Yahoo News reports story: "1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition

i fear that gage and his posse are out on a ledge, here. and they are taking a big part of the "truth movement" inadvertently into the boat with them. unwilling shills? maybe.
they had BETTER have PROOF. proof is not an easy thing. if they claim PROOF, but only have strong evidence, and their "PROOF" is shot down, then it will be that much harder to ever move against the deception for DECADES!

they have been contacted by other truthseekers who have found inconsistencies in their logic, but ignore any criticism from EITHER side. there is something "new" in the argument. it is called "runaway open office space descruction". the idea is that, once the beams from above are off axis with the beams below, the only resistance comes from the floor to wall connections. the resistance a floor to column impact can offer is way above what a column on column impact can provide.
the air resistance vs. vacuum as a definition of "freefall" is also deceiving. why? because air resistance is a factor of surface area vs. mass. for masses in the hundreds and thousands of tons, air resistance is neglible for such a "short" fall. drop a tower from outer space and it becomes significant to the time of fall, but when it all happens in seconds, it is safe, i think, to assume that air resistance is near zero.
transfer of momentum and the conservation of energy on the other hand, is something worthy of studying to determine whether the towers fell too fast for it to be "natural".

i really hope this media feast turns out well for the "real truth", whatever that may be.

Originally posted by billybob
i fear that gage and his posse are out on a ledge, here. and they are taking a big part of the "truth movement" inadvertently into the boat with them. unwilling shills? maybe.
they had BETTER have PROOF. proof is not an easy thing. if they claim PROOF, but only have strong evidence, and their "PROOF" is shot down, then it will be that much harder to ever move against the deception for DECADES!

On one hand I agree with you, it would be better if they were tighter to the simple premise that the government reports so far are woefully unsatisfactory, and leave it at that.

On the other hand though I think that's also peddling to political correctness in a way and being very conservative when we really shouldn't feel obliged to approach it this way. We SHOULD be very aggressive about this and keep pushing harder and harder and letting the chips fall where they will until we finally arrive at the full truth. Use their own damned tactics against them if need be.

Let's face it, the majority of the American today people are not the sharpest and most attentive to detail anyway. If you say "the government reports are not satisfactory" then they aren't going to get the picture. If you say "the Twin Towers and WTC7 were controlled demolitions" then they are immediately introduced with the heart of the debate and have to deal with it in all its ugliness.

As long as debate is stirred, the truly strong minds will not complain about having to pick apart fact from fiction themselves. It's what has to be done, and blindly believing some authority just because they say so is never acceptable.

I don't believe it's the responsibility of these organizations to find the truth anyway. It's up to the individual. They should just be feeding the fire, which they are doing very well I think.

Originally posted by beebs
So wait... are you admitting that The Commission and MIT are not using accurate data?

Admitting? I am stating. The 911 Commission did not do any specific analysis, so using an approximation is perfectly valid. Nobody should expect complete accuracy everywhere.

How about we consider building 7:
And when do we start counting, when the central columns are blown out and the penthouse caves in?
Or do we start when the top corner moves from its static position?

That depends on what you're trying to determine surely. We already know that WTC7 accelerated to freefall and remained at or around there for 2.25s. What do you wish to know?

That isn't very accurate.

I didn't give any error margins, so how do you know how accurate it is?

Originally posted by Crimelab
First, the seismic readings give the best length readings on the "collapses", and they are recorded as 10 and 8 seconds. Free-fall speeds.

Of course they're free fall speeds, that's measuring debris that was dislodged at the site of collapse and free fell to the ground. Is that supposed to be surprising?

Second, why didn't 1,000,000 tons of debris cause more seismic "noise" (i am not a scientist, not idea what the technical term is) when it hit the ground? What are the spikes recorded at the beginning of the "collapses"?

Would you expect it to?

Sounds like something that needs explaining. Did your ultra-accurate timings even look at the seismic data, or you based it solely on youtube data?

These timings were based on 'image smears' tracking specific points on the towers during their descent. They were not composed by me, in fact by a potential truther (I can't remember) called 'einsteen' on PhysOrg. This is all from memory though and over a year ago, so I may have some details wrong.

I disagree with some of the conclusions on that page, and I think it is a selective reading of the evidence on both sides, which is another reason to add to the long list for a thorough re-examination of all the evidence.

People have been stating this is required for 5+ years now, when will someone actually start reexamining things? I'm tired of "Just Asking Questions".

Originally posted by exponent
Nobody should expect complete accuracy everywhere.

