Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

WTC 7 analysis - is this conclusive?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/425-45experts.html

A new upcoming documentary gathers together 45 experts in several fields of study to discuss 911 events.

The documentary will detail the technical analysis of experts who question the official story of 9/11, and who have taken the time to make the results of their painstaking work available to the public.


The upcoming Architects & Engineers documentary “Experts Speak Out”, will have experts provide the details from their individual areas of expertise (metallurgy, engineering, etc). All are degreed. Many are licensed. Several have Ph.D’s – including eminent scientist Lynn Margulis, who exposes the fraud of NIST and explains how the scientific method should have been applied.

They have also interviewed a half-dozen psychologists "who will help us to understand why 9/11 Truth is so difficult for the public to even touch, much less grasp – and what we as activists can do better to reach them. And we will hear from several family members of the 9/11 victims who support AE911Truth in our call for a new investigation."

One of the experts featured in this documentary is Robert McCoy, high-rise architect, who has been licensed in California since 1964 and has worked on the design of many large steel-framed high-rise buildings. He corresponded directly with the builders of the WTC complex during its construction.

McCoy questions many aspects of the mechanics involved in the “collapse” of the Twin Towers and Building 7. He discusses in detail the robustness of the buildings’ design...

He explains the discrepancies between what we might expect to see in a fire-induced gravitational collapse (though more than one hundred fires have never caused the collapse of a skyscraper) and what actually occurred. McCoy explains that in a pancake collapse scenario, “…it’s going to come down in a staccato kind of way … it’s not going to come as a smooth fall … "

McCoy talks about another critical aspect of the Twin Towers’ design, the massive core columns: “Those columns were probably four times as strong as they needed to be … Now you have this building coming down, and [it was as if] the columns below were simply not there … The buildings accelerated as they were coming down – not getting resistance from these massive columns in the center of the core of [these buildings].”

McCoy: “What I’m looking for is a new investigation, where all of the original information and tests and hypotheses are re-examined, as well as the ones that have surfaced since, including the allegations of controlled demolition.” Referring to his ongoing association with AE911Truth, he states that “I signed the petition for AE911Truth because I felt it was an organization trying to get at the truth of what actually brought those buildings down.” .... [more at link]

David Chandler: Radio Interview
On this week's show, which airs Thursday, December 23, at 3pm ET, physics teacher David Chandler will be interviewed, the man who forced NIST to retract its claim that WTC7 did not fall at "free-fall speed."

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-21/david-chandler-wtc-demolitions-911-context

A page of links to David Chandler's website, videos, writings and new dvd is posted at the Resistance Radio Forum, http://www.resistradio.com/forum/4-show-links/81-david-chandler-on-wtc-d...


Last edited by marc on Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:00 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Exhuming Isaac Newton
for the sake of our children

Do Newton's observations still hold true?
Or do we need to urgently re-write the physics text books our children are currently using?

Indisputable, easily measurable fact: Three steel skyscrapers fell too fast in September 2001.

The fact that they fell too fast means they encountered no resistance, in defiance of Newton's tried-and-tested laws of conservation of momentum.

The US Dept of Commerce NIST report says fires (not planes) are what brought the buildings down.

But fire cannot drop steel high-rises through the path of greatest resistance. (cf. Laws of Conservation of Momentum, I. Newton)

If fire alone could achieve this, demolition companies would be out of business.

Were the laws of physics suspended in September 2001?

Does anyone care?


Freefall and Building 7
- by David Chandler, member of the American Association of Physics Teachers.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html


Last edited by marc on Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:26 am; edited 3 times in total
Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:33 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Are people dying because of what we fail to ask? Reply with quote

Quote:
Epic Fail


Another whack with the ruler:
Physics teacher fails NIST


“If the NIST report on Building 7 had been turned in by a first-year student in one of my classes, it would have received a D or an F.”

For those who reckon the science is too complicated to understand, David Chandler, long-standing member of AAPT (American Association of Physics Teachers), says the physics he is talking about is at the level of “the first month of a high school physics course”.

The NIST report on Building 7 'is inconsistent with basic physics as we know it'.

Armed with a red pen, 30 year's worth of teaching experience and a shoe-string budget, Chandler marked and failed the US Department of Commerce's $20-m NIST report.

This might be worth a chortle if it were not for the fact that people are still dying in wars predicated on the narrative that AlQaeda brought down this building.

