• ArgosyJones

    What an asshole. He claims (falsely) that bldg 7 collapsed symmetrically in its own footprint– claiming this is evidence that it was therefore a controlled demolition. Then in his next breath he claims that the wide scattering of building fragments of buildings one and two is evidence of controlled demolition. Which is it, Gage? Can two opposite conditions be evidence of the same cause? Only in the mind of a troofer.

    After 7 years of gathering signatures and buying people lunch, Gage has convinced only a fraction of 1% of America’s architects and engineers that his theory has any merit.

    This guy is truly the worst kind of attention whore.

    • psychegram

      ‘Troofer’. How … “mature”. Of course using ‘truth’ as an epithet and then making it sound childish really goes to show where your head is. Assuming you aren’t just a sock puppet.

      • ArgosyJones

        Of course, I’m the one abusing the term. Not the people who will lie and repeat lies uncritically for years on end, claiming for themselves the mantle of “truth” no matter how many of their lies are exposed. The word ‘troof’ is a commentary on the aggressive ignorance and self righteousness of a certain brand of internet ‘hero’, who claim to speak truth to power.

        • MrPINKi

          Just like psychegram’s commentary on how you must be a “sock puppet”. Which I highly agree with.

          • ArgosyJones

            Do you even know what the term ‘sock puppet’ means?

          • MrPINKi

            I sure do

          • MrPINKi

            Do you need a definition?

          • ArgosyJones

            sigh.
            No thanks, I’m not in doubt of your ability to redefine words; you are a troofer, after all.

            It was a rhetorical question. The intent was to point out that you have absolutely no reason to think I am a sock puppet (mere disagreement does not suffice). So now that that has been spelled out for you, please lay out your evidence that I am a sock puppet.

            *waits patiently*

          • Tuna Ghost

            Jones, you’re disagreeing with the truth. Obviously you’re not legit. Your continual pointing out of how the Truthers claims have been debunked consistently isn’t going to convince me that you’re not a shill for the gov’t, which doesn’t have more important things to do than argue with idiots on a tiny website no one cares about. Geraldo Riveria agrees with us! Charlie Sheen! Even Andy Dick is on board, and you still think we don’t know what we’re talking about?? Pffftt.

        • Nano_Thermite_9/11

          I guess you are the real hero huh Argosy. By the way, this is an Orange http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMc1jVg4xoU

          • Albury Smith

            This is what controlled demolitions look and sound like (and don’t in the case of the WTC):
            http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition
            Now that you know what an orange looks like, please watch and learn.
            btw, did you know that Anthony Lawson is also a “no-planes/no-hijackers” nut? Great credibility…

    • MrPINKi

      It seems to me he is making two different points that show evidence of there being a demolition. Just because a building falls on its footprint why couldn’t dust and debris not be on a wide perimeter around each building? The thermite theory has been tested and debunked by private tests but they only used regular thermite which can be found in sparklers. They dont seem to know or care to test the nano thermite. Seems odd to me.

      • ArgosyJones

        Just because a building falls on its footprint why couldn’t dust and debris not be on a wide perimeter around each building?

        Because that is a contradiction in terms. How can a building fall on its own footprint, and also fall all over the place? Debris is pieces of the building. if debris is widely dispersed, then the building did not fall on its own footprint.

        Glad I could help.

        • MrPINKi

          I think he was implying that the main structure fell on its footprint and small debris fell around the perimeter, like the dust that was found, the microscopic thermite in the dust. Why wouldn’t there be that dust around the perimeter when we all saw that happening as the buildings fell. He’s not contradicting it if its something we all saw happen. You could see the building fall on its footprint and you could see the dust plume flowing over a wide perimeter.

          • ArgosyJones

            …implying that the main structure fell on its footprint and small debris fell around the perimeter…

            That would be a lie on Mr. Gage’s part. None of the buildings that collapsed that day fell on their own footprint, however you define debris. Aerial photos show this very clearly; large pieces of all of the coollapsed structures (steel segments weighing many tons) crashed into several other buildings. Why do you have to defend this man’s ridiculous lies?

            I never said anything about the dust plume, which is irrelevant, so I won’t comment on that.

            Let me return to my original point: Gage claims that in the case of building 7, that the building fell on its own footprint (not really true, but we’ll set that aside for the moment. Further, gage claims that this mode of collapse is an indicator of a controlled demolition. Next he turns to the twin towers, which, he notes, scattered debris and large fragments of the exterior steel widely; he claims that this also indicates controlled demolition. How can both be correct? Gage’s claims are not internally consistent.

          • Tuna Ghost

            No thermite of any kind was found in the debris. A paper published overseas stated that rust and small iron particles were found in and around the site six years later, which could have possibly come from a theoretical thermite substance. That paper was later discredited in the same Chemical Nano-particle journal it was published in (without permission of the editor, it should be noted, who later resigned in disgrace at the notion that this article was published under her watch).

            Actual pieces of debris, weighing several tons, fell in a wide pattern. Many surrounding buildings were damaged by falling debris. There are several pictures showing that the towers did not fall “into their own footprint”.

    • paulie

      Two different demo styles at ground zero. The Twin Towers were destroyed in a top-down uncontrolled demo, and Building 7 was a classic implosion. Do you have trouble understanding this simple concept?

      • Albury Smith

        Controlled demolitions are immediately preceded by deafening bangs, and leave explosively-severed columns in debris piles, paulie. If you can’t understand those simple concepts, maybe this will help:
        http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition
        C/Ds are also done for plausible reasons, and take months of very disruptive prep work in advance. Lotsa luck trying to do it secretly in busy, occupied office buildings in major cities, or dreaming up a plausible reason for doing it even once on 9/11.

        • BoogieHauser

          Dood the demo videos on the debunking site, ALL had the windows removed.
          Don’t ya think solids have an effect on sound?
          Didn’t you notice?

          • Albury Smith

            Yes, a huge effect, but not on the sound. Demolition explosives would have blown all the windows out on every floor where they were placed. Why do you think C/D contractors remove them? Duh…

          • BoogieHauser

            Then don’t use examples that don’t support your narrative?

            The conspiracy about demolition can be solved by the fact the windows weren’t blown out?
            Zoinks!

          • Albury Smith

            Gee, now we have explosives that don’t make loud bangs, don’t blow out any glass, and don’t leave any explosively-cut steel in debris piles. What DID they do?

          • BoogieHauser

            Let’s open an investigation!
            Let’s get a list going!

            1. Boogie Hauser

          • Albury Smith

            Sounds like the makings of a real brain trust, Boogie. Here’s a repeat of my question:
            “Gee, now we have explosives that don’t make loud bangs, don’t blow out any glass, and don’t leave any explosively-cut steel in debris piles. What DID they do?”

          • BoogieHauser

            “Gee, now we have explosives that don’t make loud bangs,
            Go debate William Rodriguez, I was in Jersey City and didn’t hear the blasts first hand.

            don’t blow out any glass,

            Yeah if it was that easy, this would be a closed case.

            and don’t leave any explosively-cut steel in debris piles. What DID they do?”

            Go to China and find out or isn’t the fact evidence was removed from a “crime scene”
            disturb you? If you won’t search for the “melted I beams” I can make you.

            What’s your best guess?

          • BoogieHauser

            Meant can’t make you.

          • Albury Smith

            My best guess is that all ~40,000 cleanup workers were in on the plot too, Boogie, because there were no reports of any explosively-cut columns pulled from the pile. Willie’s got extra good hearing or else the explosives were really quiet, and I also guess the North Tower collapse started in the levels below grade where he was, and about 1 hour and 42 minutes before anyone else noticed it.
            Would you like the link to his web site’s donation page? He’ll tell you about those high-powered microwave weapons that really shot down UA 93 if you give him enough money, but he did it free in his lawsuit against the whole US government a few years ago. If he appeals, the judge will lock his ass up and fine him.

          • Nano_Thermite_9/11

            Actually those responsible for the clean up were watched like hawks. They couldn’t be late, one gentlemen took an extended lunch break and was fired immediately upon return. Compartmentilization is a Beeyotch. It’s in Blueprint for Truth but I don’t think you will make it through the first 3 minutes giving your 2 minute hate attention span.

          • Albury Smith

            Who was watching ~40,000 different people on a ~20-acre site over a nearly 8-month period “like hawks”? Any evidence of a C/D would have gotten out in minutes.
            I’ve seen and read all of Gage’s crap, and he’s either totally incompetent, an outright liar, or both. Be sure to send a donation for his “research”; he may need 3 new cardboard boxes or something.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Look, guy: bottom line. Explosives powerful enough to knock down a building make noise. A lot of noise. Enough noise to be heard miles away. Not to mention a controlled demolition involves a lot of prep work that cannot go unnoticed in a crowded city, certainly not in a building that is still in use. But there is no recording of any explosions. There were literally hundreds of recording devices operating at the time, but none of them recorded any noises of explosions. Why is that, Boogie?

          • ArgosyJones

            These discussions always come back to Hush-A-Boom.

      • Tuna Ghost

        …I’m going to go out on a limb and hazard a theory that you haven’t had much in the way of higher education.

        • Nano_Thermite_9/11

          Wow, The Dead Fish has rendered his verdict on the intelligence of anyone who dare disagree with him. He must be brilliant! He probably has receipts from institutions! OMG may we praise your name oh Zombie Salmon!

          • Tuna Ghost

            “Zombie Salmon”. I…kinda like that, actually. Do you mind if I borrow it?

    • Nano_Thermite_9/11

      Actually what he is saying is that EXPLOSIVES were used to perform a controlled demolition. How else can you explain massive girders flying upwards and out at least 600 feet away? Where does the energy in a “gravity” driven collapse come from? The pancake theory and the pile driver have both been completely discredited. Just apply Occams razor and you have to conclude the obvious. All 3 towers were brought down using nano thermite in a controlled demolition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMc1jVg4xoU Richard Gage is an American Hero.

      • Tuna Ghost

        How come there is no audio recording of an explosion powerful enough to bring down a building that size, despite there being numerous recording devices operating at the time, and despite the fact that explosives used in demolitions are heard over a mile away even in big cities? How come, buddy? How come? How come?

      • Tuna Ghost

        Actually what he is saying is that EXPLOSIVES were used to perform a controlled demolition. How else can you explain massive girders flying upwards and out at least 600 feet away?

        You’re right! Because that happens in controlled demolitions ALL THE TIME. Oh wait no, no it doesn’t.

        Which is it? A controlled demolition that brought the towers down perfectly into their own footprint, or an explosion that hurled debris 600 feet away? You’ve claimed both now. I’m afraid those are mutually exclusive claims, kid.

        • Albury Smith

          I thought the “[Box Boy] is an American Hero” comment was funnier. :-)

  • ArgosyJones

    What an asshole. He claims (falsely) that bldg 7 collapsed symmetrically in its own footprint– claiming this is evidence that it was therefore a controlled demolition. Then in his next breath he claims that the wide scattering of building fragments of buildings one and two is evidence of controlled demolition. Which is it, Gage? Can two opposite conditions be evidence of the same cause? Only in the mind of a troofer.

    After 7 years of gathering signatures and buying people lunch, Gage has convinced only a fraction of 1% of America’s architects and engineers that his theory has any merit.

    This guy is truly the worst kind of attention whore.

  • psychegram

    ‘Troofer’. How … “mature”. Of course using ‘truth’ as an epithet and then making it sound childish really goes to show where your head is. Assuming you aren’t just a sock puppet.

  • ArgosyJones

    Of course, I’m the one abusing the term. Not the people who will lie and repeat lies uncritically for years on end, claiming for themselves the mantle of “truth” no matter how many of their lies are exposed. The word ‘troof’ is a commentary on the aggressive ignorance and self righteousness of a certain brand of internet ‘hero’, who claim to speak truth to power.

  • MrPINKi

    Just like psychegram’s commentary on how you must be a “sock puppet”. Which I highly agree with.

  • ArgosyJones

    Do you even know what the term ‘sock puppet’ means?

  • MrPINKi

    It seems to me he is making two different points that show evidence of there being a demolition. Just because a building falls on its footprint why couldn’t dust and debris not be on a wide perimeter around each building? The thermite theory has been tested and debunked by private tests but they only used regular thermite which can be found in sparklers. They dont seem to know or care to test the nano thermite. Seems odd to me.

  • ArgosyJones

    Just because a building falls on its footprint why couldn’t dust and debris not be on a wide perimeter around each building?

    Because that is a contradiction in terms. How can a building fall on its own footprint, and also fall all over the place? Debris is pieces of the building. if debris is widely dispersed, then the building did not fall on its own footprint.

    Glad I could help.

  • MrPINKi

    I sure do

  • MrPINKi

    I think he was implying that the main structure fell on its footprint and small debris fell around the perimeter, like the dust that was found, the microscopic thermite in the dust. Why wouldn’t there be that dust around the perimeter when we all saw that happening as the buildings fell. He’s not contradicting it if its something we all saw happen. You could see the building fall on its footprint and you could see the dust plume flowing over a wide perimeter.

  • MrPINKi

    Do you need a definition?

  • ArgosyJones

    …implying that the main structure fell on its footprint and small debris fell around the perimeter…

    That would be a lie on Mr. Gage’s part. None of the buildings that collapsed that day fell on their own footprint, however you define debris. Aerial photos show this very clearly; large pieces of all of the coollapsed structures (steel segments weighing many tons) crashed into several other buildings. Why do you have to defend this man’s ridiculous lies?

    I never said anything about the dust plume, which is irrelevant, so I won’t comment on that.

    Let me return to my original point: Gage claims that in the case of building 7, that the building fell on its own footprint (not really true, but we’ll set that aside for the moment. Further, gage claims that this mode of collapse is an indicator of a controlled demolition. Next he turns to the twin towers, which, he notes, scattered debris and large fragments of the exterior steel widely; he claims that this also indicates controlled demolition. How can both be correct? Gage’s claims are not internally consistent.

  • ArgosyJones

    sigh.
    No thanks, I’m not in doubt of your ability to redefine words; you are a troofer, after all.

    It was a rhetorical question. The intent was to point out that you have absolutely no reason to think I am a sock puppet (mere disagreement does not suffice). So now that that has been spelled out for you, please lay out your evidence that I am a sock puppet.

    *waits patiently*

  • BoogieHauser

    I think his point however inconsistent was the need for a new investigation.
    A bunch of people have bits and pieces. If he had a big budget, we’d have our answers.

    Building Seven did fall at free fall speed for part of the fall.
    If fire can cause that to happen, then we have a host of problems in NYC and elsewhere.

    • Tuna Ghost

      You are aware that there have been several other investigations, right? The NYPD and the FDNY both conducted their own investigations, as well as other groups. All of which came to largely the same conclusions.

      • BoggieHauser

        Well then, that’s all the proof I and the other two-thirds of Americans need.


        Several feet of nano sized particulates aren’t created from buildings falling down due to fire.

        • Albury Smith

          You just furnished all the proof I need that you didn’t read the “Active Thermitic Material…” malarkey that prompted the resignation of Dr. Pileni, Bentham’s former editor-in-chief, or don’t understand what should have been in the dust.

          • BoogieHauser

            Any possibility of adding a link?
            My mind is open because the 911 report did not satisfy my curiosity.

          • Albury Smith

            Here’s the link to the Bentham paper:
            http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
            No exemplars of anything are provided for comparison, and they simply offer an unsupported statement that sulfur, rust, aluminum, silicon, etc. “remind” them of something.
            If you’re looking for this type of information in the 9/11 Commission Report, you’re looking in the wrong place, since it wasn’t in the scope of that investigation.

          • BoogieHauser

            Thanks for this.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Keep in mind the NIST report was rushed and used qualifiers such as “likely” and “possibly”, words that truthers are keen to leave out when quoting the report. They didn’t have all the answers, or as much time as they would have wished. This has been admitted on a number of occasions. But several investigations followed, which for the most part backed up their initial findings. A good source of information is, surprisingly, http://www.debunking911.com . They tackle the majority of claims made by conspiracy theorists, and have links to other information resources.

          • Captain Birdseye

            Albury Smith – Special Agent – Gormless Shill – Exposed and Debunked
            http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/06/9-11-sceptics-versus-logic-reason-and-scientific-principles/

          • Tuna Ghost

            I read through the first 1/3, and it didn’t tackle anything substantive.  As soon as I got to the part The official story says that the collapse of all buildings on 9.11 was caused by the hijacked planes and resulting fires alone I knew the article was bullshit.  That is not the official story.  

            This is when I usually tell people to tackle the evidence presented in thread, but I’ll give you a break: just tell me how a controlled demolition was pulled off in light of the fact that no recording device, of which there were literally hundreds in operation at the time, recorded any sound of an explosion (let alone two).  An explosion loud enough to topple a building that size would have been heard a mile away, but there is no recording of it anywhere.  Explain that for me.  No one, and I mean no one, has even attempted to yet, as you can see from this comments section.  

          • the pope

            youll go blind if you keep doing that

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Sacred Geometry International

            Red herring bullshit again.  You are assuming the explosives must have been RDX , there are explosives which would not give the auditory results that NIST uses to ignore searching for ANY explosives whatsoever.  Again  NIST refused to look for explosives based on circular illogic such as,

             “There could have been no explosives because the explosions would have been recorded, since we have “no” (actually there are several, see below) recordings or explosive residue (even though we refused to look for them) there could have been “no” explosives.  Regurgitate ad infinitum.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdfSa1ga_IQ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_u9Ni6jHfw&feature=related (HERE YA GO, LOUD FUCKING EXPLOSIONS ON 911)
            Nano Thermite was discovered and the evidence produced in peer reviewed journal.  Why have ZERO academics done the work to refute the information in a peer review process?  It’s because they cannot.  All the man can do is pay insignificant sellout sycophantic trolls like you and albury smith  to try to poison the well.  Well guess what American’s see through your BULLSHIT.  See what you will say is “They can’t waste their time with this nonsense” or some such jabber.  This is again circular illogic on your part and everyone with half a brain sees right through your ruse.  The peer review process is long established, but the establishment can’t abide by it when it comes to the mountains of evidence destroying the sacred myth of 9/11.

            As for guts, again you were asked why don’t you just post a video on youtube so the world can see the pathetic slime bag you are and try to present your claims in the light of a public discourse?  You won’t because you can’t.  You are a coward and an apologist for Treasonous Murderers.  You are scum.

             “While several government agencies, including NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) produced reports on the collapse of the three World Trade Centerbuildings, they pointedly did not analyze the debris for the presence of explosives. This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics. It is also at odds with the video evidence of explosions, and the testimony of fire department personnel, more than 100 of whom officially reported hearing or seeing explosions. NIST also failed to explain the source of large quantities of molten metal in the WTC rubble, or the abundant amounts of iron microspheres in the dust.
            NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report…ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….”Anyone who wants to go much deeper than these pawns dare to, just watch Blueprint for Truth by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth online.

          • Tuna Ghost

            You are assuming the explosives must have been RDX , there are explosives which would not give the auditory results that NIST uses to ignore searching for ANY explosives whatsoever. 

            There are not now, nor have there ever been, explosives powerful enough to topple a building yet not be heard on the recording devices present at the scene.  I don’t know how to say this any simpler.  Regarding the first video you supplied, half the clips didn’t even mention explosions, and the other half had clips of people with no names or ranks or firestations or anything that can be credited.  The sounds that people heard that sounded like explosions have already been explained in this thread.  They were not loud enough to real explosions powerful enough to bring down a building.  

            Nano Thermite was discovered and the evidence produced in peer reviewed journal.  Why have ZERO academics done the work to refute the information in a peer review process?

            Because the very journal it was published in discredited it immediately.  The editor resigned over the fact that it was even published in her magazine.  It was published without her knowledge, and she is on record saying that had she known about the article she would never have allowed it to be published because it had an obvious political agenda and had little to do with actual science.  The study itself (try actually reading it, guy) does not claim to have found evidence of nano-thermite.  It claims to have found particles that “remind” the researchers of residue left after some thermitic reactions.  These particles also occur frequently in nature, and the samples they were using were collected from people’s homes and rooftops six years after the fact.  It’s bad science, and no one takes that article seriously because the very periodical it was published in refuted it immediately.  It was not a “peer-reviewed” article, despite the claims.  Where are these peers to back it up?   But of course, the journal and the rest of the nano-chemistry community are all in on the plot.  Of course.

            As for guts, again you were asked why don’t you just post a video on youtube so the world can see the pathetic slime bag you are and try to present your claims in the light of a public discourse?

            Wait, YouTube counts as valid public discourse but Disinfo doesn’t?  That doesn’t really speak towards your factual reliability, buddy.  Besides, everything I’ve written can be found all over the web.  This all comes from pretty quickly searching for answers to your questions.  Anyone can do it, if they’re actually looking for answers and not just whatever only backs up their claims.

            You won’t because you can’t.  You are a coward and an apologist for Treasonous Murderers.  You are scum.

            Cry and wail all you like, kid.  Like anyone gives a fuck about treason against the US anyway.  There’s a very good reason no one takes Truthers seriously, and its not because we don’t dare imagine that the US government, responsible for darker and more black shit than 9/11, could ever lie to its own citizens.  Its because every year your explanations get even more elaborate and machiavellian and ridiculous, until you’re lumped in with the “The Moon Landing Was Faked” crowd.  

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Sacred Geometry International

            Notice you ignored the evidence that shows LOUD FUCKING EXPLOSIVES on 9/11.  Also over 100 witnesses reported secondary explosions. You know people who were actually there and would know better than you.  Show your face COWARD. Put a video up of you on Youtube so we can see what Human Scum looks like.As for the Editor and The Peer Reviewed Nano Thermite Paper.   To everyone watching at home.  Here is a nice article refuting all of Tuna’s bullshit.  http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-the-Harrit-Nano-thermi-by-Michael-Fullerton-090814-310.html

            The paper does in fact deal with physical chemistry. Physical chemistry involves among other things, reaction kinetics on the rate of a reaction and the identity of ions on the electrical conductivity of materials [6]. In the paper they documented the reaction rates of the chips in relation to thermite and paint chips. They also subjected the red/gray chips to an electron beam and noted the poor conductivity of the red layer.

            Chemical physics is the branch of physics that studies chemical processes from the point of view of physics [7]. This would involve things like studying the dissolution of chemical bonds as they did when they soaked red/gray and paint chips in MEK. Chemical physics also involves the study of nanoparticles which is what the whole paper is about.

            Marie-Paule Pileni, the former Open Chemical Physics Journal editor in chief, in fact seems to have the ideal background to judge this paper. She has a thorough background in physical chemistry and chemical physics, as well as with explosives. She also has extensive connections to the defense industry [8]. These facts suggest more of her stretching the truth and resigning under pressure than due to incompetence or indignation. This paper leads to the undeniable implication that some of the most powerful people on Earth lied about what happened on 9/11 and were even possibly involved in the WTC tower demolitions. Would this not be a massive potential source of political pressure? Enough pressure for the editor to lie and resign?
            All you have is logical fallacy, misrepresentation and appeal to ridicule.

            Check Mate Beeyotch.  Of course you won’t read the paper or refute the evidence because you can’t so just consider this info for the people you try to lead off the path like a Red Herring.

            You’re still Scum.  Anonymous spineless scum.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Notice you ignored the evidence that shows LOUD FUCKING EXPLOSIVES on 9/11.

            Not loud enough to leave any evidence on the recording equipment, though?  Despite the very simple fact, that I am getting tired of repeating, that any explosion–ANY explosion, no matter what the explosives used–powerful enough to bring down a building will be heard a mile away?  Are you ever going to address this?  So far none of you truthers have.  

              Also over 100 witnesses reported secondary explosions. You know people who were actually there and would know better than you.Hearsay isn’t evidence, I’m afraid.  People reporting sounds that sounded like explosions isn’t evidence.  Nameless people on video saying they heard explosions isn’t evidence.  As I said earlier, the sounds they heard have already been explained in this thread.  Check it out.  They’re right up the page a bit.  I’m not sure why you’re having a hard time with this.  If it was a controlled demolition, there would be far, far more than just “over 100″ witnesses reporting the sound.  Powerful explosion = big noise.  There is no getting around this, not with nano-thermite, not with different kinds of explosives.  When are you, or anyone, going to address this very simple fact?Re: the nanothermite paper: So you’re choosing to believe Michael Fullerton, who has a BSc in Computer Science and so is obviously perfectly suited as a judge in this matter despite that he provides no credentials or information backing up his assertions, rather than the people who actually dealt with the paper, whose credentials and information are all a matter of public record?  Really?  That’s the guy you’re going with?  Smart choice, buddy.  This is what I mean by only listening to the people who back up the conclusions on which you’ve already landed and ignore, oh, I don’t know, the vast majority of the scientific community.  Oh, but I forget–they, like Marie-Paule Pileni, are obviously in on the plot.  Everyone is, who doesn’t agree with you.  And isn’t on YouTube, apparently.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Sacred Geometry International

            Here ya go!  http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/911-explosive-eyewitness-testimony

            “I’ve been collecting videos of eyewitness testimony online for many
            months and I figured the best way to present them all would be to create
            a compilation of footage instead of keeping them all separated. Here
            you have firefighters, citizens, and news reporters all telling you
            about explosions. Some witnesses explain that they felt an explosion
            before the plane even hit the building. Others report explosions in the
            basement, and the lobby. News reporters report that they’ve been hearing
            explosions all day, and one reporter Pat Dawson, spoke with the Chief
            of Safety for the NY Fire Dept. who said that he thought there were
            bombs planted in the buildings.”

            Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay by the way but nice try.

            You lose again shill.

          • Albury Smith

            There are a lot of explosions in these videos too:
            http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition
            http://www.break.com/index/landmark_tower_demolition.html
            Demolition explosives aren’t just heard by people inside the
            targeted buildings or within a block, and actually cause building collapses
            within seconds.
            Since there are quite a few FDNY in that video, here’s Erik
            Lawyer’s “firefighters” for 9/11 “truth” petition:
            http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
            How many signatories even claim to be FDNY? Aren’t they as astute as
            you are, or don’t they care what caused the collapses that killed 300+ of their
            own?

          • Happy Pants

            Info on Albury Smith =

            ‘A paid back-room mole to infiltrate every possible 9/11 chat room,
            message board, and forum to create as much din, disruption, “noise,” and
            chaos as possible which constantly litters and pollutes the soup;

            effectively preventing most people from focusing on Israel’s central role in 9/11.

            A seeming obsession with minutiae where researchers spend an
            inordinate amount of time endlessly fixating on the tiniest of details
            without stepping back and exposing the bigger picture and its subsequent
            ramifications.

            Engages in rhetorical debates for
            debate’s sake; all of which is sterile, self-contained, and circular in
            nature.’

            IE: Gormless Shill

            Info on the Trade Center destruction

            http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/arguments-regarding-collapse-of-world.html

          • Albury Smith

            Gee, that was fact-filled. What demolition explosives leave pools of molten metal for months, and what was Israel’s “central role” in an al Qaeda suicide attack?

          • Dances with Shills

            Yes it was.

            You tell us what collapse scenario leaves molten pools of metal for months shill.

            You want more facts? You cant handle the facts.

            http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

            Maybe you could debate some facts on youtube or something. Im sure Jon would love to put you in your place.

            Scared little shill?

          • Albury Smith

            Isn’t Jon’s place chained to a fence or something while sane people ignore him? I hope you two don’t run out of Reynolds Wrap, but I’m still wondering what explosives leave pools of molten metal in debris piles for months. Does that happen in real controlled demolitions?

          • Dances with Shills

            Yeah, your “explanation” of how a building collapse can generate enough heat to keep metal molten for months is pretty lame, eh?

            http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/many-witnesses-confirm-molten-metal-under-tower-rubble/

            Why are you still wondering after youv’e been told repeatedly? Intellectually comprimised are you?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O66UyGNrmSI
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yIOC1J44RYw

            If Jon is so easy to discredit, why dont you put your face to your arguments? Oh that’s right, you’re a scared little lying shill.

          • Nano_Thermite_911

            Appreciate you calling this shill out.  Don’t waste to much time on him though, he is about as concerned with 9/11 truth as George Bush is.  Thanks for again exposing this clown. 

          • Albury Smith

            Debris fires keep metal molten for months, but please feel free to enlighten me to all of the explosives that do.

          • Tuna Ghost

            It is when names and other information aren’t given.  

            All of that is irrelevant, though.  The fact is, there are many things that account for the things that sounded like explosions that most definitely are not incendiary devices.  For instance, here’s the assistant Fire Commisioner: 

            “Assistant Fire Commissioner: “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”
            Sounds incriminating, until you read the entire quote.

            “I don’t know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.”You’ll find a lot of rescue personnel saying that they believe it was either electrical explosions or compressed air or the impact of concrete falling several stories.  Every floor has at least two electrical closets.  It could have been any number of things, really, but one thing it could not have ever been is demolitions-grade explosives.  The simple fact is, and this is what you’ve been steadily ignoring, explosions that topple buildings are very, very loud.  The shockwaves would have knocked the witnesses in the building or near the building unconscious or at the least off their feet.  The noise would have been heard by everyone within a radius of many, many city blocks, not a handful of people.  The booms heard by a small number of people (and dealing with explosions that knock down skyscrapers, 100 witnesses is a very small number) cannot and are not incendiary explosives that destroyed the towers.  If those explosions ever occurred, they would have been captured on at least one of the numerous recording devices present.When are you going to address this, Camron?  Is your plan to ignore it forever and then claim victory again?  Like all the other truthers here?  Is that what someone searching for truth does, Camron?  Is it?  Will you please acknowledge this, Camron?  Just once.  Just once, so that I can say at least one Truther openly acknowledged this fact.  You can tell me magical unicorns absorbed the soundwaves and ate all the shockwaves, just ACKNOWLEDGE.  THIS.  VERY.  SIMPLE.  FACT.  

          • Tuna Ghost

            That’s a great way to claim victory, by the way.  Sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes every time the other side scores a point?  Brilliant.  

          • Tuna Ghost

            huh, the formatting is all wonky–I included paragraph breaks that mysteriously disappeared.  

            A conspiracy, obviously.

          • Tuna Ghost

            You’re still Scum.  Anonymous spineless scum.
            *GASP*  That’s the worst kind of scum!!!!!!   

            Look buddy, everyone knows you’re not a real Truther until you’ve posted a video on Justin Beiber’s fan forum.  Until you do that, you’re just hiding.  Join the REAL debate on the Beiber fan forum, where all the pros come to debate.  If you don’t do that, you’ll prove yourself a coward who doesn’t have faith in his convictions.  

          • Tuna Ghost

            As much as I love repeating myself to idiots, I have to say I’m getting a little tired of providing the exact same responses to the exact same claims over and over.  How about you guys get some new claims, or tackle the evidence refuting the ones that have been made a dozen times in this thread alone?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Sacred Geometry International

            In other words.  Checkmate.  Game set Match 9/11 Truth. 
            Tuna Ghost refuses to think about it anymore.  Can’t answer the questions can you PolterFish?

          • Tuna Ghost

            …so I guess you’re ignoring the answers I gave directly below?  Camron, will you tackle the evidence I presented?  I did it with yours, its only fair.  Its right down there.  Literally in black and white.  

