9/11 Collapse Presentation - Gordon Ross, MEng - London 06/08/2007

Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984.

He performed some of the earliest, and most in-depth, analysis of the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9-11.

Here is his personal webpage discussing his analysis:

gordonssite.tripod.com...


Ross has published several papers in The Journal for 9/11 Studies:

www.journalof911studies.com...


Links to some of Ross's papers:

www.journalof911studies.com...

www.journalof911studies.com...

www.journalof911studies.com...


This video is very interesting, very detailed, and the papers are also great reading.

His presentation explains where explosives would have been placed to bring the towers down, and analyses the beams in the debris, and other important factors surrounding the collapse of these buildings.


This is taken from the youtube channel from of the user called: cappucinokid100

cappucinokid100 - 9/11 youtube channel
www.youtube.com...

Many thanks to cappucinokid100 for sharing this presentation, and please do check out his channel because he has a very thorough collection of 9/11 videos that some members may not have seen.

I have attended one of mister Ross' seminars and it was extremely well presented and he was very knowledgeable. I have read many of his works...and his latest one concerning greening and bazant paper is very good...he shows yet again what has been shown over and over that Bazants model/theory fails...due to the kinetic energy require to crush down the lower structure has a deficit as many in the truth movement have shown and as many have stated about the fact that crushing down the core has always been in contention.

I try not to use explosives ...but rather just try to show it just could not collapse due to gravity alone...but mister ross does mention how it was done and the fact the the only bits left standing were the first three floors as represented by the perimeter walls still erect after the collapse because it was an open facade where any possible explosives could not be readily hidden as it is within the lift shafts that that the explosives were placed which makes sense .

NOTE just to add i know the OS supporters will yet again ridicule his character as per usual...but IMHO the OS supporters are not getting it....and it is always the group of ten...but i continuously see more and more varied names of truthers entering the fray....so something must be getting through to people.

Originally posted by plube
he shows yet again what has been shown over and over that Bazants model/theory fails...due to the kinetic energy require to crush down the lower structure has a deficit as many in the truth movement have shown and as many have stated about the fact that crushing down the core has always been in contention.

As far as I am aware, the last time Ross presented anything directly he was massively overcounting the energy lost to crushing. Has this been revised since? As far as I know his criticisms have not been accepted by any journal?

I try not to use explosives ...but rather just try to show it just could not collapse due to gravity alone...but mister ross does mention how it was done and the fact the the only bits left standing were the first three floors as represented by the perimeter walls still erect after the collapse because it was an open facade where any possible explosives could not be readily hidden as it is within the lift shafts that that the explosives were placed which makes sense .

The core also survived to this level, and this would not explain a multitude of the available signs. For example, core explosives could not cause only limited sections of the outer wall to pull in.

NOTE just to add i know the OS supporters will yet again ridicule his character as per usual...but IMHO the OS supporters are not getting it....and it is always the group of ten...but i continuously see more and more varied names of truthers entering the fray....so something must be getting through to people.

That's a false assumption too I'm afraid plube. The presence of 911 truth has reduced in recent years, even on this forum. There was a poll done not so long ago and truthers are barely in the majority.

Originally posted by plube
I have attended one of mister Ross' seminars and it was extremely well presented and he was very knowledgeable. I have read many of his works...and his latest one concerning greening and bazant paper is very good...he shows yet again what has been shown over and over that Bazants model/theory fails...due to the kinetic energy require to crush down the lower structure has a deficit as many in the truth movement have shown and as many have stated about the fact that crushing down the core has always been in contention.

I try not to use explosives ...but rather just try to show it just could not collapse due to gravity alone...but mister ross does mention how it was done and the fact the the only bits left standing were the first three floors as represented by the perimeter walls still erect after the collapse because it was an open facade where any possible explosives could not be readily hidden as it is within the lift shafts that that the explosives were placed which makes sense .