Whichever way you look at it, this seems a natural scoop for our free and fearless media - which promise us all the very latest news, all the time. At the very least there's a riveting headline, massive sales and global readership. So why isn't the West's free and fearless Fourth Estate covering this? Why has this particular story been utterly ignored since 2008?

More at link. Chandler's DVD (compiled by engineer Jon Cole) can be purchased and posted on to university and college physics departments, engineering and architectural firms, as well as to journalists.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/428-911analysis.html

- - - - - - -

It is elementary physics that something does not fall down at the speed of gravity unless it has had its structure completely taken out from underneath it.

No matter how much damage is caused to the top fifth of a building (in case of Towers 1 and 2), it cannot fall at smooth freefall acceleration because the resistance offered by the lower four-fifths of the building will slow it down, causing messy, staggered, asymmetrical, incremental destruction.

Burning jet (kerosene) fuel can not melt steel. This is why Scandinavian stoves do not melt though kerosene-started fires, continually-fed, may burn in them most of winter. This is not empiricism but rather how the laws of physics work.

The video footage of the 911 event serves as silent archivist and witness -and provides the incontrovertible time data crucial to Newtonian analysis.

The truth is hidden in plain sight but people have been persuaded not to look at it.

Mass denial. Mass cognitive dissonance. Mass media lacuna. Rich material for media/psychology theses.

Dr Michael Green's letter to WSWP
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/DomesticCovertOps.html
Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:59 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Down the Memory Hole

Deutsche Bank Tower Damaged on 911
Is Finally Dismantled in February 2011

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355083/Deutsche-Bank-tower-damaged-9-11-finally-dismantled.html

As they say, the truth is out there, sandwiched between tranches of misinformation and lies of omission.

The Guardian and New York Times are no better than the Daily Mail when it comes to this particular subject. A couple of points in this Mail article flip the cognitive dissonance button. For example, why does the journalist show no curiosity at all about the fact that (like Building Seven) the Deutsche Bank building suffered similar (or worse) debris damage and fires, but unlike B7, it stood firm and did not implode?

Here's something else:

Daily Mail: 'More than 700 body parts of September 11 victims were recovered, mostly on the [Deutsche Bank] roof, along with parts of the hijacked plane.'

Deutsche Bank building was situated 400 feet to the south of the WTC site. How on earth did shredded body parts (bone fragments less than 2cm in length) fly so forcefully, so far, as to land up on the Deutsche Bank roof?

No mainstream journalist has explored how this fact squares with what the official NIST report assured us was a normal 'fire and gravity' explanation?

But the presence of bones and fuselage at Deutsche Bank is only possible if these parts were forcefully propelled. Gravity cannot account for such high-speed, lateral ejection.

Jim Hoffman, scores of engineers from the Architects & Engineers group and Dr Crocket Grabbe, among others, note that the steel of Towers 1 and 2 was dismembered into 20 -50-ton sections and ejected up to 500 feet at 55 miles an hour. They calculate multi-ton sections accelerated from 0 to 50 m.p.h in 0.09 seconds during the towers' 12 second descents.

One observer described seeing a huge piece of WTC metal embedded in the side of the Deutsche Bank building 400m away 'like a fork in a piece of cake'.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Toxic-tower-damaged-on-911-apf-3258176718.html?x=0

What energy force dismembered and propelled these massively heavy steel columns over such a distance? Why has this behaviour not been observed in other 'fire and gravity' collapses before or since?
Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:28 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Harrit tours Canada Reply with quote

Hubris Under the Microscope

You won't read about it in the m.s.m, but Dr Niels Harrit lectures across Canada this February/March. Only Russia Today and Denmark's Channel Two have ever been free, fearless and objective enough to interview Harrit and offer his scientific information to the public so they can make up their own minds and join a transparent debate on the subject.

The issue of how the buildings fell is central to rationale for being in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Did they fall organically straight through the path of greatest resistance or was resistance 'helped' aside? What would Newton say, if he was alive today?

Engineers and scientists are slowly lining up to say there's no way these heavily redundant buildings fell organically. They fell too fast, too vertically. Resistance was synthetically removed. (see Architects & Engineers for 911 truth)

Citing Newton's Laws, these named, credentialed professionals call for public debate - which is brave considering they expose themselves to public ridicule. Mainstream media decline to give them the time of day - with no adequate explanation for the black-out.