            Tell me about the powerful explosions that aren’t loud, that don’t produce shock waves, that don’t leave evidence.  Go for it, Camron.  Tell me about the materials Michael Fullerton, who has a BSc in Computer Science and Psychology, has that proves his claims.  Tell me why he is not some crank on the internet, Camron.  Tell me why the paper is evidence of nano-thermite when the actual report itself does not claim that.  Tell me any of these things, Camron.  The discussion literally cannot move forward if you don’t.  All it can do, as is evidenced upthread, is produce the same tired arguments that have been repeatedly handled.  And then when I say “look upthread/downthread/all over the goddam thread where the questions have already been addressed”, this is apparently your cue to say “A-HA!  I win!  I win because I repeat the same stories that have been debunked several times over in the very same thread that I’m posting in now!”You really wonder why no one takes Truthers seriously?  This.  This here.  This is why.    

          • Albury Smith

            What did this nanothermite or other top-secret explosive DO? We
            already know that it explodes silently, keeps metal molten in debris piles for
            months, makes a great dessert topping, and is eco-friendly, but does it also cut
            right through steel columns and leave factory ends on them, complete with
            connection plates, bolt holes, etc.? The best I’ve seen so far from your “truth
            movement” is Steven Jones’s photo of a torch-cut column with gray slag around
            the cut, and not everyone is as gullible as you apparently are.
            I’d also like to know how many FDNY who reported explosIONS inside
            the burning WTC buildings are in your 9/11 “truth movement.” Erik Lawyer’s
            petition has fewer than half a dozen signatories who even claim to be
            FDNY:
            http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
            Aren’t NYC firefighters as astute and knowledgeable as you and your
            “researchers,” or don’t they care what caused the building collapses that killed
            more than 300 of their colleagues?

          • Tuna Ghost

            Look, buddy.  Imagine if some crank went to the police and asked “why aren’t you looking for evidence that Kareem Abul-Jabaar killed Nicole Brown and not OJ Simpson?”.  The police would respond, “there is no evidence at all linking Kareem Abdul-Jabaar to the murders”.  Then the crank says “Then why aren’t you looking for it???”  Does that sound reasonable?  Because that is what you are doing, right now.  That is you, here, in this comments section.  

          • Nagual

            Too Gutless to video a youtube Albury? Too gutless to debate anyone you call liars and libellers, too short of testicular fortitude to actually say what you say face to face with anyone who puts their name and reputation to their cause.

            Youre a sad sack of excrement, nothing more.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Sacred Geometry International

            I agree with Nagual.  

          • Albury Smith

            That’s quite courageous of both of you. Get back to me if you’d like to discuss the topic.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Are you ever going to address the actual evidence, or just continue to post the same stuff over and over?  Like you did further down the page?  Is this what people concerned about the truth do, Camron?  Is it?  Is it, friend?

            See you on the Beiber Fan Forum!  That is, if you have the BALLS and stop HIDING on YouTube.

          • Albury Smith

            I posted the link to the Bentham “Active Thermitic Material…” farce. Too gutless to read it? I’ve debated many in your “truth movement,” but can’t do it on their own “forums” because I’m usually banned, so I know all about “gutless.”

          • Tuna Ghost

            Well you know I would, except I get banned.  Also, as evidenced in this thread, as soon as they are pushed to actually address the evidence Truthers usually just stop posting.  It makes for a pretty one-sided debate, as I’m sure you’ll understand after you stop responding because you have no answers.

            As for YouTube, like I told the other twit: all the REAL pros debate on the Justin Beiber fan forum.  Why are you HIDING on YouTube?  If you don’t, you prove yourself a COWARD who doesn’t care about TRUTH at ALL.  Stop HIDING!  Be a real MAN and post on Justin Beiber’s fan page.  

          • Albury Smith

            Please note the line through my name at this “forum,” meaning that I’m banned from commenting:
            http://letsrollforums.com/major-9-11-truth-t20779.html
            I was banned at the Loose Change “Forum” for asking a truther why 12 different insurance companies all paid Silverstein a total of $4.68 billion if he publicly admitted to blowing up WTC 7. The moderator said my question wasn’t “sincere enough,” so he had to ban me from posting there because of it. I can’t post on 95% or more of them, and this clown thinks I’m “gutless”?

          • ArgosyJones

            911 report did not satisfy my curiosity…

            You should read reports, not eat them, Bogie:) That’s probably your problem.

          • BoogieHauser

            You assume too much. :)

          • A-ROK

            hey albury how do multi ton beams from the wtc impale themselves in buildings blocks away form the site of the collapses unless some kind of explosive force was being used

          • Albury Smith

            That’s called gravity. Do you know of any force present there that would have prevented perimeter column trees from being hurled a few hundred feet laterally from a height of 1000′ or 1200’? The upper portions of each tower weighed ~125,000 and ~60,000 tons respectively.

          • Tuna Ghost

            If there was explosives used, the sound would have been heard quite a far distance away. And yet despite there being several hundred recording devices operating at the time, there was no record of any explosion. Strange, don’t you think, considering an explosion (two, even) powerful enough to bring down a building that large would have been heard over a mile away? And yet there is no audio recording anywhere of such an explosion.

            As for your question: gravity.

        • Tuna Ghost

          You mean the nano-sized particles collected from rooftops and people’s apartments, kept in shoeboxes, six years later? Those particles? Which are rust and tiny pieces of iron? Which even Richard Gage admits you’ll find all over any city, and occur quite frequently without any thermitic material? You’re talking about those particles, right? The ones brought up as evidence in an article published in a nano-chemistry journal in europe, an article which was debunked almost immediately? An article which prompted the editor of said magazine to resign in embarrassment since the article was published without her knowledge and had no business being published in a scientific journal (her words)? We’re talking about the same particles of rust and iron, right?

          • BoogieHauser

            Yeah I mean those particles.
            Size matters.

        • ArgosyJones

          Several feet of nano sized particulates

          LOL, you don’t even seem to know what Gage and his cadre claim, yet here you are attempting to defend them. I’m done with you, Bogie. Just for fun, try and find someone who even claims several feet (meaning at least 3, but I’ll take anything as large as two) of “nano particles”.

          Go get a GED.

          • BoogieHauser

            Go read something that might help your lack of understanding on the subject.
            Information readily available.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Boogie. Buddy. Friend. You are consistently ignoring detailed explanations. This is not what someone concerned with the truth does. Why do you do that, Boogie? Can you tell me? Why do you stick to theories that have been debunked numerous times? What investment have you made in this malarkey? Why do you stick to theories that ignore fundemental facts? Why do you deny basic physics? Can you tell me? Can you, compardre?

    • Albury Smith

      Gravity caused that to happen. The modeling in NCSTAR 1A clearly shows why a portion of the WTC 7 facade collapse was at free fall acceleration.

      • Fox_dlueyd

        That’s disinformation.
        I stated the “building” fell at free fall for a brief period.
        I’ll stick with that.

        • Albury Smith

          WTC 7’s interior collapse began long before the top of the north parapet wall began falling. It’s disinformation to refer to the exterior facade as “the building,” and to cite only the free-fall or near free-fall portion of the collapse. It’s sophistry to imply or claim that collapse time for any portion of it is evidence of what triggered the collapse. Box Boy’s 6.5 or 6.6 seconds for the whole facade collapse is an outright lie, but entirely consistent with his other crap. Aside from being off by ~2.5 seconds, he has no way of timing it to the nearest 1/10 second.

          • BoogieHauser

            The video shows all four corners falling at the same time.
            Your purporting fire did that?

          • Albury Smith

            I’m suggesting that you read all of this:
            http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
            The WTC 7 global collapse started inside, and the tight spacing of the exterior columns explains why the facade collapse was fairly uniform. It also kept the debris contained.

          • BoogieHauser

            I will.
            I’ll keep in mind Barry Jennings while I read it.

          • Albury Smith

            Keep in mind that demolition explosives are heard for miles, not just by people inside of the building, and that a ConEd substation was under WTC 7 with transformers that shorted after the plane crashes across Vesey Street. If you’re into the Silverstein “pull it” malarkey from the 9/11 “truth movement,” also keep in mind that the FDNY phone call to him was made around 3:30 PM, so no one was deciding WHETHER to blow up WTC 7 with those imaginary explosives at that hour if they’d already started going off at ~10:00 AM.

          • BoogieHauser

            Well that’s a general statement on the distance the sounds of explosions usually travel.
            But of course accounts exist of civil war battles not being heard less than a mile away due to background noise and geography.

            Silverstein wouldn’t be called in for testimony, in my “911 court fantasy”, where I’m the judge.

            I’m not the sharpest “knife in the drawer”, but as I read your suggested http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PD
            I have trouble so far (only at pg 37)
            Where did the lead graphic (intro page) of Building Seven looking all wobbly and weak kneed come from?
            No by-line or explanation so far.

            My gut feeling is it looks like a “pretty good try to show how a building with a “inferno inside” might actually fall “symmetrically”. I guess I’ll find out further on.

            I can’t help but feel I’m being given the “sell” that this is “so comprehensive” it actually may “suffice” for
            a real “crime scene” investigation. Big name after name of corporate interests, that were willing to “lend their free time” to form this consensus. In the real world, these posers get “told what to do”, not call the shots.

            I’ll trundle on.

          • Albury Smith

            You sound fairly open-minded. Remember that 12 different insurance companies paid out $4.68 BILLION here, so that’s a lot more than some free time. I’d look closely at the framing layout to see why the collapse was so contained.

          • BoogieHauser

            So do you.

            A friend of mine died in that attack. Typing about it, (even this bric brack) after all these years, still makes my hands sweat.
            I’d like to reach some “personal conclusion” without feeling like I leaned to either side.
            That I haven’t found the “holy grail” I sought after all these years, has lead me to kind of sit the fence until either technology answers “what happened” or something else gets brought to light.

            I probably type here with my “limited knowledge” on the subject, because Rob’s brought back for a spell when I do.

            Not looking for sympathy, I’ve been honest though.

          • Albury Smith

            Here’s the “Firefighters” for 9/11 “Truth” petition, BH:
            http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
            Count up the number of signatories to it who even claim to be FDNY, i.e. the guys who lost more than 300 of their colleagues and even close relatives just in the collapses, and 343 total on 9/11. Many were at the WTC on 9/11, and they know a lot more about it than people who weren’t. They don’t have their own 9/11 truth organization either. Just food for thought…

          • BoogieHauser

            “In addition, the poll also found that two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Only 4.8 percent of the respondents agreed that members of the United States government “actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack.””

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_opinion_polls
            Thought food enough for both of us.

          • Albury Smith

            That simply shows how poorly informed Americans are about a terrorist attack on their own soil, BH. NCSTAR 1A reported the findings of a complete NIST investigation of WTC 7’s collapse, and the 9/11 Commission was not only not charged with that task, they lacked the expertise to do it. Out of all of the NYC buildings damaged or destroyed on 9/11, only the towers were mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report at all, and that was only because al Qaeda targeted them (again) in their attack on 9/11. They’d previously tried to destroy them in 1993.

          • BoogieHauser

            We have elections for President based on these “poorly informed” Americans, seems reasonable to allow the “will of the people” to prevail here as well.

            The problems with what, and what not to investigate, was for some reason not laid out very well.
            Seems the stone wall and budgetary constraints Bushco put in place until 11/2002 had a bad effect on the commissions ability to encompass the rest of the crime scene.

            1993! My recollection was they had some courageous help from alphabet city.

          • Albury Smith

            Scientific findings aren’t something we all get together and vote on.

          • BoogieHauser

            But we could vote on a real investigation, like they typically conduct when just one person gets murdered.

          • Albury Smith

            What would you like to investigate this time, BoogieH? The WTC collapses have already been thoroughly investigated by extremely competent people, so I’d suggest further investigation of their reports and less time wasted on 9/11 “truth movement” claims from chronic liars, 9/11 profiteers, and crackpots.

          • BoogieHauser

            Yeah start with Thomas Kean and find the remaining “commission members” who already have “staunchly disproved your claims”. Gawd awful control over people does not in the slightest result in a thurough job.
            What info are you cherry picking from? This is old news.

          • Albury Smith

            What claims of mine have been “staunchly disproved” by Commission members? Be specific.
            Jeezus; do you ever read ANYTHING but 9/11 “truth movement” crap?

          • BoogieHauser

            the claim the Nine one one commission wasn’t compromised from the start.
            Kissinger?
            Gawd! Didn’t that give you any pause to think what was happening behind the scenes and what you could
            expect???

          • Albury Smith

            Why do you keep ducking my questions?

          • Albury Smith

            Check this out too, BoogieH:
            http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition
            It’s ~47 minutes well spent.

          • BoogieHauser

            Painful so far. Let’s all make video’s with our own angles and pick of the litter footage.
            Sadly whoever made this has just as much of an agenda as all I’ve seen.
            Thanks anyway.

          • Albury Smith

            You can look at a known C/D from any angle you want, and you’ll see and hear pretty much the same thing. In the first 4 minutes of that video, you can look at a tower collapse and see very clearly that nothing moved until the upper part started falling. How would the smoke from the fires have been undisturbed by explosives triggering either tower collapse, and what angle shows that it was?
            The upper part of the South Tower weighed ~125,000 tons, the upper part of the North Tower weighed ~60,000 tons, and once they started falling, the rest of each building was down in ~15 and ~22 seconds respectively. Free fall from 1368′ takes ~9.25 seconds, so you decide for yourself how honest the “researchers” in your 9/11 “truth movement” are.

          • BoogieHauser

            Like a hammer that can crush without winding up!
            Fantasy, especially with the dust size.
            And yes I read about the PVC, Toner and the list of crap that “might explain” the thermite claims.
            Seems speculation is new “proof”.

          • Albury Smith

            The thermite claims in the Bentham farce are actually nanothermite (BIG difference), and are based on the notion that rust, aluminum, sulfur, silicon, etc. “reminded” your “researchers” of something. The dust size is only meaningful if you can explain how big it should have been, and you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about and are parroting some truther nut web site. The “hammer” you’re referring to weighed ~4500 TONS PER FLOOR, and was going almost 20 mph when it first hit the intact floors below.
            You honestly are not equipped for this discussion.

          • BoogieHauser

            Oh those magical 20 floors and their amazing pulverization power!
            I’m liking my position.
            You should get up to date.

          • Albury Smith

            How old are you and what’s your education level? Seriously. If you can’t understand the concept of tens of thousands of tons crashing into something at almost 20 mph, I’d suggest finding another hobby.

          • BoogieHauser

            Watched too many simulations on this to take an angry attacking debunkers word.
            Damn if that yourtube is not the friend of debunkers now a days,
            I guess the “personal attacks” will only increase.

          • Albury Smith

            I think that you’re just so darn knowledgeable of science, engineering, and the facts that you really don’t even need another investigation of any WTC collapse on 9/11, Boogie.

          • BoogieHauser

            Run out of steam eh?

          • Tuna Ghost

            basically, you’re not going to accept any of the previous five investigations, not until one finally agrees with your bullshit. That’s what your saying, isn’t it. You really don’t need an investigation, you just need someone one camera to say “you’re right. All your bullshit physics, the stuff that doesn’t make a lick of sense to anyone, that’s all correct and what really happened”. Just go ahead and say it, buddy. It’s okay. We’re here for you.

          • BoogieHauser

            The video naturally didn’t use the footage of squibs coming out SIXTY feet blow!

            If you’re going to debunk something, use the footage that insures people won’t be asking this question.
            sheese!

          • Albury Smith

            Each tower floor contained ~1/2 million cubic feet of air. Where do you suppose all of that went when a floor collapsed? What did your “squibs” do, since they obviously didn’t cut any steel?

          • BoogieHauser

            Yeah it pushed it out many floors below! lol

            Shows a limited understanding of the WTC buildings design.

          • Albury Smith

            Yeah, I forgot that the towers had cores heavily damaged by planes, and were full of penetrations like elevator and utility shafts. It’s tough to get one past a high beam like you.

          • BoogieHauser

            How did I know you were going all “elevator shafts” on me?
            Now you’re showing the “cherry stains” on your fingers.

            Won’t bother to show how the elevator shafts don’t support your theories.

          • Albury Smith

            Go for it, Boogie. Knock yourself out explaining why rapidly compressed air doesn’t travel between hi-rise floors through elevator and other shafts. Then explain what your “squibs” did, since they obviously didn’t cut any steel.

          • Tuna Ghost

            My, what a convenient way to not have another piece of your theories debunked in a public forum, like all the others

          • BoogieHauser

            I’m liking how “secure” they made this PDF by locking it. I’m not liking how it prevents one from copying passages to discuss. I do believe this document is mine and all of ours.

            But the boys at NIST feel my time is better spent retyping. Gov in..action.

            I retyped this from page 37

            “However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept withing it were destroyed, and the remains of the WTC buildings were dispose of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin.”

            – I really like how the sentence throws the “fire destruction” in with the Entire building being removed and shipped to China. It’s almost like the force of the fire “jettisoned” the remains to China.
            Obviously they don’t carry the same weight and putting them together in the same sentence serves to obfuscate.

            “As a result, there are some fact that could not be discerned and, thus, there are uncertainties in this accounting. Nontheless, NIST was able to gather sufficient evidence and documentation to conduct a full investigation upon which to reach firm findings and recommendations.”

            I’m a bit old school and this is the equivalent to “pissing down our backs and telling us it’s raining”.
            When they all say investigation, they get a collective “stiffy”?

            So far this is a bummer read. I guess I gotta take it for what it is though.

  • BoogieHauser

    I think his point however inconsistent was the need for a new investigation.
    A bunch of people have bits and pieces. If he had a big budget, we’d have our answers.

    Building Seven did fall at free fall speed for part of the fall.
    If fire can cause that to happen, then we have a host of problems in NYC and elsewhere.

  • BoogieHauser

    I think his point however inconsistent was the need for a new investigation.
    A bunch of people have bits and pieces. If he had a big budget, we’d have our answers.

    Building Seven did fall at free fall speed for part of the fall.
    If fire can cause that to happen, then we have a host of problems in NYC and elsewhere.

  • Honu

    Argosy you’re a blind faith close minded fool. If you were to actually research independently, the various evidence including first hand accounts of people who experienced the towers collapsing, data about temperatures of jet fuel vs. temp needed to melt steel, nano thermite found on the site, no historical record for high rise steel structures ever collapsing due to fire and more you might stop being so stubbornly resistant and consider…simply consider the possibility that sh-t didn’t happen the way the official story was told to the public.

    Three things:
    First, your argument about debris around the area of the tower collapses being a contradiction to Gage’s argument that the towers fell into their own footprint is ludicrous. You’re talking about thousands of tons of steel, office equipment and more. The dust and various debris from a collapse like that is of course going to spread out some. The towers weren’t encased in a tube and then collapsed for god’s sakes. Gage’s assertion is that the main structure did fall in a way consistent with a controlled demolition and that’s all. Sheez don’t be a tool.

    Second, I’m not an architect or engineer but I’ve seen controlled demolitions and those buildings looked picture perfect to me. If a plane crashes into a building and the building collapses, does it make any sense that the building would collapse this way? Why wouldn’t it break off in several large chunks? What could possibly remove thousands of tons of steel and other building material out of the way naturally so that it would drop so quickly? It just doesn’t make sense if this is what happens ‘naturally’ with an event like this.

    Third, and this is just my experience with people I’ve had this argument with, you may be resisting these ideas so much because at the bottom of it you’re thinking, ‘Well, if this is possible, who did this and why?’ The thought that the US government is behind it or the banking cartels or Bush and co. seems to scare the crap out of people. Personally I don’t go there. I don’t consider these questions. All I know for sure is that the evidence against the official story is strong and much stronger than the evidence supporting the official story and that’s all that matters to me. I’m sure we’ll never find out who’s behind it and why.

    • Tuna Ghost

      If you were an architect or engineer, they collapse would make sense to you, as it does to 99% of actual engineers, architects, and demolition experts. Your opinion on the matter is, sadly, irrelevant. We may as well as a child’s opinion on giving birth.

      Your third point is laughably absurd on a website where the majority of readers have no problem believing that Dick Cheney is regularly butt-fucked by a demon in exchange for longer life, or that he would eat a baby’s head like an apple given half a chance.

      • Grek

        Tuna Ghost obviously must have a superior source of information about this than everyone else. What, so you read Popular Mechanics and now you are the expert? Get over yourself. Unless you are involved in any investigations pertaining to what happened on 9-11, then you have nothing more to back up your claims than any 9-11 truther. Your opinions are also irrelevant.

        • Tuna Ghost

          So we’re all going by the same grainy footage of the towers falling down? No one has access to any accurate information? Then why buy into the truther’s campaign instead of someone who thinks Satan knocked down the towers? Why believe anyone but the people involved in the gov’t investigation? That’s basically your point, isn’t it? That only the people involved in the investigation are reliable?

          Truth is, buddy, I do have a superior source of information, which is the vast majority of architects and engineers and demolition experts working in North America. Their studies and information are widely available and explained simply and lucidly. Would you like me to point you to it? I will, if you want. It’s the easiest thing in the world. Just ask.

          Normally, this is when you (not you personally, but someone in your position) switches to ad hominem and claiming the discussion isn’t worth their time since they already know the truth (I saw a video! Buildings don’t fall like that. No, I have no training in physics or engineering or any hard science for that matter, and I didn’t go to college, but I know what I’m talking about!). But I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re willing to actually investigate the matter. I’m sure you won’t disappear or switch to glib, content-free comments that don’t actually address the issue.

      • MasoMystic

        Tuna Ghost yet again you come off like a complete idiot..

        99% of actual engineers architects and demolition experts on CNN makes sense. The rest of the world it does not. Where do you get these facts?

        The thermite argument has been disprove. Those are the facts. What has NOT be disproved is this theory.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b8vbNLYxUc&feature=player_embedded

        99% of engineers sees it making sense? jesus christ how can someone be so stupid.

        • Tuna Ghost

          I watched the video up until I realized it was arguing for not just a demolition, but a NUCLEAR DEMOLITION, which is an argument too stupid to even engage. It’s even more ridiculous than the typical controlled demolition, which has been disproved one numerous occasions. I can’t even imagine how they would begin to address the issue of a nuclear explosion that doesn’t make a sound or leave any signs of any nuclear reaction. This…is stupidity beyond words, I cannot believe you are even bringing this up in a public forum.

          • Albury Smith

            I thought you covered the reason why anyone would bring up something like that in a public forum very well, TG.

    • ArgosyJones

      Honu, instead of just condemning you as some kind of arrogant nimwit who doesn’t even understand the argument he’s attempting to engage in,, I’m going to point out why I can’t take your statements seriously. Now, Point by point:

      1. You bring up the “temp needed to melt steel”. You are about 9 years behind on this: neither NIST nor the 9/11 comission ever claimed that the buildings collapsed due to melted steel. This is just one example of a red herring raised again and again by conspiracy theorists who are too both ignorant of the relevant subjects to have an opinion, and too proud to read what others have written. Your bringing this up makes you one of the few, the proud, the morons.

      2. You need to re-read my comments on Gage’s logically inconsistent statements. You clearly don’t understand the main point; that gage characterizes the collapses of building 7 and the twin towers in opposite ways and uses both characterizations as evidence for the same conclusion. There’s not much point in arguing with Gage’s actual statements about free-fall, footprints, explosives, or anything else. That’s because none of Gage’s arguments are relevant to his conclusions. Years ago he said the same things about the twin towers as he says now about building 7(symmetrical collapse, free fall, own footprint). Those things were all demonstrably false, so he had to change his story eventually. However, this didn’t change any of his conclusions. On the contrary, magically, when all the facts used in his argument were reversed, they still pointed to the same conclusions. Gage is pathological.

      3. You’re not an architect or engineer or demolitions expert, or physicist, but you’ll happily put your 2 cents in based on a hunch of what the buildings should have looked like if an airplane and fires had caused the damage. Well thanks for that, but I have a hunch that you are wrong. You’re arguing from your own opinion instead of basing your opinion on some evidence or scientific theory.

      4. Your third point is entirely speculative and beside the point. I should point out I never said that there was no conspiracy, nor that the government did not have a hand in 9/11, nor that I support the official story. My contention is that Basically, Gage is full of shit and completely barking up the wrong tree. How do I know this? His arguments are self contradictory and display profound ignorance (quite shocking for a licensed architect), and when proven to be based on falsehoods, his arguments still point to the same conclusions.

      Now I’m sure you’ll think I put too much effort into that, but nevermind, You’re welcome, I’m always happy to be of help.

      • LOLOL

        Don’t forget – America invented Hollywood. Anything can happen to fool everyone, including the most brilliant self important thinkers

      • BoogieHauser

        The point is, you just debated something that’s on mainstream television.

        We all feel it coming. Who can stop the winds and who can stop the tides?

        But you’ve proven yourself adept at picking apart a couple of premises based on what’s said in a four minute video.

        Shoot over to the big time and leave some insights at
        revolutionarypolitics.com/?=5346

        or stay on the porch.

        Here’s some 911 heat.

        “First let’s go back to your basic premiss that there was a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody, no witnesses that said so, nobody thats produced it.”

        John Gross
        Co-project Lead Engineer of the NIST report


        Seeking more truth?
        Sybil Edmunds

        Any shit Gage is full of is the shit that went down on September Eleventh, In the year of our lord. Two-thousand eleven.

        RIP

        At Gods speed, they shall be avenged.

        • BoogieHauser

          or 2001.

        • Albury Smith

          Dr. Gross was 100% accurate in that statement. Reports of molten steel were anecdotal and unconfirmed, and were almost definitely molten lead or aluminum running off recognizable steel shapes that were red hot from the debris fires which burned for months. He was not asked about molten metal, but specifically about steel. There are no known explosives or incendiaries that produce heat for more than ~5 minutes, so debris fires fueled by normal building contents easily explain whatever molten metal was found during the cleanup, but it’s very unlikely that it was steel.
          NIST did not rule out even molten steel in their 8/30/06 FAQ:
          http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
          but reiterated that no steel melted to cause a collapse. If structural steel melted at any time, partially-melted pieces would have been pulled from the debris, and there were no reports of it, photos, etc.

          • BoogieHauser

            “partially-melted pieces would have been pulled from the debris’

            And it was.

            Twisted, melted I beams pulled from the Staten Island Landfill, were the product of
            weeks of exposure to (undeniable) molten pits under the WTC wreckage.

            I’m sure China has many more melted I beam examples on our “ever expanding” crime scene.

          • Albury Smith

            Guess all of the SEAoNY, ASCE, FEMA’s BPAT, PANYNJ, and other engineers on the site, as well as the demolition contractors, union ironworkers, laborers, FDNY, and others who handled the steel piece by piece as it was pulled from the pile over an almost 8-month period were all blind and stupid, or in on the plot, huh? Many of the tower perimeter columns near the collapse initiation floors were ejected free of the main piles, and were probably the first to be seen during the cleanup. Not one photo, eyewitness account, or even a rumor of a column with a melted or explosively-severed end during that entire time.

          • Nano_Thermite_9/11
          • Albury Smith

            Guess you’ve never seen an oxyacetylene torch cut before, huh? Those “melted steel bubbles” are called slag, and explosives would not have left a drop of it around the cuts they make. The torch cuts appear to be at or below grade, and no building collapsed from that low. Were the union ironworkers and all of the other cleanup personnel at GZ for ~8 months all blind and stupid, or in on the plot?

          • ArgosyJones

            …Twisted, melted I beams…

            here’s a clue for you, Bogie; anything that you can identify as an I-beam has not melted but rather been distorted (bent, twisted) by external force (collapsing buildings maybe?).

            In the world of scientists and engineers, melted has a meaning; that an object has passed from solid to liquid. Liquids never hold their own shape.

          • BoogieHauser

            Since I can post pictures here, we’ll just have to assume you need to “look around more”.

          • Tuna Ghost

            By all means, link to the pictures. I am positive they do not mean what you think they do.

          • Nano_Thermite_9/11

            Of course they don’t! We should trust your interpretation versus our “own lying eyes” This is an orange PolterFish http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMc1jVg4xoU

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3Q3JZYMD2F7YGQS6GNUWPKYK5E Turbulent_red

            I have to admit I’ve always been a skeptic on this issue. I almost had a heart attack. Well our government is about 1% more evil in my eyes than it was yesterday.

          • Albury Smith

            A lying crackpot who claims that the fires in WTC 7 had been “all but extinguished” by 5:20 PM on 9/11 is a lot more evil, IMO:
            http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

            http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

            http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc
            Do you know of any other major office fires that self-extinguished in 5 hours or so with no sprinklers or firefighting efforts?

          • ArgosyJones

            Yes, I want to see the pictures please post them. Always looking for new information.

          • Nano_Thermite_9/11
          • Tuna Ghost

            Wow, Stephen Jones? The same guy who “scientifically” explained that Jesus preached to Native Americans, and that the events recorded in the Book of Mormon are scientific fact? That Stephen Jones? Holy shit, it is!!!

          • Nano_Thermite_9/11
          • Tuna Ghost

            Nano-thermite wasn’t found in the dust. Not even your “peer-reviewed evidence” claims it was. How long are going to ignore this, NT? When are you going to address the ample evidence to the contrary? How many times am I going to have to bring it to you, only to have you run away without answering? Are you under the impression that sort of behavior is the mark of someone confident in their claims?

          • ArgosyJones

            When we asked for photos of melted steel sections, we were not asking for pictures of steel columns that were obviously cut with a welder’s torch during the salvage/rescue effort. I’ll give you 2 points for effort.

          • Albury

            It “looks just like” a steel column cut with an oxyacetylene torch to me, NT, because that’s exactly what it is. “Cutter charge” and “Nano Thermite” are both indicative of high explosives, and high explosives don’t leave gray slag around a cut. The column is also plumb and apparently anchored to a foundation a short distance below it, judging from the level of debris around it, and no WTC building collapse started that low. The photo also showed the tanks, cart, hoses, torch, etc. before Jones cropped it, and I’m willing to bet that the workers at GZ, including the 2 seen in that photo, weren’t all blind and stupid or in on the plot. Just a hunch though.

          • A-ROK

            sorry albury i saw the firefighters say themselves that when they got to the bottom of the wtc they saw rivers of molten metal flowing like a foundry it was so hot down there that there boots were melting now i would rather believe a bunch of first respnders who were there than pencil pushing govt engineer who has a lot of vested interest in himself to hide the truth also willie rodriguez the janitor hero on 9-11 said that minutes before a plane crashed in to wtc theyre was a huge explosion in the basement and that a worker came out out of there with his skin hanging off of him youre gonna call him and those friefighters liars to

          • Albury Smith

            Here’s the “Firefighters” for 9/11 “Truth” petition, A-ROK:
            http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
            How many signatories to it even claim to be FDNY? Molten steel would have done more than just melt some firefighters’ boots, but please feel free to name all of the explosives or incendiaries that keep producing heat for more than 5 minutes or so. There were no confirmed reports of molten steel in the debris fires, and it was most likely lead or aluminum, both of which were in abundance in all 3 collapsed WTC hi-rises.
            Maybe Rodriguez isn’t aware of it, but the North Tower collapsed from the top down ~1 hour and 42 minutes after he heard those explosions that were so quiet that no one even a few floors away heard them. Demolition explosives powerful enough to cut even one column in the basement levels would have killed dozens of people down there and deafened many others, and they don’t soak people with flaming jet fuel and debris that just fell through an elevator shaft from ~1200′ up. Ol’ Willie also thinks a secret high-powered microwave weapon brought down UA 93, so why not send him a big donation? Thanks, but I’ll stick to what those “pencil pushing govt engineers” have to say, although ~2/3 of the NIST investigators were from the private sector and academia.

