AE911Truth Delivers the Evidence to the Media: Press Conference - National Press Club

reply to post by exponent

No you don't. I've done a review of your membership before now and found the structural or mechanical portion is quite small, around a third. Structural alone would be much much lower.

First of all, it's not "my membership", as I'm not a part of AE911 Truth. Furthermore, care to produce your findings, reason and logic (if it even exists)? It's real easy to say something but can you back it up? You know, you shouldn't just say "no", without providing any kind of evidence or reasoning. That is what trolls do.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Less anyone be confused the National Press did not invite anyone to discuss 9/11. AE911 rented a room at the National Press club building in Washington, DC. Anyone can do it. The National Press Club is a conference and convention center. Does not mean, and should not be construed to mean that there is any interest by the press. There isn't.

Originally posted by airspoon
First of all, it's not "my membership", as I'm not a part of AE911 Truth. Furthermore, care to produce your findings, reason and logic (if it even exists)? It's real easy to say something but can you back it up? You know, you shouldn't just say "no", without providing any kind of evidence or reasoning. That is what trolls do.

Oh I apologise, I thought you were posting this as an ae911truth member.

As for my findings, reason and logic, all one needs to do is read the page on their site that lists their membership. I wrote a quick script to extract mentions of engineering but one can do a manual survey if need be:
www2.ae911truth.org...

edit: I should probably add that as a group or even subgroups, I have never heard of a single scholarly publication from ae911truth. In this case it seems they're using Dr Jones' work and last I knew he was not a member of their group.

Can you point me to any original research conducted by any member of the group? I must admit I am no expert on ae911truth.

reply to post by exponent


The "A&Efor9/11Truth" groups, like many others (the "PilotsFor9/11Truth", as example) take great "pride" in touting their "membership numbers"....BUT, when looked at with a critical eye, the ACTUAL numbers of members who have "signed on" who actually have ANY specific technical training, or expertise in areas pertinent, are but a handful.

These "groups" also tend to cross-pollenize".....meaning, there are REPETITIONS, when looking at "members' lists".

A very obvious example is to compare the "Pilots" member's list, with the so-called "PatriotsFor9/11Truth" member's list.

Furthermore, the very FACT of someone's "joining" is touted disingenuously, in many instances. Each individual's motive for "joining" or "signing" is, in many cases, either because of discomfort over the "9/11 Commission Report" and that Board's findings, as published (which I ALSO agree, in certain ways, that there was a "whitewash" ....but NOT in the way these "conspiracy" believers think, and spread) ...or, people "sign up"because thwey already have a pre-conceived BIAS in favor of a "conspiracy". So, regardless oftheir qualifications, THEY "join" too. Thus, falsely inflating the 'apparent' numbers of "assumed professionals" in these groups.

It is all a sham, when these "organizations" try to point to their size, and "list of membership", in a pathetic attempt to garner crediblity!!

reply to post by exponent


Finding thermite or the evidence of thermitic reaction in WTC dust does not exclude the possibility that high explosives were also present. They are not mutually exclusive.

You say that this is the only evidence. Had you read their report you would know that it is not.

Perhaps you can explain how energetic materials ended up in the WTC dust. Maybe it was fabricated evidence? Poor testing methodology?

You are very well versed in 9/11 lore, could you answer that question for me?

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Finding thermite or the evidence of thermitic reaction in WTC dust does not exclude the possibility that high explosives were also present. They are not mutually exclusive.

Why not? They accomplish different goals through different mechanisms. Using both would give you the downsides of both and the upsides of neither.

You say that this is the only evidence. Had you read their report you would know that it is not.

They have not produced a report, you probably mean Dr Jones' paper which I have read and debated before.

Perhaps you can explain how energetic materials ended up in the WTC dust. Maybe it was fabricated evidence? Poor testing methodology?

You are very well versed in 9/11 lore, could you answer that question for me?