If journalists are fed up with 911 researchers and feel their claims are demonstrably false, should not the Fourth Estate call for a public demonstration to quash these time-wasters and clear the air, once and for all?

It's in their interests to do so - now that we see Obama administration appointees and a powerful UK think tank fretting over the pesky 11/9 researchers' endless questions.

To paraphrase New York State University philosophy professor Kurtis Hagen, should not the media join the chorus of voices calling for a new, robust, subpoena-empowered inquiry, which would shed such light on the relevant issues so that those espousing crazy and untenable theories would scatter like cockroaches?

“Is Infiltration of ‘Extremist Groups’ Justified?”
International Journal of Applied Philosophy (Fall 2010).
Kurtis Hagen, Assistant Prof, Philosophy, State University NY.
http://911blogger.com/blogs/kurtis-hagen

The free, fair and democratic Western media needs to prove to us, in a fair forum, that the Harrits, Gages, Grabbes, Ryans etc are utterly wrong and deserve no air time at all. Then we can move on.

http://civilinformationactivism.org/Niels-Harrit.html

Article on Harrit in Common Ground magazine, Canada

http://www.commonground.ca/iss/235/cg235_explosives.shtml

Dr. Niels Harrit lectured for 34 years at the top-rated University of Copenhagen, and has published more than 60 articles in major science journals. .

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

Hubris - 1884, from Gk. hybris "arrogance, wanton violence, insolence, outrage," originally "presumption toward the gods," (presuming to play god?) of unknown origin.


Last edited by marc on Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:30 am; edited 3 times in total
Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:07 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Hubris: A Dissection

Today: Reasonable Doubt lecture by Dr Niels Harrit at the
Centre for Peace Studies, McMaster University.

http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~peace/
Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:48 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Science at the service of Empire

The hapless S Shyam Sunder waves his hands and calls an apple an orange, among other logical fallacies. He's got that cheque coming in from his employer, the US Dept of Commerce, at the end of every month; what the hell's he to do?

It may look exactly like a demolition because it is a demolition, but government employee S Shyam Sunder says that though this looks exactly like a demolition, it is not a demolition.

Sunder speaks at the US dept of Commerce agency NIST:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZrcDTjkIhI

In 2006, Sunder told a New York Magazine reporter who questioned him on the long-delayed Building Seven report: "We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7". When his "investigation" finally wrapped after six years, Sunder emphasized how "comfortable" he was with their new theory, described by Jim Hoffman as 'a theory that is breathtakingly innovative in distancing itself from facts.'

Nist/Sunder was awarded the right not to release info 'that might jeopardise public safety.'

Science at the service of Empire
NIST's Evasion

http://www.911review.com/coverup/nist.html

"He who will not reason is a bigot, he who cannot is a fool, he who dares not is a slave." -- William Drummond, Scottish poet, 1585-1649 
Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:34 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

At 5pm, BBC's Jane Standley reports the 47-floor Salomon/Building 7's collapse - 20 minutes before it occurs at 5.20pm.

A bit like reporting the Lord Mayor's trousers have fallen down, 20 minutes before they actually do so?

BBC Report on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

BBC Editors Blog: 'A cock-up'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Given that NIST itself described Building 7s fall as an unforeseen, 'extraordinary' and unprecedented event, why on earth would its rapid implosion have been anticipated by 20 minutes? The BBC has never adequately explained this - saying only that 'it was a cock-up' that allegedly came from a Reuters feed. Not one free and fearless investigative journalist from the mainstream media was ever curious enough to investigate further.


Last edited by marc on Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:16 pm; edited 9 times in total
Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:14 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

"Then a Miracle Happens"

Miracle = A Violation of the Laws of Physics

This great little cartoon by Sidney Harris has always perfectly described the US Dept of Commerce NIST's '911' investigations.

After presenting over 600 pages of descriptions, graphs, testimonies, photographs, charts, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST says, in effect: “Then a miracle happens.”

Why this would be a miracle was explained by physicist David Chandler, who said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”...

Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics.

Yet governments and journalists have uncritically accepted this fraudulent situation and predicated wars upon it.



.
Science For Hire? US government agency NIST (left) is peer-reviewed
by a science professor (right).
Corporate journalists close ranks protectively around NIST.