NOTE just to add i know the OS supporters will yet again ridicule his character as per usual...but IMHO the OS supporters are not getting it....and it is always the group of ten...but i continuously see more and more varied names of truthers entering the fray....so something must be getting through to people.

edit on 073131p://f37Saturday by plube because: Note

edit on 073131p://f39Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

NIST should have hired him, then their report would have been accurate!

He is, as you say very knowledgeable, I would like to get to one of his presentations, he certainly knows what he is talking about.

No debunker on here could even come close to debunking this. They will try with their psuedo NIST science, but as we know, that is full of fabrications to support the OS.

NIST is flawed beyond belief, and anyone that supports the NIST report needs to step away from the TV.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by plube
he shows yet again what has been shown over and over that Bazants model/theory fails...due to the kinetic energy require to crush down the lower structure has a deficit as many in the truth movement have shown and as many have stated about the fact that crushing down the core has always been in contention.

As far as I am aware, the last time Ross presented anything directly he was massively overcounting the energy lost to crushing. Has this been revised since? As far as I know his criticisms have not been accepted by any journal?

I try not to use explosives ...but rather just try to show it just could not collapse due to gravity alone...but mister ross does mention how it was done and the fact the the only bits left standing were the first three floors as represented by the perimeter walls still erect after the collapse because it was an open facade where any possible explosives could not be readily hidden as it is within the lift shafts that that the explosives were placed which makes sense .

The core also survived to this level, and this would not explain a multitude of the available signs. For example, core explosives could not cause only limited sections of the outer wall to pull in.

NOTE just to add i know the OS supporters will yet again ridicule his character as per usual...but IMHO the OS supporters are not getting it....and it is always the group of ten...but i continuously see more and more varied names of truthers entering the fray....so something must be getting through to people.

That's a false assumption too I'm afraid plube. The presence of 911 truth has reduced in recent years, even on this forum. There was a poll done not so long ago and truthers are barely in the majority.

I knew it would not be long before you showed up with you amateur debunking.

Have you done a accurate presentation yourself 'exponent'?

I would like to see your presentation and papers please?

You like to appear as if you have credentials in this area of expertise, can you tell us what credential you have, and provide a link to your website and your presentation?

Polls, mean nothing, so I wouldn't get too excited over an ATS poll.

Originally posted by thegameisup
I knew it would not be long before you showed up with you amateur debunking.

I thought I was a professional Would you please make your mind up on if I'm paid to be a shill or not? I really want to know what happened to those cheques!

Have you done a accurate presentation yourself 'exponent'?

I would like to see your presentation and papers please?

I have presented quite a few things on this forum over the years, but never published anything here. I keep my personal life entirely separate from this forum, so I won't be providing credentials or websites I'm afraid.

I've seen what happens when 'doubters' details are posted publicly, and I want no part in that. Judge me on my arguments, not my credentials.

Polls, mean nothing, so I wouldn't get too excited over an ATS poll.

It was a well conducted poll with statistically significant sample size. I had no complaints and remember I'm the debunker! I suggest you research it.

edit:

No debunker on here could even come close to debunking this. They will try with their psuedo NIST science, but as we know, that is full of fabrications to support the OS.

I challenge you to a formal debate in the debate forum on this very topic. Pick your specific question and I will answer it no matter what.

Always fun to throw down the gauntlet to someone arrogant enough to make the above claim.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by thegameisup
I knew it would not be long before you showed up with you amateur debunking.

I thought I was a professional

Would you please make your mind up on if I'm paid to be a shill or not? I really want to know what happened to those cheques!

Have you done a accurate presentation yourself 'exponent'?

I would like to see your presentation and papers please?

I have presented quite a few things on this forum over the years, but never published anything here. I keep my personal life entirely separate from this forum, so I won't be providing credentials or websites I'm afraid.

I've seen what happens when 'doubters' details are posted publicly, and I want no part in that. Judge me on my arguments, not my credentials.

Polls, mean nothing, so I wouldn't get too excited over an ATS poll.