          • Nano_Thermite_9/11

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lESol88wOi0 Here are FireFighters describing Molten Steel. They were there, you weren’t. I think I’m gonna go with their account. Also what about Nano-Thermite. Peer reviewed conclusive evidence and all of the other signs of a demolition present. Kinda hard to deny the mountain of evidence at this point, but I’m sure you will exercise continued mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious. Kind reminds me of this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMc1jVg4xoU Remember This is an Orange.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Dude, how many times are you gonna bring up that bullshit “peer reviewed evidence” that was, by its own admission, not evidence? Remember last time you brought this up, I presented you with evidence that the paper was discredited almost immediately, and the editor-in-chief resigned in embarrassment that the paper was published under her watch? Remember the quotes I showed you from her? How she didn’t know about the paper being published, and had she known she would never have let sloppy “research” like that be published in a scientific journal? Remember how you never responded when this was brought to your attention? Remember when I brought it to your attention again months later, and you still didn’t respond? Exactly who is ignoring evidence here, buddy?

          • Albury Smith

            You have a “mountain of evidence” that gravity was working very well on 9/11, and an obvious explanation for your “signs of a demolition” here:

            http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

            Now please feel free to answer my question about the FDNY and the 9/11 “truth movement.”

          • Tuna Ghost

            Buddy, if the firefighters were anywhere near rivers of molten steel they would have had much more severe problems than “melted boots”. There are no confirmed reports of molten steel. It was likely aluminum, which melts are a far lower temperature and was all over the place in the WTC.

          • Nano_Thermite_9/11

            Please watch this video. Is it not enough evidence or these firefighters direct testimony of having witnessed the molten steel that poured “Like a Foundry”?? What does it take Tuna? Obviously you will refuse any admission that you might be incorrect in the least, thankfully there are many more who can see now than can’t.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lESol88wOi0

          • Tuna Ghost

            Funny how their names aren’t given, nor what company, nor if they were actually witnesses or if they’re repeating stories heard from other witnesses. These details are important, yet they’ve been left out. I wonder why…

            Assuming they were actual witnesses to the molten material, how on earth are they to know that it was steel and not the significantly more likely aluminum mixed with other materials? Do you know the level of heat that would be present in a confined space with molten steel just lying around? Do you understand what that sort of heat does to a human? Melted boots would be the least of their concerns. I could go on and on about this, but there is a much more detailed and succinct explanation for the “molten steel” phenomena located here:

            http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

            Take a look and tell me what you think. And please don’t run off without answering as you have done the other times I’ve presented you with clearly explained evidence that completely contradicts the claims you’ve made.

          • Albury Smith

            For me it would take a list of incendiaries and/or explosives that continue to produce any heat after 5 minutes tops, let alone 2700 F or more, especially after they just secretly expended enough energy to topple a huge hi-rise. I’d also like to know where the alleged steel came from, since no partially melted columns or other structural members were pulled from the pile. If you’d provide a list of all of the known C/Ds that have produced “foundries,” that would be helpful too.
            All 3 WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11 were on fire, and the debris fires were very well documented. Temperatures well in excess of the melting points of both aluminum and lead were recorded by USGS AVIRIS sensing equipment, and both metals were in abundance in all 3 of the buildings.
            btw, how many FDNY are signatories to the “Firefighters” for 9/11 “Truth” petition? Look it up and get back to me. Thanks.

          • Haskinjr

            Nano, if they had been anywhere near molten steel ‘like in a foundry,they would have known it…the heat just from the steel would have been tremendous

          • MasoMystic

            Nano Thermite has been disprove as well. Its a side story given to people like alex jones to misguide the public from the real truth..

            Alot of “truthers” cant handle this fact because alot of truthers are as bad as anyone else. As long as they are right who cares..

            In any case..there is only 1 theory that explains EVERY detail..

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b8vbNLYxUc&feature=player_embedded

          • Tuna Ghost

            Also, an explosion powerful enough to bring down a building that size would have been heard nearly a mile away. And yet despite the abundance of recording equipment in the area, not a single one picked up any sounds of an explosion. You are misquoting several people in your post. Check out http://www.debunking911.com for information on the booms that people reported “sounded like” explosions (which is quite a different claim than “there were explosions” or even “explosions were heard”).

          • WeAreChangeAtlanta

            Amen A-ROK. The truth is coming out! Please support our upcoming event featuring Richard Gage by watching our trailer and sharing! Thank you! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psSF1BVjZ3I

          • Haskinjr

            rivers of molten metal,,,maybe, but not rivers of molten STEEL,check the melting point of aluminum, used in the cladding on the outside of the towers, and the lead used in the batteries of the uninterrupted power supplies ont he computers…..

          • Albury Smith

            These 2 links pretty well sum up Steven Jones’s concept of honesty:
            http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims
            http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb
            In the second one, halogen lamps being used by rescuers to search the WTC debris for possible survivors are evidence to him of steel being kept molten by nanothermite.

          • Nano_Thermite_9/11

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lESol88wOi0
            Sorry this completely refutes your statement in support of Mr. Gross’ lie. There are several first hand witnesses including on scene firefighters, first responders and more. Thank god it’s easier and easier to debunk the would be pseudo debunkers. Kudos for posting this!

          • Tuna Ghost

            Now that I’ve tackled this claim and presented easily-understood evidence to the contrary (see above), do you plan on pretending it never happened? Y’know, the way you’ve done for all the other times I’ve presented you with clear-cut, easily understood evidence that shows your side is full of shit?

          • Albury Smith

            Once again, Dr. Gross lied about absolutely nothing, nor did NIST, whose position in the FAQ I linked to is that melted steel was possible but unlikely in the debris fires afterward. No steel melted to cause any of the collapses, and reports of molten steel in the debris fires long after 9/11 were unconfirmed, and were most likely molten lead or aluminum. Those are firefighters, not scientists, and many at GZ reported molten METAL. If you think molten anything in debris piles weeks and even months after 9/11 is evidence of a C/D, what explosives or incendiaries burn for more than 3 or 4 minutes, and how many known C/Ds have left pools of molten steel behind?

        • ArgosyJones

          …Shoot over to the big time and leave some insights at
          revolutionarypolitics.com/?=53…

          A Troofer, a Randroid and a Paultard? You’ve hit the trifecta. don’t tell me you’re also an Austrian Skool Eclownomist?

        • Infinitely Curious

          Isn’t that a little like the police investigating the police? How about someone independent?

    • A-ROK

      Also honu you forgot to tell argosy how in the hell did multi ton beams ended up impaled in to buildings blocks away what force besides high powered expolsives can do that

    • Albury Smith

      I’m resisting your ideas because you don’t know what you’re talking about. The tower collapses looked nothing at all like controlled demolitions, and debris was scattered outward several hundred feet in all directions. There was no nanothermite found on the site, and no one but your 9/11 “truth movement” ever claimed that any of the steel melted to cause a collapse. I’d recommend reading the NIST reports, since you obviously haven’t.

  • Honu

    Argosy you’re a blind faith close minded fool. If you were to actually research independently, the various evidence including first hand accounts of people who experienced the towers collapsing, data about temperatures of jet fuel vs. temp needed to melt steel, nano thermite found on the site, no historical record for high rise steel structures ever collapsing due to fire and more you might stop being so stubbornly resistant and consider…simply consider the possibility that sh-t didn’t happen the way the official story was told to the public.

    Three things:
    First, your argument about debris around the area of the tower collapses being a contradiction to Gage’s argument that the towers fell into their own footprint is ludicrous. You’re talking about thousands of tons of steel, office equipment and more. The dust and various debris from a collapse like that is of course going to spread out some. The towers weren’t encased in a tube and then collapsed for god’s sakes. Gage’s assertion is that the main structure did fall in a way consistent with a controlled demolition and that’s all. Sheez don’t be a tool.

    Second, I’m not an architect or engineer but I’ve seen controlled demolitions and those buildings looked picture perfect to me. If a plane crashes into a building and the building collapses, does it make any sense that the building would collapse this way? Why wouldn’t it break off in several large chunks? What could possibly remove thousands of tons of steel and other building material out of the way naturally so that it would drop so quickly? It just doesn’t make sense if this is what happens ‘naturally’ with an event like this.

    Third, and this is just my experience with people I’ve had this argument with, you may be resisting these ideas so much because at the bottom of it you’re thinking, ‘Well, if this is possible, who did this and why?’ The thought that the US government is behind it or the banking cartels or Bush and co. seems to scare the crap out of people. Personally I don’t go there. I don’t consider these questions. All I know for sure is that the evidence against the official story is strong and much stronger than the evidence supporting the official story and that’s all that matters to me. I’m sure we’ll never find out who’s behind it and why.

  • Tuna Ghost

    If you were an architect or engineer, they collapse would make sense to you, as it does to 99% of actual engineers, architects, and demolition experts. Your opinion on the matter is, sadly, irrelevant. We may as well as a child’s opinion on giving birth.

    Your third point is laughably absurd on a website where the majority of readers have no problem believing that Dick Cheney is regularly butt-fucked by a demon in exchange for longer life, or that he would eat a baby’s head like an apple given half a chance.

  • Tuna Ghost

    No thermite of any kind was found in the debris. A paper published overseas stated that rust and small iron particles were found in and around the site six years later, which could have possibly come from a theoretical thermite substance. That paper was later discredited in the same Chemical Nano-particle journal it was published in (without permission of the editor, it should be noted, who later resigned in disgrace at the notion that this article was published under her watch).

    Actual pieces of debris, weighing several tons, fell in a wide pattern. Many surrounding buildings were damaged by falling debris. There are several pictures showing that the towers did not fall “into their own footprint”.

  • Tuna Ghost

    You are aware that there have been several other investigations, right? The NYPD and the FDNY both conducted their own investigations, as well as other groups. All of which came to largely the same conclusions.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Jones, you’re disagreeing with the truth. Obviously you’re not legit. Your continual pointing out of how the Truthers claims have been debunked consistently isn’t going to convince me that you’re not a shill for the gov’t, which doesn’t have more important things to do than argue with idiots on a tiny website no one cares about. Geraldo Riveria agrees with us! Charlie Sheen! Even Andy Dick is on board, and you still think we don’t know what we’re talking about?? Pffftt.

  • ArgosyJones

    Honu, instead of just condemning you as some kind of arrogant nimwit who doesn’t even understand the argument he’s attempting to engage in,, I’m going to point out why I can’t take your statements seriously. Now, Point by point:

    1. You bring up the “temp needed to melt steel”. You are about 9 years behind on this: neither NIST nor the 9/11 comission ever claimed that the buildings collapsed due to melted steel. This is just one example of a red herring raised again and again by conspiracy theorists who are too both ignorant of the relevant subjects to have an opinion, and too proud to read what others have written. Your bringing this up makes you one of the few, the proud, the morons.

    2. You need to re-read my comments on Gage’s logically inconsistent statements. You clearly don’t understand the main point; that gage characterizes the collapses of building 7 and the twin towers in opposite ways and uses both characterizations as evidence for the same conclusion. There’s not much point in arguing with Gage’s actual statements about free-fall, footprints, explosives, or anything else. That’s because none of Gage’s arguments are relevant to his conclusions. Years ago he said the same things about the twin towers as he says now about building 7(symmetrical collapse, free fall, own footprint). Those things were all demonstrably false, so he had to change his story eventually. However, this didn’t change any of his conclusions. On the contrary, magically, when all the facts used in his argument were reversed, they still pointed to the same conclusions. Gage is pathological.

    3. You’re not an architect or engineer or demolitions expert, or physicist, but you’ll happily put your 2 cents in based on a hunch of what the buildings should have looked like if an airplane and fires had caused the damage. Well thanks for that, but I have a hunch that you are wrong. You’re arguing from your own opinion instead of basing your opinion on some evidence or scientific theory.

    4. Your third point is entirely speculative and beside the point. I should point out I never said that there was no conspiracy, nor that the government did not have a hand in 9/11, nor that I support the official story. My contention is that Basically, Gage is full of shit and completely barking up the wrong tree. How do I know this? His arguments are self contradictory and display profound ignorance (quite shocking for a licensed architect), and when proven to be based on falsehoods, his arguments still point to the same conclusions.

    Now I’m sure you’ll think I put too much effort into that, but nevermind, You’re welcome, I’m always happy to be of help.

  • Albury Smith

    I think it’s time to investigate some of the bizarre and absurd claims made by Richard Gage, not the three WTC hi-rise collapses on 9/11, since they’ve already been thoroughly investigated by much more qualified, competent, and honest people. The NIST scientists and engineers were only able to time the top 18 stories, or 242′, of the collapse of WTC 7’s facade, and determined that it took 5.4 seconds, yet Gage and others in the 9/11 “truth movement” claim that the entire 610′ collapse only took ~6.5 seconds. Did the other 368′ fall in just over 1 second? How is he even able to give us a time to the nearest 1/10 of a second for the entire collapse when NIST couldn’t because buildings in the foreground blocked the view of video cameras?
    How can he claim that the towers nearly free fell when the loose, airborne debris from their upper stories was obviously falling much faster than the collapse zones, and began hitting the ground while at least 40 stories in each one were still intact? The North Tower was only down to the height of WTC 7 when debris from the upper stories first hit the ground. Was g miraculously increased on 9/11? They fell in ~15 and ~22 seconds respectively, nowhere near the ~9.25 seconds that free fall would have taken:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/40/qLShZOvxVe4

    yet he begins every presentation with his near free-fall claim. He’s also claimed that the dust clouds from the collapses were “pyroclastic,” but there are no reports of anyone’s skin being instantly peeled off, and he’s claimed that the fires in WTC 7 were minor, totally contradicting these NYC eyewitnesses:

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

    How could his claim that 400,000 yards of concrete were turned to fine powder be true, when there was less than 100,000 yards of concrete above grade in both towers combined? Does he know how to turn 400,000 yards of concrete to fine powder with explosives without leveling NYC?
    Has he ever seen a controlled demolition that left molten metal in the debris for months? Has he ever seen one that didn’t leave even one explosively-cut column in the debris? Since he claims that explosives were planted in the core columns to start the collapses, and that it was done from elevator shafts, has he even looked a floor plan of the cores above the 78th floor sky lobby? There were only 6 regular elevators above there, plus a freight and 2 express elevators, and they were only near 6 of the 47 core columns. Several of those were in the paths of the planes, and the perimeter columns collapsed first, so he’s not even making sense, especially considering the fact that 30 or more stories of core framing stood 15-25 seconds after each tower’s main collapse was over.
    We should investigate the nonsense coming from Richard Gage, as well as his “engineers.”

    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12

    • paulie

      NIST now admits Building 7 fell al free-fall rate for over 2 secs. And yes there’re reports of skinless victims at ground zero.

      • Albury Smith

        The reason for the ~2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration is clearly shown in the NIST modeling, and has nothing at all to do with determining the cause of the collapse. NIST didn’t “admit” to it; it’s simply irrelevant to a building performance investigation. There was no evidence of a C/D found, and your “researchers” not only can’t explain that, they’ve completely ignored the interior collapses preceding the visible one, the slower acceleration of the facade prior to t=~1.75 seconds, as well as after t=~4 seconds, and have flat-out lied about the entire collapse time. The facade collapse took roughly 9 seconds total, and is impossible to determine to 1/10-second accuracy, so 6.5 or 6.6 seconds is a total fabrication from your 9/11 “truth movement.” The “pyroclastic dust clouds” claim is another outright lie, and no one was burned by them.
        I’d worry more about Gage, et al. than I would about the NIST investigators.

        • BoogieHauser

          In that you mean the corporate interest should be less suspect than a rag tag assembly of truth seekers?

          • Albury Smith

            I’ve already said that I think your “truth seekers” should investigate everything they want. What’s stopping them?

          • BoogieHauser

            Our money?

          • Albury Smith

            Why not? Put it where your mouth is. Gage’s “800 engineers” should be willing to donate their time. You’re not waiting for the lying US government’s help, are you?

          • BoogieHauser

            Because we use “our” money to investigate crimes against us.

            That you keep harping on this is silly. It’s our money we should use.

          • Albury Smith

            I thought you wanted a “new and independent” investigation because the ones conducted by 200+ highly-qualified NIST scientists, engineers, and other experts weren’t good enough for you, Boogie. You’re not bright enough to understand the science involved in complicated building collapse investigations, but are you also unwilling to pay for them? Box Boy and his clowns should have completed them by now, so where are their reports, or are they too busy trying to impress us with how much smarter they are than the NIST people? According to your “expert,” there are 800 engineers just waiting to investigate, so what’s stopping them?

          • BoogieHauser

            Yeah the taxpayers money.

          • Tuna Ghost

            I like how you ignore the very detailed rebuttal of the claims and switch it to corporate interests vs. the common man. Very slick. Nobody notices when you do that.

            No one at all.

        • Nano_Thermite_9/11

          HAHAHAHA you have ZERO understanding of physics. So how can 80 steel columns spread out over a football field roughly all be severed simultaneously to the point of 400-600 welded and bolted connections per second because of small asymmetrical office fires. Explain how that is possible. I’d really like to know. Also why won’t NIST release the code on their computer models if they are so sure?? Because it’s a lie obviously. If you aren’t lying you don’t have to hide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l183LaNay0A It’s not that hard to understand, if you are capable of seeing or thinking.

          • Albury Smith

            If all of these columns were severed, why wasn’t even one of them found with a cutter charge signature on its ends? Do explosives or incendiaries make column ends that look like factory ones, complete with connection plates and bolt holes?

          • Nano_Thermite_911

            Destruction of Evidence mean anything to you?  NIST admits they used NO STEEL from Building 7 to create their computer models.  They won’t even share the code for any scientists to verify their findings citing it as a “National Security Risk”  GIve me a Fucking Break.  

          • Albury Smith

            Steel that’s been handled by dozens of people and seen by thousands is no longer “evidence” at some point, and does not warrant extra moving costs and storage, or unnecessary delays in collecting on its millions of dollars in scrap value. There were FEMA BPAT, ASCE, PANYNJ, SEAoNY, and NSF engineers on site, many from the first days of the cleanup, along with a number of experienced demolition contractors, and it doesn’t take any specific expertise to spot columns or other steel that isn’t mechanically broken. Columns that are snapped off at their connections could not possibly be mistaken for those with cutter charge signatures on their ends.
            If melted or explosively-severed column ends had really been found at GZ, Steven Jones wouldn’t have to use photos of columns cut with torches to prove anything. Does the manufacturing and misrepresentation of evidence mean anything to you?

    • Nano_Thermite_9/11

      Yes investigate anyone who dares challenge the papal bull! Anyone who dares commit these heretical crimes of using science to disprove gov’t lies and corruption. Let’s burn them at the stake. We should probably waterboard the at least 183 times too, you know just like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. 6 times a day let’s drown them for a month and then torture the only 9/11 guilty admission (not really, just reported that he did, no independent questioning or evidence allowed) Also Bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11. But it really doesn’t matter with you guys. The heavens could split wide open and the hand of god could descend write into the Rocky mountains that we need a new investigation based on the evidence and you would still deny it. Sorry you guys are on the wrong side of history.

      • Tuna Ghost

        He’s investigating the claims, friend. Like he said in the very first sentence. Are you going to address any of the stuff he actually wrote? Or are you just going to disappear again, only to pop up in a few more months spouting the same ridiculous crap, ignoring the same evidence that explains why Gage isn’t telling the truth? That’s your style, after all. We’ve been here before, buddy.

      • Albury Smith

        Why didn’t you “dare to challenge” any of my comments about Box Boy? Osama Bin Laden is not indicted for 9/11, but is definitely wanted for it, as was KSM. The US gains nothing and compromises intelligence sources by formally indicting OBL for 9/11, since he’s already on their Most Wanted List for the 1998 SUICIDE bombings of 2 US embassies in Africa.

        http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states

        When KSM gets up in court and brags about his “Planes Operation,” will you still be in denial? That’s exactly what his nephew, Ramzi Yousef, did at his sentencing hearing for his part in the ’93 WTC bombing. If they’re not defending themselves against these charges, why are you?

  • Anonymous

    I think it’s time to investigate some of the bizarre and absurd claims made by Richard Gage, not the three WTC hi-rise collapses on 9/11, since they’ve already been thoroughly investigated by much more qualified, competent, and honest people. The NIST scientists and engineers were only able to time the top 18 stories, or 242′, of the collapse of WTC 7’s facade, and determined that it took 5.4 seconds, yet Gage and others in the 9/11 “truth movement” claim that the entire 610′ collapse only took ~6.5 seconds. Did the other 368′ fall in just over 1 second? How is he even able to give us a time to the nearest 1/10 of a second for the entire collapse when NIST couldn’t because buildings in the foreground blocked the view of video cameras?
    How can he claim that the towers nearly free fell when the loose, airborne debris from their upper stories was obviously falling much faster than the collapse zones, and began hitting the ground while at least 40 stories in each one were still intact? The North Tower was only down to the height of WTC 7 when debris from the upper stories first hit the ground. Was g miraculously increased on 9/11? They fell in ~15 and ~22 seconds respectively, nowhere near the ~9.25 seconds that free fall would have taken:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/40/qLShZOvxVe4

    yet he begins every presentation with his near free-fall claim. He’s also claimed that the dust clouds from the collapses were “pyroclastic,” but there are no reports of anyone’s skin being instantly peeled off, and he’s claimed that the fires in WTC 7 were minor, totally contradicting these NYC eyewitnesses:

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

    How could his claim that 400,000 yards of concrete were turned to fine powder be true, when there was less than 100,000 yards of concrete above grade in both towers combined? Does he know how to turn 400,000 yards of concrete to fine powder with explosives without leveling NYC?
    Has he ever seen a controlled demolition that left molten metal in the debris for months? Has he ever seen one that didn’t leave even one explosively-cut column in the debris? Since he claims that explosives were planted in the core columns to start the collapses, and that it was done from elevator shafts, has he even looked a floor plan of the cores above the 78th floor sky lobby? There were only 6 regular elevators above there, plus a freight and 2 express elevators, and they were only near 6 of the 47 core columns. Several of those were in the paths of the planes, and the perimeter columns collapsed first, so he’s not even making sense, especially considering the fact that 30 or more stories of core framing stood 15-25 seconds after each tower’s main collapse was over.
    We should investigate the nonsense coming from Richard Gage, as well as his “engineers.”

    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12

  • Anonymous

    Gravity caused that to happen. The modeling in NCSTAR 1A clearly shows why a portion of the WTC 7 facade collapse was at free fall acceleration.

  • Fox_dlueyd

    That’s disinformation.
    I stated the “building” fell at free fall for a brief period.
    I’ll stick with that.

  • BoggieHauser

    Well then, that’s all the proof I and the other two-thirds of Americans need.


    Several feet of nano sized particulates aren’t created from buildings falling down due to fire.

  • Anonymous

    WTC 7’s interior collapse began long before the top of the north parapet wall began falling. It’s disinformation to refer to the exterior facade as “the building,” and to cite only the free-fall or near free-fall portion of the collapse. It’s sophistry to imply or claim that collapse time for any portion of it is evidence of what triggered the collapse. Box Boy’s 6.5 or 6.6 seconds for the whole facade collapse is an outright lie, but entirely consistent with his other crap. Aside from being off by ~2.5 seconds, he has no way of timing it to the nearest 1/10 second.

  • Anonymous

    You just furnished all the proof I need that you didn’t read the “Active Thermitic Material…” malarkey that prompted the resignation of Dr. Pileni, Bentham’s former editor-in-chief, or don’t understand what should have been in the dust.

  • BoogieHauser

    Any possibility of adding a link?
    My mind is open because the 911 report did not satisfy my curiosity.

  • A-ROK

    Also honu you forgot to tell argosy how in the hell did multi ton beams ended up impaled in to buildings blocks away what force besides high powered expolsives can do that

  • BoogieHauser

    The video shows all four corners falling at the same time.
    Your purporting fire did that?

  • A-ROK

    hey albury how do multi ton beams from the wtc impale themselves in buildings blocks away form the site of the collapses unless some kind of explosive force was being used

  • LOLOL

    Don’t forget – America invented Hollywood. Anything can happen to fool everyone, including the most brilliant self important thinkers

  • BoogieHauser

    The point is, you just debated something that’s on mainstream television.

    We all feel it coming. Who can stop the winds and who can stop the tides?

    But you’ve proven yourself adept at picking apart a couple of premises based on what’s said in a four minute video.

    Shoot over to the big time and leave some insights at
    revolutionarypolitics.com/?=5346

    or stay on the porch.

    Here’s some 911 heat.

    “First let’s go back to your basic premiss that there was a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody, no witnesses that said so, nobody thats produced it.”

    John Gross
    Co-project Lead Engineer of the NIST report


    Seeking more truth?
    Sybil Edmunds

    Any shit Gage is full of is the shit that went down on September Eleventh, In the year of our lord. Two-thousand eleven.

    RIP

    At Gods speed, they shall be avenged.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s the link to the Bentham paper:
    http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
    No exemplars of anything are provided for comparison, and they simply offer an unsupported statement that sulfur, rust, aluminum, silicon, etc. “remind” them of something.
    If you’re looking for this type of information in the 9/11 Commission Report, you’re looking in the wrong place, since it wasn’t in the scope of that investigation.

  • Anonymous

    That’s called gravity. Do you know of any force present there that would have prevented perimeter column trees from being hurled a few hundred feet laterally from a height of 1000′ or 1200’? The upper portions of each tower weighed ~125,000 and ~60,000 tons respectively.

  • BoogieHauser

    or 2001.

  • Anonymous

    I’m suggesting that you read all of this:
    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
    The WTC 7 global collapse started inside, and the tight spacing of the exterior columns explains why the facade collapse was fairly uniform. It also kept the debris contained.

  • BoogieHauser

    Thanks for this.

  • Anonymous

    Dr. Gross was 100% accurate in that statement. Reports of molten steel were anecdotal and unconfirmed, and were almost definitely molten lead or aluminum running off recognizable steel shapes that were red hot from the debris fires which burned for months. He was not asked about molten metal, but specifically about steel. There are no known explosives or incendiaries that produce heat for more than ~5 minutes, so debris fires fueled by normal building contents easily explain whatever molten metal was found during the cleanup, but it’s very unlikely that it was steel.
    NIST did not rule out even molten steel in their 8/30/06 FAQ:
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
    but reiterated that no steel melted to cause a collapse. If structural steel melted at any time, partially-melted pieces would have been pulled from the debris, and there were no reports of it, photos, etc.

  • Grek

    Tuna Ghost obviously must have a superior source of information about this than everyone else. What, so you read Popular Mechanics and now you are the expert? Get over yourself. Unless you are involved in any investigations pertaining to what happened on 9-11, then you have nothing more to back up your claims than any 9-11 truther. Your opinions are also irrelevant.

  • BoogieHauser

    “partially-melted pieces would have been pulled from the debris’

    And it was.

    Twisted, melted I beams pulled from the Staten Island Landfill, were the product of
    weeks of exposure to (undeniable) molten pits under the WTC wreckage.

    I’m sure China has many more melted I beam examples on our “ever expanding” crime scene.

  • BoogieHauser

    I will.
    I’ll keep in mind Barry Jennings while I read it.

  • Anonymous

    Keep in mind that demolition explosives are heard for miles, not just by people inside of the building, and that a ConEd substation was under WTC 7 with transformers that shorted after the plane crashes across Vesey Street. If you’re into the Silverstein “pull it” malarkey from the 9/11 “truth movement,” also keep in mind that the FDNY phone call to him was made around 3:30 PM, so no one was deciding WHETHER to blow up WTC 7 with those imaginary explosives at that hour if they’d already started going off at ~10:00 AM.

  • http://profiles.google.com/prustage95 prustage95

    Not impressed with Gage’s performance. He came across as a bit of a crank and didn’t address the questions as I’d hope he would. There is very clear argument here:

    1. We are not doubting the fact that planes flew into the WTC. And for the moment we are not concerned with who did this or why. The single question is “What caused the three WTC buildings to collapse?”

    2. Although inquiries have been held in the past , they were not carried out in a scientific way and failed to take into account the following key pieces of evidence:
    (i) The collapse of the three WTC buildings did not happen in a way that was consistent with the damage caused by plane impact.
    (ii) The collapse, however, was consistent with a controlled demolition involving high explosives.
    (iii) Subsequent investigation has found evidence of nano-thermite – a high explosive, amongst the debris

    3. There should therefore be a new investigation, carried out in a scientific manner that takes the above into account.

    That’s it, that’s all. Put like that it sounds like a reasonable request. It really is important to avoid straying too far down the conspiracy theory route or loading the public with unecessary detail about iron microspheres. First establish that this was a controlled explosion – then start asking who did it and why…

    • Albury Smith

      It’s already been done very competently, but if Gage wants another one, he recently claimed in a debate in Boulder that he has “800 engineers” who all think NIST is wrong, so when’s he starting? He’s repeatedly accused the government of lying to him, so I hope he doesn’t want them to sanction it. That wouldn’t even make sense.

      • ArgosyJones

        he has “800 engineers” who all think NIST is wrong, so when’s he starting?

        LOL. You nailed it. He should be able to launch an independant investigation with the people he’s got. Except that he misrepresents the people he’s got. last time I counted, there were fewer than 250 actual architects, fewer than 250 engineers. The remainder of his petitions are signed by people with some education but who had not become licensed professionals.

        It’s as if someone started a group “doctors for 9/11 truth” and then allowed nurses, nurses aides, midwives and medical billing specialists to sign the petition. LOL

        • Albury Smith

          I just visited Box Boy’s web site for the first time in a while, and couldn’t find the list of signatories to his petition and their bios, etc. No self-respecting SE would ever sign that thing, but these clowns did:
          http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12
          I checked AE911″truth” after Mark Roberts posted that on jref, and they really did make those claims. :-)

          • ArgosyJones

            http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

            It’s still there: you have to click “sign the petition” on the homepage in order to see it. Kind of obnoxious, but at least they make it public.

            I found Gage’s site years ago and thought to myself “finally somebody has put together a coherent argument that will make sense to someone who knows a little about Newtonian mechanics and the design of steel structures.” Alas, Richard’s site was and remains a rehash of the work of more talented conspiracy theorists, and contains no analysis intended for professionals, or even scientifically literate laymen.

            Gage, Gage, you make me RAGE!

          • Albury Smith

            That explains why I missed it. Clicking that link isn’t in my DNA.

          • BoogieHauser

            Some stones are better left unturned?
            : /

          • Albury Smith

            The ASCE alone has ~144,000 engineers in its membership. Gage has a few hundred who claim to be engineers and can’t even get simple facts right. Do the arithmetic.

