*NEW* Architect Ron Avery Discusses Evidence of 9/11 Being an Inside Job

Ron Avery had already been involved with a patriot movement, and the minute 9/11 happened he sensed that there was something fishy...

Part 1:


Part 2: (can't get yet)

Part 3:




Waiting for further uploads, will update...



[edit on Wed Mar 17th 2010 by TrueAmerican]

reply to post by TrueAmerican

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5062eeec027.jpg[/atsimg]

Ron Avery Part 2

Architect Ron Avery explains the 30 story block toppling off of the South Tower.

EDIT: Removed duplicated videos

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f15f20840bf.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b817965410cc.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 3/18/10 by SPreston]

I'm going to do these starting at part 2 in order, since they have now all been uploaded to youtube:

Part 2:



Part 3:


Part 4:


Part 5:


Part 6:


Part 7:

Originally posted by SPreston
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f15f20840bf.jpg[/atsimg]

Greeting SPreston,

As most people know. The WTC towers were very large buildings, built to withstand quite a bit. This we can all agree on.

I would like to point out in your above picture (if you didn't notice this in the past) that the large steel trusses on all 4 corners are not part of the building structure, but crane supports. This is removed as floors are completed. Unfortunately, some feel compelled to post this picture in a dishonest way.

Staying on topic, I didn't recall if Mr. Avery had access to the peer review paper of Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou entitled: "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?" that was published in the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).

And the addendum:

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

ojps.aip.org...

I have read many criticisms regarding the above mentioned papers. What has not really happened, however are the criticisms passing the appropriate processes. I do believe there is an Engineer that works on ships that has a paper in discussion with a journal as we speak. I do not have the status as how far along that process is.

so, they didn't have concrete cores....that's first and foremost on the list

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
so, they didn't have concrete cores....that's first and foremost on the list

No they did not. The cores were immensely strong heavy steel construction growing progressively stronger as they neared the bottom.

Here are a few examples of the core columns and a link to the NIST Core Column Data

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6358dd10bf4d.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/baecb1a2ea89.jpg[/atsimg]

Yet something sheared the immensely strong North Tower core, because the rooftop antenna standing on the core structure dropped first before the North Tower roofline dropped.

Original image

Brightened and enlarged image with notations added for reference

The antenna starts to drop on frame 9. The roofline starts to drop on frame 11. Do your own measuring and you will see that the core was severed first. Try to be honest and scientific about it.

The camera is stationary according to the guywire in the lower left corner. On my monitor, the distance between A (top of frame) and C is a hair over 7/8" on every frame but 11 and 12.

The distance between B and C is 25/32" on every frame except 9, 10, 11, and 12. The antenna is most definitely moving down first.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/72074a0a03d0.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 3/19/10 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston
The antenna starts to drop on frame 9. The roofline starts to drop on frame 11. Do your own measuring and you will see that the core was severed first. Try to be honest and scientific about it.

Yeah, another REAL unanswered question about 911, not the superficial stuff.

How in the world does it make sense that the core drops before the top floors, collapsing as a unit?

NO I say. That isn't right at all. If it was a pancake collapse as described by the guilty, the damn thing should have had the opposite reaction, with the core collapsing last. And that huge antenna was in the middle of the roof, so it is a good indicator of what went first: The core. I am so sick of discussing the superficial, and it's time the hard questions like this got answered.

Truster alert in 3...2...1....