It was a well conducted poll with statistically significant sample size. I had no complaints and remember I'm the debunker! I suggest you research it.

edit:

No debunker on here could even come close to debunking this. They will try with their psuedo NIST science, but as we know, that is full of fabrications to support the OS.

I challenge you to a formal debate in the debate forum on this very topic. Pick your specific question and I will answer it no matter what.

Always fun to throw down the gauntlet to someone arrogant enough to make the above claim.

edit on 7/7/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)

Please do show me where I have stated you are a 'paid shill'

If you are a shill then I do not consider them or you to be professional in any way.

So you try to belittle other professionals with credentials, but you don't have any of your own. Do you just attack people to make yourself seem important then?

I don't feel you ever have any strong arguments, but you like to give the impression you have credentials, so I would have hoped you would have some. It appears not.

As already stated, polls on ATS are pointless and meaningless. You cannot judge your statistics on an online poll at ATS. Most people that disbleieve the official version of events do not bother with online forums. Polls mean nothing, I used to work in research, so I know they can be very misleading.

We are debating here, why would you need to go to another location? I do not have a problem with Ross's papers, it's you that does, so it's you that should be asking the questions. I fully stand by Ross's papers, and would believe him over someone like you on the internet, who has not verifiable credentials. You're supposed to be the debunker, but I don't see anything being debunked.

It's not an arrogant claim, you only have to see how NIST crumbled from questions by David Chandler to see that NIST are talking out of their rear ends!

Have you seen this BTW?

NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing
vimeo.com...

This is what you support? They are a joke.

Originally posted by thegameisup
Please do show me where I have stated you are a 'paid shill'

If you are a shill then I do not consider them or you to be professional in any way.

It was a joke, maybe don't take things so seriously.

So you try to belittle other professionals with credentials, but you don't have any of your own. Do you just attack people to make yourself seem important then?

I don't feel you ever have any strong arguments, but you like to give the impression you have credentials, so I would have hoped you would have some. It appears not.

My credentials have literally no bearing on my arguments. I make no arguments from personal authority, so PhD or GCSE is utterly irrelevant. If you want to make an argument from authority then I will just invoke Bazant, so I suggest you stick to arguments through logic.

As already stated, polls on ATS are pointless and meaningless. You cannot judge your statistics on an online poll at ATS. Most people that disbleieve the official version of events do not bother with online forums. Polls mean nothing, I used to work in research, so I know they can be very misleading.

Polls can be misleading, but they don't 'mean nothing'. I made no claims that any polls on here were representative of any other population.

We are debating here, why would you need to go to another location? I do not have a problem with Ross's papers, it's you that does, so it's you that should be asking the questions.

The debate forum is moderated and has strict rules, the winner is declared by the moderators and they seem to be pretty reasonable in my eyes. I am willing to risk it at least. The funny thing about this quote is that I was asking questions, and you immediately started attacking me, and are now complaining about people attacking others.

I fully stand by Ross's papers, and would believe him over someone like you on the internet, who has not verifiable credentials. You're supposed to be the debunker, but I don't see anything being debunked.

It's not an arrogant claim, you only have to see how NIST crumbled from questions by David Chandler to see that NIST are talking out of their rear ends!

So do you want to use credentials or not? I can quote Bazant's ridiculous CV if you'd like?

Have you seen this BTW?

NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing
vimeo.com...

This is what you support? They are a joke.

Do you think NIST is a group of a few people? Perhaps you should learn a little bit more about what you are criticising.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by thegameisup
Please do show me where I have stated you are a 'paid shill'

If you are a shill then I do not consider them or you to be professional in any way.

It was a joke, maybe don't take things so seriously.

So you try to belittle other professionals with credentials, but you don't have any of your own. Do you just attack people to make yourself seem important then?

I don't feel you ever have any strong arguments, but you like to give the impression you have credentials, so I would have hoped you would have some. It appears not.