          • BoogieHauser

            If it was all good leaving it up to the people that know about engineering,
            I guess the case would be closed.
            But engineers don’t decide anything more than that narrow aspect of the Crime Scene.
            Gear heads don’t solve crimes.

          • Albury Smith

            Gee, why would we want engineers to investigate building collapses? You did at least look at the title of the article here before commenting on it, didn’t you?

          • BoogieHauser

            Because the “investigation done by engineers is a “engineering investigation”.
            A investigation done by “investigators”, uses the skills of “engineers” to complete a comprehensive criminal investigation.

            The NIST report is nothing more than a “recommendations for builders” that serves as a “end all” or for debunkers.

            It works this way-
            Detectives
            Everybody else
            Engineers

            Not this way-
            Corporations
            Engineers

          • Albury Smith

            You’re just jabbering stupidly now:
            http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

          • BoogieHauser

            Yeah. I wouldn’t want one of them to investigate anything criminal.

          • Albury Smith

            Who should investigate building collapses, Boogie? You?

          • BoogieHauser

            Well now that your off your game, I’ll go eat some food until you can regain your composure.

          • Albury Smith

            Think about answering my question while you’re at it.

          • BoogieHauser

            It’s not that difficult. Pick a team of CRIMINAL investigators with good standing and give them a budget.
            We’re off to the races.

            Not like the 911 commission that begged for 9 million supplemental budget and got 7 million.

            For christ sakes we spend that much studying tree frogs in Saigon!

            Any talk of 911 Commission being “comprehensive” brands you a “novice” at budgeting.

          • Tuna Ghost

            No, you’re right. Investigators never use forensics or anything scientific like that. Just good ol’ gut instinct. No physics or math or anything like that. Shit, I guess we all look stupid now, hey?

          • Albury Smith

            Would you rather have criminalists studying tree frogs and other natural sciences topics too, Boogie?

        • Albury Smith

          The 9/11 “truth movement” is bitching because Dr. Patrick Gallagher, then deputy director of NIST, cited the NCST Act and wouldn’t fully release the input modeling data for WTC 7’s collapse. There’s ample information in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, and NIST certainly isn’t the only source of WTC 7 structural drawings, steel submittals, etc.
          With that ponderous brain trust of 800 engineers, and no one stopping them from using LS-DYNA and ANSYS software, they should at least have some RFIs to submit for additional input data by now. It’s also extremely odd that people claiming that the US government is lying to them still want a “new and independent investigation” sanctioned by that very same government, instead of simply doing it on their own. They seem to enjoying their roles as victims too much to do anything about it, but it’s a shame that they have to bother everyone else with their crap.

          • BoogieHauser

            Truth has no owner.
            What independent group should look into what the majority of Americans want?

            Good old American Government warts and all is the only answer.

            It’s a “shame” that you fail to grasp, you are now in the minority.

            A bunch of you guys bitch about spending more money on this.

            What a weak position to put yourself in.
            Jot down for all of us how much money was spent on investigating this crime.
            Then jot down what we spent to go to war with the wrong country.
            I think you’ll see where the budget money went
            Most of the Truthers were joined with the millions of us who protested against a war based on “lies”.

            Maybe we saw you at the protest? Did you invest some shoe leather?

          • BoogieHauser

            If you didn’t, then you have no really have “no say” in how our money should be spent.
            Unless you supported the Iraq war and then you really have no say in anything.

          • Albury Smith

            I didn’t, but I still have as much say as any US citizen. What makes you think people who supported the Iraq blunder don’t?

          • BoogieHauser

            Because it was a obvious L I E and a waste of our resources?
            Why should someone with that bad of judgment be included?

          • Albury Smith

            GeeDubya was also the worst president in US history, but the article’s about Box Boy, not him, his 2003 Iraq blunder, or any other distraction you can conjure up.

          • BoogieHauser

            So let’s get back to that dynamic Richard Gage now all up in your mainstream television.

            Is that what’s bothering you? You here on the Disinfo not convincing anybody, while Ricard Gage is
            speaking to millions? Well then, that’s an issue you have no outlet or answer to match.
            SURE don’t see any exalted members of your NIST team getting any airtime.
            Best you got is outdated compromised and fading.

          • Albury Smith

            Yeah Boogie; the NIST engineers aren’t in the media every day, so some lying crackpot must be right. (eyeroll)

          • BoogieHauser

            Well let’s just say, not many people want to sit around and go over the “finer points” of how the official story is correct. No, you don’t see that kind of forum. You have your camp created in a response to the toofers
            and the toofers camp.

            My mission here was to make sure the Richard Gage story stayed on top of DisInfos “Most discussed” list, to give time to all visitors to see Richard Gage on mainstream tv.

            Together we made that happen.

            When you want to branch out a bit take a looks at the FEMA supplemental report suggesting that NIST take a second look at the nano-thermite. Didn’t see you two mention it.

            I mentioned treating the WTC as a “Crime Scene” numerous times and neither of you took issue or had any response.
            It’s truly an “issue” you can’t touch, or not support. Nor did you have any response to the Crime scene being scrubbed.
            Your “evidence, logic on the crime scene” etc will always be compromised, tainted.

            Seems you’d have been posting stuff way before the 911 commission, since it took a year before it even started. Or did you wait to bitch until the troofers got your panties in a bind?

          • Tuna Ghost

            So are you ever going to tackle the numerous detailed rebuttals that have been offered? Let me guess, you’re going to claim you HAVE answered them or that your time isn’t worth wasting on us. Don’t be like that, friend. Don’t tell us that all the evidence brought to you is tainted by virtue of you not liking the source. Physics doesn’t have an owner. Don’t tell us your “mission” was to make sure Gage got more screen time. We know that’s a hastily put together cop out. Tackle the evidence that’s been brought before you. Investigate, if you care so much about the truth. Discuss the issue. Don’t change the subject, don’t try to distract, just answer. the. questions.

          • Albury Smith

            Fortunately, “theorists” who think the WTC was bombed on 9/11 are in the minority. You’d be a lot more credible if you stuck to protesting the Iraq mess that the “war president” got us into, because you obviously don’t know the first thing about structural engineering or anything else related to the WTC collapses.

          • BoogieHauser

            Look around for the wikipedia link i left here, it clearly shows your barking is the weakest.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Buddy if you think you’re in the majority, I’m afraid you’ve severely mistaken the situation. I think…I think you may have been lied to by somebody besides the US gov’t.

        • BoogieHauser

          Yeah laughing at people concerned about the truth.
          Shows some good colors.

          • Albury Smith

            He’s laughing at people who are too stupid to know what the truth is, Boog, and get caught lying constantly. Box Boy’s a prime example.

          • BoogieHauser

            Get a room.

  • http://profiles.google.com/prustage95 prustage95

    Not impressed with Gage’s performance. He came across as a bit of a crank and didn’t address the questions as I’d hope he would. There is very clear argument here:

    1. We are not doubting the fact that planes flew into the WTC. And for the moment we are not concerned with who did this or why. The single question is “What caused the three WTC buildings to collapse?”

    2. Although inquiries have been held in the past , they were not carried out in a scientific way and failed to take into account the following key pieces of evidence:
    (i) The collapse of the three WTC buildings did not happen in a way that was consistent with the damage caused by plane impact.
    (ii) The collapse, however, was consistent with a controlled demolition involving high explosives.
    (iii) Subsequent investigation has found evidence of nano-thermite – a high explosive, amongst the debris

    3. There should therefore be a new investigation, carried out in a scientific manner that takes the above into account.

    That’s it, that’s all. Put like that it sounds like a reasonable request. It really is important to avoid straying too far down the conspiracy theory route or loading the public with unecessary detail about iron microspheres. First establish that this was a controlled explosion – then start asking who did it and why…

  • Anonymous

    Guess all of the SEAoNY, ASCE, FEMA’s BPAT, PANYNJ, and other engineers on the site, as well as the demolition contractors, union ironworkers, laborers, FDNY, and others who handled the steel piece by piece as it was pulled from the pile over an almost 8-month period were all blind and stupid, or in on the plot, huh? Many of the tower perimeter columns near the collapse initiation floors were ejected free of the main piles, and were probably the first to be seen during the cleanup. Not one photo, eyewitness account, or even a rumor of a column with a melted or explosively-severed end during that entire time.

  • Anonymous

    It’s already been done very competently, but if Gage wants another one, he recently claimed in a debate in Boulder that he has “800 engineers” who all think NIST is wrong, so when’s he starting? He’s repeatedly accused the government of lying to him, so I hope he doesn’t want them to sanction it. That wouldn’t even make sense.

  • BoogieHauser

    Well that’s a general statement on the distance the sounds of explosions usually travel.
    But of course accounts exist of civil war battles not being heard less than a mile away due to background noise and geography.

    Silverstein wouldn’t be called in for testimony, in my “911 court fantasy”, where I’m the judge.

    I’m not the sharpest “knife in the drawer”, but as I read your suggested http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PD
    I have trouble so far (only at pg 37)
    Where did the lead graphic (intro page) of Building Seven looking all wobbly and weak kneed come from?
    No by-line or explanation so far.

    My gut feeling is it looks like a “pretty good try to show how a building with a “inferno inside” might actually fall “symmetrically”. I guess I’ll find out further on.

    I can’t help but feel I’m being given the “sell” that this is “so comprehensive” it actually may “suffice” for
    a real “crime scene” investigation. Big name after name of corporate interests, that were willing to “lend their free time” to form this consensus. In the real world, these posers get “told what to do”, not call the shots.

    I’ll trundle on.

  • Anonymous

    You sound fairly open-minded. Remember that 12 different insurance companies paid out $4.68 BILLION here, so that’s a lot more than some free time. I’d look closely at the framing layout to see why the collapse was so contained.

  • Anonymous

    Check this out too, BoogieH:
    http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition
    It’s ~47 minutes well spent.

  • BoogieHauser

    I’m liking how “secure” they made this PDF by locking it. I’m not liking how it prevents one from copying passages to discuss. I do believe this document is mine and all of ours.

    But the boys at NIST feel my time is better spent retyping. Gov in..action.

    I retyped this from page 37

    “However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept withing it were destroyed, and the remains of the WTC buildings were dispose of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin.”

    – I really like how the sentence throws the “fire destruction” in with the Entire building being removed and shipped to China. It’s almost like the force of the fire “jettisoned” the remains to China.
    Obviously they don’t carry the same weight and putting them together in the same sentence serves to obfuscate.

    “As a result, there are some fact that could not be discerned and, thus, there are uncertainties in this accounting. Nontheless, NIST was able to gather sufficient evidence and documentation to conduct a full investigation upon which to reach firm findings and recommendations.”

    I’m a bit old school and this is the equivalent to “pissing down our backs and telling us it’s raining”.
    When they all say investigation, they get a collective “stiffy”?

    So far this is a bummer read. I guess I gotta take it for what it is though.

  • BoogieHauser

    So do you.

    A friend of mine died in that attack. Typing about it, (even this bric brack) after all these years, still makes my hands sweat.
    I’d like to reach some “personal conclusion” without feeling like I leaned to either side.
    That I haven’t found the “holy grail” I sought after all these years, has lead me to kind of sit the fence until either technology answers “what happened” or something else gets brought to light.

    I probably type here with my “limited knowledge” on the subject, because Rob’s brought back for a spell when I do.

    Not looking for sympathy, I’ve been honest though.

  • Tuna Ghost

    If there was explosives used, the sound would have been heard quite a far distance away. And yet despite there being several hundred recording devices operating at the time, there was no record of any explosion. Strange, don’t you think, considering an explosion (two, even) powerful enough to bring down a building that large would have been heard over a mile away? And yet there is no audio recording anywhere of such an explosion.

    As for your question: gravity.

  • Tuna Ghost

    You mean the nano-sized particles collected from rooftops and people’s apartments, kept in shoeboxes, six years later? Those particles? Which are rust and tiny pieces of iron? Which even Richard Gage admits you’ll find all over any city, and occur quite frequently without any thermitic material? You’re talking about those particles, right? The ones brought up as evidence in an article published in a nano-chemistry journal in europe, an article which was debunked almost immediately? An article which prompted the editor of said magazine to resign in embarrassment since the article was published without her knowledge and had no business being published in a scientific journal (her words)? We’re talking about the same particles of rust and iron, right?

  • Tuna Ghost

    Keep in mind the NIST report was rushed and used qualifiers such as “likely” and “possibly”, words that truthers are keen to leave out when quoting the report. They didn’t have all the answers, or as much time as they would have wished. This has been admitted on a number of occasions. But several investigations followed, which for the most part backed up their initial findings. A good source of information is, surprisingly, http://www.debunking911.com . They tackle the majority of claims made by conspiracy theorists, and have links to other information resources.

  • Tuna Ghost

    So we’re all going by the same grainy footage of the towers falling down? No one has access to any accurate information? Then why buy into the truther’s campaign instead of someone who thinks Satan knocked down the towers? Why believe anyone but the people involved in the gov’t investigation? That’s basically your point, isn’t it? That only the people involved in the investigation are reliable?

    Truth is, buddy, I do have a superior source of information, which is the vast majority of architects and engineers and demolition experts working in North America. Their studies and information are widely available and explained simply and lucidly. Would you like me to point you to it? I will, if you want. It’s the easiest thing in the world. Just ask.

    Normally, this is when you (not you personally, but someone in your position) switches to ad hominem and claiming the discussion isn’t worth their time since they already know the truth (I saw a video! Buildings don’t fall like that. No, I have no training in physics or engineering or any hard science for that matter, and I didn’t go to college, but I know what I’m talking about!). But I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re willing to actually investigate the matter. I’m sure you won’t disappear or switch to glib, content-free comments that don’t actually address the issue.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s the “Firefighters” for 9/11 “Truth” petition, BH:
    http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
    Count up the number of signatories to it who even claim to be FDNY, i.e. the guys who lost more than 300 of their colleagues and even close relatives just in the collapses, and 343 total on 9/11. Many were at the WTC on 9/11, and they know a lot more about it than people who weren’t. They don’t have their own 9/11 truth organization either. Just food for thought…

  • Anonymous

    TG: “Normally, this is when you (not you personally, but someone in your position) switches to ad hominem and claiming the discussion isn’t worth their time since they already know the truth…”

    My first post on any 9/11 “truth movement” web site is usually when the moderator of the “forum” switches to banning me for “spamming,” or violating his rules of decorum, Tuna. It’s almost a given. :-)

  • mwes

    I’m no expert in these things, and will defer to those with more knowledge, but at least the twin towers’ falls look different to me than actual “demolitions” or implosions. The best way I can describe it is that the twin towers kind of look like bananas being peeled, with debris falling outward, while implosions and that sort of thing look like the buildings disappear into themselves. I’m wide open to conspiracies, but at this point I think the planes caused the collapses on September 11.

  • mwes

    I’m no expert in these things, and will defer to those with more knowledge, but at least the twin towers’ falls look different to me than actual “demolitions” or implosions. The best way I can describe it is that the twin towers kind of look like bananas being peeled, with debris falling outward, while implosions and that sort of thing look like the buildings disappear into themselves. I’m wide open to conspiracies, but at this point I think the planes caused the collapses on September 11.

  • ArgosyJones

    Several feet of nano sized particulates

    LOL, you don’t even seem to know what Gage and his cadre claim, yet here you are attempting to defend them. I’m done with you, Bogie. Just for fun, try and find someone who even claims several feet (meaning at least 3, but I’ll take anything as large as two) of “nano particles”.

    Go get a GED.

  • ArgosyJones

    911 report did not satisfy my curiosity…

    You should read reports, not eat them, Bogie:) That’s probably your problem.

  • ArgosyJones

    …Twisted, melted I beams…

    here’s a clue for you, Bogie; anything that you can identify as an I-beam has not melted but rather been distorted (bent, twisted) by external force (collapsing buildings maybe?).

    In the world of scientists and engineers, melted has a meaning; that an object has passed from solid to liquid. Liquids never hold their own shape.

  • BoogieHauser

    “In addition, the poll also found that two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Only 4.8 percent of the respondents agreed that members of the United States government “actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack.””

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_opinion_polls
    Thought food enough for both of us.

  • ArgosyJones

    he has “800 engineers” who all think NIST is wrong, so when’s he starting?

    LOL. You nailed it. He should be able to launch an independant investigation with the people he’s got. Except that he misrepresents the people he’s got. last time I counted, there were fewer than 250 actual architects, fewer than 250 engineers. The remainder of his petitions are signed by people with some education but who had not become licensed professionals.

    It’s as if someone started a group “doctors for 9/11 truth” and then allowed nurses, nurses aides, midwives and medical billing specialists to sign the petition. LOL

  • Anonymous

    That simply shows how poorly informed Americans are about a terrorist attack on their own soil, BH. NCSTAR 1A reported the findings of a complete NIST investigation of WTC 7’s collapse, and the 9/11 Commission was not only not charged with that task, they lacked the expertise to do it. Out of all of the NYC buildings damaged or destroyed on 9/11, only the towers were mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report at all, and that was only because al Qaeda targeted them (again) in their attack on 9/11. They’d previously tried to destroy them in 1993.

  • Anonymous

    I just visited Box Boy’s web site for the first time in a while, and couldn’t find the list of signatories to his petition and their bios, etc. No self-respecting SE would ever sign that thing, but these clowns did:
    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12
    I checked AE911″truth” after Mark Roberts posted that on jref, and they really did make those claims. :-)

  • Anonymous

    The 9/11 “truth movement” is bitching because Dr. Patrick Gallagher, then deputy director of NIST, cited the NCST Act and wouldn’t fully release the input modeling data for WTC 7’s collapse. There’s ample information in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, and NIST certainly isn’t the only source of WTC 7 structural drawings, steel submittals, etc.
    With that ponderous brain trust of 800 engineers, and no one stopping them from using LS-DYNA and ANSYS software, they should at least have some RFIs to submit for additional input data by now. It’s also extremely odd that people claiming that the US government is lying to them still want a “new and independent investigation” sanctioned by that very same government, instead of simply doing it on their own. They seem to enjoying their roles as victims too much to do anything about it, but it’s a shame that they have to bother everyone else with their crap.

  • ArgosyJones

    http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

    It’s still there: you have to click “sign the petition” on the homepage in order to see it. Kind of obnoxious, but at least they make it public.

    I found Gage’s site years ago and thought to myself “finally somebody has put together a coherent argument that will make sense to someone who knows a little about Newtonian mechanics and the design of steel structures.” Alas, Richard’s site was and remains a rehash of the work of more talented conspiracy theorists, and contains no analysis intended for professionals, or even scientifically literate laymen.

    Gage, Gage, you make me RAGE!

  • Anonymous

    That explains why I missed it. Clicking that link isn’t in my DNA.

  • BoogieHauser

    We have elections for President based on these “poorly informed” Americans, seems reasonable to allow the “will of the people” to prevail here as well.

    The problems with what, and what not to investigate, was for some reason not laid out very well.
    Seems the stone wall and budgetary constraints Bushco put in place until 11/2002 had a bad effect on the commissions ability to encompass the rest of the crime scene.

    1993! My recollection was they had some courageous help from alphabet city.

  • BoogieHauser

    Yeah I mean those particles.
    Size matters.

  • Anonymous

    Scientific findings aren’t something we all get together and vote on.

  • paulie

    Two different demo styles at ground zero. The Twin Towers were destroyed in a top-down uncontrolled demo, and Building 7 was a classic implosion. Do you have trouble understanding this simple concept?

  • paulie

    NIST now admits Building 7 fell al free-fall rate for over 2 secs. And yes there’re reports of skinless victims at ground zero.

  • Anonymous

    Controlled demolitions are immediately preceded by deafening bangs, and leave explosively-severed columns in debris piles, paulie. If you can’t understand those simple concepts, maybe this will help:
    http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition
    C/Ds are also done for plausible reasons, and take months of very disruptive prep work in advance. Lotsa luck trying to do it secretly in busy, occupied office buildings in major cities, or dreaming up a plausible reason for doing it even once on 9/11.

  • Anonymous

    The reason for the ~2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration is clearly shown in the NIST modeling, and has nothing at all to do with determining the cause of the collapse. NIST didn’t “admit” to it; it’s simply irrelevant to a building performance investigation. There was no evidence of a C/D found, and your “researchers” not only can’t explain that, they’ve completely ignored the interior collapses preceding the visible one, the slower acceleration of the facade prior to t=~1.75 seconds, as well as after t=~4 seconds, and have flat-out lied about the entire collapse time. The facade collapse took roughly 9 seconds total, and is impossible to determine to 1/10-second accuracy, so 6.5 or 6.6 seconds is a total fabrication from your 9/11 “truth movement.” The “pyroclastic dust clouds” claim is another outright lie, and no one was burned by them.
    I’d worry more about Gage, et al. than I would about the NIST investigators.

  • BoogieHauser

    You assume too much. :)

  • BoogieHauser

    Go read something that might help your lack of understanding on the subject.
    Information readily available.

  • BoogieHauser

    But we could vote on a real investigation, like they typically conduct when just one person gets murdered.

  • BoogieHauser

    Painful so far. Let’s all make video’s with our own angles and pick of the litter footage.
    Sadly whoever made this has just as much of an agenda as all I’ve seen.
    Thanks anyway.

  • Anonymous

    What would you like to investigate this time, BoogieH? The WTC collapses have already been thoroughly investigated by extremely competent people, so I’d suggest further investigation of their reports and less time wasted on 9/11 “truth movement” claims from chronic liars, 9/11 profiteers, and crackpots.

  • BoogieHauser

    Some stones are better left unturned?
    : /

  • Anonymous

    You can look at a known C/D from any angle you want, and you’ll see and hear pretty much the same thing. In the first 4 minutes of that video, you can look at a tower collapse and see very clearly that nothing moved until the upper part started falling. How would the smoke from the fires have been undisturbed by explosives triggering either tower collapse, and what angle shows that it was?
    The upper part of the South Tower weighed ~125,000 tons, the upper part of the North Tower weighed ~60,000 tons, and once they started falling, the rest of each building was down in ~15 and ~22 seconds respectively. Free fall from 1368′ takes ~9.25 seconds, so you decide for yourself how honest the “researchers” in your 9/11 “truth movement” are.

  • Anonymous

    The ASCE alone has ~144,000 engineers in its membership. Gage has a few hundred who claim to be engineers and can’t even get simple facts right. Do the arithmetic.

  • BoogieHauser

    Truth has no owner.
    What independent group should look into what the majority of Americans want?

    Good old American Government warts and all is the only answer.

    It’s a “shame” that you fail to grasp, you are now in the minority.

    A bunch of you guys bitch about spending more money on this.

    What a weak position to put yourself in.
    Jot down for all of us how much money was spent on investigating this crime.
    Then jot down what we spent to go to war with the wrong country.
    I think you’ll see where the budget money went
    Most of the Truthers were joined with the millions of us who protested against a war based on “lies”.

    Maybe we saw you at the protest? Did you invest some shoe leather?

  • BoogieHauser

    In that you mean the corporate interest should be less suspect than a rag tag assembly of truth seekers?

  • BoogieHauser

    Since I can post pictures here, we’ll just have to assume you need to “look around more”.

  • BoogieHauser

    Like a hammer that can crush without winding up!
    Fantasy, especially with the dust size.
    And yes I read about the PVC, Toner and the list of crap that “might explain” the thermite claims.
    Seems speculation is new “proof”.

  • BoogieHauser

    Yeah start with Thomas Kean and find the remaining “commission members” who already have “staunchly disproved your claims”. Gawd awful control over people does not in the slightest result in a thurough job.
    What info are you cherry picking from? This is old news.

  • BoogieHauser

    Dood the demo videos on the debunking site, ALL had the windows removed.
    Don’t ya think solids have an effect on sound?
    Didn’t you notice?

  • Anonymous

    The thermite claims in the Bentham farce are actually nanothermite (BIG difference), and are based on the notion that rust, aluminum, sulfur, silicon, etc. “reminded” your “researchers” of something. The dust size is only meaningful if you can explain how big it should have been, and you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about and are parroting some truther nut web site. The “hammer” you’re referring to weighed ~4500 TONS PER FLOOR, and was going almost 20 mph when it first hit the intact floors below.
    You honestly are not equipped for this discussion.

  • BoogieHauser

    If you didn’t, then you have no really have “no say” in how our money should be spent.
    Unless you supported the Iraq war and then you really have no say in anything.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, a huge effect, but not on the sound. Demolition explosives would have blown all the windows out on every floor where they were placed. Why do you think C/D contractors remove them? Duh…

  • BoogieHauser

    If it was all good leaving it up to the people that know about engineering,
    I guess the case would be closed.
    But engineers don’t decide anything more than that narrow aspect of the Crime Scene.
    Gear heads don’t solve crimes.

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t, but I still have as much say as any US citizen. What makes you think people who supported the Iraq blunder don’t?

  • Anonymous

    Gee, why would we want engineers to investigate building collapses? You did at least look at the title of the article here before commenting on it, didn’t you?

  • BoogieHauser

    The video naturally didn’t use the footage of squibs coming out SIXTY feet blow!

    If you’re going to debunk something, use the footage that insures people won’t be asking this question.
    sheese!

  • Anonymous

    What claims of mine have been “staunchly disproved” by Commission members? Be specific.
    Jeezus; do you ever read ANYTHING but 9/11 “truth movement” crap?

  • Anonymous

    Each tower floor contained ~1/2 million cubic feet of air. Where do you suppose all of that went when a floor collapsed? What did your “squibs” do, since they obviously didn’t cut any steel?

  • BoogieHauser

    Then don’t use examples that don’t support your narrative?

    The conspiracy about demolition can be solved by the fact the windows weren’t blown out?
    Zoinks!

  • Anonymous

    Gee, now we have explosives that don’t make loud bangs, don’t blow out any glass, and don’t leave any explosively-cut steel in debris piles. What DID they do?

  • BoogieHauser

    Because it was a obvious L I E and a waste of our resources?
    Why should someone with that bad of judgment be included?

  • BoogieHauser

    Because it was a obvious L I E and a waste of our resources?
    Why should someone with that bad of judgment be included?

  • Anonymous

    I’ve already said that I think your “truth seekers” should investigate everything they want. What’s stopping them?

  • Anonymous

    GeeDubya was also the worst president in US history, but the article’s about Box Boy, not him, his 2003 Iraq blunder, or any other distraction you can conjure up.

  • Anonymous

    Fortunately, “theorists” who think the WTC was bombed on 9/11 are in the minority. You’d be a lot more credible if you stuck to protesting the Iraq mess that the “war president” got us into, because you obviously don’t know the first thing about structural engineering or anything else related to the WTC collapses.

  • BoogieHauser

    Because the “investigation done by engineers is a “engineering investigation”.
    A investigation done by “investigators”, uses the skills of “engineers” to complete a comprehensive criminal investigation.

    The NIST report is nothing more than a “recommendations for builders” that serves as a “end all” or for debunkers.

    It works this way-
    Detectives
    Everybody else
    Engineers

    Not this way-
    Corporations
    Engineers

  • Anonymous

    You’re just jabbering stupidly now:
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

  • BoogieHauser

    Oh those magical 20 floors and their amazing pulverization power!
    I’m liking my position.
    You should get up to date.

  • BoogieHauser

    Our money?

  • BoogieHauser

    Let’s open an investigation!
    Let’s get a list going!

    1. Boogie Hauser

  • BoogieHauser

    Yeah it pushed it out many floors below! lol

    Shows a limited understanding of the WTC buildings design.

  • Anonymous

    How old are you and what’s your education level? Seriously. If you can’t understand the concept of tens of thousands of tons crashing into something at almost 20 mph, I’d suggest finding another hobby.

  • BoogieHauser

    the claim the Nine one one commission wasn’t compromised from the start.
    Kissinger?
    Gawd! Didn’t that give you any pause to think what was happening behind the scenes and what you could
    expect???

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, I forgot that the towers had cores heavily damaged by planes, and were full of penetrations like elevator and utility shafts. It’s tough to get one past a high beam like you.

  • BoogieHauser

    Yeah laughing at people concerned about the truth.
    Shows some good colors.

  • Anonymous

    Why not? Put it where your mouth is. Gage’s “800 engineers” should be willing to donate their time. You’re not waiting for the lying US government’s help, are you?

  • BoogieHauser

    How did I know you were going all “elevator shafts” on me?
    Now you’re showing the “cherry stains” on your fingers.

    Won’t bother to show how the elevator shafts don’t support your theories.

  • Anonymous

    Sounds like the makings of a real brain trust, Boogie. Here’s a repeat of my question:
    “Gee, now we have explosives that don’t make loud bangs, don’t blow out any glass, and don’t leave any explosively-cut steel in debris piles. What DID they do?”

  • Anonymous

    Why do you keep ducking my questions?

  • BoogieHauser

    Watched too many simulations on this to take an angry attacking debunkers word.
    Damn if that yourtube is not the friend of debunkers now a days,
    I guess the “personal attacks” will only increase.

  • Anonymous

    He’s laughing at people who are too stupid to know what the truth is, Boog, and get caught lying constantly. Box Boy’s a prime example.

  • Anonymous

    Go for it, Boogie. Knock yourself out explaining why rapidly compressed air doesn’t travel between hi-rise floors through elevator and other shafts. Then explain what your “squibs” did, since they obviously didn’t cut any steel.

  • BoogieHauser

    “Gee, now we have explosives that don’t make loud bangs,
    Go debate William Rodriguez, I was in Jersey City and didn’t hear the blasts first hand.

    don’t blow out any glass,

    Yeah if it was that easy, this would be a closed case.

    and don’t leave any explosively-cut steel in debris piles. What DID they do?”

    Go to China and find out or isn’t the fact evidence was removed from a “crime scene”
    disturb you? If you won’t search for the “melted I beams” I can make you.

    What’s your best guess?

  • Anonymous

    I think that you’re just so darn knowledgeable of science, engineering, and the facts that you really don’t even need another investigation of any WTC collapse on 9/11, Boogie.

  • BoogieHauser

    Meant can’t make you.

  • BoogieHauser

    Because we use “our” money to investigate crimes against us.

    That you keep harping on this is silly. It’s our money we should use.

  • BoogieHauser

    Yeah. I wouldn’t want one of them to investigate anything criminal.

  • BoogieHauser

    Look around for the wikipedia link i left here, it clearly shows your barking is the weakest.

  • Anonymous

    My best guess is that all ~40,000 cleanup workers were in on the plot too, Boogie, because there were no reports of any explosively-cut columns pulled from the pile. Willie’s got extra good hearing or else the explosives were really quiet, and I also guess the North Tower collapse started in the levels below grade where he was, and about 1 hour and 42 minutes before anyone else noticed it.
    Would you like the link to his web site’s donation page? He’ll tell you about those high-powered microwave weapons that really shot down UA 93 if you give him enough money, but he did it free in his lawsuit against the whole US government a few years ago. If he appeals, the judge will lock his ass up and fine him.

  • BoogieHauser

    So let’s get back to that dynamic Richard Gage now all up in your mainstream television.