In addition to omitting, falsifying, and fabricating evidence, NIST affirms a miracle. You have perhaps seen the cartoon in which a physics professor has written a proof on a chalkboard. Most of the steps consist of mathematical equations, but one of them simply says: “Then a miracle happens.”

This is humorous because one thing you absolutely cannot do in science is to appeal to a miracle, even implicitly. And yet that is what NIST does. I will explain:

NIST’S Denial of Free Fall: Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had long been pointing out that Building 7 came down at the same rate as a free-falling object, at least virtually so.

In NIST’s Draft for Public Comment, put out in August 2008, it denied this, saying that the time it took for the upper floors – the only floors that are visible on the videos – to come down “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.”97

As this statement implies, any assertion that the building did come down in free fall would not be consistent with physical principles – meaning the laws of physics. Explaining why not, Nist director Shyam Sunder said:

“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”98

In saying this, Sunder was presupposing NIST’s rejection of controlled demolition – which could have produced a free-fall collapse by causing all 82 columns to fail simultaneously – in favor of NIST’s fire theory, which necessitated a theory of progressive collapse.

Chandler’s Challenge: In response, high-school physics teacher David Chandler challenged Sunder’s denial of free fall, pointing out that Sunder’s “40 percent longer” claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”99 Chandler then placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone knowing elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”100

NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, in NIST’s final report, which came out in November, it admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”101 (“Gravitational acceleration” is a synonym for free fall acceleration.)

So, after presenting over 600 pages of descriptions, graphs, testimonies, photographs, charts, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST says, in effect: “Then a miracle happens.”

Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”102 In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance. If everything had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even for only a second or two, a miracle – meaning a violation of the laws of physics – would have happened.

That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one “that has no structural components below it” to offer resistance.

But then in November, while still defending the fire theory of collapse, NIST admitted that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2.25 seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by “gravitational acceleration (free fall).”103

Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics.

In its August draft, in which it had said that the collapse occurred 40 percent slower than free fall, NIST had said three times that its analysis was “consistent with physical principles.”104 In the final report, however, every instance of this phrase was removed.

NIST thereby almost explicitly admitted that its report on WTC 7, by admitting free fall while continuing to deny that explosives were used, [b]is not consistent with the principles of physics

- David Ray Griffin - extract from his essay: Did 911 Justify the Afghanistan invasion?

http://gauhar.com/?p=781


Last edited by marc on Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:37 am; edited 10 times in total
Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:00 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Conference: Investigate Building 7:

University of Hartford, Connecticut, March 26, 2011

See full schedule, speaker profiles and synopsis here:

http://www.investigatebuilding7.org/

Graeme MacQueen's presentation is excellent. He shows how the BBC's prescient reporting can not be explained away as 'a cock-up' or 'the fog of war'.

NIST: “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”.


Speakers:
professor of Media Studies, New York University, Mark Crispin Miller;
journalist Leslie Griffith, who has written for Truthout and Huffington's
journalist Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud - his work featured in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911;
architect Richard Gage;
peace studies academic, Dr Graeme MacQueen;
chemist Kevin Ryan;
engineer Tony Szamboti;
family members Manny Badillo and Bob McIlvaine;
attorney Dr. William Pepper;
filmmaker John Kirby;
author Dick Russell.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RememberBuilding7

This is a grassroots movement that relies on volunteers - unlike well-funded astro-turf movements. Forgive amateur footage

Foreknowledge: Building Seven's Collapse - Dr G MacQueen
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-07/foreknowledge-building-7s-collapse-dr-graeme-macqueen#comments

BBC announces fall of Building 7 (Salomon Bros Building) at 5pm, 20 minutes before
it actually comes down at 5.20pm
. Jane Standley's reading off a press release at 5pm points
to fore-knowledge. The building could not have been anticipated to implode
- and controlled demo takes days/weeks to calculate and prepare. No journalist or press agent has ever been subpeona'd under oath to identify the provenance of this 5pm information.