My credentials have literally no bearing on my arguments. I make no arguments from personal authority, so PhD or GCSE is utterly irrelevant. If you want to make an argument from authority then I will just invoke Bazant, so I suggest you stick to arguments through logic.

As already stated, polls on ATS are pointless and meaningless. You cannot judge your statistics on an online poll at ATS. Most people that disbleieve the official version of events do not bother with online forums. Polls mean nothing, I used to work in research, so I know they can be very misleading.

Polls can be misleading, but they don't 'mean nothing'. I made no claims that any polls on here were representative of any other population.

We are debating here, why would you need to go to another location? I do not have a problem with Ross's papers, it's you that does, so it's you that should be asking the questions.

The debate forum is moderated and has strict rules, the winner is declared by the moderators and they seem to be pretty reasonable in my eyes. I am willing to risk it at least. The funny thing about this quote is that I was asking questions, and you immediately started attacking me, and are now complaining about people attacking others.

I fully stand by Ross's papers, and would believe him over someone like you on the internet, who has not verifiable credentials. You're supposed to be the debunker, but I don't see anything being debunked.

It's not an arrogant claim, you only have to see how NIST crumbled from questions by David Chandler to see that NIST are talking out of their rear ends!

So do you want to use credentials or not? I can quote Bazant's ridiculous CV if you'd like?

Have you seen this BTW?

NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing
vimeo.com...

This is what you support? They are a joke.

Do you think NIST is a group of a few people? Perhaps you should learn a little bit more about what you are criticising.

edit on 7/7/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)

If I had called you a shill you would have no doubt been offended! I'm not taking you seriously one bit, you have nothing serious to take seriously!

Your lack of credentials have a bearing when you are trying to put down someone like Ross who has verifiable credentials. Bazant was pulled apart by many, if you back him that is up to you.

You are here because it's a game to you, I'm here because I lost a friend in 9/11. I am not interested in games, and to treat 9/11 like a game is pathetic and disgusting. I seriously take offence to you treating it like some game.

Why are you trying to substitute your lack of credentials for Bazant's? Does that make you feel more important hiding behind another person's credentials? Bazant, as I say has already been pulled apart, and he has nothing credible that is of interest to me I'm afraid.

Obviously NIST is not one person, anyone knows that, but one of their main representatives was made to look stupid in public, and gave highly dubious replies to questions in that video I posted, and their report is a problematic sham, and I don't see how anyone can take them seriously, many don't.

Originally posted by thegameisup
If I had called you a shill you would have no doubt been offended! I'm not taking you seriously one bit, you have nothing serious to take seriously!

It was a joke

Your lack of credentials have a bearing when you are trying to put down someone like Ross who has verifiable credentials. Bazant was pulled apart by many, if you back him that is up to you.

I'm not trying to put Ross down. I'm saying that his analysis was shown to be inaccurate, and as far as I know he has not resubmitted it to any journal or corrected the errors. This is a 5 year old presentation, are you telling me that not a single criticism has been valid? Bazant has replied to criticisms and each time his paper has been peer reviewed and published in a notable journal. Why is it you'll believe one authority with a single paper in a 911 specific journal, but not anther with an extensive publication history in some of the most respected journals?

You are here because it's a game to you, I'm here because I lost a friend in 9/11. I am not interested in games, and to treat 9/11 like a game is pathetic and disgusting. I seriously take offence to you treating it like some game.

I am not here because it is a game. In fact my posting here is specifically endorsed by someone who lost a family member in the events of day. He is glad that I take time to try and counter some of the factual inaccuracies people spread. Your feigned offence has no bearing on this.

Why are you trying to substitute your lack of credentials for Bazant's? Does that make you feel more important hiding behind another person's credentials? Bazant, as I say has already been pulled apart, and he has nothing credible that is of interest to me I'm afraid.

The fact that you sail straight past your contradiction should be quite clear. You accept someone based on their credentials as an ME despite the existence of criticism against their work. Yet you dismiss Bazant who is an SE with an impeccable publication history because of the existence of criticism against their work. The only distinguishing feature is that the one you accept supports your pre-existing viewpoint. This is what I am against.