    Is that what’s bothering you? You here on the Disinfo not convincing anybody, while Ricard Gage is
    speaking to millions? Well then, that’s an issue you have no outlet or answer to match.
    SURE don’t see any exalted members of your NIST team getting any airtime.
    Best you got is outdated compromised and fading.

  • BoogieHauser

    So let’s get back to that dynamic Richard Gage now all up in your mainstream television.

    Is that what’s bothering you? You here on the Disinfo not convincing anybody, while Ricard Gage is
    speaking to millions? Well then, that’s an issue you have no outlet or answer to match.
    SURE don’t see any exalted members of your NIST team getting any airtime.
    Best you got is outdated compromised and fading.

  • Anonymous

    Who should investigate building collapses, Boogie? You?

  • Anonymous

    Who should investigate building collapses, Boogie? You?

  • Anonymous

    Yeah Boogie; the NIST engineers aren’t in the media every day, so some lying crackpot must be right. (eyeroll)

  • Anonymous

    Yeah Boogie; the NIST engineers aren’t in the media every day, so some lying crackpot must be right. (eyeroll)

  • BoogieHauser

    Well now that your off your game, I’ll go eat some food until you can regain your composure.

  • BoogieHauser

    Well now that your off your game, I’ll go eat some food until you can regain your composure.

  • Anonymous

    Think about answering my question while you’re at it.

  • BoogieHauser

    Yeah the taxpayers money.

  • BoogieHauser

    Well let’s just say, not many people want to sit around and go over the “finer points” of how the official story is correct. No, you don’t see that kind of forum. You have your camp created in a response to the toofers
    and the toofers camp.

    My mission here was to make sure the Richard Gage story stayed on top of DisInfos “Most discussed” list, to give time to all visitors to see Richard Gage on mainstream tv.

    Together we made that happen.

    When you want to branch out a bit take a looks at the FEMA supplemental report suggesting that NIST take a second look at the nano-thermite. Didn’t see you two mention it.

    I mentioned treating the WTC as a “Crime Scene” numerous times and neither of you took issue or had any response.
    It’s truly an “issue” you can’t touch, or not support. Nor did you have any response to the Crime scene being scrubbed.
    Your “evidence, logic on the crime scene” etc will always be compromised, tainted.

    Seems you’d have been posting stuff way before the 911 commission, since it took a year before it even started. Or did you wait to bitch until the troofers got your panties in a bind?

  • BoogieHauser

    Get a room.

  • BoogieHauser

    It’s not that difficult. Pick a team of CRIMINAL investigators with good standing and give them a budget.
    We’re off to the races.

    Not like the 911 commission that begged for 9 million supplemental budget and got 7 million.

    For christ sakes we spend that much studying tree frogs in Saigon!

    Any talk of 911 Commission being “comprehensive” brands you a “novice” at budgeting.

  • BoogieHauser

    Run out of steam eh?

  • Tuna Ghost

    By all means, link to the pictures. I am positive they do not mean what you think they do.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Look, guy: bottom line. Explosives powerful enough to knock down a building make noise. A lot of noise. Enough noise to be heard miles away. Not to mention a controlled demolition involves a lot of prep work that cannot go unnoticed in a crowded city, certainly not in a building that is still in use. But there is no recording of any explosions. There were literally hundreds of recording devices operating at the time, but none of them recorded any noises of explosions. Why is that, Boogie?

  • Tuna Ghost

    I like how you ignore the very detailed rebuttal of the claims and switch it to corporate interests vs. the common man. Very slick. Nobody notices when you do that.

    No one at all.

  • Tuna Ghost

    I like how you ignore the very detailed rebuttal of the claims and switch it to corporate interests vs. the common man. Very slick. Nobody notices when you do that.

    No one at all.

  • Andrew

    Nice to see Americans are more interested in arguing about this than, say, http://www.disinfo.com/2011/04/how-enemy-creep-is-guantanamo-izing-america/

    9/11 is small potatoes compared to what’s happened since.

    • Albury Smith

      I’m interested in discussing this article on an architect who’s lying on TV about 3 building collapses, which is why my comments are here. If you’re interested in discussing Gitmo or whatever, why didn’t you comment there instead? The al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11 may be “small potatoes” to worldly people like you, but many of us consider them very major and serious.

      • Andrew

        I’m commenting here because I want the people arguing so much about the 9/11 attacks to know that I think the controversy is diverting attention from the much more important attacks on human rights and the Constitution that the 9/11 attacks are being used as an excuse for. It’s kind of like arguing about the Reichstag fire while the extermination camps are being built.

        Basically, I think we’re being played and I’m letting you guys know.

        • Albury Smith

          You’re also “basically” letting us guys know that you think suicide attacks by Islamic terrorists that murder nearly 3000 innocent people and cause billions of dollars in property damage in my country are just small potatoes to you. The discussion here is about the WTC collapses and a lying crackpot making a living by misrepresenting the facts around them, so if you don’t have any comment on that, you might want to consider posting somewhere else or at least trying to be more constructive. The measures taken after 9/11 may seem a bit unfortunate to you, but you haven’t offered any better suggestions, nor have you been very specific about these alleged attacks on your human rights and the US Constitution.

          • Andrew

            The measures taken after 9/11 don’t seem “a bit unfortunate” to me, they seem fascist, murderous, and sexually perverse. And I linked to a specific example in my very first comment. But here are some more:

            http://www.disinfo.com/2011/04/911-first-responders-to-be-screened-by-fbi-against-terrorist-list/
            http://www.disinfo.com/2010/11/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-to-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones/
            http://www.disinfo.com/2011/04/meet-your-next-potential-terrorist-the-tsa-pats-down-a-six-year-old-video/
            http://www.disinfo.com/2011/03/u-s-soldiers-in-afghanistan-posed-in-trophy-photos-with-murdered-civilians/
            http://www.disinfo.com/2011/03/tsa-admits-radiation-from-body-scanners-is-10-times-higher-than-they-initially-stated/
            http://www.disinfo.com/2011/01/25-tons-of-bombs-wipe-afghan-town-off-map-photos/
            http://www.disinfo.com/2010/12/rape-victim-arrested-for-refusing-to-be-groped-by-tsa-at-austin-airport-video/
            http://www.disinfo.com/2010/12/taxpayer-funded-contractor-throws-child-rape-parties-in-afghanistan-wikileaks-reveals/
            http://www.disinfo.com/2010/12/wikileaks-revelation-the-u-s-tortured-an-innocent-man-and-threatened-germany-to-not-prosecute-the-torturers/
            http://www.disinfo.com/2010/10/the-justice-department-falsified-a-judges-ruling-in-order-to-continue-unlawfully-imprisoning-a-possibly-mentally-ill-man-at-guantanamo/

            Regarding the sizes of potatoes…
            Number of deaths on 9/11: 2,996
            Number of deaths in Afghanistan: over 19,500 (about half innocent civilians)
            Number of deaths in Iraq: over 150,000 (about two thirds innocent civilians)

            I stand by everything I’ve written. And no, I won’t post somewhere else or be “more constructive.”

          • Albury Smith

            Thanks for that perfect example of sophistry, Andrew. Despite the fact that you’ve completely lost track of the topic here, I asked you for your suggestions on preventing al Qaeda and other extremists from committing more atrocities like the 2 US embassy suicide bombings in Africa in 1998, the 2000 Cole suicide bombing in Aden’s harbor, and the 4 very deadly suicide attacks within the US on 9/11, none of which is “small potatoes” in my lexicon. Since 9/11, several attempts by suicide operatives to blow up airliners in flight have fortunately been unsuccessful, but it’s been deemed prudent by the people responsible for safe transportation in the US to increase airport security. If you know how to do this without all of those measures you think violate your rights and the US Constitution, please feel free to share them with us.
            The US retaliated in Afghanistan because that’s where bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and the other al Qaeda men of God were holed up, having left their former safe haven in Sudan. We later blundered into Iraq because we had an incompetent nitwit in the WH, but comparing death tolls in those 2 countries to those on 9/11 is more than specious; it’s also dishonest. The US mission is not to target innocent civilians in either country, and the majority of civilian deaths are either being inflicted by Islamic insurgents in sectarian squabbles, or are deliberately being caused by combatants using heavily populated civilian areas to discourage US attacks on them. The US government is working to stop abuses on detainees, and it’s hardly the problem it was in the earlier years after the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps you have some examples of reciprocity in this regard by the Taliban, al Qaeda in Iraq, and other Islamic terrorist groups.
            If you want to moralize about wartime misbehavior from a one-sided perspective, or provide suggestions that will increase US security at home without violating some unspecified right you think you have, I’m sure there are more appropriate venues than this. The article preceding the discussion here concerns an inept, profiteering charlatan allegedly explaining 9/11 truth on TV in Detroit, and getting just about everything wrong. The fact that’s he’s not just harmlessly fantasizing from his position of deplorable ignorance or dishonesty, but is also implicitly libeling and slandering innocent people with his extremely foolish claims makes this subject a lot more than just “small potatoes” also.

          • Andrew

            What I’ve written was not sophistry, but an intentional and undisguised attempt to change the subject. And as several of the links I provided demonstrate (like, say, the very first one), the U.S. government is not working to stop the abuses of detainees, but expanding them to others. As Franklin wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

            As for stopping terrorist attacks, I think getting U.S. forces out of the middle east would go a long way. Here’s some history of our interference, terrorism being the result: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019

            I intend to continue moralizing about western crimes against humanity right here on this forum, because what my country does is supposed to be my responsibility. Think of it as putting Matthew 7:3 into practice. Also, the U.S. government is the one taking away my freedom, not the Islamofascists. I’m not saying 9/11 wasn’t a crime, but unless one lost a loved one, get over it. That goes for the Truthers too.

          • Albury Smith

            You really need to get off your cross, Andrew, because someone may want the wood. The US is coping with this mentality:
            http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen2.htm
            and increased security in the US is a fact of life as a result of it, as are wars that don’t always harm only US enemies in countries where these slugs are hiding.
            Your comments aren’t totally incongruous here, however, since the topic most of us are discussing is one man with the risible delusion that he’s more knowledgeable about building collapse investigations than 200+ SEs and other experts who study them for a living, and you’ve presented us with the equally absurd notion that we need you for our moral guidance. Please bandage up the nail holes and get over yourself.

          • Pzyski

            just a fun fact but after those U.S. Embassy bombings it was the Bin Laden construction company that got the multi million dollar contract to rebuild them. Ironic to say the least don’t you think? You really think the wars in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, now Libya and soon to be Pakistan are about the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Its about Oil and drugs and setting up governments in those nations that have leaders that will do whats in the best interest of Big corporations and Banks the true rulers of the western world. Sadly this great country that we live in has been compromised and is being run but a fraternity of rich, arrogant, greedy, selfish sociopaths. Watch the documentary “Loose Change” about 9/11 and research about the Rothschild banking cartel see how feel afterward.

          • Albury Smith

            Do you have any proof at all that the bin Laden company won the rebuilding contracts for the damaged US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, or did you research that as well as most of the claims in the Loose Change video? It’s a “fun fact” if it’s a fact at all, but Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with the family business for years prior to those attacks and at any time after them. It’s Saudi-based and he was expatriated in the mid-90s by the Saudi government, and was also estranged from the bin Laden family.

    • ArgosyJones

      Andrew, I’ll only say this once. Piss off. There is a lively discussion going on here, and hard enough to keep on topic without your whining. If you don’t like it, complain to the webmasters or something, or submit some stories that you’d like to talk about, and then comment on them. Besides there’s like 6 commenters in this thread. There’s plenty of places on the internet for you to have the discussions you want to… go find one.

      • Andrew

        No thanks, I do it here.

  • Andrew

    Nice to see Americans are more interested in arguing about this than, say, http://disinfo.com/2011/04/how-enemy-creep-is-guantanamo-izing-america/

    9/11 is small potatoes compared to what’s happened since.

  • Andrew

    Nice to see Americans are more interested in arguing about this than, say, http://disinfo.com/2011/04/how-enemy-creep-is-guantanamo-izing-america/

    9/11 is small potatoes compared to what’s happened since.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Boogie. Buddy. Friend. You are consistently ignoring detailed explanations. This is not what someone concerned with the truth does. Why do you do that, Boogie? Can you tell me? Why do you stick to theories that have been debunked numerous times? What investment have you made in this malarkey? Why do you stick to theories that ignore fundemental facts? Why do you deny basic physics? Can you tell me? Can you, compardre?

  • Tuna Ghost

    …I’m going to go out on a limb and hazard a theory that you haven’t had much in the way of higher education.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Buddy if you think you’re in the majority, I’m afraid you’ve severely mistaken the situation. I think…I think you may have been lied to by somebody besides the US gov’t.

  • Tuna Ghost

    So are you ever going to tackle the numerous detailed rebuttals that have been offered? Let me guess, you’re going to claim you HAVE answered them or that your time isn’t worth wasting on us. Don’t be like that, friend. Don’t tell us that all the evidence brought to you is tainted by virtue of you not liking the source. Physics doesn’t have an owner. Don’t tell us your “mission” was to make sure Gage got more screen time. We know that’s a hastily put together cop out. Tackle the evidence that’s been brought before you. Investigate, if you care so much about the truth. Discuss the issue. Don’t change the subject, don’t try to distract, just answer. the. questions.

  • Tuna Ghost

    No, you’re right. Investigators never use forensics or anything scientific like that. Just good ol’ gut instinct. No physics or math or anything like that. Shit, I guess we all look stupid now, hey?

  • Tuna Ghost

    My, what a convenient way to not have another piece of your theories debunked in a public forum, like all the others

  • Tuna Ghost

    basically, you’re not going to accept any of the previous five investigations, not until one finally agrees with your bullshit. That’s what your saying, isn’t it. You really don’t need an investigation, you just need someone one camera to say “you’re right. All your bullshit physics, the stuff that doesn’t make a lick of sense to anyone, that’s all correct and what really happened”. Just go ahead and say it, buddy. It’s okay. We’re here for you.

  • Anonymous

    I’m interested in discussing this article on an architect who’s lying on TV about 3 building collapses, which is why my comments are here. If you’re interested in discussing Gitmo or whatever, why didn’t you comment there instead? The al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11 may be “small potatoes” to worldly people like you, but many of us consider them very major and serious.

  • Anonymous

    I thought you wanted a “new and independent” investigation because the ones conducted by 200+ highly-qualified NIST scientists, engineers, and other experts weren’t good enough for you, Boogie. You’re not bright enough to understand the science involved in complicated building collapse investigations, but are you also unwilling to pay for them? Box Boy and his clowns should have completed them by now, so where are their reports, or are they too busy trying to impress us with how much smarter they are than the NIST people? According to your “expert,” there are 800 engineers just waiting to investigate, so what’s stopping them?

  • Anonymous

    Would you rather have criminalists studying tree frogs and other natural sciences topics too, Boogie?

  • Andrew

    I’m commenting here because I want the people arguing so much about the 9/11 attacks to know that I think the controversy is diverting attention from the much more important attacks on human rights and the Constitution that the 9/11 attacks are being used as an excuse for. It’s kind of like arguing about the Reichstag fire while the extermination camps are being built.

    Basically, I think we’re being played and I’m letting you guys know.

  • Anonymous

    You’re also “basically” letting us guys know that you think suicide attacks by Islamic terrorists that murder nearly 3000 innocent people and cause billions of dollars in property damage in my country are just small potatoes to you. The discussion here is about the WTC collapses and a lying crackpot making a living by misrepresenting the facts around them, so if you don’t have any comment on that, you might want to consider posting somewhere else or at least trying to be more constructive. The measures taken after 9/11 may seem a bit unfortunate to you, but you haven’t offered any better suggestions, nor have you been very specific about these alleged attacks on your human rights and the US Constitution.

  • A-ROK

    sorry albury i saw the firefighters say themselves that when they got to the bottom of the wtc they saw rivers of molten metal flowing like a foundry it was so hot down there that there boots were melting now i would rather believe a bunch of first respnders who were there than pencil pushing govt engineer who has a lot of vested interest in himself to hide the truth also willie rodriguez the janitor hero on 9-11 said that minutes before a plane crashed in to wtc theyre was a huge explosion in the basement and that a worker came out out of there with his skin hanging off of him youre gonna call him and those friefighters liars to

  • Anonymous

    Here’s the “Firefighters” for 9/11 “Truth” petition, A-ROK:
    http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
    How many signatories to it even claim to be FDNY? Molten steel would have done more than just melt some firefighters’ boots, but please feel free to name all of the explosives or incendiaries that keep producing heat for more than 5 minutes or so. There were no confirmed reports of molten steel in the debris fires, and it was most likely lead or aluminum, both of which were in abundance in all 3 collapsed WTC hi-rises.
    Maybe Rodriguez isn’t aware of it, but the North Tower collapsed from the top down ~1 hour and 42 minutes after he heard those explosions that were so quiet that no one even a few floors away heard them. Demolition explosives powerful enough to cut even one column in the basement levels would have killed dozens of people down there and deafened many others, and they don’t soak people with flaming jet fuel and debris that just fell through an elevator shaft from ~1200′ up. Ol’ Willie also thinks a secret high-powered microwave weapon brought down UA 93, so why not send him a big donation? Thanks, but I’ll stick to what those “pencil pushing govt engineers” have to say, although ~2/3 of the NIST investigators were from the private sector and academia.

  • Andrew

    The measures taken after 9/11 don’t seem “a bit unfortunate” to me, they seem fascist, murderous, and sexually perverse. And I linked to a specific example in my very first comment. But here are some more:

    http://disinfo.com/2011/04/911-first-responders-to-be-screened-by-fbi-against-terrorist-list/
    http://disinfo.com/2010/11/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-to-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones/
    http://disinfo.com/2011/04/meet-your-next-potential-terrorist-the-tsa-pats-down-a-six-year-old-video/
    http://disinfo.com/2011/03/u-s-soldiers-in-afghanistan-posed-in-trophy-photos-with-murdered-civilians/
    http://disinfo.com/2011/03/tsa-admits-radiation-from-body-scanners-is-10-times-higher-than-they-initially-stated/
    http://disinfo.com/2011/01/25-tons-of-bombs-wipe-afghan-town-off-map-photos/
    http://disinfo.com/2010/12/rape-victim-arrested-for-refusing-to-be-groped-by-tsa-at-austin-airport-video/
    http://disinfo.com/2010/12/taxpayer-funded-contractor-throws-child-rape-parties-in-afghanistan-wikileaks-reveals/
    http://disinfo.com/2010/12/wikileaks-revelation-the-u-s-tortured-an-innocent-man-and-threatened-germany-to-not-prosecute-the-torturers/
    http://disinfo.com/2010/10/the-justice-department-falsified-a-judges-ruling-in-order-to-continue-unlawfully-imprisoning-a-possibly-mentally-ill-man-at-guantanamo/

    Regarding the sizes of potatoes…
    Number of deaths on 9/11: 2,996
    Number of deaths in Afghanistan: over 19,500 (about half innocent civilians)
    Number of deaths in Iraq: over 150,000 (about two thirds innocent civilians)

    I stand by everything I’ve written. And no, I won’t post somewhere else or be “more constructive.”

  • ArgosyJones

    Andrew, I’ll only say this once. Piss off. There is a lively discussion going on here, and hard enough to keep on topic without your whining. If you don’t like it, complain to the webmasters or something, or submit some stories that you’d like to talk about, and then comment on them. Besides there’s like 6 commenters in this thread. There’s plenty of places on the internet for you to have the discussions you want to… go find one.

  • ArgosyJones

    Yes, I want to see the pictures please post them. Always looking for new information.

  • ArgosyJones

    These discussions always come back to Hush-A-Boom.

  • ArgosyJones

    …Shoot over to the big time and leave some insights at
    revolutionarypolitics.com/?=53…

    A Troofer, a Randroid and a Paultard? You’ve hit the trifecta. don’t tell me you’re also an Austrian Skool Eclownomist?

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for that perfect example of sophistry, Andrew. Despite the fact that you’ve completely lost track of the topic here, I asked you for your suggestions on preventing al Qaeda and other extremists from committing more atrocities like the 2 US embassy suicide bombings in Africa in 1998, the 2000 Cole suicide bombing in Aden’s harbor, and the 4 very deadly suicide attacks within the US on 9/11, none of which is “small potatoes” in my lexicon. Since 9/11, several attempts by suicide operatives to blow up airliners in flight have fortunately been unsuccessful, but it’s been deemed prudent by the people responsible for safe transportation in the US to increase airport security. If you know how to do this without all of those measures you think violate your rights and the US Constitution, please feel free to share them with us.
    The US retaliated in Afghanistan because that’s where bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and the other al Qaeda men of God were holed up, having left their former safe haven in Sudan. We later blundered into Iraq because we had an incompetent nitwit in the WH, but comparing death tolls in those 2 countries to those on 9/11 is more than specious; it’s also dishonest. The US mission is not to target innocent civilians in either country, and the majority of civilian deaths are either being inflicted by Islamic insurgents in sectarian squabbles, or are deliberately being caused by combatants using heavily populated civilian areas to discourage US attacks on them. The US government is working to stop abuses on detainees, and it’s hardly the problem it was in the earlier years after the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps you have some examples of reciprocity in this regard by the Taliban, al Qaeda in Iraq, and other Islamic terrorist groups.
    If you want to moralize about wartime misbehavior from a one-sided perspective, or provide suggestions that will increase US security at home without violating some unspecified right you think you have, I’m sure there are more appropriate venues than this. The article preceding the discussion here concerns an inept, profiteering charlatan allegedly explaining 9/11 truth on TV in Detroit, and getting just about everything wrong. The fact that’s he’s not just harmlessly fantasizing from his position of deplorable ignorance or dishonesty, but is also implicitly libeling and slandering innocent people with his extremely foolish claims makes this subject a lot more than just “small potatoes” also.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Buddy, if the firefighters were anywhere near rivers of molten steel they would have had much more severe problems than “melted boots”. There are no confirmed reports of molten steel. It was likely aluminum, which melts are a far lower temperature and was all over the place in the WTC.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Also, an explosion powerful enough to bring down a building that size would have been heard nearly a mile away. And yet despite the abundance of recording equipment in the area, not a single one picked up any sounds of an explosion. You are misquoting several people in your post. Check out http://www.debunking911.com for information on the booms that people reported “sounded like” explosions (which is quite a different claim than “there were explosions” or even “explosions were heard”).

  • Tuna Ghost

    Also, an explosion powerful enough to bring down a building that size would have been heard nearly a mile away. And yet despite the abundance of recording equipment in the area, not a single one picked up any sounds of an explosion. You are misquoting several people in your post. Check out http://www.debunking911.com for information on the booms that people reported “sounded like” explosions (which is quite a different claim than “there were explosions” or even “explosions were heard”).

  • Andrew

    No thanks, I do it here.

  • Andrew

    What I’ve written was not sophistry, but an intentional and undisguised attempt to change the subject. And as several of the links I provided demonstrate (like, say, the very first one), the U.S. government is not working to stop the abuses of detainees, but expanding them to others. As Franklin wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

    As for stopping terrorist attacks, I think getting U.S. forces out of the middle east would go a long way. Here’s some history of our interference, terrorism being the result: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019

    I intend to continue moralizing about western crimes against humanity right here on this forum, because what my country does is supposed to be my responsibility. Think of it as putting Matthew 7:3 into practice. Also, the U.S. government is the one taking away my freedom, not the Islamofascists. I’m not saying 9/11 wasn’t a crime, but unless one lost a loved one, get over it. That goes for the Truthers too.

  • Anonymous

    You really need to get off your cross, Andrew, because someone may need the wood. The US is coping with this mentality:
    http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen2.htm
    and increased security in the US is a fact of life as a result of it, as are wars that don’t always harm only US enemies in countries where these slugs are hiding.
    Your comments aren’t totally incongruous here, however, since the topic most of us are discussing is one man with the risible delusion that he’s more knowledgeable about building collapse investigations than 200+ SEs and other experts who study them for a living, and you’ve presented us with the equally absurd notion that we need you for our moral guidance. Please bandage up the nail holes and get over yourself.

  • Nano_Thermite_9/11

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lESol88wOi0
    Sorry this completely refutes your statement in support of Mr. Gross’ lie. There are several first hand witnesses including on scene firefighters, first responders and more. Thank god it’s easier and easier to debunk the would be pseudo debunkers. Kudos for posting this!

  • WeAreChangeAtlanta

    Amen A-ROK. The truth is coming out! Please support our upcoming event featuring Richard Gage by watching our trailer and sharing! Thank you! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psSF1BVjZ3I

  • Nano_Thermite_9/11

    Please watch this video. Is it not enough evidence or these firefighters direct testimony of having witnessed the molten steel that poured “Like a Foundry”?? What does it take Tuna? Obviously you will refuse any admission that you might be incorrect in the least, thankfully there are many more who can see now than can’t.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lESol88wOi0

  • Nano_Thermite_9/11

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lESol88wOi0 Here are FireFighters describing Molten Steel. They were there, you weren’t. I think I’m gonna go with their account. Also what about Nano-Thermite. Peer reviewed conclusive evidence and all of the other signs of a demolition present. Kinda hard to deny the mountain of evidence at this point, but I’m sure you will exercise continued mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious. Kind reminds me of this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMc1jVg4xoU Remember This is an Orange.

  • Nano_Thermite_9/11
  • Nano_Thermite_9/11
  • Nano_Thermite_9/11
  • Nano_Thermite_9/11
  • Nano_Thermite_9/11
  • Nano_Thermite_9/11

    Of course they don’t! We should trust your interpretation versus our “own lying eyes” This is an orange PolterFish http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMc1jVg4xoU

  • Nano_Thermite_9/11

    Actually what he is saying is that EXPLOSIVES were used to perform a controlled demolition. How else can you explain massive girders flying upwards and out at least 600 feet away? Where does the energy in a “gravity” driven collapse come from? The pancake theory and the pile driver have both been completely discredited. Just apply Occams razor and you have to conclude the obvious. All 3 towers were brought down using nano thermite in a controlled demolition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMc1jVg4xoU Richard Gage is an American Hero.

  • Nano_Thermite_9/11

    I guess you are the real hero huh Argosy. By the way, this is an Orange http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMc1jVg4xoU

  • Nano_Thermite_9/11

    Wow, The Dead Fish has rendered his verdict on the intelligence of anyone who dare disagree with him. He must be brilliant! He probably has receipts from institutions! OMG may we praise your name oh Zombie Salmon!

  • Nano_Thermite_9/11

    Actually those responsible for the clean up were watched like hawks. They couldn’t be late, one gentlemen took an extended lunch break and was fired immediately upon return. Compartmentilization is a Beeyotch. It’s in Blueprint for Truth but I don’t think you will make it through the first 3 minutes giving your 2 minute hate attention span.

  • Nano_Thermite_9/11

    Yes investigate anyone who dares challenge the papal bull! Anyone who dares commit these heretical crimes of using science to disprove gov’t lies and corruption. Let’s burn them at the stake. We should probably waterboard the at least 183 times too, you know just like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. 6 times a day let’s drown them for a month and then torture the only 9/11 guilty admission (not really, just reported that he did, no independent questioning or evidence allowed) Also Bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11. But it really doesn’t matter with you guys. The heavens could split wide open and the hand of god could descend write into the Rocky mountains that we need a new investigation based on the evidence and you would still deny it. Sorry you guys are on the wrong side of history.

  • Nano_Thermite_9/11

    HAHAHAHA you have ZERO understanding of physics. So how can 80 steel columns spread out over a football field roughly all be severed simultaneously to the point of 400-600 welded and bolted connections per second because of small asymmetrical office fires. Explain how that is possible. I’d really like to know. Also why won’t NIST release the code on their computer models if they are so sure?? Because it’s a lie obviously. If you aren’t lying you don’t have to hide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l183LaNay0A It’s not that hard to understand, if you are capable of seeing or thinking.

  • BillHicks2011

    For all of those capable of thinking for yourselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l183LaNay0A For Tuna Ghost, Argosy, and all the other Lame MotherFuckers who suck at life. Eat a Dick and Kill Yourselves.

  • BillHicks2011

    For all of those capable of thinking for yourselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l183LaNay0A For Tuna Ghost, Argosy, and all the other Lame MotherFuckers who suck at life. Eat a Dick and Kill Yourselves.

    • Tuna Ghost

      Done and done, honey. I eat a bowl of dicks every morning, and have died at least 37 times that I’m aware of. And yet here I am, patiently leading guys like you, by the hand, away from the men who are lying to you. And I always will, because I’m just that kind of dead fish.

      • Albury Smith

        The Bill Hicks comment you responded to shows what happens when the 9/11 “truth movement” can’t ban everyone who disagrees with their nonsense. We’d both be long gone if he were running the show here, probably for violating some “rules of decorum” or something. These guys are priceless :-)

        • Tuna Ghost

          My favorite bit should be coming up soon, if Nano_Thermite_911 sticks to his usual plan. It goes roughly as follows:

          1.) Announce that it has been proven that controlled demolitions brought down the towers.

          Then someone like me responds that no, actually, it has not been proven, that the claims of the buildings falling at freefall speed into their own footprint, of nano-thermite being found in the dust, of molten steel, are completely bunk.

          2.) Link to various videos of Richard Gage and Stephen Jones doing their spiel.

          Then someone like me links to the mountains of evidence that tackles Gage and Jones’s claims and clearly, easily, shows them to be false in easy-to-understand terms. They even have diagrams for the slow folks.

          3.) Switch to Building 7 and announce that it has been proven that controlled demolition brought down WTC 7.

          Then someone like me provides more links, more diagrams, et cetera.

          4.) Switch to accusing the debunkers of being afraid of the notion that the American government could possibly do such a thing, and suggest that we stop living in our dream world.

          It’s usually around this time that someone brings up the whole “if there was an explosion, why isn’t it recorded on any of the recording devices that were operating at the time” bit.

          5.) Bring up the “peer reviewed evidence of Nano-Thermite”.

          When this happens, we know we’re near the end of the cycle. Someone like me brings up the fact that the article in question did not at any point say that Nano-Thermite was found, nor did it even say there is conclusive evidence that Nano-Thermite was used, only that particles that could have possibly come from a thermite-like reaction were found in and around ground zero. Oh, and the specimens used for the study are 6 years old and were kept in shoeboxes in people’s apartments or found on roofs. Oh, and the paper was discredited almost immediately and the editor-in-chief resigned because of her failure in allowing a paper like this to be published in a scientific journal, which she never would have allowed had she known about it. Links and quotes are included.

          6.) Stop posting.

          Steps 2-4 come in a different order occasionally, but 5 is always how it ends. I think we’ve about reached step 6 at this point. Perhaps not surprisingly, you’ll notice that “examine, comment on, or acknowledge the evidence that counters the Truther’s claims” is not one of the steps. I’ve done this dance with Nano_Thermite a few times before, god bless him.