Last edited by marc on Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:22 am; edited 5 times in total
Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:42 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Architects & Engineers founder Richard Gage visits UK and Ireland from June 11 onwards: he'll speak in Dublin, Dundalk, Edinburgh, Cambridge, London and Bristol. http://ae911truth.org/en/events.html



Last edited by marc on Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:38 am; edited 1 time in total
Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:09 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike Bondi (P. Eng) has written a report of Dr Niels Harrit's Canadian speaking tour.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-21/tour-report-dr-harrits-lectures-canada-mike-bondi

Dr Graeme MacQueen [founder and director of McMaster University's Centre for Peace Studies and War and Health program] put together a team of some 12 McMaster faculty members, each of whom donated funds to make it possible to bring Dr. Harrit to McMaster - one of the six universities on the itinerary. Former McMaster President, Alvin Lee, introduced Harrit. In his introduction he stated: “we have a duty to deal with difficult and controversial issues in universities; we do not avoid or flee from them".
Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:43 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

NIST implicitly admits: WTC Towers destroyed in controlled demolition
http://911review.org/Reports/NIST.html
Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:07 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

How Building 7 might have fallen IF it were fatally damaged by office fires (video)

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/504-wtc7-fall.html
Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:49 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Poll finds New Yorkers' doubts about Building 7 (Saloman Bros Building) linger:
48% support call for a new investigation - in the month following Bin Laden's death

http://rememberbuilding7.org/siena-poll-finds-new-yorkers-doubts-about-911-building-7-linger/

NIST report on Building 7 - 'A New Standard in Deception'
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html


Last edited by marc on Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:21 am; edited 1 time in total
Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:04 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's that rare thing: a mainstream newspaper article that not only falls short of ridiculing 911 critique,
but actually explains some of its fundamentals to readers

"These are things that architects are not qualified to answer".
Ireland's The Cork News dares to feature Richard Gage

http://www.thecorknews.ie/articles/events-911-be-discussed-cork

[...] "The battle for a new and independent enquiry is likely to be a “slow, uphill climb” according to Mr. Gage. He is acutely aware of cynics that have cried foul on his group’s findings and beliefs but says the architects and engineers’ mission is simply to present the scientific evidence and encourage individuals to draw their own conclusions.

“Most people are shocked when they have to wrestle with the implications of this. It’s obvious these buildings were set up with explosives so you’re looking at some sort of inside job. Then you have to ask yourself how wide it goes and how high it goes, and these are things that architects are not qualified to answer.

“Conspiracies have been par for the course throughout history, especially when it comes to starting wars. We understand that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 – we were lied to about that – but people have a much harder time understanding being lied to in relation to Afghanistan. The evidence speaks for itself though and it’s all been documented by official sources. Iron was melted by the tonne, it takes 2800 degrees to melt iron ... office fires and jet fuel can only get to about half of that temperature.”

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

1 500 engineers and architects disprove official account of WTC destruction (PRNews, UK)
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-10/1500-architects-engineers-disprove-official-911-account-wtc-destruction

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
Interesting date:
June 20: Gage (member of American Institute of Architects) to talk at the premises of Royal Institute of Architects, London.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TIME magazine offers photographic proof WTC Towers did not undergo a natural, gravity-led collapse

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/
Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:40 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

The core narrative that emerged within hours of the lynchpin 2001 event has never been updated or amended even though dramatic new pieces of information have come to light. The scientific method is not a closed system. It prescribes ongoing examination of new evidence.

Are mainstream media in dereliction of duty for never bringing to public attention the serious questions aimed at the US Dept of Commerce's NIST? For never highlighting new information which has emerged piecemeal over the decade?



Here is a clear analysis of NIST Report on Building Seven that any journalist/ editor is surely competent to deconstruct, given they may consult/interview (from mainstream platforms) any number of engineers, scientists and academics?

Exactly Where and How the NIST Report is Incorrect (You Tube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU


Last edited by marc on Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:50 am; edited 3 times in total
Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:47 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

"If Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition…we have to ask the question 'why?' Why have we been lied to for nine and a half years? Why did they do it?"- Dr Graeme MacQueen, Hartford Conference 2011

NIST: We have the results and only we have the results
On computer simulations, virtual proof, logical fallacies, BBC contributions and blatant lies
(If you've watched nothing else on WTC 7, watch this)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk&feature=player_embedded



"In a famous book by Antoine de Saint Exupery, a little prince from another planet asks the narrator to draw a sheep. After several unsatisfactory attempts, the narrator simply draws a box and tells the little prince that the sheep is in the box. The little prince then exclaims -- "That is exactly the way I wanted it!" [1]

"Just so, the Bush Administration asked its scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for an explanation as to what happened at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11. In response to this request, NIST drew up a series of fanciful stories over a period of years, each story differing from the previous one. Finally, after seven long years, NIST published its last story for WTC 7 by simply saying, in effect: "The explanation is in our computer." [2]

"As expected, however, this explanation in a box leaves much to be desired for those of us who prefer to live in reality, instead of in a fictional world.