Obviously NIST is not one person, anyone knows that, but one of their main representatives was made to look stupid in public, and gave highly dubious replies to questions in that video I posted, and their report is a problematic sham, and I don't see how anyone can take them seriously, many don't.

For being such a problematic sham, it has gained acceptance from professional groups worldwide. For example, the CTBUH chairman:

I would like to be clear that I see no credibilty whatsoever in the 911 truth movement and I believe, like the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC ( WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. I have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 truth movement presents and I cannot see any evidence of a controlled demolition. Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views.

David Scott - CTBUH Chairman

Again nothing credible, you are not from the uk either.

Originally posted by thegameisup
Again nothing credible, you are not from the uk either.

Do you have nothing to say to my responses? You destroy your own credibility by dismissing without argument.

I'd love to know how you think you know my nationality. Unfortunately for you I'm as English as you can get.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by thegameisup
Again nothing credible, you are not from the uk either.

Do you have nothing to say to my responses? You destroy your own credibility by dismissing without argument.

I'd love to know how you think you know my nationality. Unfortunately for you I'm as English as you can get.

edit on 8/7/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)

Nothing to say to claptrap. I might not be able to tell your nationality, but unless you don't sleep you're not based in the UK.

Originally posted by thegameisup
Nothing to say to claptrap. I might not be able to tell your nationality, but unless you don't sleep you're not based in the UK.

I answered all your points. You just can't defend your position.

I don't have a 9-5 job so I don't really pay much attention to my waking hours, I'm self employed and for the most part have total control over my working hours. It's quite nice

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by thegameisup
Nothing to say to claptrap. I might not be able to tell your nationality, but unless you don't sleep you're not based in the UK.

I answered all your points. You just can't defend your position.

I don't have a 9-5 job so I don't really pay much attention to my waking hours, I'm self employed and for the most part have total control over my working hours. It's quite nice

there is nothing to defend on my side, I'm not trying to convince anyone that the OS not a pack of lies. Seems odd you'd need to protect something if it's supposed to be true!

Are you a self-employed writer by any chance?! Do you get paid for increasing google page counts?

Originally posted by thegameisup
there is nothing to defend on my side, I'm not trying to convince anyone that the OS not a pack of lies. Seems odd you'd need to protect something if it's supposed to be true!

You're just completely ignoring the fact that your theories are completely off the wall. You post and endorse Gordon Ross but don't want to listen to any criticism or even consider that he may be wrong. You then attack people for it.

Admit it, you have no response to my points, you've essentially conceded the debate.

Are you a self-employed writer by any chance?! Do you get paid for increasing google page counts?

I am not a writer. My standard of English is pretty poor, although I'm trying to improve it. I work in computing, that's all I'm really prepared to say.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by thegameisup
there is nothing to defend on my side, I'm not trying to convince anyone that the OS not a pack of lies. Seems odd you'd need to protect something if it's supposed to be true!

You're just completely ignoring the fact that your theories are completely off the wall. You post and endorse Gordon Ross but don't want to listen to any criticism or even consider that he may be wrong. You then attack people for it.

Admit it, you have no response to my points, you've essentially conceded the debate.

Are you a self-employed writer by any chance?! Do you get paid for increasing google page counts?

I am not a writer. My standard of English is pretty poor, although I'm trying to improve it. I work in computing, that's all I'm really prepared to say.

As already stated, to you it is a game, to me it's about presenting information to people to view and decide for themselves. If you're looking to play games I'm not the person you are looking for.

Did you watch the video and read the papers I posted?

Originally posted by thegameisup
As already stated, to you it is a game, to me it's about presenting information to people to view and decide for themselves. If you're looking to play games I'm not the person you are looking for.

You are the one playing a game here. I have responded honestly and in detail, you have dismissed these replies without using the slightest bit of logic.