          • Pzyski

            I would love to see some of your links to sites that explain the conspiracies as fallacy…. But to clear a few things in your argument up if you slow down the footage of the collapse, there definitely look to be clear examples of explosions as the building collapse about 50 stories below the fall line. Not to mention your argument about the samples used in independent studies for nano thermite being old is not a good one. Traces of a chemical reaction like that, which does not exist in nature does not go away after 6 years. Again let me add the reaction does not occur in nature so therefore finding any evidence of it in any sample is alarming. I have not seen the “mountains” of evidence debunking the controlled demolition theory. From what I know there have been no independent studies, which are frankly the only ones worth trusting. Official reports are notoriously vague and biased, done by one private organization in most cases.

          • Albury Smith

            Nanothermite was not found by anyone. The Bentham “researchers” found rust, aluminum, sulfur, silicon, etc. in some dust samples from the WTC and claimed that they “reminded” them of nanothermite, while providing no exemplars of anything for comparison. The real evidence would have been on the ends of the columns in the debris, and no steel with an explosives signature was found during the ~8 months of cleanup.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Ask and ye shall receive!

            There is a mountain of evidence at http://www.debunking911.com , tackling the most common claims by conspiracy theorists with detailed explanations and diagrams, including your comment about the collapse “50 stories below the fall line”. Regarding WTC 7, which I find the most persistent conspiracy theories regarding, I prefer http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf , an article in structure magazine that clearly and easily explains, point by point, what happened to WTC 7. The previous link also goes into detail and has numerous quotes from first responders regarding the condition of the building, the numerous unfought fires, and the large gaping hole in the side of the building. These quotes are all credited to real people who were there on the scene, something Jones et all tend to leave out. The previous link also has a page of links to other information resources. You can find links to the NIST report and several others, provided by albury, throughout the thread. Keep in mind that there have been several investigations, not just the NIST investigation. The NYPD and FDNY both conducted their own investigations along with other organizations. Given how many firefighters died in the rescue attempts, don’t you think they were anxious to discover the truth?

            Make no mistake, friend, the controlled demolition theory has been thoroughly debunked. Throughout this very thread, numerous claims have been brought up and evidence has been presented to soundly counter the claims. Note that none of the posters positing a controlled demolition theory, not a single one, has ever responded to the question of why, if it was a controlled demolition and explosives were used, not a single recording instrument (of which there were very many in operation at the time) picked up any sound of an explosion, let alone two explosions, despite that any explosion big enough to topple a building of that size would be heard a mile away. Nano-Thermite-911 continues present contradicting “evidence”–first he claims the buildings fell into their own footprint, then claims that the explosives hurled large chunks of debris 600 feet up and away from ground zero. He continually brings up the “peer-reviewed” study, and never ever comments on the fact that when it was reviewed by peers it was resoundingly spurned as poor science that was politically driven. This is the hallmark of most conspiracy theorists: they cherry pick the evidence to support their claims and absolutely ignore the evidence that proves them false.

            Re: nano-thermite, There were no “traces” of any thermitic reaction. They discovered very small particles of rust and iron, which do occur in nature, saying that the amount they discovered “reminded” them of some thermitic reactions they’ve seen. This same paper, the one published in a nano-chemical journal, was discredited almost immediately and the editor in chief resigned just as quickly. The article was published without her knowledge, and she has said numerous times that had she known about the article she would never have allowed it to be published, and that it had no business being in a scientific journal in the first place.

          • Nano_Thermite_911

            I would advise taking in all sides on this critical issue before weighing your decision. With that in mind here is a wonderful series by David Ray Griffin where he debunks would be debunkers.
            “Lets Get Empirical” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbY5_qtz83M Tuna Ghost, Have you seen this series?

          • Albury Smith

            Griffin isn’t a structural engineer, or even honest:
            http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pdf
            That’s only one example out of many.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Does it address any of the evidence I, among others, have presented to you? Prove me wrong, NT. Acknowledge and address the information we have provided for you. If you find it factually incorrect or dishonest, please elaborate how and why. This is the most infuriating aspect of the 9/11 debates.

            NT, my very first reaction on september 11th, that very afternoon, was “the US government was involved”. I continued thinking that up through the invasion of Iraq and for years afterward. Eventually I was challenged to truly look at the evidence, to examine it closely and without prejudice. After a long time I was forced to admit that there is no evidence of a controlled demolition. And I looked, long and hard.

            I say this to demonstrate that it isn’t so much the fact that people are willing to believe in the theory of a controlled demolition that bothers me–after all, that was my immediate response to the disaster. What bothers me, what drives me up the wall, is the continual practice of ignoring evidence that counters one’s claim.

          • Albury Smith

            My first reaction and that of many others on 9/11 was “Allah akbar.” The evidence that I was correct is overwhelming; it’s nonexistent for 9/11 “truth movement” C/D crap. My first reaction to the bombing of the Murrah Building was also “Allah akbar,” and if the US gubmint was simply trying to frame Muslims with “false flag” ops, McVeigh would still be kicking.

          • Nano_Thermite_911

            Hi Tuna,
            If you don’t mind please identify one point that you take issue with and then I can do the same. From there we can make the space to articulate each of our positions in full. I suggest that the 2.25 seconds of free fall accelerations as admitted by NIST “smoking gun” evidence of controlled demolition. I would be more than happy to provide all of the evidence corroborating this position. Please let me know if you agree to the terms set above. Oh also, no name calling, ad-hominem (attacking the man) let’s keep it strictly scientific this time. Thank you – Nano Thermite (as conclusively found in the dust of all Three WTC collapses)

          • Albury Smith

            Sorry to interrupt, but nanothermite wasn’t even found, let alone conclusively, and there’s no way of knowing which building the dust samples they used came from. The 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration isn’t evidence of a controlled demolition, and occurred as a result of the way WTC 7 collapsed. Real evidence would have been noticed on the ends of the steel columns as they were pulled from the debris, and would also have shown up in other ways. I’ve noticed no ad hominem from the OP or me, so that’s a red herring.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Interrupt as you like, by all means. It lightens my workload and you have information resources I don’t.

          • Albury Smith

            I think Mark Roberts’ web site is the best resource for 9/11 information:
            http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/
            He quit wasting time with truthers a year or two ago, but is still hated by them. Some have even threatened his life:
            http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/semiliterateparanoiacswhofantasizeaboutt
            He updates the site occasionally, but is no longer at GZ confronting them with facts, or debating their “researchers,” as he did with Box Boy before bowing out.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Well albury smith already tackled the WTC 7 falling speed, which is handled more in depth here:

            http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

            It goes through the collapse sequence point by point, using diagrams and easy-to-understand physics. Where, exactly, are you finding fault in this? Where are you seeing deception, where are you seeing evidence of a controlled demolition?

            And no matter how many times you say nano-thermite was conclusively found in teh dust of the WTC towers, that won’t make it true. What makes you think nano-thermite was found? Not even the “peer-reviewed paper” said it was found. Nor did they find conclusive evidence that any thermitic reaction occured. This is all noted in the actual paper. Why do you still think that nano-thermite was found? What evidence do you have to support this claim?

          • Nano_Thermite_911

            @Tuna Ghost @f7405be9f25de0024104a55d3620c395:disqus Ok guys buckle your seat belts cause here come the facts.
            “Word Trade Center 7 was an enormous building, 610 feet tall , 47 stories where each floor was the area of a football field. I know you have heard this before you really need to picture this. Put yourself in the middle of a football field and picture columns every five yards around the perimeter , the end zone and on the sidelines, then in the middle of the field another 24 columns from 20 yard line to 20 yard line and then 3 abreast almost to the edge, lets say the football field is 50 yards wide, this interior column would come within about 12- 15 yards of the edge.” From Mechanical Engineer and Ae911Truth.org petition signer Tony Szamboti.

            And now an extensive examination of the absurdity of NIST’s supposed “Three Phase Collapse” 5.4 second collapse scenario
            versus David Chandler’s 2.25 free fall collapse evidence. Please be sure to go line by line with your explanation as to why
            you uphold the government’s conspiracy theories. Also keep in mind all of their “evidence” is based on computer models
            because like Obama’s body having been conveniently destroyed at sea , all of the steel evidence from Building 7 was destroyed
            in complete violation of standard operating procedure for evidence from a crime scene. How convienient!

            http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/57-news-releases-by-others/426-freefall-and-building-7-on-911.html

            Written by David Chandler Wednesday, 22 December 2010 14:37Galileo was the first to describe the amazing fact that, apart from air resistance, all objects fall at the same “rate.” If you have not experienced this fact directly, try dropping a large rock and a pebble side-by- side. The rate we are referring to is not a “speed,” because for a falling object the speed is constantly changing. The rate we are talking about is actually the “rate of increase of speed,” how quickly the speed builds up, called acceleration. The acceleration achieved by all falling bodies, apart from air resistance, is called the “acceleration of gravity.”Gravity causes freely falling objects to increase their speed by about 32 ft/s per second. (The awkward unit, feet per second per second is commonly abbreviated ft/s2.) When an object is dropped, the speed is initially zero, but it immediately starts speeding up. After 1 second its speed will be 32 ft/s. After 2 seconds its speed will be 64 ft/s. Etc. 32 ft/s2 is an approximation. The “acceleration of gravity” actually varies slightly from place to place. In New York City it is 32.159 ft/s2.Isaac Newton showed that the acceleration of an object is governed by its mass and the net force acting on it. (If several forces are acting at once they are combined to give a “net” force.) If the downward acceleration of a falling object equals the acceleration of gravity, then the net force is the gravitational force alone; any other forces must add up to zero.What if a heavy object falls through other objects, breaking them as it goes? Newton’s third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in freefall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down, and by Newton’s third law, the falling object cannot be pushing on anything else either.When the top section of a building collapses one would expect the falling section to crash into the lower section and exert a large force on it, like dropping an anvil on your toe. A typical controlled demolition exploits this fact: the crushing force of the falling section of the building contributes to the demolition, and reduces the amount of explosives that are needed. However, amazingly, this is not what happened when Building 7 “collapsed” on 9/11.We know that the falling section of Building 7 did not crush the lower section of the building because the top section of Building 7 fell at freefall. It didn’t just fall at something close to freefall. It fell for about 2.5 seconds at a rate that wasindistinguishable from freefall. If the falling section of the building had crushed the lower section, the lower section would have pushed back with an equal but opposite force. But that would have slowed the fall. Since the fall was not slowed in the slightest, we can conclude that the force of interaction was zero… in both directions.How can this be?There were explosions in Building 7 heard by many witnesses throughout the day. One such explosion is recorded in a video clip, available on YouTube (search You Tube for “Explosions on 911″), where several fire fighters are gathered around a pay phone calling home to assure their families they are alright. Suddenly they are startled by a very loud, unmistakable explosion. This is one of the Building 7 explosions that occurred long before it fell.Shortly before the ultimate collapse of the building the east penthouse and the columns beneath it suddenly gave way. NIST (the government agency assigned to investigate the building collapses) attributes the collapse of the east penthouse to the failure of a single column, in a complex scenario involving thermal expansion of beams supporting the column. But it is much more likely that at least two and possibly three supporting columns were “taken out” simultaneously. Three columns supported the east penthouse. One of our German colleagues has pointed to evidence that the east penthouse fell through the interior of the building at close to freefall, evidenced by a ripple of reflections in the windows as it fell. Yet the exterior of the building retained its integrity.NIST claims that the collapse of their one key column led to a progressive collapse of the entire interior of the building leaving only a hollow shell. The collapse of the building, seen in numerous videos, is described by NIST as the collapse of the “facade,” the hollow shell. They have no evidence for this scenario, however, and a great deal of evidence contradicts it. After the collapse of the east penthouse there is no visible distortion of the walls and only a few windows are broken at this time. Had the failure of interior columns propagated throughout the interior of the building, as asserted by NIST, it would surely have propagated to the much closer exterior walls and distorted or collapsed them. (Major crumpling of the exterior walls, by the way, is exactly what is shown in the animations produced by NIST’s computer simulation of the collapse.) But the actual videos of the building show that the exterior remained rigid during this early period. At the onset of collapse you can see in the videos that the building suddenly goes limp, like a dying person giving up the ghost. The limpness of the freefalling structure highlights by contrast the earlier rigidity.Furthermore, there are huge pyroclastic flows of dust, resembling a volcanic eruption, that poured into the streets following the final collapse of the building. If what we saw was only the collapse of the facade, why was the pyroclastic flow not triggered earlier when NIST claims the collapse of the much more voluminous interior occurred? And why did the west penthouse remain to fall with the visible exterior of the building? Its supporting structure clearly remained to the very end and was “taken out” along with the rest of the building support all at once. NIST is scrambling to find a plausible scenario that will allow it to escape the consequences of what is plainly visible. (If you have not seen the collapse of Building 7, find it on YouTube and watch for yourself. For most people simply watching it collapse is all it takes. Most people are not stupid. Most people can recognize the difference between a demolition and a natural building collapse with nothing more being said. If you have never seen the collapse of Building 7 you might also stop and ask yourself why the mainstream media did not repeatedly show you this most bizarre event as it did the Twin Towers.)After the east penthouse collapsed, several seconds elapsed, then the west penthouse began to collapse, at nearly the same time the roofline of the building developed a kink near the center, then all support across the entire width of the building was suddenly removed, a vertical swath of windows under the west penthouse were simultaneously blown out, the building suddenly went limp, and (within a fraction of a second) it transitioned from full support to freefall.I am not using the term “freefall” loosely here. I used a video analysis tool to carefully measure the velocity profile of the falling building using CBS video footage from a fixed camera aimed almost squarely at the north wall. A video detailing this measurement is available at YouTube/user/ae911truth. I calibrated my measurements with the heights of two points in the building provided in the NIST Building 7 report released in August 2008, so I know the picture scale is good. My measurements indicate that with sudden onset the building underwent approximately 2.5 seconds of literal freefall. This is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. For an additional 8 stories it encountered minimal resistance, during which it continued to accelerate, but at a rate less than freefall. Only beyond those 16 stories of drop did the falling section of the building interact significantly with the underlying structure and decelerate.Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building. In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the stationary sections of the building. This interaction would cause crushing of both sections and slowing of the falling section. I have done measurements on several known demolitions, using similar software tools, and found that they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall. Building 7 was not only demolished, it was demolished with tremendous overkill.Freefall was so embarrassing to NIST that in the August 2008 draft release for public comment of their final report, the fact of freefall was denied and crudely covered up with the assertion that the collapse took 40% longer than “freefall time.” They asserted that the actual collapse, down to the level of the 29th floor, took 5.4 seconds whereas freefall would have taken only 3.9 seconds. They arrived at their figures with only two data points: the time when the roofline reached the level of the 29th floor and an artificially early start time several seconds prior to the beginning of the obvious, sudden onset of freefall. They started their clock at a time between the collapses of the east and west penthouses when the building was not moving. They claimed they saw a change in a “single pixel” triggering what they asserted was the onset of collapse, but anyone who has worked with the actual videos will recognize that the edge artifacts in the image of the building make this an unrealistic standard. Furthermore, even if there was a tiny motion of the building at that point, it continued to stand essentially motionless for several more seconds before the dramatic onset of freefall collapse. The fact of a cover up in NIST’s measurement is underlined in that the formula they point to as the basis for their calculation of “freefall time” is valid only under conditions of constant acceleration. They applied that equation to a situation that was far from uniform acceleration. Instead, the building remained essentially at rest for several seconds, then plunged into freefall, then slowed to a lesser acceleration. Their analysis demonstrates either gross incompetence or a crude attempt at a cover up. The scientists at NIST are clearly not incompetent, so the only reasonable conclusion is to interpret this as part of a cover up. (It is important to stand back occasionally and recognize the context of these events. This was not just a cover-up of an embarrassing fact. It was a cover-up of facts in the murder of nearly 3000 people and part of a justification for a war in which well over a million people have since been killed.)I had an opportunity to confront NIST about the easily demonstrated fact of freefall at the technical briefing on August 26, 2008. I and several other scientists and engineers also filed official “requests for correction” in the days that followed. When they released their final report in November 2008, much to the surprise of the 9/11 Truth community, they had revised their measurements of the collapse of the building, including an admission of 2.25 seconds of absolute freefall. However, they couched the period of freefall in a framework of a supposed “three phase collapse sequence” that still occupies exactly 5.4 seconds.The recurrence of 5.4 seconds, even in a completely revised analysis, is very puzzling until you realize its context. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told the audience in the August 26, 2008 Technical Briefing that their computerized collapse model had predicted the collapse down to the 29th floor level would take 5.4 seconds, well beyond the 3.9 seconds required for freefall. From the events at the Technical Briefing it appears that a team headed by structural engineer John Gross dutifully fabricated a 5.4 second observation to exactly match the prediction. Anyone with any experience in laboratory measurement would have expected some amount of uncertainty between the prediction and the measurement. They would have been doing extremely well to come up with a computer model that would predict the collapse time within 10%. But no…their measurement exactly matched the prediction to the tenth of a second. Keep in mind that their computer model was constructed in the absence of the actual steel, which had long since been hauled away and destroyed. According to NIST’s records, none of the steel from Building 7 remains. (Pause and ponder that fact for a moment. Anyone who has watched CSI knows the importance of preserving the physical evidence in a crime scene. Destroying a crime scene is in itself a crime, yet that is exactly what happened in the aftermath of 9/11, and it happened over the loud protests of the firefighters and others who had a stake in really finding out the truth.) Back to our story. NIST’s computer model predicted 5.4 seconds for the building to collapse down to the level of the 29th floor. John Gross and his team found the time the roofline reached the 29th floor, then picked a start time exactly 5.4 seconds earlier to give a measurement that matched the model to the nearest tenth of a second. They took their start time several seconds prior to the actual start of freefall when nothing was happening. The building was just sitting there, with the clock running, for several seconds. Then it dropped, with sudden onset, and continued for 2.5 seconds of absolute freefall.So, NIST now acknowledges that freefall did occur. How do they explain that? They don’t. They simply state, without elaboration, that their three-phase collapse analysis is consistent with their fireinduced collapse hypothesis. The only thing about the three-phase analysis that is consistent with their collapse hypothesis is the 5.4 second total duration, measuring from their artificially chosen starting time. In other words, they make no attempt to explain the 2.25 second period of freefall. They just walked away from it without further comment.The fact remains that freefall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall. Given that even known controlled demolitions do not remove sufficient structure to allow for actual freefall, how could a natural fire-induced process be more destructive? Add to that the synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building, evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down, and the suddenness of onset of collapse, and the immediate transition from full support to total freefall. Natural collapse resulting in freefall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen. Yet freefall did in fact happen. This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building suddenly destroyed and removed the supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.The freefall of Building 7 is one of the clearest of many “smoking guns” that proves explosives were planted in the World Trade Center buildings prior to 9/11, 2001.———————————————David Chandler received a BS degree in a hybrid physics and engineering program at Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA and a MS degree in mathematics from Cal Poly University, Pomona CA. He has taught physics, mathematics, and astronomy since 1972 at both the high school and college levels. He is active with the video and writing teams of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. His 9/11- related videos are featured on AE911Truth.org and YouTube.com/user/ae911truth. His own 9/11- related web site is 911SpeakOut.org

          • Albury

            Aside from being a one-trick pony, Chander’s claim that NIST only “predicted” the 5.4 seconds for the first ~242′ of the WTC 7 facade collapse also makes him a liar. There’s ample information of how they timed it in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, and the ~5.4 seconds is easy to verify. If he agrees with Gage, Ryan, Steven Jones, and other “9/11 researchers” that the whole collapse took 6.5 or 6.6 seconds, he’s lying about that too.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Albury took the words out of my mouth.

            The final collapse occurred over 8.2 seconds and was recorded on several videos north and northwest of the building. You can read a very detailed account of the sequence of collapse on the Structure Magazine link. I encourage you to read it and tell me where you are finding fault with it. The http://www.debunking911.com has several quotes from first responders (all credited, names and ranks) to back up the information listed where it says “according to first responders”. Where in this account are you seeing errors? Where are you sensing falsehood? A very detailed account has been brought before you. Ignoring it is not the method of a person dedicated to finding the truth. This is what I learned while researching 9/11, and this is what made me realize that, yes, damage by debris and fire is what caused the eventual collapse of the WTC 7. Read the article, NT, and then tell me where the fault is.

            Tell you what. If you like, we can skip the engineering and physics aspect, and move on to a question of my own. This question has continually been ducked and avoided and, as of this moment, has never been addressed by a Truther to my knowledge. The question has been repeated several times here in this thread, and non one has even acknowledged it.

            The question is, of course, as follows: If explosives were used, why was no sound of an explosion captured by any of the several recording devices operating at that moment? A controlled demolition takes lots of time to set up and it is very noisy work–too noisy to go unnoticed in a building that is still in use. And an explosion powerful enough to bring down a building is heard a mile away. Even if New York City is a noisy place, and people were panicking, the noise from an explosion that powerful cannot be ignored. The crowds of rescue personnel would have not only heard it, but would have been knocked off their feet by the shockwave. How do you explain this? How does anyone explain this?

            I would not be surprised to learn that someone knew of the attacks beforehand and did nothing to stop them with an aim to take advantage of the resulting chaos. That is not hard to believe. Think about it: it is much, much easier and cheaper than organizing an enormous conspiracy that is simply too big and too unwieldy to ever be successful. You don’t even have to worry about evidence being linked back to you. There’s no shortage of nutjobs who want to do fly planes into buildings, why not simply let one of them succeed? There is no reason to go to all the trouble of a controlled demolition. The CIA funds terrorist attacks in other countries, they don’t go around blowing up buildings and wrecking havoc directly with their own hands. Why would the gov’t start doing that now? There is no reason to, no need whatsoever given that there is a steady supply of chumps to do your work for you.

            Anyway. Look over the article and tell me where it falls short. Or, if you don’t want to engage the physics of it, explain to me how an explosion makes no noise and simulates all the external symptoms of a building collapsing to a great goddam whole being knocked in it and fire all over the place (as is reported by several first responders, whose names and quotes can be found on the debunking911.com articles).

          • Albury Smith

            Explosives like the ones the 9/11 “truth movement” thinks were used in WTC 7 are inaudible unless you’re actually inside the building where they’re secretly planted for no plausible reason, and they go off hours before a building collapses, sounding very similar to transformers exploding in a ConEd substation after planes hit buildings across the street and short out their secondaries. Nanothermite “cuts through steel like a hot knife through butter,” and loads of columns were cut that way simultaneously, but cleanup personnel didn’t find any of them because these explosives leave columns with mechanically-broken ends, complete with connection plates and bolt holes, or else all of the union ironworkers and others at GZ were in on the plot and are covering it up. I’m getting a nanothermite-fired boiler before next winter, because heating oil’s up to ~$3.60/gallon and this stuff burns hot enough to keep steel molten for months. The savings and convenience will be enormous.

          • Tuna Ghost

            At least no one is positing that the Pentagon was hit with a rocket and not a jet. That one is the worst of all. “There was no plane debris!” they yell, until I show them pictures of jet debris amid the wreckage of the pentagon. I mean, that’s without even going into the hundred plus witnesses that saw a goddam jet fly into the building. Grainy security video footage, sure. I can’t claim you can clearly see a jet from the single frame. But there were so many witnesses, and a jet does not look like a missle when its only two hundred yards away from your face, knocking down lamp posts onto the hood of your taxi.

            To be fair, like I said to NT: the controlled demo theory is a very seductive one. I was fooled for years, until I took the time to truly examine the evidence.

          • Albury Smith

            No-plane nuts don’t care about the photos you show them, lists of first responder agencies that were at the Pentagon, the fact that American Airlines paid damages to April Gallop and others not covered by the VCF, forensics matches of 58 of the 59 victims aboard AA 77 and even some of the hijackers, or any other solid evidence of AA 77’s crash there, have no evidence at all that supports their claim of missiles or planted explosives, and will keep yelling “There was no plane debris! [at the Pentagon]” regardless.
            I don’t consider the C/D “theory” to be the slightest bit plausible or seductive, and never have. It would have been completely impossible to do secretly, there’s absolutely no evidence for it, and there’s no plausible motive for anyone the “truth movement” is libeling and slandering with their nonsense to have done it. If they have to go around telling everyone about WTC 7, what was the reason for the alleged bombing of it in the first place? US troops were as good as sent to Afghanistan when UA 175 hit the South Tower, and “Lucky” Larry is very lucky his lenders forced him to carry more insurance or his losses on 9/11 would have been even worse, so a building collapse at ~5:22 PM that killed no one was meaningless in the bigger picture.

          • Nano_Thermite_911

            Actually that was his and Satan’s cocks that were taking out of your mouth. Cowardly internet mercenaries, faceless, pointless. weak and disgusting. You know what you are doing. Enjoy rolling in your own shit.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Even with satan’s wang in my mouth I can still type.  In all seriousness, my offer is still open, NT.  Tunaghost82@gmail.com.  Just you and I, we can get an actual conversation going without anyone else having to watch.  This is an important topic, one that both you and I are obviously passionate about.  

          • Tuna Ghost

            Also: I realize the controlled demolition theory is a very seductive one. Given the actions of Bush and crew after the attacks, it seems like a natural conclusion. And there are questions that I want answered as well; it could be true that our intelligence agencies are just that fucked up and inefficient when it comes to defending the heartland, but then you hear rumors that the CIA had warned the oval office a month prior about Al-Qeada gearing up for an attack involving commercial jetliners and you have to wonder if the attacks really took them by surprise. Add in the terrible direction given to the fighter jets and one can’t be blamed for suspecting that someone must have known, and did fuck all to stop it. My questions all run in that direction.

            The problem with these kinds of seductive theories, such as the controlled demo theory, is that they don’t appeal to the rational side of us. They appeal to emotions, and they lead to rationalizing after the fact rather than a truly open-minded investigation. We end up arranging the evidence to support the conclusions we already have rather than allowing the evidence to lead us to a conclusion. The film Zeitgeist demonstrates this wonderfully. When I saw the bit about the Fed and 9/11, I was almost positive there was a conspiracy (it was the first time WTC 7 had been brought to my attention). I didn’t have a lot of facts, but I did have a lot of suspicions, which were all validated by the film. But when I saw the section on Christianity I noticed that a good 90% of the “information” was either greatly misrepresented or flat-out incorrect. Some of it was so plainly bogus I couldn’t believe they were seriously attempting to present it as factual. This led me to investigate their other claims more closely, leading me to realize that for all its slick delivery (and it is very slick, don’t get me wrong. The film-makers are very talented in that regard), it was still at least 90% bogus. What few facts they did get right, the use as a foundation for all sorts of complete bullshit. Which is the best way to go about doing it, as a matter of fact. Start with a few simple truths and you can build a very tall, very impressive house of cards.

            Consider Gage and crew. They supposedly have 800 engineers and architects (the actual number is significantly lower than that, but whatever), so why don’t they do their own investigation? Why don’t they make their own models? Noam Chomsky made a good point about the conspiracy theorists and why he doesn’t consider them activists in a real sense. A true activist would submit articles to respected scientific journals to undergo the usual process. The only paper someone managed to get published failed miserably in its task, leading to a heavy blow against the Truth movement. This is why the scientific community doesn’t take the Truth movement seriously. Gage et all can’t build a convincing case (convincing to the scientific community) even with all their “facts”.

          • Nano_Thermite_911

            So guys, Remember I said the terms of our agreement that we would not participate in ad hominem. You obviously do not care to play fair as the first words out of your mouth are to insinuate that David Chandler is a “one trick pony”. This epitet makes no logical sense and serves only to frame your argument of ad-hominem and derision. Also I doubt you have actually read the response I gave as it clearly destroys NISTs FRAUDULENT process of discovery. Anyone willing to look for themselves will see this. You are both obviously double teaming this board to prevent people from seeing the obvious. Muddying the water, obfuscating and utilizing TINRATS (They Are Never Gonna Read All This Shit) to achieve your desired end. There is no hope of rationally discoursing with you here. No worries, you make it exceedingly obvious that you are here to defame rather than deduce. The Truth is more powerful than your crooked tactics. Obviously NIST is too scared to Debate anyone from Ae911 openly and that is more than enough evidence that they have much to hide. You can try to obscure this with your winding illogical rants but you won’t stop the Truth baby.

          • Albury Smith

            The NIST reports are the “Truth baby,” and I didn’t insinuate that Chandler’s a one-trick pony, I stated it. He knows zero about construction or structural engineering, and thinks simply timing collapses proves his goofy C/D “theory.” The NIST engineers have addressed all of his bunk, and there’s nothing left to debate, but they’ll gladly explain their methods and findings to anyone who asks.

          • Nano_Thermite_911

            So you again utilized Ad-Hominem as a means to try to discredit a scientist who doesn’t adhere to government dogma. Guys I’m moving on, talking to you is an exercise in futility. So I will leave you with this. “They must find it hard those who see authority as truth rather than truth as authority”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7INABbOnLI

          • Tuna Ghost

            We were making such progress, NT. You want to keep things short and sweet? I can do that. You don’t want to get bogged down in scientific jargon? I can do that too. I’m reaching out here, guy. We can have this conversation over email if you want. tunaghost82@gmail.com. Shoot me a line. No one has to see it. This is how serious I am about this topic. You seem pretty serious too. Lets get a discourse going.

          • Albury Smith

            NT is just looking for an excuse to become all offended and end any attempt at a discussion. Chandler did exactly the same thing when I emailed him and copied a bunch of people. He’d just made a major error in his reply to me, and had calculated the distance for the ~2.25 seconds from rest instead of considering its velocity at t=1.75 seconds, and when I corrected his “correction” of NIST’s ~105′, he said “I don’t need this. You’re spam. Bye.” I won’t be sending him a donation. :-)

          • Nano_Thermite_911

            Albury. Thanks for presuming you understand the intentions of everyone at all times. When you get a break from huffing your own fermented waste, why don’t you make a video challenge to David Chandler or any of the other 1,500 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and let experts dissect your obfuscation. You shouldn’t make up quotes, it’s very dishonest. Now you can return to your overlong TINRAT (They are never gonna read all this SHIT) abuse of a long expired post and I will just keep waking up people who haven’t been compromised by sucking satan’s cock all day. Have fun fellating Satan you miserable soulless tramp. :)

          • Albury Smith

            Your “experts” run away from any attempt at an honest discussion. I have the email from him if you’d like me to forward it to you along with my comments that prompted his intellectual cowardice. His exact response to my very detailed and on-topic reply to him was:

            “I don’t need this. You’re spam. Bye.–David Chandler”

            Real class act, and many were copied on it. Send him a donation or something.

          • PleaseGetHelp

            I have been following the entire comment thread. You refuse to accept any other opinions,

            Please get help. You need psychiatric help. I can recommend someone to fix your soul.

            You need help.

          • Albury Smith

            Have you heard what David Chandler constantly calls 200+ NIST scientists and engineers, all of whom know a lot more about collapse investigations than he does? Your entire argument is an exercise in futility, and has been ignored by the ASCE and other serious professionals for years. There’s a good reason for that.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Also: thank you for asking politely. If you’d like links to information resources detailing the “Nano-Thermite Found In Ground Zero!” (a misleading title, as no nano-thermite, nor any thermite, nor any evidence of a thermitic substance or reaction, was found at all), I can provide those as well.