"On the other hand, we are learning something from NIST with this new report, and that is that when government scientists begin working for a political agenda above all else, there is no limit to the extent of deception that they will engage in. We also know that those who have produced the NIST WTC reports must now assume personal responsibility for the ongoing 9/11 Wars, and the millions of deaths that will result from those wars. "

"NIST begins with a few little white lies, and never looks back" - Kevin Ryan.

from: The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak by K. Ryan, September 10, 2008.
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/NIST_WTC7.html

NIST Denies Access to WTC Data
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data
Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:31 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

"TEN YEARS IS TOO LONG... Thousands of lives lost since ... Ten years of policies based on a myth."

Fund-raising has paid off - to launch an intense ad campaign. "The campaign will run during the month of October showing the American people the unmistakable footage of Building 7’s demolition and forcing the mainstream media to finally discuss Building 7."

"The campaign will be a TV and print blitz. New York City subways will be flooded with poster ads while TV ads saturate every major cable channel.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/546-remember-building-7-10th-anniversary-ad-campaign-launches-today-.html

In conjunction with the Remember Building 7 Campaign, AE have released a 15-minute mini-documentary “Architects & Engineers: Solving the Mystery of WTC 7” as a tool for those who want to expose the fraudulent official story of WTC 7’s destruction and the evidence omitted from the US Department of Commerce's NIST Report. Narrated by actor Ed Asner, the documentary features a US Science Medal Recipient (Dr Lynne Margulis), structural engineers, chemical engineers, physicists, a demolition professional and a metallurgist.
[Find the documentary at the ae911truth.org link.]

"If Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition…we have to ask the question 'why?' Why have we been lied to for nine and a half years? Why did they do it?"- Dr Graeme MacQueen, Hartford Conference 2011

NIST: We have the results and only we have the results
On computer simulations, logical fallacies, BBC contributions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk&feature=player_embedded


"I'm Steven Dusterwald and I have been a practising structural engineer for 35 years'.


Last edited by marc on Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:50 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

from The Corbett Show: Emergency Warning for Office Workers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7U22m9xLrQ

Physicist David Chandler got NIST to concede to a period of freefall acceleration in the case of Building Seven. But because the New York Times did not run a headline on page one:

Nist's million-dollar 'fire' theory implodes
Experts point to Newtonian physics


and because the BBC didn't say:

Physicist pulls up NIST
US Dept of Commerce body gets the rug pulled from beneath it as NIST concedes fatal error


and because the Guardian, Telegraph or Sydney Morning Herald didn't headline:

NIST admits freefall in Building Seven
How did Al Qaeda get access to rig this WTC building?


and Time and Newsweek didn't feature:

Science trumps spin
How a Quaker physics teacher red-penned the NIST report
- and woke up Americans to the false-triggered wars fought in their name


Because figures of (media) authority did not say this, the delusion holds.

With Western populations this easy to sucker, it's no wonder military and Nato feel free to explain continuing strategy (Libya) with the filmsiest of feel-good soundbytes ('Humanitarian" operation to 'help civilians").

Impunity is the word that comes to mind. Playground bullies (like profit-and-power seeking bullies) become emboldened when people swallow their stories whole, thus enabling their destructive, self-serving behaviour.
Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:34 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Sitting ducks for misinformation

Update:
The 911 Memorial Museum Timeline has now changed its caption - and only partially corrected it. It is still highly misleading. As ever, half truths add up to whole lies.

The Museum incorrectly labelled a photo of the blazing Building Five (B5) as 'Building Seven'. It has now conceded its mistake by correctly labelling it 'Building Five'
but
it misleadingly leaves the picture of blazing B5 under the Building Seven headline.

http://timeline.national911memorial.org/#/Explore/2/Entry/562/1

A photo of towering inferno B5 has no place under a B7 headline.



View of Salomon Bros Building, WTC 7: Fires did not 'rage'
through this 47 floor steel high-rise, which renders misleading the 911 Memorial Museum's website use of 'raging fires' imagery from another building to illustrate their Building Seven section. Random fires were confined to a few floors, making the sudden onset, rapid implosion at 5.20pm on 11/09/01 even more of a head-scratching mystery.