Sure, it's poor testing methodology. They identified an iron rich element of the collapse, heated it in air and saw that it burned / underwent some chemical reactions. They then extrapolated that 10 tons of this would be present in the WTC at least and assumed this would probably be ok for demolition.

There's little more to their theory than that, I'd give you specifics if such specifics existed. I am currently debating this in another thread with 'turbofan' though so feel free to pop over there.

reply to post by exponent


Thanks for the reply Exponent.
As I said before, you seem to know a great deal about 911 and I always appreciate answers from those who do their homework.

Cheers, ATA

reply to post by Asktheanimals


No problem, thanks for the nice reply. Feel free to PM me if you have any other questions which don't fit in existing threads.

reply to post by airspoon

"1,270 architect and engineer petition signers." eh?

I guess "1,270 architectural and engineering professionals" just didn't have the same authority stamped on it?

reply to post by exponent

Why not? They accomplish different goals through different mechanisms. Using both would give you the downsides of both and the upsides of neither.

That's not true and "asktheanimals" was right. In fact, some thermitic materials are engineered in a manner to be added to explosives for the purposes of destruction. Nanoenergetics is actually a very hot scientific field right now and the material is being engineered for a plethora of different applications, all weaponized.

Read this for starters: www.technologyreview.com...

Snippet:

With funding from the U.S. government, Sandia National Laboratories, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are researching how to manipulate the flow of energy within and between molecules, a field known as nanoenergentics, which enables building more lethal weapons such as "cave-buster bombs" that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs such as the "daisy cutter" or MOAB (mother of all bombs).

Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets.

Weapons grade thermite is not your average Thermate anymore. Through the advancement of nanotechnology, thermite can be a plus for a rage of different explosives.


--airspoon

Hey weedy..

If theres only a handful of people with the required expertise who are members, would you care to name them??

You WILL be able to, given the extensive analysis you must have done to come to your very precise conclusions above...

It wont take you long to give me the names of the people you believe to be credible...theres only a handful afterall!!





but I bet you cant......because you are simply parroting this from some naive "bunker site...prove me wrong...give me the names.....

Originally posted by airspoon
That's not true and "asktheanimals" was right. In fact, some thermitic materials are engineered in a manner to be added to explosives for the purposes of destruction. Nanoenergetics is actually a very hot scientific field right now and the material is being engineered for a plethora of different applications, all weaponized.

I'm afraid you misunderstand your source. While nanothermites and other nano scale energetic materials might be useful for enhancing the force applied by a bomb, controlled demolitions do not use the same mechanism. They use a small amount of high explosive which propels a copper wedge into an ideally flat projectile. The mechanisms being described where nano-thermite would be added are designed to apply high pressure in general to the inside of a structure, to crack and break concrete etc.

Weapons grade thermite is not your average Thermate anymore. Through the advancement of nanotechnology, thermite can be a plus for a rage of different explosives.

Unfortunately this doesn't actually address anything about 911, it doesn't give us a mechanism or any testable criteria, just 'well it might be useful' is not good enough I'm afraid.

No ones saying it "might be useful"....they are saying nanothermitics should not be present ...... unless they played a part in the wtc 's destruction...

If you see nothing sinister in the mysterious inclusion of nanothermites in the rubble and dust particles then why are you even bothering to argue the issue...its a non-issue surely???

I can see your trying your best....

reply to post by weedwhacker

Cross pollination.....

Interesting term, since pollination is necessary for anything to come to...fruition.

Perhaps this is the only site that you post your views. If not, you are doing something like cross pollination, but since I disagree with you, I would say your pollen is GMO.

No offense of course.....

reply to post by exponent

I'm afraid you misunderstand your source. While nanothermites and other nano scale energetic materials might be useful for enhancing the force applied by a bomb, controlled demolitions do not use the same mechanism. They use a small amount of high explosive which propels a copper wedge into an ideally flat projectile. The mechanisms being described where nano-thermite would be added are designed to apply high pressure in general to the inside of a structure, to crack and break concrete etc.