That's ironic considering how high your standards were for the guy who tested the "drywall caused the melting" theory. You were saying it was all invalid because he didn't write a formal hypothesis out (not even necessary considering all the pre-existing theories from "debunkers" which is what he was testing in the first place, and it was assumed this was understood) and because he didn't check the temperature of the fire even though it was by any account a perfectly healthy fire that burned for days. Well take your own advice. "Nobody should expect complete accuracy everywhere." What he did was all captured on video and speaks for itself.

We already know that WTC7 accelerated to freefall and remained at or around there for 2.25s. What do you wish to know?

I can't answer for him but I can tell you what I want to know. Do you have any idea what is required to achieve a free-fall acceleration? It basically means there was absolutely NOTHING under the collapsing section to slow it down -- NO support -- at ALL, from the structure that was supposedly still in the process of "collapsing."

People have been stating this is required for 5+ years now, when will someone actually start reexamining things? I'm tired of "Just Asking Questions".

I don't know, are you saying you'll volunteer to take the burden of the investigation upon yourself?

reply to post by nh_ee


" reply to post by hooper

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I just happened to note that once again you are in yet another 9/11 thread. What a coincidence ?

Out of curiosity I did a quick inquiry into your account statistics here at ATS:

2214 Posts and ALL pertaining to 9/11. "


And your point is ? This proves what ?

Maybe the guy isn't interested in UFO's , bigfoot , fairies , mosques , gay rights ...

What a worthless post , if there ever was one .

Cheap-shot much ?

Originally posted by Titan Uranus
I'm glad you are wise to the Climate Change con. It shouldn't be too hard to realise, then, that the official story of 9/11 is also a con.

Peace

Why because you say so?..

Sorry but unless REAL EVIDENCE shows otherwise I still think the WTC collapsed because of the planes crashing, and the fires that ensued.

Some of us have shown VERY CLEARLY that the mayority of the believers are not even aware of facts and instead believe rumors which are exagerations and even lies...

reply to post by LaBTop


I am sorry but you are wrong... i have watched those videos you gave in the past and still there is no evidence to what you claim.

Here is a REAL video comparison of the WTC collapse and REAL CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS...

www.youtube.com...

BTW, you want to tie the WTC collapse to what Yuri, and other Russian defectors have been warning about?... What Yuri and other Russian defectors have been warning about is the transformation that the KGB, and several global socialist/communist groups agreed on and have been implementing and infiltrating the Soviet propaganda into the U.S.A. and Europe...

Part of the Soviet propaganda IS TO TURN AMERICANS AGAINST THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT AND FOR AMERICANS TO EMBRACE SOCIALISM AND DEMAND A SOCIALIST LEADER...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Sorry but unless REAL EVIDENCE shows otherwise I still think the WTC collapsed because of the planes crashing, and the fires that ensued.

Unless you are a hypocrite, I assume you will be able to show me the REAL EVIDENCE that proves conclusively it was the planes and fires alone that totally destroyed those towers.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I assume you will be able to show me the REAL EVIDENCE that proves conclusively it was the planes and fires alone that totally destroyed those towers.

What else could it have been? There is zero evidence explosives were used, zero evidence thermite wass used, unless you think it was beam weapons or holographic planes, or mini nuclear weapons....

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
I assume you will be able to show me the REAL EVIDENCE that proves conclusively it was the planes and fires alone that totally destroyed those towers.

What else could it have been?

Sorry but a rhetorical question is not evidence and you know it.

I could ask you rhetorical questions all day but the fact remains that they are not evidence.


You either have evidence, or you don't. You're either a hypocrite, or you have evidence.

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's ironic considering how high your standards were for the guy who tested the "drywall caused the melting" theory. You were saying it was all invalid because he didn't write a formal hypothesis out (not even necessary considering all the pre-existing theories from "debunkers" which is what he was testing in the first place, and it was assumed this was understood) and because he didn't check the temperature of the fire even though it was by any account a perfectly healthy fire that burned for days. Well take your own advice. "Nobody should expect complete accuracy everywhere."

What he did was all captured on video and speaks for itself.

This is pretty much off topic, you can criticise my standards all you like, but if I see you complaining about NISTs experiments I will hold you to the same standards, as long as it looks roughly right then it's definitely fine.

I can't answer for him but I can tell you what I want to know. Do you have any idea what is required to achieve a free-fall acceleration? It basically means there was absolutely NOTHING under the collapsing section to slow it down -- NO support -- at ALL, from the structure that was supposedly still in the process of "collapsing."

That's not entirely true. We don't have accurate enough measurements to say that there was no resistance, just that it was very close. I have already explained the mechanism behind this here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't know, are you saying you'll volunteer to take the burden of the investigation upon yourself?

Hell I would be happy if we could just come up with some experimental criteria. I don't think any burden should fall upon me, just because I doubt the alternate hypotheses presented, but I will do what I can to help out.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You either have evidence, or you don't. You're either a hypocrite, or you have evidence.

This open ended question is impossible to satisfy. I could link you all of the NIST reports, years worth of debates between scientists, a bunch of scientific papers published by various people from various countries.

I doubt you would be satisfied with such a nonspecific answer, but your question is not specific at all. You need to ask better questions, if you expect proper answers.

Originally posted by exponent
This is pretty much off topic, you can criticise my standards all you like

Double-standards. And insomuch as you're demonstrating yourself to be a hypocrite I don't think it's off topic at all. If I posted one thing in one thread, and then contradicted myself in another thread, you would have every right to call me on it.

but if I see you complaining about NISTs experiments

Which ones?

The one where they shot the spray-on fireproofing on trusses with a shotgun? Or their computer simulations where they admitted repeatedly elevating parameters to achieve their desired result? You pick which one you want to talk about. You don't have to wait for me to bring it up later, we can talk about it right now. Just pick which one you want to defend, please.

That's not entirely true. We don't have accurate enough measurements to say that there was no resistance

Was the free-fall acceleration confirmed for the given period of time or not?

Does free-fall acceleration imply the kinetic energy of the object is being conserved or not? I really hope I'm not taking your understanding of gravitational kinetic energy for granted.

Hell I would be happy if we could just come up with some experimental criteria. I don't think any burden should fall upon me, just because I doubt the alternate hypotheses presented, but I will do what I can to help out.

Well if you accept any theory then you would be obligated to back it with something, even if it was evidence provided by someone else.

If you want to test something, come up with a better "drywall caused the melting" theory and test it again to your own satisfaction.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
You either have evidence, or you don't. You're either a hypocrite, or you have evidence.

This open ended question is impossible to satisfy. I could link you all of the NIST reports, years worth of debates between scientists, a bunch of scientific papers published by various people from various countries.

Yes, but I could also make short work of all of it.

1) NIST itself never claimed in their reports that they have actually proved why any of the buildings fell, only offered the hypotheses they claimed were "most probable" in their opinion.

2) NIST never released the technical data they based these hypotheses on to the general public, nor the physical evidence. You mention these debates have been going on for years. This is the main reason.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Double-standards. And insomuch as you're demonstrating yourself to be a hypocrite I don't think it's off topic at all. If I posted one thing in one thread, and then contradicted myself in another thread, you would have every right to call me on it.

I don't believe I'm showing any double standards, and I doubt you can find support for that claim.

Which ones?

skipped spurious list of tests
Every test you listed had instrumentation and was superficially valid. Therefore, using your rules, they provide absolute proof. The fireproofing would have been completely dislodged, and the floors undoubtedly sagged under any fire load.

Isn't this the logic you suggest that we use? That if it looks roughly ok then it is definitely acceptable and provides proof?

Was the free-fall acceleration confirmed for the given period of time or not?

It was estimated using a regression.

Does free-fall acceleration imply the kinetic energy of the object is being conserved or not? I really hope I'm not taking your understanding of gravitational kinetic energy for granted.

There's no such thing as 'gravitational kinetic energy'. We've been through this before when you had problems with understanding the term 'free fall'. It means that very little kinetic energy is lost to heating and friction, and that the majority of gravitational potential energy is being converted into potential energy.

Well if you accept any theory then you would be obligated to back it with something, even if it was evidence provided by someone else.

Sure, and both FEMA and NISTs analysis show nothing suspicious about either occurence.

If you want to test something, come up with a better "drywall caused the melting" theory and test it again to your own satisfaction.

I don't quite have a JCB and a bunch of land to spare (it is at a premium here in the UK) but I might experiment with heating some steel in the presence of sulphur. I own thermocouples for example, so I can easily do a better job on that part of the test

1) NIST itself never claimed in their reports that they have actually proved why any of the buildings fell, only offered the hypotheses they claimed were "most probable" in their opinion.

Because proof is for mathematicians.

2) NIST never released the technical data they based these hypotheses on to the general public, nor the physical evidence. You mention these debates have been going on for years. This is the main reason.

Oh that's quite naive but in a very nice manner. While I agree that they should release the information, it's certainly not going to stop any debate. The release of more information from NIST has always been followed by attempts at picking every hole in the data, without analysing it to see if it is remotely convincing.

Originally posted by beebs
Okay... remember that your plane 'trickle down' theory is incompatible with the WTC 7 collapse.