NIST's scientifically fraudulent report hinges on 'fire = textbook implosion'.

http://rememberbuilding7.org/

Half truths + info omission + misleading visual data = disinformation.

In such a way is history fudged, narrative set in stone.

Memorials have didactic, emotional and political impact. They are never neutral. Are we able to identify the untruths embedded in this Memorial?

Or are we hampered because the 'conspiracy' smear and media blackout prevented us from ever learning much about it - making us sitting ducks for misinformation?


Last edited by marc on Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:14 am; edited 3 times in total
Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:30 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Daily Mail runs an article on building performance, written by a non-expert who gets the facts wrong - and engineers and architects rebut it.

"Footage that kills the conspiracy theories. Rare footage shows WTC7 consumed by fire" - Daily Mail, UK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Sign of desperation. No steel-framed building has ever imploded due to fire.

Is the biggest lesson that came out of 911 the fact that expensive demolition companies are a waste of money? Have thousands of property developers around the world been conned for decades? Office furnishing fires - the perfect tool for demolition?

Perfect tool for demolition - architects & engineers
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/564-jet-fuel.html

Industry experiments, eg the Cardington Fire Tests run on multi-story steel buildings (1995 - 1997) by the respected British Steel's Swinden Technology Centre Insititute ... http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/default1.htm ... proved that hot fires could not destroy steel structures in this fashion.

- Rebuttal of Daily Mail article by Architects & Engineers:

Footage that supposedly kills conspiracy theories actually validates them
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/580-footage-that-kills-911-conspiracy-theories-actually-validates-them-.html


Last edited by marc on Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:14 pm; edited 2 times in total
Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:30 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/586-faq-9.html

FAQ #9: Why does AE911Truth Represent Only a Small Percentage of Architects and Engineers?

Written by John-Michael Talboo - 14 December 2011

Q: Isn’t it true that the signatories at AE911Truth represent only a small percentage of all architects and engineers worldwide?

A: Those who raise this point often do so in an attempt to avoid dealing with the scientific evidence brought forth by AE911Truth. The real question should be, ‘Is the evidence that they are bringing forth factual and worthy of a real investigation?’ To that question, the answer is yes.

It doesn’t matter whether there is one architect and one engineer, or 12, or 100, or 1,600, or 16,000. Those who question the premises offered because the number of adherents to those premises is deemed too small are engaging in a logical fallacy often referred to as an ‘appeal to majority.’

Consider this example:

“Seven in 10 doctors say the pharmaceutical drug Lipitor works, therefore it must work.”

It doesn’t really matter if 10 in 10 doctors say it works: If there is insufficient evidence to support the statement, we cannot simply trust a majority of opinions – particularly if there is a vested interest in dispensing the drug.

If a large number of doctors believe that it works, then all that is really worthy of our time is further investigation for evidence to support the claim, but there is insufficient reason to blindly believe the unproven statement based only on a belief by a majority.

AE911Truth accordingly places its spotlight on the evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers, and asks that people not simply believe any explanation blindly, but rather, consider all of the pertinent facts according to the scientific method.

It should also be noted that the failure to condemn the official story by such a ‘majority’ should not be viewed as an endorsement of it. One should not assume that the individuals comprising the majority opinion have all been exposed to all the relevant information on the topic. For example, a recent survey revealed that 75% of New Yorkers had never seen video footage of the destruction of WTC Building 7. It’s also true that most architects and engineers know nothing at all about the third worst structural failure in modern history [The first two being WTC1 and 2]

To illustrate, a general lack of knowledge about the explosive WTC evidence was displayed among A/E professionals at the September 11, 2011, NYC premiere of the AE911Truth film, "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out," when an individual who held a professional engineer's license asked during the Q&A session why he had never heard of AE911Truth. An architect at the same screening was found in tears over the terrible implications of the evidence.
[...]

In addition, there is no way to calculate how many A/E’s are aware of this evidence, but are unwilling to take a public stance on such a controversial matter.

Most technical experts have never had a chance to view the WTC7 collapse videos or the other pieces of evidence that confirm the controlled demolition hypothesis .

Even if the flawed argument of ‘strength in numbers’ is to be seriously considered, the comparison should actually be between the AE911Truth petition signers and those who have publicly supported the official story - after studying the evidence for controlled demolition.