    • Albury Smith

      If you had any real thinking skills, you wouldn’t take Szamboti and his “truth movement” friends very seriously. Read the NIST reports and stop embarrassing yourself.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Funny how their names aren’t given, nor what company, nor if they were actually witnesses or if they’re repeating stories heard from other witnesses. These details are important, yet they’ve been left out. I wonder why…

    Assuming they were actual witnesses to the molten material, how on earth are they to know that it was steel and not the significantly more likely aluminum mixed with other materials? Do you know the level of heat that would be present in a confined space with molten steel just lying around? Do you understand what that sort of heat does to a human? Melted boots would be the least of their concerns. I could go on and on about this, but there is a much more detailed and succinct explanation for the “molten steel” phenomena located here:

    http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

    Take a look and tell me what you think. And please don’t run off without answering as you have done the other times I’ve presented you with clearly explained evidence that completely contradicts the claims you’ve made.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Dude, how many times are you gonna bring up that bullshit “peer reviewed evidence” that was, by its own admission, not evidence? Remember last time you brought this up, I presented you with evidence that the paper was discredited almost immediately, and the editor-in-chief resigned in embarrassment that the paper was published under her watch? Remember the quotes I showed you from her? How she didn’t know about the paper being published, and had she known she would never have let sloppy “research” like that be published in a scientific journal? Remember how you never responded when this was brought to your attention? Remember when I brought it to your attention again months later, and you still didn’t respond? Exactly who is ignoring evidence here, buddy?

  • Tuna Ghost

    Now that I’ve tackled this claim and presented easily-understood evidence to the contrary (see above), do you plan on pretending it never happened? Y’know, the way you’ve done for all the other times I’ve presented you with clear-cut, easily understood evidence that shows your side is full of shit?

  • Tuna Ghost

    “Zombie Salmon”. I…kinda like that, actually. Do you mind if I borrow it?

  • Tuna Ghost

    How come there is no audio recording of an explosion powerful enough to bring down a building that size, despite there being numerous recording devices operating at the time, and despite the fact that explosives used in demolitions are heard over a mile away even in big cities? How come, buddy? How come? How come?

  • Tuna Ghost

    He’s investigating the claims, friend. Like he said in the very first sentence. Are you going to address any of the stuff he actually wrote? Or are you just going to disappear again, only to pop up in a few more months spouting the same ridiculous crap, ignoring the same evidence that explains why Gage isn’t telling the truth? That’s your style, after all. We’ve been here before, buddy.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Done and done, honey. I eat a bowl of dicks every morning, and have died at least 37 times that I’m aware of. And yet here I am, patiently leading guys like you, by the hand, away from the men who are lying to you. And I always will, because I’m just that kind of dead fish.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Nano-thermite wasn’t found in the dust. Not even your “peer-reviewed evidence” claims it was. How long are going to ignore this, NT? When are you going to address the ample evidence to the contrary? How many times am I going to have to bring it to you, only to have you run away without answering? Are you under the impression that sort of behavior is the mark of someone confident in their claims?

  • Tuna Ghost

    Wow, Stephen Jones? The same guy who “scientifically” explained that Jesus preached to Native Americans, and that the events recorded in the Book of Mormon are scientific fact? That Stephen Jones? Holy shit, it is!!!

  • Tuna Ghost

    Actually what he is saying is that EXPLOSIVES were used to perform a controlled demolition. How else can you explain massive girders flying upwards and out at least 600 feet away?

    You’re right! Because that happens in controlled demolitions ALL THE TIME. Oh wait no, no it doesn’t.

    Which is it? A controlled demolition that brought the towers down perfectly into their own footprint, or an explosion that hurled debris 600 feet away? You’ve claimed both now. I’m afraid those are mutually exclusive claims, kid.

  • Anonymous

    Once again, Dr. Gross lied about absolutely nothing, nor did NIST, whose position in the FAQ I linked to is that melted steel was possible but unlikely in the debris fires afterward. No steel melted to cause any of the collapses, and reports of molten steel in the debris fires long after 9/11 were unconfirmed, and were most likely molten lead or aluminum. Those are firefighters, not scientists, and many at GZ reported molten METAL. If you think molten anything in debris piles weeks and even months after 9/11 is evidence of a C/D, what explosives or incendiaries burn for more than 3 or 4 minutes, and how many known C/Ds have left pools of molten steel behind?

  • Anonymous

    For me it would take a list of incendiaries and/or explosives that continue to produce any heat after 5 minutes tops, let alone 2700 F or more, especially after they just secretly expended enough energy to topple a huge hi-rise. I’d also like to know where the alleged steel came from, since no partially melted columns or other structural members were pulled from the pile. If you’d provide a list of all of the known C/Ds that have produced “foundries,” that would be helpful too.
    All 3 WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11 were on fire, and the debris fires were very well documented. Temperatures well in excess of the melting points of both aluminum and lead were recorded by USGS AVIRIS sensing equipment, and both metals were in abundance in all 3 of the buildings.
    btw, how many FDNY are signatories to the “Firefighters” for 9/11 “Truth” petition? Look it up and get back to me. Thanks.

  • Anonymous

    You have a “mountain of evidence” that gravity was working very well on 9/11, and an obvious explanation for your “signs of a demolition” here:

    http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

    Now please feel free to answer my question about the FDNY and the 9/11 “truth movement.”

  • Anonymous

    Guess you’ve never seen an oxyacetylene torch cut before, huh? Those “melted steel bubbles” are called slag, and explosives would not have left a drop of it around the cuts they make. The torch cuts appear to be at or below grade, and no building collapsed from that low. Were the union ironworkers and all of the other cleanup personnel at GZ for ~8 months all blind and stupid, or in on the plot?

  • Anonymous

    This is what controlled demolitions look and sound like (and don’t in the case of the WTC):
    http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition
    Now that you know what an orange looks like, please watch and learn.
    btw, did you know that Anthony Lawson is also a “no-planes/no-hijackers” nut? Great credibility…

  • Anonymous

    Who was watching ~40,000 different people on a ~20-acre site over a nearly 8-month period “like hawks”? Any evidence of a C/D would have gotten out in minutes.
    I’ve seen and read all of Gage’s crap, and he’s either totally incompetent, an outright liar, or both. Be sure to send a donation for his “research”; he may need 3 new cardboard boxes or something.

  • Anonymous

    Why didn’t you “dare to challenge” any of my comments about Box Boy? Osama Bin Laden is not indicted for 9/11, but is definitely wanted for it, as was KSM. The US gains nothing and compromises intelligence sources by formally indicting OBL for 9/11, since he’s already on their Most Wanted List for the 1998 SUICIDE bombings of 2 US embassies in Africa.

    http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states

    When KSM gets up in court and brags about his “Planes Operation,” will you still be in denial? That’s exactly what his nephew, Ramzi Yousef, did at his sentencing hearing for his part in the ’93 WTC bombing. If they’re not defending themselves against these charges, why are you?

  • Anonymous

    If all of these columns were severed, why wasn’t even one of them found with a cutter charge signature on its ends? Do explosives or incendiaries make column ends that look like factory ones, complete with connection plates and bolt holes?

  • Anonymous

    If you had any real thinking skills, you wouldn’t take Szamboti and his “truth movement” friends very seriously. Read the NIST reports and stop embarrassing yourself.

  • Anonymous

    The Bill Hicks comment you responded to shows what happens when the 9/11 “truth movement” can’t ban everyone who disagrees with their nonsense. We’d both be long gone if he were running the show here, probably for violating some “rules of decorum” or something. These guys are priceless :-)

  • Anonymous

    The Bill Hicks comment you responded to shows what happens when the 9/11 “truth movement” can’t ban everyone who disagrees with their nonsense. We’d both be long gone if he were running the show here, probably for violating some “rules of decorum” or something. These guys are priceless :-)

  • Anonymous

    I thought the “[Box Boy] is an American Hero” comment was funnier. :-)

  • Tuna Ghost

    My favorite bit should be coming up soon, if Nano_Thermite_911 sticks to his usual plan. It goes roughly as follows:

    1.) Announce that it has been proven that controlled demolitions brought down the towers.

    Then someone like me responds that no, actually, it has not been proven, that the claims of the buildings falling at freefall speed into their own footprint, of nano-thermite being found in the dust, of molten steel, are completely bunk.

    2.) Link to various videos of Richard Gage and Stephen Jones doing their spiel.

    Then someone like me links to the mountains of evidence that tackles Gage and Jones’s claims and clearly, easily, shows them to be false in easy-to-understand terms. They even have diagrams for the slow folks.

    3.) Switch to Building 7 and announce that it has been proven that controlled demolition brought down WTC 7.

    Then someone like me provides more links, more diagrams, et cetera.

    4.) Switch to accusing the debunkers of being afraid of the notion that the American government could possibly do such a thing, and suggest that we stop living in our dream world.

    It’s usually around this time that someone brings up the whole “if there was an explosion, why isn’t it recorded on any of the recording devices that were operating at the time” bit.

    5.) Bring up the “peer reviewed evidence of Nano-Thermite”.

    When this happens, we know we’re near the end of the cycle. Someone like me brings up the fact that the article in question did not at any point say that Nano-Thermite was found, nor did it even say there is conclusive evidence that Nano-Thermite was used, only that particles that could have possibly come from a thermite-like reaction were found in and around ground zero. Oh, and the specimens used for the study are 6 years old and were kept in shoeboxes in people’s apartments or found on roofs. Oh, and the paper was discredited almost immediately and the editor-in-chief resigned because of her failure in allowing a paper like this to be published in a scientific journal, which she never would have allowed had she known about it. Links and quotes are included.

    6.) Stop posting.

    Steps 2-4 come in a different order occasionally, but 5 is always how it ends. I think we’ve about reached step 6 at this point. Perhaps not surprisingly, you’ll notice that “examine, comment on, or acknowledge the evidence that counters the Truther’s claims” is not one of the steps. I’ve done this dance with Nano_Thermite a few times before, god bless him.

  • ArgosyJones

    When we asked for photos of melted steel sections, we were not asking for pictures of steel columns that were obviously cut with a welder’s torch during the salvage/rescue effort. I’ll give you 2 points for effort.

  • Albury

    It “looks just like” a steel column cut with an oxyacetylene torch to me, NT, because that’s exactly what it is. “Cutter charge” and “Nano Thermite” are both indicative of high explosives, and high explosives don’t leave gray slag around a cut. The column is also plumb and apparently anchored to a foundation a short distance below it, judging from the level of debris around it, and no WTC building collapse started that low. The photo also showed the tanks, cart, hoses, torch, etc. before Jones cropped it, and I’m willing to bet that the workers at GZ, including the 2 seen in that photo, weren’t all blind and stupid or in on the plot. Just a hunch though.

  • Haskinjr

    rivers of molten metal,,,maybe, but not rivers of molten STEEL,check the melting point of aluminum, used in the cladding on the outside of the towers, and the lead used in the batteries of the uninterrupted power supplies ont he computers…..

  • Haskinjr

    rivers of molten metal,,,maybe, but not rivers of molten STEEL,check the melting point of aluminum, used in the cladding on the outside of the towers, and the lead used in the batteries of the uninterrupted power supplies ont he computers…..

  • Haskinjr

    rivers of molten metal,,,maybe, but not rivers of molten STEEL,check the melting point of aluminum, used in the cladding on the outside of the towers, and the lead used in the batteries of the uninterrupted power supplies ont he computers…..

  • Anonymous

    These 2 links pretty well sum up Steven Jones’s concept of honesty:
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb
    In the second one, halogen lamps being used by rescuers to search the WTC debris for possible survivors are evidence to him of steel being kept molten by nanothermite.

  • Infinitely Curious

    Yes, I would like to see the information. The only that I have seen from engineers indicate a controlled demolition. I would like to examine the other opinions. Thank you.

  • Infinitely Curious

    Isn’t that a little like the police investigating the police? How about someone independent?

  • Anonymous

    These were actually written by engineers, scientists, and other highly-qualified experts, not people claiming to be engineers and getting practically everything wrong:
    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf
    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%201.pdf
    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm
    If you’re really infinitely curious, I’d recommend reading them.

  • Haskinjr

    Nano, if they had been anywhere near molten steel ‘like in a foundry,they would have known it…the heat just from the steel would have been tremendous

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3Q3JZYMD2F7YGQS6GNUWPKYK5E Turbulent_red

    I have to admit I’ve always been a skeptic on this issue. I almost had a heart attack. Well our government is about 1% more evil in my eyes than it was yesterday.

  • Anonymous

    A lying crackpot who claims that the fires in WTC 7 had been “all but extinguished” by 5:20 PM on 9/11 is a lot more evil, IMO:
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc
    Do you know of any other major office fires that self-extinguished in 5 hours or so with no sprinklers or firefighting efforts?

  • A-ROK

    Hey official conspiracy theory believers why is nist refusing to release the computer data model for wtc 7 its apparently how they reached the conclusion to the collpase of wtc 7 but they refuse to release the computer data model so other people can test and see what data they used to simulate the collapse i think nist is hiding something, barry jennings knew what happened that day thats why he mysteriously passed away hmmmm

  • A-ROK

    Hey official conspiracy theory believers why is nist refusing to release the computer data model for wtc 7 its apparently how they reached the conclusion to the collpase of wtc 7 but they refuse to release the computer data model so other people can test and see what data they used to simulate the collapse i think nist is hiding something, barry jennings knew what happened that day thats why he mysteriously passed away hmmmm

    • Albury Smith

      Most of the necessary data is in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, and RFIs could easily be submitted for more, or “researchers” in the 9/11 “truth movement” could seek it from other sources, since NIST doesn’t own it. Why has no one even started to model the WTC 7 collapse if they’re so sure that the NIST modeling is incorrect or dishonest?
      Barry Jennings’ death wasn’t “mysterious,” and he clearly didn’t hear cutter charges going off at ~10 AM for an alleged controlled demolition that occurred at ~5:22 PM. He also contradicts the “truth movement’s Larry Silverstein “pull it” crap, since the FDNY call to him was made in mid-afternoon, and if your imaginary explosives were going off in the morning, no one would be discussing at ~3:30 PM WHETHER to bomb WTC 7. Demolition explosives aren’t simply heard by people inside the targeted building; they carry for miles, and what Mr. Jennings probably heard was transformers exploding in the ConEd substation directly below WTC 7 because of the secondaries shorted across Vesey Street in the towers after the planes hit.

  • Albury Smith

    Most of the necessary data is in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, and RFIs could easily be submitted for more, or “researchers” in the 9/11 “truth movement” could seek it from other sources, since NIST doesn’t own it. Why has no one even started to model the WTC 7 collapse if they’re so sure that the NIST modeling is incorrect or dishonest?
    Barry Jennings’ death wasn’t “mysterious,” and he clearly didn’t hear cutter charges going off at ~10 AM for an alleged controlled demolition that occurred at ~5:22 PM. He also contradicts the “truth movement’s Larry Silverstein “pull it” crap, since the FDNY call to him was made in mid-afternoon, and if your imaginary explosives were going off in the morning, no one would be discussing at ~3:30 PM WHETHER to bomb WTC 7. Demolition explosives aren’t simply heard by people inside the targeted building; they carry for miles, and what Mr. Jennings probably heard was transformers exploding in the ConEd substation directly below WTC 7 because of the secondaries shorted across Vesey Street in the towers after the planes hit.

  • Albury Smith

    I’m resisting your ideas because you don’t know what you’re talking about. The tower collapses looked nothing at all like controlled demolitions, and debris was scattered outward several hundred feet in all directions. There was no nanothermite found on the site, and no one but your 9/11 “truth movement” ever claimed that any of the steel melted to cause a collapse. I’d recommend reading the NIST reports, since you obviously haven’t.

  • Albury Smith

    I’m resisting your ideas because you don’t know what you’re talking about. The tower collapses looked nothing at all like controlled demolitions, and debris was scattered outward several hundred feet in all directions. There was no nanothermite found on the site, and no one but your 9/11 “truth movement” ever claimed that any of the steel melted to cause a collapse. I’d recommend reading the NIST reports, since you obviously haven’t.

  • MasoMystic

    Tuna Ghost yet again you come off like a complete idiot..

    99% of actual engineers architects and demolition experts on CNN makes sense. The rest of the world it does not. Where do you get these facts?

    The thermite argument has been disprove. Those are the facts. What has NOT be disproved is this theory.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b8vbNLYxUc&feature=player_embedded

    99% of engineers sees it making sense? jesus christ how can someone be so stupid.

  • MasoMystic

    Nano Thermite has been disprove as well. Its a side story given to people like alex jones to misguide the public from the real truth..

    Alot of “truthers” cant handle this fact because alot of truthers are as bad as anyone else. As long as they are right who cares..

    In any case..there is only 1 theory that explains EVERY detail..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b8vbNLYxUc&feature=player_embedded

  • Tuna Ghost

    I watched the video up until I realized it was arguing for not just a demolition, but a NUCLEAR DEMOLITION, which is an argument too stupid to even engage. It’s even more ridiculous than the typical controlled demolition, which has been disproved one numerous occasions. I can’t even imagine how they would begin to address the issue of a nuclear explosion that doesn’t make a sound or leave any signs of any nuclear reaction. This…is stupidity beyond words, I cannot believe you are even bringing this up in a public forum.

  • Albury Smith

    I thought you covered the reason why anyone would bring up something like that in a public forum very well, TG.

  • Pzyski

    I would love to see some of your links to sites that explain the conspiracies as fallacy…. But to clear a few things in your argument up if you slow down the footage of the collapse, there definitely look to be clear examples of explosions as the building collapse about 50 stories below the fall line. Not to mention your argument about the samples used in independent studies for nano thermite being old is not a good one. Traces of a chemical reaction like that, which does not exist in nature does not go away after 6 years. Again let me add the reaction does not occur in nature so therefore finding any evidence of it in any sample is alarming. I have not seen the “mountains” of evidence debunking the controlled demolition theory. From what I know there have been no independent studies, which are frankly the only ones worth trusting. Official reports are notoriously vague and biased, done by one private organization in most cases.

  • Pzyski

    just a fun fact but after those U.S. Embassy bombings it was the Bin Laden construction company that got the multi million dollar contract to rebuild them. Ironic to say the least don’t you think? You really think the wars in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, now Libya and soon to be Pakistan are about the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Its about Oil and drugs and setting up governments in those nations that have leaders that will do whats in the best interest of Big corporations and Banks the true rulers of the western world. Sadly this great country that we live in has been compromised and is being run but a fraternity of rich, arrogant, greedy, selfish sociopaths. Watch the documentary “Loose Change” about 9/11 and research about the Rothschild banking cartel see how feel afterward.

  • Albury Smith

    Do you have any proof at all that the bin Laden company won the rebuilding contracts for the damaged US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, or did you research that as well as most of the claims in the Loose Change video? It’s a “fun fact” if it’s a fact at all, but Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with the family business for years prior to those attacks and at any time after them. It’s Saudi-based and he was expatriated in the mid-90s by the Saudi government, and was also estranged from the bin Laden family.

  • Albury Smith

    Nanothermite was not found by anyone. The Bentham “researchers” found rust, aluminum, sulfur, silicon, etc. in some dust samples from the WTC and claimed that they “reminded” them of nanothermite, while providing no exemplars of anything for comparison. The real evidence would have been on the ends of the columns in the debris, and no steel with an explosives signature was found during the ~8 months of cleanup.

  • Albury Smith

    Nanothermite was not found by anyone. The Bentham “researchers” found rust, aluminum, sulfur, silicon, etc. in some dust samples from the WTC and claimed that they “reminded” them of nanothermite, while providing no exemplars of anything for comparison. The real evidence would have been on the ends of the columns in the debris, and no steel with an explosives signature was found during the ~8 months of cleanup.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Ask and ye shall receive!

    There is a mountain of evidence at http://www.debunking911.com , tackling the most common claims by conspiracy theorists with detailed explanations and diagrams, including your comment about the collapse “50 stories below the fall line”. Regarding WTC 7, which I find the most persistent conspiracy theories regarding, I prefer http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf , an article in structure magazine that clearly and easily explains, point by point, what happened to WTC 7. The previous link also goes into detail and has numerous quotes from first responders regarding the condition of the building, the numerous unfought fires, and the large gaping hole in the side of the building. These quotes are all credited to real people who were there on the scene, something Jones et all tend to leave out. The previous link also has a page of links to other information resources. You can find links to the NIST report and several others, provided by albury, throughout the thread. Keep in mind that there have been several investigations, not just the NIST investigation. The NYPD and FDNY both conducted their own investigations along with other organizations. Given how many firefighters died in the rescue attempts, don’t you think they were anxious to discover the truth?

    Make no mistake, friend, the controlled demolition theory has been thoroughly debunked. Throughout this very thread, numerous claims have been brought up and evidence has been presented to soundly counter the claims. Note that none of the posters positing a controlled demolition theory, not a single one, has ever responded to the question of why, if it was a controlled demolition and explosives were used, not a single recording instrument (of which there were very many in operation at the time) picked up any sound of an explosion, let alone two explosions, despite that any explosion big enough to topple a building of that size would be heard a mile away. Nano-Thermite-911 continues present contradicting “evidence”–first he claims the buildings fell into their own footprint, then claims that the explosives hurled large chunks of debris 600 feet up and away from ground zero. He continually brings up the “peer-reviewed” study, and never ever comments on the fact that when it was reviewed by peers it was resoundingly spurned as poor science that was politically driven. This is the hallmark of most conspiracy theorists: they cherry pick the evidence to support their claims and absolutely ignore the evidence that proves them false.

    Re: nano-thermite, There were no “traces” of any thermitic reaction. They discovered very small particles of rust and iron, which do occur in nature, saying that the amount they discovered “reminded” them of some thermitic reactions they’ve seen. This same paper, the one published in a nano-chemical journal, was discredited almost immediately and the editor in chief resigned just as quickly. The article was published without her knowledge, and she has said numerous times that had she known about the article she would never have allowed it to be published, and that it had no business being in a scientific journal in the first place.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Also: thank you for asking politely. If you’d like links to information resources detailing the “Nano-Thermite Found In Ground Zero!” (a misleading title, as no nano-thermite, nor any thermite, nor any evidence of a thermitic substance or reaction, was found at all), I can provide those as well.

  • Nano_Thermite_911

    I would advise taking in all sides on this critical issue before weighing your decision. With that in mind here is a wonderful series by David Ray Griffin where he debunks would be debunkers.
    “Lets Get Empirical” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbY5_qtz83M Tuna Ghost, Have you seen this series?

  • Albury Smith

    Griffin isn’t a structural engineer, or even honest:
    http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pdf
    That’s only one example out of many.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Does it address any of the evidence I, among others, have presented to you? Prove me wrong, NT. Acknowledge and address the information we have provided for you. If you find it factually incorrect or dishonest, please elaborate how and why. This is the most infuriating aspect of the 9/11 debates.

    NT, my very first reaction on september 11th, that very afternoon, was “the US government was involved”. I continued thinking that up through the invasion of Iraq and for years afterward. Eventually I was challenged to truly look at the evidence, to examine it closely and without prejudice. After a long time I was forced to admit that there is no evidence of a controlled demolition. And I looked, long and hard.

    I say this to demonstrate that it isn’t so much the fact that people are willing to believe in the theory of a controlled demolition that bothers me–after all, that was my immediate response to the disaster. What bothers me, what drives me up the wall, is the continual practice of ignoring evidence that counters one’s claim.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Does it address any of the evidence I, among others, have presented to you? Prove me wrong, NT. Acknowledge and address the information we have provided for you. If you find it factually incorrect or dishonest, please elaborate how and why. This is the most infuriating aspect of the 9/11 debates.

    NT, my very first reaction on september 11th, that very afternoon, was “the US government was involved”. I continued thinking that up through the invasion of Iraq and for years afterward. Eventually I was challenged to truly look at the evidence, to examine it closely and without prejudice. After a long time I was forced to admit that there is no evidence of a controlled demolition. And I looked, long and hard.

    I say this to demonstrate that it isn’t so much the fact that people are willing to believe in the theory of a controlled demolition that bothers me–after all, that was my immediate response to the disaster. What bothers me, what drives me up the wall, is the continual practice of ignoring evidence that counters one’s claim.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Does it address any of the evidence I, among others, have presented to you? Prove me wrong, NT. Acknowledge and address the information we have provided for you. If you find it factually incorrect or dishonest, please elaborate how and why. This is the most infuriating aspect of the 9/11 debates.

    NT, my very first reaction on september 11th, that very afternoon, was “the US government was involved”. I continued thinking that up through the invasion of Iraq and for years afterward. Eventually I was challenged to truly look at the evidence, to examine it closely and without prejudice. After a long time I was forced to admit that there is no evidence of a controlled demolition. And I looked, long and hard.

    I say this to demonstrate that it isn’t so much the fact that people are willing to believe in the theory of a controlled demolition that bothers me–after all, that was my immediate response to the disaster. What bothers me, what drives me up the wall, is the continual practice of ignoring evidence that counters one’s claim.

  • Albury Smith

    My first reaction and that of many others on 9/11 was “Allah akbar.” The evidence that I was correct is overwhelming; it’s nonexistent for 9/11 “truth movement” C/D crap. My first reaction to the bombing of the Murrah Building was also “Allah akbar,” and if the US gubmint was simply trying to frame Muslims with “false flag” ops, McVeigh would still be kicking.

  • Nano_Thermite_911

    Hi Tuna,
    If you don’t mind please identify one point that you take issue with and then I can do the same. From there we can make the space to articulate each of our positions in full. I suggest that the 2.25 seconds of free fall accelerations as admitted by NIST “smoking gun” evidence of controlled demolition. I would be more than happy to provide all of the evidence corroborating this position. Please let me know if you agree to the terms set above. Oh also, no name calling, ad-hominem (attacking the man) let’s keep it strictly scientific this time. Thank you – Nano Thermite (as conclusively found in the dust of all Three WTC collapses)

  • Albury Smith

    Sorry to interrupt, but nanothermite wasn’t even found, let alone conclusively, and there’s no way of knowing which building the dust samples they used came from. The 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration isn’t evidence of a controlled demolition, and occurred as a result of the way WTC 7 collapsed. Real evidence would have been noticed on the ends of the steel columns as they were pulled from the debris, and would also have shown up in other ways. I’ve noticed no ad hominem from the OP or me, so that’s a red herring.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Well albury smith already tackled the WTC 7 falling speed, which is handled more in depth here:

    http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

    It goes through the collapse sequence point by point, using diagrams and easy-to-understand physics. Where, exactly, are you finding fault in this? Where are you seeing deception, where are you seeing evidence of a controlled demolition?

    And no matter how many times you say nano-thermite was conclusively found in teh dust of the WTC towers, that won’t make it true. What makes you think nano-thermite was found? Not even the “peer-reviewed paper” said it was found. Nor did they find conclusive evidence that any thermitic reaction occured. This is all noted in the actual paper. Why do you still think that nano-thermite was found? What evidence do you have to support this claim?

  • Nano_Thermite_911

    @Tuna Ghost @f7405be9f25de0024104a55d3620c395:disqus Ok guys buckle your seat belts cause here come the facts.
    “Word Trade Center 7 was an enormous building, 610 feet tall , 47 stories where each floor was the area of a football field. I know you have heard this before you really need to picture this. Put yourself in the middle of a football field and picture columns every five yards around the perimeter , the end zone and on the sidelines, then in the middle of the field another 24 columns from 20 yard line to 20 yard line and then 3 abreast almost to the edge, lets say the football field is 50 yards wide, this interior column would come within about 12- 15 yards of the edge.” From Mechanical Engineer and Ae911Truth.org petition signer Tony Szamboti.