Again why because you claim so it must be so?...

Originally posted by beebs
The diesel and potential explosives inside WTC 7 that you have highlighted are not a sufficient explanation for why the tower collapsed as seen in the footage.

Sorry but that is BS.. All you are doing is claiming "no matter what the towers shouldn't have collapsed that way"... You don't give any real reason, and you don't provide any evidence to support your view point... instead you keep claiming "none of it is sufficient explanation"... You are in denial, and that is all...

Originally posted by beebs
Also, the damage seen in the photos is not that bad.

Are you out of your freaken mind?... First of all that angle doesn't show the entire damage, but I GAVE THE REPORT FROM A FIREMAN THAT SAID THERE WAS A HOLE 20 STORIES HIGH.... AND YOU WANT TO CLAIM "THAT IS NOT THAT BAD"?... ....

Originally posted by beebs
It is debatable whether that damage was worse than towers 1 and 2.

... Debris from the towers hit WTC7 AND OPENED A HOLE 20 FLOORS HIGH... The fireman even reported fires everywhere, and it was found that the storage tank of fuel, used for emergencies, at the base of WTC7 were empty and that the fuel leaked... this intensified the fires on the basement which would have weakened the column and precipitated the collapse...

Even in videos by the 'demolition control" believers we can see that WTC7 was collapsing slowly... and if there had been explosives used we would ahve clearly heard them like in the video I showed...

Originally posted by beebs
Even if it was worse, the building should not have come straight down.

Again...you are claiming this with no evidence at all to support your claim so apparently you seem to think that as long as you keep repeating it, it must be true... I will give you a hint... No matter how many times you repeat it, a lie does not become truth...

Originally posted by beebs
The pictures in your link showed that all or most of the damage was on one side of the building.

The fires were everywhere... the leak of the fuel would not have stayed just in one side of the building, but it would have expanded to cause the fire all over the basement of the building... There were at least 8 thousands gallons of fuel that leaked and fed the fires. In a controlled demolition a building doesn't collapse slowly, and WTC7 collapsed slowly as the fires weakened sections of the building.

Originally posted by beebs
Can you not understand that buildings just don't collapse straight into their own footprint like that?!

Yes skyscrappers do when a part of the top section falls on top of the lower sections...it is the way gravity works in case you didn't know.

NONE of the buildings collapsing look ANYTHING similar to controlled demolitions. I actually gave a video that shows several controlled demolitions of different buildings, including large ones.

Originally posted by beebs
If anything, since one side was compromised, the building should have toppled over sideways(towards the damaged side) --- with all of the uncompromised structure sticking together in one piece!

Wrong, because even though the top toppled at first it then fell straight down as the collumns could not support the weight on the untilted side, and as it fell down it caused the rest of the floors to fall down and in fact the debris mushroomed out, which does not occur in controlled demolitions.

But of course you will not be convinced even when the evidence has been debunked time and again.

I think there are real conspiracies occurring, but this theory is based on false rumors, exagerations, and even lies.

Even the claims from these so called architects, if they really are, have been proven to be false.

The original poster some months back posted the claim that "thermite" was found, and supposedly some scientists had discovered it.. It took me about 20 minutes or so to find out it was all BS. But now these arcitecs are also claiming there was thermite, and molten steel?...

www.911myths.com...

And this is the unbiased research done by people in the controlled demolition business, and they found no proof whatsoever in any of the videos of a controlled demolition.

www.implosionworld.com...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Hi there.

I just wanted to make sure you saw this post:

Originally posted by bsbray11
Unless you are a hypocrite, I assume you will be able to show me the REAL EVIDENCE that proves conclusively it was the planes and fires alone that totally destroyed those towers.

If you can ignore it, can we ignore your requests for evidence from us too?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Unless you are a hypocrite, I assume you will be able to show me the REAL EVIDENCE that proves conclusively it was the planes and fires alone that totally destroyed those towers.

I am not the hypocrite, the hypocrite is the person, you, who has posted many times the same claims which have been debunked every time...

The last one was that so called research by scientists, which were not really scientists, claiming that they found thermite..

The hypocrite is the person that does not admit when he is wrong...

Several of us have posted several times the facts, but you people are in denial because you don't want to believe anything else...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Unless you are a hypocrite, I assume you will be able to show me the REAL EVIDENCE that proves conclusively it was the planes and fires alone that totally destroyed those towers.

How about you show REAL EVIDENCE it was thermite, or explosives, or whatever silly conspiracy theory you claim it was. That is, unless you are a hypocrite....