The latter group only consists of the several dozen engineers that created the NIST WTC reports, along with a handful of various professionals who have openly advocated NIST’s claims and dismissed those of AE911Truth.

This total pales in comparison to the more than 1,600 architects and engineers (as of December 2011) who are calling for an independent investigation of the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7.

As civil engineer Jonathan Cole has noted, "There is a good reason why there is no group called 'Architects and Engineers that Publicly Support the Official Story’." The numbers would be embarrassing. Few have even taken the time to examine the more than 12,000 pages of documents intended to obscure the issues and ignore the most critical evidence.

Other ignored variables include the fact that there are more than 13,000 additional signatories at AE911Truth, which include many highly credentialed people in other fields equally as relevant to the issue. These ‘other’ petition signers include metallurgists, physicists, explosives experts and demolition contractors.

Furthermore, there are other 9/11 truth groups which should also be taken into account that represent hundreds of people credentialed outside the fields of architecture and engineering, such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Finally, as noted by AE911Truth contributing writer Gregg Roberts, the logical fallacy known as ‘moving the goalposts’ is also at play here.


Roberts writes, "...'Debunkers'... dismissed our arguments first because, allegedly, no engineers agreed with us. While that was never true to begin with, after AE911Truth was formed and scores of engineers signed the petition, these debunkers predictably moved the goalposts, saying we didn't have any engineers who know anything about heavy steel structures such as tall buildings."

However, dozens of structural engineers, such as those featured in the documentary 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, have rejected the official story in favor of controlled demolition, citing the overwhelming evidence for that conclusion, much of which was entirely ignored by the official reports.

With the "argument from missing authority" refuted, Roberts concludes, "the goalposts will no doubt just be moved again by people who simply don't want to face the evidence."

Fortunately, these false arguments have not stopped hundreds of architects and engineers and thousands of other concerned citizens from examining the evidence and signing the petition for a real investigation. While strength in numbers is not proof in itself, it amplifies our voice as we share the truth of the World Trade Centre catastrophe with the world.

Regardless of the hundreds of architects and engineers who have signed the AE911Truth petition demanding a new investigation, the evidence for the WTC controlled demolition stands on its own [ends]


Last edited by marc on Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:05 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Things don't look good for NIST:
A doughty Scotsman gets a handle on Building Seven in this short video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zsp0UcgMzs

[Building plans are in the public domain after FOIA requests, so science journalists can double and triple-check this info.
Critique of the NIST report from David Proe and Ian Thomas of the Centre for Environmental Safety and Risk Management at Victoria University. From their letter to NIST: "The assessment of WTC 7 appears to conclude that composite beams are extremely susceptible to failure due to thermal expansion. This is not our experience at all."]

Sunder's theory has been described by researcher Jim Hoffman as "a theory that is breathtakingly innovative in distancing itself from facts. Cast aside are the diesel fuel, which had been the key ingredient of collapse explanations since 2001, and the severe structural damaged that NIST's earlier reports made so much of. All of that could be forgotten along with the expeditiously destroyed steel with NIST's new "elegant" theory, in which a single [asymmetrically situated] beam, heated by fires, broke loose of its connections and took the whole skyscraper down with it. No need to investigate further, according to Sunder, because their results are "incredibly conclusive". And certainly no need to test for explosives because such testing, according to multiple statements of NIST "would not necessarily have been conclusive." http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html


US Dept of Commerce's NIST director S Shyam Sunder: "But truthfully, I don't really know.
We've had trouble getting a handle on building number Seven". - New York Magazine 2006. Also quoted in:
The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science Reaches Its Peak http://911review.com/articles/ryan/NIST_WTC7.html

Speed, symmetry.

That's what gives the game away.

It's not rocket science.

Three steel-structured skyscrapers fell through the path of greatest resistance
(a) too fast
(b) too symmetrically

to be organically-driven events.

If these three skyscrapers had fallen in China or Russia or Iran, maybe Western media would have re-discovered Newtonian physics.


Last edited by marc on Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:23 am; edited 2 times in total
Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:46 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

When computer modelling information is denied to engineers on the grounds of 'public safety'...

Structural engineer Ronald Brookman's FOIA request asking NIST for input parameters used in their WTC7 computer models was refused on the grounds 'it might jeopardise public safety'


Letter to the Editor from structural engineer Ronald Brookman
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/letters-to-the-editor/465-public-safety-paradox.html
Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:55 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker