perverse that anyone watching a youtube video can see through it then all these bodies should be protesting like mad. Isn't it an insult to their intelligence and expertise ?

reply to post by SPreston


OK, so " some scientists " has reduced to one former one. I will have a look at him.

Originally posted by capgrup
I really do not know one way or the
other what happened thatday. I do
know that I saw the second plane
hit, even though it was on tv. I hope
that doesn't disqualify my opinion.

What I do know is I am getting tired
of being called an idiot, moron, and
all the other names that het thrown
around here.

I wathed a National Geographic show
about the conspiracy theories because
I wanted info. Knowledge brings wisdom,
except when it came to this issue. The
program showed a steel beam coated
with jet fuel and set ablaze for a specific
amount of time while it was covered in
the fire retardant used in the Towers.
It took forever to heat up to the temp
that steel melts. Then they did the same
without the insulation. In a matter of minutes
the beam became hot enough to warp.
I only bring this up because one of
the conspiracy theories was jet fuel
could not get hot enough to do this.
Even with the proof right in front of
him, the conspiracy theorist claimed
it was unrealistic. That and that alone
persuaded me who was being more
grounded.

Earlier in this thread a poster belittled
another when it came to the way
buildings fall in their own footprint.
The remark was about whether or
not the OS believer knew anything
about buildings being on fire and
if they had ever been in one.

The posters condescending attitude
was uncalled for. To that poster I will
say this to your question. YES. While
I was never in a steel framed building
I have been in numerous wood framed
buildings while on fire.

Now we all wanted to save as much
as we could bit some did collapse.
Some collapsed in on themselves,
some outwards, and some a combination
of the two. We were "pulled" out
too many times to count and for
various reasons. I do not pretend
to have the answers you seek but
I doubt they would make a difference
to you anyways.

Also, heat expands, so yes enough
heated air moving at a fair speed
can and will do some damage, ie.
blow out windows.

Sorry if you have been insulted for any of your views, that is out of line and needs to stop.
National Geographic's major shareholder is Rupert Murdoch... nuff said.
If you wany knowledge I suggest you search the NET whilst we still have it.
Do not rely on junk TV.
Jet fuel from the ruptured plane tanks would never burn hot enough or long enough to weaken such steel columns (majority of the jet fuel burned off in the first minute after impact) .... what you saw on NG was propaganda for the masses, nothing more.

PEACE,
RK

PEACE,
RK

reply to post by Alfie1


Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth is a professional association (because it's an association of professionals.)

It is NOT a conspiracy website, it is an association of PROFESSIONALS who are looking for TRUTH.

You must be daft.

no major association will say as a whole that NIST is wrong (except FEMA, which you attacked me over for providing that proof, and are now ignoring it) because they will loose their credibility. That is why INDIVIDUAL professionals must come together to form association like Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth.


[edit on 14-2-2010 by lozenge]

Originally posted by lozenge
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth is a professional association (because it's an association of professionals.)

It is NOT a conspiracy website, it is an association of PROFESSIONALS who are looking for TRUTH.

You must be daft.

no major association will say as a whole that NIST is wrong (except FEMA, which you attacked me over for providing that proof, and are now ignoring it) because they will loose their credibility. That is why INDIVIDUAL professionals must come together to form association like Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth.


[edit on 14-2-2010 by lozenge]

If you think AE911T is not a conspiracy site I don't know what to say to you.

I don't agree with you that professional associations would not dispute NIST if they thought it warranted. In fact I would suggest they have a professional duty to do so.

As neither FEMA nor NIST has suggested a cd I don't see how this helps you.

Originally posted by SPreston

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by SPreston

 

Can you please give me more information about your statement that " some of the NIST scientists strongly disagree with the contrived NIST results. " ?

I assume we are talking about WTC 7 so it would be helpful if you could let me know which scientists exactly we are talking about. Thanks.

One of the former NIST scientists was Dr. James Quintiere. I forget the others offhand. But they are familiar with NIST procedure and ability and want a peer review on NIST's work on the WTC.

NIST is such a sham and a disgrace to the American taxpayers.

Everything about their work on the WTC is dishonest and unscientific.

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST's failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. "And that building was not hit by anything," noted Dr. Quintiere. "It's more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!"

World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST's failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7's collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."

www.ae911truth.org...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3abd8190fbe1.jpg[/atsimg]

Right, I have had a chance to look at Dr James Quintiere now. I thought the name was familiar, there was a thread about him on here recently. It didn't go anywhere and it is clear he is not a truther and doesn't believe in cd.

However, more importantly, I cannot see that he was involved in the investigation of WTC 7 or that he has made any comments on it.

Is it perhaps the case that no scientists involved in the investigation of WTC 7 has disputed the findings in any way. If there are, perhaps you would let me know.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Can you direct me please to any professional body or association in the western world, with relevant qualifications e.g. structural engineering, architecture etc, which is disputing NIST's findings about WTC 7 ?

Check out this for a start.

wtc.nist.gov...
Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.

reply to post by Alfie1


i'm not looking for help.

2nd line

reply to post by lozenge


Can you feel when someone is lying to you? I mean, when you suspect a personal situation and you confront someone on it - can you tell most of the time if they are lying to you or not?

Thousands of Americans got that feeling on 9/12/2001 - that something was just not right.

Like why was the military running full drills based on planes being hijacked at the same exact time that planes were being hijacked - more than coincidence!

And why did NORAD stand down - who ordered it and why - or was the intentional hijack drill to confusing during a real hijack situation?

The debris fields in Shanksville, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon didn't look right for a Boeing 757 crash just for starters.

The rush to get all the building wreckage out of the trade center area and risking the lives of hundreds of rescue workers by claiming the air was safe to breath.

The rush into Iraq - when everyone was screaming - "slow down" "wait"

How could some guy on the run in a cave, and on dialysis do this to the greatest nation on the planet?

These were the first of the questions:

And that was what started all the questions - the more we learned, just added more fuel to the fire, while the disinformation circuit started their campaign of labeling regular American people that were asking questions unpatriotic or truthers.

These first waves of regular everyday people asking questions did not have anything against their Government, but instead just wanted the truth and /or more answers. They were attacked in public and in forums, the Government ignored them and provided no open discussion.

Then 9/11 victim surviving family members started asking questions - and even they - who lost husbands, wives and children were refused open dialog from our Government, ridiculed and attacked. SICK!

Now, here we are 9 years later, asking the same questions - while we watch how the people in Washington have destroyed our Nation in that short time. No action has been taken to change Washington or the failing policies. How much damage - how many more questions before we stop debating these issues and realize - our Government does not represent the people any longer? At what point do we stop using our voice and our vote - and take real action against this hijacked defacto socialist globalist corporate owned Government.

It is obvious there is no left and right anymore - they both change nothing - and stack on more BS and control! They ignore the American people while in their smug little Congressional wood chairs that would ignite with the fires of hell if the fine representatives that sat in them in our past had anything to do with it!

The questions about 9/11 remain today simply because the light of truth has not been able shine. As long as there are lies - there will be questions.
If you cannot recognize that, I am sorry for you - as an American and as a person.

Cheers

Sorry, not directed at you lozenge - just "those" people in general and they know who they are.


[edit on 14-2-2010 by arizonascott]

reply to post by arizonascott


i'm not quite sure why your post was directed at me, but non the less it is on point and I agree and understand what you are saying.

it's been nine years and non of our serious questions have been answered...
I can only hope we don't give up hope...

so many questions, zero answers.

I guess to answer your question: I would consider myself a good judge of character and can for the most part tell when the average person is lying.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by lozenge]

reply to post by arizonascott


I think we have to do what we have been doin so far , its not time.

I think , with the way the worlds events are being played out at the moment,

there will be a catalyst in the not to distant future , that will make the average

Sheeple lift their heads , and say , "this is not right".

Until then , we go on , make as many people aware of the TRUTH, and not

let the OS side divert us.

You can only beat a dog for so long, till he bites.