Sure, that's how planned and transparent demos work but did WTC1 and WTC2 look like conventional demos? Of course not and thus conventional demos weren't used, that I'm certain of. If demolitions other than the aircraft were used, I think it's safe to say that conventional demolition materials weren't used, therefore if we consider ulterior demolition materials, we have to consider materials that probably aren't used on normal demolitions.

Now, most of this advanced engineered nano-thermitic materials is being researched for the military (or government) and so logically, it wouldn't really be available for the handful of demo companies. However, elements inside government, such as intelligence agencies would have access to it. Regardless, the nano-thermitic material is being engineered (sometimes inside explosives) for the purposes of destruction.



--airspoon

S&F great find airspoon, I think as long as A&E continues to prove the government and some of their agencies have lied to the American people then perhaps more and more people will wake up. The staunch supporters of the OS have failed miserably in defending the government fairytales and many of those OS supporters on ATS who have been here for many years who have deliberately ignored all the scientific evidence, in my opinion are spewing fallacies to steer many new ATSers away from the truth and derail scientific 911 topics.

I have heard; read every manufacture excuse by OS supporters and their many disinformation websites only to conjuring up false accusations, their opinions and nothing more. For example below the facts that are irrefutable some supported by science, and some supported by very credible professionals are just flat out being called liars by the OS communities which I find reprehensible and dishonest.
I took a few comments quoted in the Press Conference for an example below.

AE911Truth Delivers the Evidence to the Media: Press Conference - National Press Club

911truth.org...

2. More than 100 first responders reported hearing explosions and seeing flashes of light at the onset of destruction. Light flashes indicate explosive detonations. These witnesses are documented in NYC’s “Oral Histories” by City Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen

Yet, the OS communities call s these people liars. Who is being dishonest here?

3. Multi-ton steel perimeter wall sections were ejected laterally at 60 mph to a distance of 600 ft. That speed and distance indicates that a high-pressure explosion initiated the ejection

Again the OS community denies this fact, actual News videos proves this without any doubt

4. 90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking was pulverized in mid-air, again indicating explosions.

And Again the OS community denies this fact as well they will tell you that your eyes are lying to you. Do not listen to them, they are lying to you.

5. World Trade Center 7, a 47-story building which was not hit by an aircraft, fell at free-fall acceleration for more than 100 feet – a significant fact that NIST’s Shyam Sunder was forced to admit after being presented with our research. Yet NIST has failed to review or acknowledge the obvious implications of this fact, which is that the columns must have been explosively severed within fractions of a second of each other.

Yet, the OS communities will continue to support the NIST findings as if it was a religion, even after it has now been proven a fraud by science.

6. The complete destruction and dismemberment of Building 7, collapsing in just 6-1/2 seconds—which is near freefall acceleration—through the path of what was greatest resistance, symmetrically vertical, including 2-1/2 seconds of pure free-fall (zero resistance), is an occurrence only possible with expertly-placed explosives

Yet, the OS communities, even many on ATS continue to cling to NIST pseudo science and reject real science, this is what I call “embracing ignorance” and “falsehoods.”

Hopefully one day we will see an end of the OS communities and their ignorance, eventually it will be accepted that the WTC were destroyed by demolition and not by airplanes and office fires. This is the smoking gun, especially WTC 7 and it’s perfect free fall collapse. The government does not want you to know the truth. Why because they will have to conjure more lies to who rigged the WTC with such highly developed explosive materials which only our government has access to, while the WTC were under heavy security. The government knows the American people will know it was an inside job, there is not lying out of this one, that is why they are still silent.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Ok I started typing then went back to see if you were just being sarcastic. I read again and realized that maybe you weren't. Why was Nist holding all those videos with people saying explosions all of these years? They said they had no eyewhitness testimony of controlled explosions so they didn't test for it. What? I'm not gonna go any further because I just believe you're payed.

"Does not mean, and should not be construed to mean that there is any interest by the press."

Of course the press has no interest in investigating and reporting what really happened on 9/11? Where have you been for the past 9+ years?