Don't accuse me of playing a game when you are the one acting as a child. Admit you have no basis for your criticisms, just unwavering support because you think Gordon Ross supports your case. How sad.

Did you watch the video and read the papers I posted?

It's a 5 year old presentation. I watched it and criticised it when it was new. It amuses me you clearly can't even see the most basic inaccuracies in it because you are so fully committed to your idea.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by thegameisup
As already stated, to you it is a game, to me it's about presenting information to people to view and decide for themselves. If you're looking to play games I'm not the person you are looking for.

You are the one playing a game here. I have responded honestly and in detail, you have dismissed these replies without using the slightest bit of logic.

Don't accuse me of playing a game when you are the one acting as a child. Admit you have no basis for your criticisms, just unwavering support because you think Gordon Ross supports your case. How sad.

Did you watch the video and read the papers I posted?

It's a 5 year old presentation. I watched it and criticised it when it was new. It amuses me you clearly can't even see the most basic inaccuracies in it because you are so fully committed to your idea.

As stated I have posted it for others to view and decide themselves what they make of it. I think you have made it clear enough times that you do not agree with it. That is fine, it's your choice, I got that impression a couple of posts ago, not need to keep reiterating.

If anything does not match with the governments official reports you will disagree with it. That is your right to believe which ever version of events you want.

Why am I playing a game? Is posting a video so others can view it and draw their own conclusions considered a game?

Does it matter that the presentation is 5 years old?

Isn't the NIST report 5 years old?

Didn't 9/11 happen almost 11 years ago?

What has the date got to do with the value of the data, or the presentation?

Why do you always have to resort to calling people 'child' and other similar unnecessary remarks?

Why are you always so dramatic? Can you not debate in a calm manner?

If you fully support Bazant, then great, that is your choice, some do, some dont' I think we all know that you support Bazant, you've mentioned it enough times.

Originally posted by thegameisup
As stated I have posted it for others to view and decide themselves what they make of it. I think you have made it clear enough times that you do not agree with it. That is fine, it's your choice, I got that impression a couple of posts ago, not need to keep reiterating.

So let me get this right. It doesn't matter whether it's inaccurate or not? You don't even bother to check the accuracy of things you post, just post them anyway?

If anything does not match with the governments official reports you will disagree with it. That is your right to believe which ever version of events you want.

You have no evidence to support this, you are just making accusations to try and discredit me. This shows how little in the way of facts you have.

Why am I playing a game? Is posting a video so others can view it and draw their own conclusions considered a game?

No, posting a video and then refusing to answer vital questions about it is playing a game. You are claiming this video is accurate, but refuse to defend its inaccuracies.

Does it matter that the presentation is 5 years old?

Have the criticisms been addressed in that time? No. Therefore it does matter.

Isn't the NIST report 5 years old?

Have the criticisms been addressed in that time? Yes.

Didn't 9/11 happen almost 11 years ago?

What has the date got to do with the value of the data, or the presentation?

It shows how the truth movement has not progressed one iota in more than half a decade. The movement has not made a single positive step, and is still repeating the same claims shown to be false back then. You yourself admit that you have no intention of answering questions as to its accuracy.

Why do you always have to resort to calling people 'child' and other similar unnecessary remarks?

You act like a child, claiming you don't have to answer any questions. That's why I call you childish.

Why are you always so dramatic? Can you not debate in a calm manner?

You ran away from the debate remember? Claiming you didn't have to answer questions? That's pretty dramatic.

If you fully support Bazant, then great, that is your choice, some do, some dont' I think we all know that you support Bazant, you've mentioned it enough times.

So explain to me why you've picked Ross over Bazant. Bazant has dealt with his criticisms and refuted them. Ross has ignored them. Bazant is an SE, Ross is an ME. Bazant is an ISI Highly Cited Scientist, Ross doesn't even have much in the way of publication history.

Tell me why you've picked Ross over Bazant for any reason other than 'he supports what I already believe'.

We all know this is the true reason behind your choice.