A 9/11 Victim's Family Member Asks for Help

Originally posted by ImAPepper
You are chock full of Stundies today Roger. NIST was not included because they were NOT HIRED TO INVESTIGATE THE PLANE CRASHES!! Go read the outline of their goals and objectives. I refuse to give you anymore links, you do your own homework.

9/11 is a criminal investigation NIST is not a part of it. NIST reports are not offical reports for the criminal investigation.

Hey Roger, for the sake of argument, you are hired to find out what happened to a automobile during a car crash. You show up on the scene on Friday afternoon and find out the car was sent off to the junk yard a week prior.

So my report would show that i could not do a proper investigation becasue i did not have access to the car. Like the NIST report on WTC 7 should show that they could not do a proper investigation.

reply to post by ImAPepper

You don't have to go to a website at all.

I was asking Dave, not you.

I would recommend that you read the NIST report on the collapses.

I have, and I recommend that YOU read the NIST report of the WTC demolition.

What you don't understand, you find someone that does. Structural Engineers can be found at any University.

You mean these Structural Engineers do not have a website?

There are blogs and forums that cater to Engineering professionals. You can go there and ask questions. I doubt you will though.

You mean they have and “can prove” that NIST pseudo is in fact not phony science?

Tell you what, why don’t YOU give us a website of “Engineering professionals” that Proves NIST report is scientifically correct and shows where A&E have disputed NIST findings are all wrong?

I bet you can’t!

Let’s leave out websites that only “give opinions” please we want to see the sciences.

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration

2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph

6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking

7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front

10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame

11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises

12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples

13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

________________________________________

www.ae911truth.org...







[edit on 22-2-2010 by impressme]

With so many flaws and inaccuracies and million to one coincidences 0n 9/11, it comes as no surprise to me that amongst the grieving families there are those whose logic tells them that the official story is a load of old codswallop...

No tinfoil hats, no laser beams from space, just good patriotic American folk whose world has been turned upside down forever because of the lies they were told.....

Disgraceful....

An explanation of the 18 points raised by impressme above would be a good place to start.....


[edit on 22-2-2010 by benoni]

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed
A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

vincentdunn.com...

Dave you are so funny!
I fell out of my chair laughing so hard when I read your your source.
Dave your Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn left out the sciences and is only giving his “bias opinions.”
All I can say is WOW, you don’t "need any sciences" to show credible proof, you are simply happy with hearsay “opinionated” information to convince you the government does not lie or NIST does not lie and they are all perfect and everyone else in the world are WRONG except our government and NIST.
Man I want some of that Kool-Aid that you are drinking.

Hey Dave, what temperature does jet fuel burn again in order to melt steel?

His assessment is an eye-opener

Judging by how blinded you still are today, you must have been asleep when he open your eyes. Or, maybe he actually put you to sleep!

there could be more WTC collapses waiting to happen.

Why are you working for Bush and Chenney? Or is that what your crystal ball tells you.

If you conspiracy people are so dedicated to the truth then why isn't a re-analysis of possibly faulty building codes the number one priority on your list,

Dave,they are, furthermore, if you go to A&E website, where “real sciences” has been applied with “mathematics” by real professional, you will see that the Truth movement is looking into those questions.
www.ae911truth.org...

(manufactured evidence, secret links to Nazis, whatever)

Wow Dave, can you please show any where on ATS that “ANYONE,” any poster has posted ”manufactured evidence, secret links to Nazis, whatever” that did 911?
I didn’t think so!

your ridiculous conspiracy web sites are churning out?

Like the OS.

That "everyone who disagrees with you is a secret gov't agent" crutch you use to prop your conspiracy stories up with only goes so far, you know.

Yeah I know, especially when they are drinking the same Kool-Aid that the Trusters drink.





[edit on 22-2-2010 by impressme]

Dave is a conspiracy in himself......

what his modus operandi is I do not know....

...quite poor in execution though......"Nazis" Dave???

Thats a new one...you tend to prefer laser beams, ufo's and tinfoil hat besmirches....are they not cutting through or are you trying a different approach??

Jeez....

Sorry I got lost there for a minute. Help me fill in the blanks...

NIST provided a report of what happened without actually analyzing any physical evidence. So it's more a theory, right?

NIST produced some lovely drawings recently of the internal distortions of all the supporting members of WTC7 based on the film evidence that shows no such distortions, and without actually analyzing ALL the structural steel of the building. So it's more a theory, right?

If the building codes were substandard, was anybody prosecuted following the collapses for substandard design/build?

This guy's "biased opinion" is just a theory, right?

Sounds like a 'damn fool theory' to me.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

This guy's "biased opinion" is just a theory, right?

Sounds like a 'damn fool theory' to me.

I love it, and you are right.

Hey Dave, perhaps YOU should stay a way from those proven “damn fool conspiracy websites” yourself.

Dave, why don’t you tell us the names of the websites that you believe are giving out only truthful information about 911?

All you gave us was a “damn fool conspiracy websites” that spews nothing but some ignorant opinions base on no sciences.

Dave you clearly have demonstrated that you do not understand the different between proven sciences and uneducated opinions.

I guess that is the only website on the internet that you believe has told the truth about 911. Wow, I didn’t realized there was only one website.

Let’s take a look at what Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn had to say about the demise of the WTC, that YOU found so credibly truthful shell we.

The entire one hundred and ten-story building collapsed in 8 seconds... After a fire burned inside WTC tower number one for 102 minutes, the top 30 floors collapsed on the lower 80 floors. And the entire one hundred and ten stories of this building collapsed in 10 seconds.

vincentdunn.com...


The problem here is, your sources can not make up his mind if the WTC fell in “8 seconds” or “10 seconds,” looks to me he is just guessing, or speculating, assuming. Please, don be upset with me this is your source.

You can say the reason they collapsed was they were struck with a 185 ton jet airliner and the 24,000 gallons of jet fuel caused a fire of 1500 to 2000 degrees F which weakened the steel and cause the collapse.

vincentdunn.com...


Possibility, but unlikely, the reason I say this is because the building only burned just over an hour. Had the WTC burned all day long with a high degree fire then yes I would agree, however the firer didn’t burn long enough to melt the steel and sciences has prove this and YOU know this, in fact any fifth grader can use grammar school math can figure this out.

Or you can take a closer look at the buildings construction of the WTC buildings. And ask yourself why did these structures collapse so fast and so completely. The answer can be found by examining high-rise construction in New York City over the past 50 year

vincentdunn.com...


I total disagree with Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn and here is why: there were no buildings in New York City ever design in the likeness of the over “engineered WTC 1 & 2,” they were built to handle multiple impacts, by Boeing 707 fully loaded with jet fuel slamming into the WTC at top speeds of 600 knots.

Statements by Engineers
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.
John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4
The Richard Roth Telegram
On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5
[color=gold]THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.

BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.

[color=gold]5.THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
[color=gold]The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.









[edit on 23-2-2010 by impressme]

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7 Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

911research.wtc7.net...

Effects of jet crash and fire on a skeleton steel high rise

A plane that only weighted 10 tons struck the Empire State Building and the high-octane gasoline fire quickly flamed out after 35 minutes. When the firefighters walked up to the 79 floor most of the fire had dissipated. The Empire State Building [color=gold]in my opinion, and most fire chiefs in New York City, is the most fire safe building in America. [color=gold]I believe it would have not collapsed like the WTC towers. [color=gold]I believe the Empire State Building, and for that matter any other skeleton steel building in New York City, would have withstood the impact and fire of the terrorist’s jet plane better than the WTC towers. If the jet liners struck any other skeleton steel high rise, the people on the upper floors and where the jet crashed may not have survived; there might have been local floor and exterior wall collapse. However, [color=gold]I believe a skeleton steel frame high rise would not suffer a cascading total pancake collapse of the lower floors in 8 and 10 seconds. Hopefully some engineer using computer calculations, can reconstruct the effects of a 767 jetliner crashing into another New York City high building. In any other high rise in New York City, I say, the floors below the crash and fire, would not collapse in such a total a cascading pancake cave-in. Most of the occupants and rescuers killed in the WTC tower collapse were on the lower floors.

vincentdunn.com...

Dave, look here, we are really trying to be patient with you, but your source really does not like sciences very much, does he. I will [color=gold]highlight in bold in the above two paragraphs where Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn only gives his opinions and nothing else.

Chief Vincent Dunn, says repeatedlyChief Vincent Dunn, says repeatedly [color=gold]“I BELIVE,” “I THINK,” “ IN MY OPINION” he states this all though his article repeatedly.

Since you love to give your opinions, here’s mine: you just gave us information from “some damn fools conspiracies websites” that Trusters cling to because in my opinion real sciences is to painful and complicated and undeniable true, and “opinions,” “assumptions, assertion,” and just unscientific guesswork, works for the Trusters. G-d forbids if you really brought any sciences to back up all the Trusters guesswork.

Perhaps, next time you should not use those “damn fools conspiracies websites” when you yourselves just demonstrated to use one yourself, I call that the pot calling kettle don’t you agree?










[edit on 23-2-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme


I was asking Dave, not you.

This is an open forum. You don't like my answers? Ignore me.

I have, and I recommend that YOU read the NIST report of the WTC demolition.

Further proof that you haven't.

You mean these Structural Engineers do not have a website?

Not sure what you're saying here?

You mean they have and “can prove” that NIST pseudo is in fact not phony science?

Did I say that? I asked that you read the NIST report. You are obviously not a SE so my recomendation to you was if you had questions, there are forums that have Engineers that may answer the questions you have.

Tell you what, why don’t YOU give us a website of “Engineering professionals” that Proves NIST report is scientifically correct and shows where A&E have disputed NIST findings are all wrong?

First of all, you will have to show the paper that Gage produced that proves the NIST finding are... "all wrong."

I bet you can't!

The JREF forum has ongoing discussions regarding the collapses. You can start there. There are several verified SE's that are very helpful. A couple of them are members here, I believe. Again, I never asked you to go to a website to get "proof" but to ask questions you may have regarding the NIST report. There have, however been MANY documents written in support of it. MANY peer reviewed. How many have the truth movement put out?

1. Destruction.....

One of his former members, Greg Urich wrote an open letter to Mr. Gage. I think it's been a year now and Richard has ignored it. Why? I personally gave Gage a copy of it last fall asking for a response. Richard even acknowledges this on his website. He says a response is forthcoming.

Read the letter here:
www.cool-places.0catch.com...

[edit on 23-2-2010 by ImAPepper]

hmmm...

Who should one trust?

1052 architectural and engineering professionals.

Or several forum jockeys on jref forums?

Originally posted by TaZCoN
hmmm...

Who should one trust?

1052 architectural and engineering professionals.

Or several forum jockeys on jref forums?

Personally, I would prefer the American Society of Civil Engineers. They don't buy the cd at the WTC nonsense and their membership is in excess of 110,000.

Originally posted by TaZCoN
hmmm...

Who should one trust?

1052 architectural and engineering professionals.

Or several forum jockeys on jref forums?

How many structural Engineers are on this list that reside in California?

How many of them showed up at the press conference.


Answers:

- 4

- ZERO

The important thing is not the numbers, or the forum... It's the facts.

Once again... where are the peer reviewed technical papers from Gage and Co.?

reply to post by impressme


OK.

I took your challenge. And watched the entire 10:25

I took notes.

The man is sincere (and I think I can be big enough to not be distracted by his appearance, because that is petty and infantile, to criticsize someone for poersonal grooming habits).

Except, I just mentioned it, but it COULD be the elepahant in the room that no one wishes to discuss, so I thought it should be mentioned...his personal style, and manner of haircut, etc, are off the table, OK?

Moving on....

Very thoughtful man, obviously passionate, but terribly misguided in his "opinions" on many things.

AND, he's a bit disjointed, in his talk...starting off early with tales of oil rigs, and cranes coming apart and crushing people...that has NOTHING at all to relate to the WTC Towers. The forces at work there are completely different.

He seems to idoloze that Frenchman who wrote a book about the Pentagon, in 2002, and HIS work has been completely discredited...yet this man still mentions him, and seems to believe that his work was valid.

Then, for the latter portion of the video, he is doing little else but 'coaching' the "TM" crowd....with his talk of "dust vs. powder", and "Free-Fall Speed vs Free-Fall Acceleration"....

I am sorry, but he is perpetuating the fantasy, by appealing to the "TM" to 'get their story straight' so that more of the fantasy will sound 'plausible' to the outside world.

He prattled on about WTC 7, but has, apparently NO IDEA of its actual construction design plan....and even HE repeated that same old line, used often by the "TM", about it 'not being hit by an airplane' (IT WAS HIT by large masses of falling debris, as WTC Towers collapsed).

---A look into the construction design of WTC 7 will explain what I mean, there---and why when major structural members were taken out, by falling debris, the building was destined to fail, eventually. AND,, of course, when the central portion of the structural integrity was compromised, AND when the central portion began to fall and collapse first (due to gravity, of course) it WOULD tned to bring in the outer walls, in that direction!!

This is so obvious, a caveman could understand it!!

Then, he mitigates it by a toss-off phrase about the "small fires" in WTC 7!!! The man doesn't seem to have done his research. The fires, burning for all morning and afternoon, were intense. The NYFD determined the building was unstable, NO ONE WAS IN IT FOR HOURS!!!! because of the danger...

Really, this is just another (likely well-meaning) person who doesn't understand the immensity of damage in various building designs, when critical portions are taken out, and then the force of gravity, with the masses involved.

Fiinally.....even HE admits that he is only a very, very distant "cousin" of two 9/11 'victims'....

impressme, your very title (albeit taken from the YouTube posting) is misleading.

I have to wonder at the seriousness of GoodOlDave who posted and ImAPepper who praised Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn's one page back-of-a-fag-packet "Why World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed" - which contradicts NIST's colossal work of obfuscation.

The most obvious problem with this thesis which blames supposed weaknesses in WTC 1 & 2's load-bearing exterior walls is the equally dramatic global collapse the same day of a building which which did not have load-bearing exterior walls (and was not hit by a plane). Like the 9/11 Commission, Dunn simply fails to discuss WTC 7.

And before weedwhacker winges about me repeating the truthers old line about WTC 7 not being hit by an airplane - I will remind him that this is simply a statement of fact. His fantasy about it being fatally damaged by falling debris from the other towers has already been discounted by NIST. He's aware of this but prefers to soldier on with his own pet theories.

As you say, it would be petty and infantile to try discrediting someone because they don't style their hair like authority figures you identify with - but you tried it anyway.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by TaZCoN
hmmm...

Who should one trust?

1052 architectural and engineering professionals.

Or several forum jockeys on jref forums?

Personally, I would prefer the American Society of Civil Engineers. They don't buy the cd at the WTC nonsense and their membership is in excess of 110,000.

As ImaPepper just said - it's the facts that matter, not the numbers - but if we're going to play the numbers game, at least play fair.

1052 architectural and engineering professionals put the reputations on the line by signing a petition saying that they found the official explanation of the collapses unpersuasive.

Please provide the list of American Society of Civil Engineers members who have made the much less career-imperilling claim that they found the official explanation of the collapses persuasive.



[edit on 23-2-2010 by EvilAxis]

Originally posted by impressme

Dave you are so funny!

I fell out of my chair laughing so hard when I read your your source.

Dave your Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn left out the sciences and is only giving his “bias opinions.”

All right, enough is enough. I am tired of these unrepentent double standards you conspiracy fetishists employ to push out these absurd conspiracy stories of yours while at the same time running away from everything that disagrees with what you yourself to believe. You didn't ASK for "websites that discuss sciences". You ASKED for a web site that's giving out truthful information, and I gave you an assessment based upon a fire chief's experience in fires and building construction. It is now YOUR responsibility to explain why the assessment of Fire Chief Dunn is incorrect and it's blatantly obvious you can't, so now you're playing your "let's make up a reason why I don't have to believe it" games by saying he's basing it entirely upon a biased opinion. What do you think YOUR sources are doing? Jones has never even worked with so much as a firecracker, let alone Thermite, and if Gage seriously thinks dropping a cardboard box onto a table is remotely comparable to the WTC collapse then he's a blithering idiot.

I've attempted to conform to your standards of credibility. In the past I've even withdrawn a photo of wreckage found at the Pentagon NOT becuase the photograph contained any errors, but simply becuase you demanded to know "who the photographer was". I notice this lack of chain of custody of course doesn't stop YOU from supporting your absurd conspiracy stories, with "hey, let's all assume the gov't used super secret explosives that no evidence exists for" rhetoric. Your double standards have made you become so blatantly two faced, you accept eyewitnesses that "heard explosions" as having unimpeachable credibility and yet eyewitnesses that "saw the plane hit the Pentagon" are all liars and/or secret disinformation agents. Where's your chain of custody support for that??

I'm tired of placating your standards of acceptability becuase it's obvious you don't have any, so it's high time that you accept mine. YOU asked for a web site that contained truthful information and I gave you one. It is now YOUR responsibility to explain why the assessment of Fire Chief Dunn is incorrect. Your making up arbitrary rules that never apply to yourself only makes your own credibility suffer, not mine.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It is now YOUR responsibility to explain why the assessment of Fire Chief Dunn is incorrect.

I refer you to my first post above.

Originally posted by benoni
Dave is a conspiracy in himself......

what his modus operandi is I do not know....

...quite poor in execution though......"Nazis" Dave???

Thats a new one...you tend to prefer laser beams, ufo's and tinfoil hat besmirches....are they not cutting through or are you trying a different approach??

Jeez....

If you are even remotely attempting to claim you conspiracy fetishists aren't trying to link Bush to Hitler then you are unrepentently lying through your teeth. I have seen that ploy being played here more than once. They invariably employ some corrupted version or another of the five degrees of separation, "Kevin Bacon" game through Prescott Bush, a cloud of business executives, to Thyssen, to Hitler. It was you conspiracy fetishists who first told me about the Bush to Hitler link to begin with.

Bush family supported Hitler blah blah blah...

Five degrees of separation are not required. Bush's grandfather's business dealings with the Nazis, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, are a matter of public record.

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power The Guardian, Saturday 25 September 2004

[edit on 23-2-2010 by EvilAxis]

reply to post by ImAPepper

Hey Roger, for the sake of argument, you are hired to find out what happened to a automobile during a car crash. You show up on the scene on Friday afternoon and find out the car was sent off to the junk yard a week prior. Would NIST have liked some steel from the WTC7 collapse? I would assume so. Just like you would have liked the car not to have been destroyed at the junk yard. You make do with what you have.

I would like to make an observation if that is alright?

There are Hundreds upon Hundreds of Towns and Cities all over the USA that have a piece of WTC steel as memorials, there is plenty of steel that can be examined, it's everywhere, in fact anyone probably would be able to examine it, if the right permissions where gathered I mean, not trying to say break any laws by scraping bits off or anything.