    And now an extensive examination of the absurdity of NIST’s supposed “Three Phase Collapse” 5.4 second collapse scenario
    versus David Chandler’s 2.25 free fall collapse evidence. Please be sure to go line by line with your explanation as to why
    you uphold the government’s conspiracy theories. Also keep in mind all of their “evidence” is based on computer models
    because like Obama’s body having been conveniently destroyed at sea , all of the steel evidence from Building 7 was destroyed
    in complete violation of standard operating procedure for evidence from a crime scene. How convienient!

    http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/57-news-releases-by-others/426-freefall-and-building-7-on-911.html

    Written by David Chandler Wednesday, 22 December 2010 14:37Galileo was the first to describe the amazing fact that, apart from air resistance, all objects fall at the same “rate.” If you have not experienced this fact directly, try dropping a large rock and a pebble side-by- side. The rate we are referring to is not a “speed,” because for a falling object the speed is constantly changing. The rate we are talking about is actually the “rate of increase of speed,” how quickly the speed builds up, called acceleration. The acceleration achieved by all falling bodies, apart from air resistance, is called the “acceleration of gravity.”Gravity causes freely falling objects to increase their speed by about 32 ft/s per second. (The awkward unit, feet per second per second is commonly abbreviated ft/s2.) When an object is dropped, the speed is initially zero, but it immediately starts speeding up. After 1 second its speed will be 32 ft/s. After 2 seconds its speed will be 64 ft/s. Etc. 32 ft/s2 is an approximation. The “acceleration of gravity” actually varies slightly from place to place. In New York City it is 32.159 ft/s2.Isaac Newton showed that the acceleration of an object is governed by its mass and the net force acting on it. (If several forces are acting at once they are combined to give a “net” force.) If the downward acceleration of a falling object equals the acceleration of gravity, then the net force is the gravitational force alone; any other forces must add up to zero.What if a heavy object falls through other objects, breaking them as it goes? Newton’s third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in freefall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down, and by Newton’s third law, the falling object cannot be pushing on anything else either.When the top section of a building collapses one would expect the falling section to crash into the lower section and exert a large force on it, like dropping an anvil on your toe. A typical controlled demolition exploits this fact: the crushing force of the falling section of the building contributes to the demolition, and reduces the amount of explosives that are needed. However, amazingly, this is not what happened when Building 7 “collapsed” on 9/11.We know that the falling section of Building 7 did not crush the lower section of the building because the top section of Building 7 fell at freefall. It didn’t just fall at something close to freefall. It fell for about 2.5 seconds at a rate that wasindistinguishable from freefall. If the falling section of the building had crushed the lower section, the lower section would have pushed back with an equal but opposite force. But that would have slowed the fall. Since the fall was not slowed in the slightest, we can conclude that the force of interaction was zero… in both directions.How can this be?There were explosions in Building 7 heard by many witnesses throughout the day. One such explosion is recorded in a video clip, available on YouTube (search You Tube for “Explosions on 911″), where several fire fighters are gathered around a pay phone calling home to assure their families they are alright. Suddenly they are startled by a very loud, unmistakable explosion. This is one of the Building 7 explosions that occurred long before it fell.Shortly before the ultimate collapse of the building the east penthouse and the columns beneath it suddenly gave way. NIST (the government agency assigned to investigate the building collapses) attributes the collapse of the east penthouse to the failure of a single column, in a complex scenario involving thermal expansion of beams supporting the column. But it is much more likely that at least two and possibly three supporting columns were “taken out” simultaneously. Three columns supported the east penthouse. One of our German colleagues has pointed to evidence that the east penthouse fell through the interior of the building at close to freefall, evidenced by a ripple of reflections in the windows as it fell. Yet the exterior of the building retained its integrity.NIST claims that the collapse of their one key column led to a progressive collapse of the entire interior of the building leaving only a hollow shell. The collapse of the building, seen in numerous videos, is described by NIST as the collapse of the “facade,” the hollow shell. They have no evidence for this scenario, however, and a great deal of evidence contradicts it. After the collapse of the east penthouse there is no visible distortion of the walls and only a few windows are broken at this time. Had the failure of interior columns propagated throughout the interior of the building, as asserted by NIST, it would surely have propagated to the much closer exterior walls and distorted or collapsed them. (Major crumpling of the exterior walls, by the way, is exactly what is shown in the animations produced by NIST’s computer simulation of the collapse.) But the actual videos of the building show that the exterior remained rigid during this early period. At the onset of collapse you can see in the videos that the building suddenly goes limp, like a dying person giving up the ghost. The limpness of the freefalling structure highlights by contrast the earlier rigidity.Furthermore, there are huge pyroclastic flows of dust, resembling a volcanic eruption, that poured into the streets following the final collapse of the building. If what we saw was only the collapse of the facade, why was the pyroclastic flow not triggered earlier when NIST claims the collapse of the much more voluminous interior occurred? And why did the west penthouse remain to fall with the visible exterior of the building? Its supporting structure clearly remained to the very end and was “taken out” along with the rest of the building support all at once. NIST is scrambling to find a plausible scenario that will allow it to escape the consequences of what is plainly visible. (If you have not seen the collapse of Building 7, find it on YouTube and watch for yourself. For most people simply watching it collapse is all it takes. Most people are not stupid. Most people can recognize the difference between a demolition and a natural building collapse with nothing more being said. If you have never seen the collapse of Building 7 you might also stop and ask yourself why the mainstream media did not repeatedly show you this most bizarre event as it did the Twin Towers.)After the east penthouse collapsed, several seconds elapsed, then the west penthouse began to collapse, at nearly the same time the roofline of the building developed a kink near the center, then all support across the entire width of the building was suddenly removed, a vertical swath of windows under the west penthouse were simultaneously blown out, the building suddenly went limp, and (within a fraction of a second) it transitioned from full support to freefall.I am not using the term “freefall” loosely here. I used a video analysis tool to carefully measure the velocity profile of the falling building using CBS video footage from a fixed camera aimed almost squarely at the north wall. A video detailing this measurement is available at YouTube/user/ae911truth. I calibrated my measurements with the heights of two points in the building provided in the NIST Building 7 report released in August 2008, so I know the picture scale is good. My measurements indicate that with sudden onset the building underwent approximately 2.5 seconds of literal freefall. This is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. For an additional 8 stories it encountered minimal resistance, during which it continued to accelerate, but at a rate less than freefall. Only beyond those 16 stories of drop did the falling section of the building interact significantly with the underlying structure and decelerate.Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building. In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the stationary sections of the building. This interaction would cause crushing of both sections and slowing of the falling section. I have done measurements on several known demolitions, using similar software tools, and found that they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall. Building 7 was not only demolished, it was demolished with tremendous overkill.Freefall was so embarrassing to NIST that in the August 2008 draft release for public comment of their final report, the fact of freefall was denied and crudely covered up with the assertion that the collapse took 40% longer than “freefall time.” They asserted that the actual collapse, down to the level of the 29th floor, took 5.4 seconds whereas freefall would have taken only 3.9 seconds. They arrived at their figures with only two data points: the time when the roofline reached the level of the 29th floor and an artificially early start time several seconds prior to the beginning of the obvious, sudden onset of freefall. They started their clock at a time between the collapses of the east and west penthouses when the building was not moving. They claimed they saw a change in a “single pixel” triggering what they asserted was the onset of collapse, but anyone who has worked with the actual videos will recognize that the edge artifacts in the image of the building make this an unrealistic standard. Furthermore, even if there was a tiny motion of the building at that point, it continued to stand essentially motionless for several more seconds before the dramatic onset of freefall collapse. The fact of a cover up in NIST’s measurement is underlined in that the formula they point to as the basis for their calculation of “freefall time” is valid only under conditions of constant acceleration. They applied that equation to a situation that was far from uniform acceleration. Instead, the building remained essentially at rest for several seconds, then plunged into freefall, then slowed to a lesser acceleration. Their analysis demonstrates either gross incompetence or a crude attempt at a cover up. The scientists at NIST are clearly not incompetent, so the only reasonable conclusion is to interpret this as part of a cover up. (It is important to stand back occasionally and recognize the context of these events. This was not just a cover-up of an embarrassing fact. It was a cover-up of facts in the murder of nearly 3000 people and part of a justification for a war in which well over a million people have since been killed.)I had an opportunity to confront NIST about the easily demonstrated fact of freefall at the technical briefing on August 26, 2008. I and several other scientists and engineers also filed official “requests for correction” in the days that followed. When they released their final report in November 2008, much to the surprise of the 9/11 Truth community, they had revised their measurements of the collapse of the building, including an admission of 2.25 seconds of absolute freefall. However, they couched the period of freefall in a framework of a supposed “three phase collapse sequence” that still occupies exactly 5.4 seconds.The recurrence of 5.4 seconds, even in a completely revised analysis, is very puzzling until you realize its context. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told the audience in the August 26, 2008 Technical Briefing that their computerized collapse model had predicted the collapse down to the 29th floor level would take 5.4 seconds, well beyond the 3.9 seconds required for freefall. From the events at the Technical Briefing it appears that a team headed by structural engineer John Gross dutifully fabricated a 5.4 second observation to exactly match the prediction. Anyone with any experience in laboratory measurement would have expected some amount of uncertainty between the prediction and the measurement. They would have been doing extremely well to come up with a computer model that would predict the collapse time within 10%. But no…their measurement exactly matched the prediction to the tenth of a second. Keep in mind that their computer model was constructed in the absence of the actual steel, which had long since been hauled away and destroyed. According to NIST’s records, none of the steel from Building 7 remains. (Pause and ponder that fact for a moment. Anyone who has watched CSI knows the importance of preserving the physical evidence in a crime scene. Destroying a crime scene is in itself a crime, yet that is exactly what happened in the aftermath of 9/11, and it happened over the loud protests of the firefighters and others who had a stake in really finding out the truth.) Back to our story. NIST’s computer model predicted 5.4 seconds for the building to collapse down to the level of the 29th floor. John Gross and his team found the time the roofline reached the 29th floor, then picked a start time exactly 5.4 seconds earlier to give a measurement that matched the model to the nearest tenth of a second. They took their start time several seconds prior to the actual start of freefall when nothing was happening. The building was just sitting there, with the clock running, for several seconds. Then it dropped, with sudden onset, and continued for 2.5 seconds of absolute freefall.So, NIST now acknowledges that freefall did occur. How do they explain that? They don’t. They simply state, without elaboration, that their three-phase collapse analysis is consistent with their fireinduced collapse hypothesis. The only thing about the three-phase analysis that is consistent with their collapse hypothesis is the 5.4 second total duration, measuring from their artificially chosen starting time. In other words, they make no attempt to explain the 2.25 second period of freefall. They just walked away from it without further comment.The fact remains that freefall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall. Given that even known controlled demolitions do not remove sufficient structure to allow for actual freefall, how could a natural fire-induced process be more destructive? Add to that the synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building, evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down, and the suddenness of onset of collapse, and the immediate transition from full support to total freefall. Natural collapse resulting in freefall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen. Yet freefall did in fact happen. This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building suddenly destroyed and removed the supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.The freefall of Building 7 is one of the clearest of many “smoking guns” that proves explosives were planted in the World Trade Center buildings prior to 9/11, 2001.———————————————David Chandler received a BS degree in a hybrid physics and engineering program at Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA and a MS degree in mathematics from Cal Poly University, Pomona CA. He has taught physics, mathematics, and astronomy since 1972 at both the high school and college levels. He is active with the video and writing teams of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. His 9/11- related videos are featured on AE911Truth.org and YouTube.com/user/ae911truth. His own 9/11- related web site is 911SpeakOut.org

  • Albury

    Aside from being a one-trick pony, Chander’s claim that NIST only “predicted” the 5.4 seconds for the first ~242′ of the WTC 7 facade collapse also makes him a liar. There’s ample information of how they timed it in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, and the ~5.4 seconds is easy to verify. If he agrees with Gage, Ryan, Steven Jones, and other “9/11 researchers” that the whole collapse took 6.5 or 6.6 seconds, he’s lying about that too.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Albury took the words out of my mouth.

    The final collapse occurred over 8.2 seconds and was recorded on several videos north and northwest of the building. You can read a very detailed account of the sequence of collapse on the Structure Magazine link. I encourage you to read it and tell me where you are finding fault with it. The http://www.debunking911.com has several quotes from first responders (all credited, names and ranks) to back up the information listed where it says “according to first responders”. Where in this account are you seeing errors? Where are you sensing falsehood? A very detailed account has been brought before you. Ignoring it is not the method of a person dedicated to finding the truth. This is what I learned while researching 9/11, and this is what made me realize that, yes, damage by debris and fire is what caused the eventual collapse of the WTC 7. Read the article, NT, and then tell me where the fault is.

    Tell you what. If you like, we can skip the engineering and physics aspect, and move on to a question of my own. This question has continually been ducked and avoided and, as of this moment, has never been addressed by a Truther to my knowledge. The question has been repeated several times here in this thread, and non one has even acknowledged it.

    The question is, of course, as follows: If explosives were used, why was no sound of an explosion captured by any of the several recording devices operating at that moment? A controlled demolition takes lots of time to set up and it is very noisy work–too noisy to go unnoticed in a building that is still in use. And an explosion powerful enough to bring down a building is heard a mile away. Even if New York City is a noisy place, and people were panicking, the noise from an explosion that powerful cannot be ignored. The crowds of rescue personnel would have not only heard it, but would have been knocked off their feet by the shockwave. How do you explain this? How does anyone explain this?

    I would not be surprised to learn that someone knew of the attacks beforehand and did nothing to stop them with an aim to take advantage of the resulting chaos. That is not hard to believe. Think about it: it is much, much easier and cheaper than organizing an enormous conspiracy that is simply too big and too unwieldy to ever be successful. You don’t even have to worry about evidence being linked back to you. There’s no shortage of nutjobs who want to do fly planes into buildings, why not simply let one of them succeed? There is no reason to go to all the trouble of a controlled demolition. The CIA funds terrorist attacks in other countries, they don’t go around blowing up buildings and wrecking havoc directly with their own hands. Why would the gov’t start doing that now? There is no reason to, no need whatsoever given that there is a steady supply of chumps to do your work for you.

    Anyway. Look over the article and tell me where it falls short. Or, if you don’t want to engage the physics of it, explain to me how an explosion makes no noise and simulates all the external symptoms of a building collapsing to a great goddam whole being knocked in it and fire all over the place (as is reported by several first responders, whose names and quotes can be found on the debunking911.com articles).

  • Albury Smith

    Explosives like the ones the 9/11 “truth movement” thinks were used in WTC 7 are inaudible unless you’re actually inside the building where they’re secretly planted for no plausible reason, and they go off hours before a building collapses, sounding very similar to transformers exploding in a ConEd substation after planes hit buildings across the street and short out their secondaries. Nanothermite “cuts through steel like a hot knife through butter,” and loads of columns were cut that way simultaneously, but cleanup personnel didn’t find any of them because these explosives leave columns with mechanically-broken ends, complete with connection plates and bolt holes, or else all of the union ironworkers and others at GZ were in on the plot and are covering it up. I’m getting a nanothermite-fired boiler before next winter, because heating oil’s up to ~$3.60/gallon and this stuff burns hot enough to keep steel molten for months. The savings and convenience will be enormous.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Also: I realize the controlled demolition theory is a very seductive one. Given the actions of Bush and crew after the attacks, it seems like a natural conclusion. And there are questions that I want answered as well; it could be true that our intelligence agencies are just that fucked up and inefficient when it comes to defending the heartland, but then you hear rumors that the CIA had warned the oval office a month prior about Al-Qeada gearing up for an attack involving commercial jetliners and you have to wonder if the attacks really took them by surprise. Add in the terrible direction given to the fighter jets and one can’t be blamed for suspecting that someone must have known, and did fuck all to stop it. My questions all run in that direction.

    The problem with these kinds of seductive theories, such as the controlled demo theory, is that they don’t appeal to the rational side of us. They appeal to emotions, and they lead to rationalizing after the fact rather than a truly open-minded investigation. We end up arranging the evidence to support the conclusions we already have rather than allowing the evidence to lead us to a conclusion. The film Zeitgeist demonstrates this wonderfully. When I saw the bit about the Fed and 9/11, I was almost positive there was a conspiracy (it was the first time WTC 7 had been brought to my attention). I didn’t have a lot of facts, but I did have a lot of suspicions, which were all validated by the film. But when I saw the section on Christianity I noticed that a good 90% of the “information” was either greatly misrepresented or flat-out incorrect. Some of it was so plainly bogus I couldn’t believe they were seriously attempting to present it as factual. This led me to investigate their other claims more closely, leading me to realize that for all its slick delivery (and it is very slick, don’t get me wrong. The film-makers are very talented in that regard), it was still at least 90% bogus. What few facts they did get right, the use as a foundation for all sorts of complete bullshit. Which is the best way to go about doing it, as a matter of fact. Start with a few simple truths and you can build a very tall, very impressive house of cards.

    Consider Gage and crew. They supposedly have 800 engineers and architects (the actual number is significantly lower than that, but whatever), so why don’t they do their own investigation? Why don’t they make their own models? Noam Chomsky made a good point about the conspiracy theorists and why he doesn’t consider them activists in a real sense. A true activist would submit articles to respected scientific journals to undergo the usual process. The only paper someone managed to get published failed miserably in its task, leading to a heavy blow against the Truth movement. This is why the scientific community doesn’t take the Truth movement seriously. Gage et all can’t build a convincing case (convincing to the scientific community) even with all their “facts”.

  • Tuna Ghost

    At least no one is positing that the Pentagon was hit with a rocket and not a jet. That one is the worst of all. “There was no plane debris!” they yell, until I show them pictures of jet debris amid the wreckage of the pentagon. I mean, that’s without even going into the hundred plus witnesses that saw a goddam jet fly into the building. Grainy security video footage, sure. I can’t claim you can clearly see a jet from the single frame. But there were so many witnesses, and a jet does not look like a missle when its only two hundred yards away from your face, knocking down lamp posts onto the hood of your taxi.

    To be fair, like I said to NT: the controlled demo theory is a very seductive one. I was fooled for years, until I took the time to truly examine the evidence.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Interrupt as you like, by all means. It lightens my workload and you have information resources I don’t.

  • Albury Smith

    No-plane nuts don’t care about the photos you show them, lists of first responder agencies that were at the Pentagon, the fact that American Airlines paid damages to April Gallop and others not covered by the VCF, forensics matches of 58 of the 59 victims aboard AA 77 and even some of the hijackers, or any other solid evidence of AA 77’s crash there, have no evidence at all that supports their claim of missiles or planted explosives, and will keep yelling “There was no plane debris! [at the Pentagon]” regardless.
    I don’t consider the C/D “theory” to be the slightest bit plausible or seductive, and never have. It would have been completely impossible to do secretly, there’s absolutely no evidence for it, and there’s no plausible motive for anyone the “truth movement” is libeling and slandering with their nonsense to have done it. If they have to go around telling everyone about WTC 7, what was the reason for the alleged bombing of it in the first place? US troops were as good as sent to Afghanistan when UA 175 hit the South Tower, and “Lucky” Larry is very lucky his lenders forced him to carry more insurance or his losses on 9/11 would have been even worse, so a building collapse at ~5:22 PM that killed no one was meaningless in the bigger picture.

  • Albury Smith

    I think Mark Roberts’ web site is the best resource for 9/11 information:
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/
    He quit wasting time with truthers a year or two ago, but is still hated by them. Some have even threatened his life:
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/semiliterateparanoiacswhofantasizeaboutt
    He updates the site occasionally, but is no longer at GZ confronting them with facts, or debating their “researchers,” as he did with Box Boy before bowing out.

  • Nano_Thermite_911

    So guys, Remember I said the terms of our agreement that we would not participate in ad hominem. You obviously do not care to play fair as the first words out of your mouth are to insinuate that David Chandler is a “one trick pony”. This epitet makes no logical sense and serves only to frame your argument of ad-hominem and derision. Also I doubt you have actually read the response I gave as it clearly destroys NISTs FRAUDULENT process of discovery. Anyone willing to look for themselves will see this. You are both obviously double teaming this board to prevent people from seeing the obvious. Muddying the water, obfuscating and utilizing TINRATS (They Are Never Gonna Read All This Shit) to achieve your desired end. There is no hope of rationally discoursing with you here. No worries, you make it exceedingly obvious that you are here to defame rather than deduce. The Truth is more powerful than your crooked tactics. Obviously NIST is too scared to Debate anyone from Ae911 openly and that is more than enough evidence that they have much to hide. You can try to obscure this with your winding illogical rants but you won’t stop the Truth baby.

  • Albury Smith

    The NIST reports are the “Truth baby,” and I didn’t insinuate that Chandler’s a one-trick pony, I stated it. He knows zero about construction or structural engineering, and thinks simply timing collapses proves his goofy C/D “theory.” The NIST engineers have addressed all of his bunk, and there’s nothing left to debate, but they’ll gladly explain their methods and findings to anyone who asks.

  • Nano_Thermite_911

    So you again utilized Ad-Hominem as a means to try to discredit a scientist who doesn’t adhere to government dogma. Guys I’m moving on, talking to you is an exercise in futility. So I will leave you with this. “They must find it hard those who see authority as truth rather than truth as authority”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7INABbOnLI

  • Tuna Ghost

    We were making such progress, NT. You want to keep things short and sweet? I can do that. You don’t want to get bogged down in scientific jargon? I can do that too. I’m reaching out here, guy. We can have this conversation over email if you want. tunaghost82@gmail.com. Shoot me a line. No one has to see it. This is how serious I am about this topic. You seem pretty serious too. Lets get a discourse going.

  • Albury Smith

    Have you heard what David Chandler constantly calls 200+ NIST scientists and engineers, all of whom know a lot more about collapse investigations than he does? Your entire argument is an exercise in futility, and has been ignored by the ASCE and other serious professionals for years. There’s a good reason for that.

  • Albury Smith

    NT is just looking for an excuse to become all offended and end any attempt at a discussion. Chandler did exactly the same thing when I emailed him and copied a bunch of people. He’d just made a major error in his reply to me, and had calculated the distance for the ~2.25 seconds from rest instead of considering its velocity at t=1.75 seconds, and when I corrected his “correction” of NIST’s ~105′, he said “I don’t need this. You’re spam. Bye.” I won’t be sending him a donation. :-)

  • Nano_Thermite_911

    Albury. Thanks for presuming you understand the intentions of everyone at all times. When you get a break from huffing your own fermented waste, why don’t you make a video challenge to David Chandler or any of the other 1,500 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and let experts dissect your obfuscation. You shouldn’t make up quotes, it’s very dishonest. Now you can return to your overlong TINRAT (They are never gonna read all this SHIT) abuse of a long expired post and I will just keep waking up people who haven’t been compromised by sucking satan’s cock all day. Have fun fellating Satan you miserable soulless tramp. :)

  • Nano_Thermite_911

    Actually that was his and Satan’s cocks that were taking out of your mouth. Cowardly internet mercenaries, faceless, pointless. weak and disgusting. You know what you are doing. Enjoy rolling in your own shit.

  • Albury Smith

    Your “experts” run away from any attempt at an honest discussion. I have the email from him if you’d like me to forward it to you along with my comments that prompted his intellectual cowardice. His exact response to my very detailed and on-topic reply to him was:

    “I don’t need this. You’re spam. Bye.–David Chandler”

    Real class act, and many were copied on it. Send him a donation or something.

  • http://disinfo.com Disinformation

    Wow, you are incapable of seeing a different point of view. Please seek psychiatric help.

  • PleaseGetHelp

    I have been following the entire comment thread. You refuse to accept any other opinions,

    Please get help. You need psychiatric help. I can recommend someone to fix your soul.

    You need help.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Even with satan’s wang in my mouth I can still type.  In all seriousness, my offer is still open, NT.  Tunaghost82@gmail.com.  Just you and I, we can get an actual conversation going without anyone else having to watch.  This is an important topic, one that both you and I are obviously passionate about.  

  • Captain Birdseye

    Albury Smith – Special Agent – Gormless Shill – Exposed and Debunked
    http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/06/9-11-sceptics-versus-logic-reason-and-scientific-principles/

  • Tuna Ghost

    I read through the first 1/3, and it didn’t tackle anything substantive.  As soon as I got to the part The official story says that the collapse of all buildings on 9.11 was caused by the hijacked planes and resulting fires alone I knew the article was bullshit.  That is not the official story.  

    This is when I usually tell people to tackle the evidence presented in thread, but I’ll give you a break: just tell me how a controlled demolition was pulled off in light of the fact that no recording device, of which there were literally hundreds in operation at the time, recorded any sound of an explosion (let alone two).  An explosion loud enough to topple a building that size would have been heard a mile away, but there is no recording of it anywhere.  Explain that for me.  No one, and I mean no one, has even attempted to yet, as you can see from this comments section.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    I read through the first 1/3, and it didn’t tackle anything substantive.  As soon as I got to the part The official story says that the collapse of all buildings on 9.11 was caused by the hijacked planes and resulting fires alone I knew the article was bullshit.  That is not the official story.  

    This is when I usually tell people to tackle the evidence presented in thread, but I’ll give you a break: just tell me how a controlled demolition was pulled off in light of the fact that no recording device, of which there were literally hundreds in operation at the time, recorded any sound of an explosion (let alone two).  An explosion loud enough to topple a building that size would have been heard a mile away, but there is no recording of it anywhere.  Explain that for me.  No one, and I mean no one, has even attempted to yet, as you can see from this comments section.  

  • Nagual

    Too Gutless to video a youtube Albury? Too gutless to debate anyone you call liars and libellers, too short of testicular fortitude to actually say what you say face to face with anyone who puts their name and reputation to their cause.

    Youre a sad sack of excrement, nothing more.

  • Nagual

    Too Gutless to video a youtube Albury? Too gutless to debate anyone you call liars and libellers, too short of testicular fortitude to actually say what you say face to face with anyone who puts their name and reputation to their cause.

    Youre a sad sack of excrement, nothing more.

  • the pope

    youll go blind if you keep doing that

  • the pope

    youll go blind if you keep doing that

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Camron-Wiltshire/510662346 Camron Wiltshire

    I agree with Nagual.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Camron-Wiltshire/510662346 Camron Wiltshire

    I agree with Nagual.  

  • Albury Smith

    I posted the link to the Bentham “Active Thermitic Material…” farce. Too gutless to read it? I’ve debated many in your “truth movement,” but can’t do it on their own “forums” because I’m usually banned, so I know all about “gutless.”

  • Albury Smith

    That’s quite courageous of both of you. Get back to me if you’d like to discuss the topic.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Camron-Wiltshire/510662346 Camron Wiltshire

    Red herring bullshit again.  You are assuming the explosives must have been RDX , there are explosives which would not give the auditory results that NIST uses to ignore searching for ANY explosives whatsoever.  Again  NIST refused to look for explosives based on circular illogic such as,

     “There could have been no explosives because the explosions would have been recorded, since we have “no” (actually there are several, see below) recordings or explosive residue (even though we refused to look for them) there could have been “no” explosives.  Regurgitate ad infinitum.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdfSa1ga_IQ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_u9Ni6jHfw&feature=related (HERE YA GO, LOUD FUCKING EXPLOSIONS ON 911)
    Nano Thermite was discovered and the evidence produced in peer reviewed journal.  Why have ZERO academics done the work to refute the information in a peer review process?  It’s because they cannot.  All the man can do is pay insignificant sellout sycophantic trolls like you and albury smith  to try to poison the well.  Well guess what American’s see through your BULLSHIT.  See what you will say is “They can’t waste their time with this nonsense” or some such jabber.  This is again circular illogic on your part and everyone with half a brain sees right through your ruse.  The peer review process is long established, but the establishment can’t abide by it when it comes to the mountains of evidence destroying the sacred myth of 9/11.

    As for guts, again you were asked why don’t you just post a video on youtube so the world can see the pathetic slime bag you are and try to present your claims in the light of a public discourse?  You won’t because you can’t.  You are a coward and an apologist for Treasonous Murderers.  You are scum.

     “While several government agencies, including NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) produced reports on the collapse of the three World Trade Centerbuildings, they pointedly did not analyze the debris for the presence of explosives. This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics. It is also at odds with the video evidence of explosions, and the testimony of fire department personnel, more than 100 of whom officially reported hearing or seeing explosions. NIST also failed to explain the source of large quantities of molten metal in the WTC rubble, or the abundant amounts of iron microspheres in the dust.
    NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report…ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….”Anyone who wants to go much deeper than these pawns dare to, just watch Blueprint for Truth by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth online.

  • Tuna Ghost

    You are assuming the explosives must have been RDX , there are explosives which would not give the auditory results that NIST uses to ignore searching for ANY explosives whatsoever. 

    There are not now, nor have there ever been, explosives powerful enough to topple a building yet not be heard on the recording devices present at the scene.  I don’t know how to say this any simpler.  Regarding the first video you supplied, half the clips didn’t even mention explosions, and the other half had clips of people with no names or ranks or firestations or anything that can be credited.  The sounds that people heard that sounded like explosions have already been explained in this thread.  They were not loud enough to real explosions powerful enough to bring down a building.  

    Nano Thermite was discovered and the evidence produced in peer reviewed journal.  Why have ZERO academics done the work to refute the information in a peer review process?

    Because the very journal it was published in discredited it immediately.  The editor resigned over the fact that it was even published in her magazine.  It was published without her knowledge, and she is on record saying that had she known about the article she would never have allowed it to be published because it had an obvious political agenda and had little to do with actual science.  The study itself (try actually reading it, guy) does not claim to have found evidence of nano-thermite.  It claims to have found particles that “remind” the researchers of residue left after some thermitic reactions.  These particles also occur frequently in nature, and the samples they were using were collected from people’s homes and rooftops six years after the fact.  It’s bad science, and no one takes that article seriously because the very periodical it was published in refuted it immediately.  It was not a “peer-reviewed” article, despite the claims.  Where are these peers to back it up?   But of course, the journal and the rest of the nano-chemistry community are all in on the plot.  Of course.

    As for guts, again you were asked why don’t you just post a video on youtube so the world can see the pathetic slime bag you are and try to present your claims in the light of a public discourse?

    Wait, YouTube counts as valid public discourse but Disinfo doesn’t?  That doesn’t really speak towards your factual reliability, buddy.  Besides, everything I’ve written can be found all over the web.  This all comes from pretty quickly searching for answers to your questions.  Anyone can do it, if they’re actually looking for answers and not just whatever only backs up their claims.

    You won’t because you can’t.  You are a coward and an apologist for Treasonous Murderers.  You are scum.

    Cry and wail all you like, kid.  Like anyone gives a fuck about treason against the US anyway.  There’s a very good reason no one takes Truthers seriously, and its not because we don’t dare imagine that the US government, responsible for darker and more black shit than 9/11, could ever lie to its own citizens.  Its because every year your explanations get even more elaborate and machiavellian and ridiculous, until you’re lumped in with the “The Moon Landing Was Faked” crowd.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    As much as I love repeating myself to idiots, I have to say I’m getting a little tired of providing the exact same responses to the exact same claims over and over.  How about you guys get some new claims, or tackle the evidence refuting the ones that have been made a dozen times in this thread alone?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Camron-Wiltshire/510662346 Camron Wiltshire

    In other words.  Checkmate.  Game set Match 9/11 Truth. 
    Tuna Ghost refuses to think about it anymore.  Can’t answer the questions can you PolterFish?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Camron-Wiltshire/510662346 Camron Wiltshire

    Notice you ignored the evidence that shows LOUD FUCKING EXPLOSIVES on 9/11.  Also over 100 witnesses reported secondary explosions. You know people who were actually there and would know better than you.  Show your face COWARD. Put a video up of you on Youtube so we can see what Human Scum looks like.As for the Editor and The Peer Reviewed Nano Thermite Paper.   To everyone watching at home.  Here is a nice article refuting all of Tuna’s bullshit.  http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-the-Harrit-Nano-thermi-by-Michael-Fullerton-090814-310.html

    The paper does in fact deal with physical chemistry. Physical chemistry involves among other things, reaction kinetics on the rate of a reaction and the identity of ions on the electrical conductivity of materials [6]. In the paper they documented the reaction rates of the chips in relation to thermite and paint chips. They also subjected the red/gray chips to an electron beam and noted the poor conductivity of the red layer.

    Chemical physics is the branch of physics that studies chemical processes from the point of view of physics [7]. This would involve things like studying the dissolution of chemical bonds as they did when they soaked red/gray and paint chips in MEK. Chemical physics also involves the study of nanoparticles which is what the whole paper is about.

    Marie-Paule Pileni, the former Open Chemical Physics Journal editor in chief, in fact seems to have the ideal background to judge this paper. She has a thorough background in physical chemistry and chemical physics, as well as with explosives. She also has extensive connections to the defense industry [8]. These facts suggest more of her stretching the truth and resigning under pressure than due to incompetence or indignation. This paper leads to the undeniable implication that some of the most powerful people on Earth lied about what happened on 9/11 and were even possibly involved in the WTC tower demolitions. Would this not be a massive potential source of political pressure? Enough pressure for the editor to lie and resign?
    All you have is logical fallacy, misrepresentation and appeal to ridicule.

    Check Mate Beeyotch.  Of course you won’t read the paper or refute the evidence because you can’t so just consider this info for the people you try to lead off the path like a Red Herring.

    You’re still Scum.  Anonymous spineless scum.

  • Albury Smith

    What did this nanothermite or other top-secret explosive DO? We
    already know that it explodes silently, keeps metal molten in debris piles for
    months, makes a great dessert topping, and is eco-friendly, but does it also cut
    right through steel columns and leave factory ends on them, complete with
    connection plates, bolt holes, etc.? The best I’ve seen so far from your “truth
    movement” is Steven Jones’s photo of a torch-cut column with gray slag around
    the cut, and not everyone is as gullible as you apparently are.
    I’d also like to know how many FDNY who reported explosIONS inside
    the burning WTC buildings are in your 9/11 “truth movement.” Erik Lawyer’s
    petition has fewer than half a dozen signatories who even claim to be
    FDNY:
    http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
    Aren’t NYC firefighters as astute and knowledgeable as you and your
    “researchers,” or don’t they care what caused the building collapses that killed
    more than 300 of their colleagues?

  • Tuna Ghost

    Notice you ignored the evidence that shows LOUD FUCKING EXPLOSIVES on 9/11.

    Not loud enough to leave any evidence on the recording equipment, though?  Despite the very simple fact, that I am getting tired of repeating, that any explosion–ANY explosion, no matter what the explosives used–powerful enough to bring down a building will be heard a mile away?  Are you ever going to address this?  So far none of you truthers have.  

      Also over 100 witnesses reported secondary explosions. You know people who were actually there and would know better than you.Hearsay isn’t evidence, I’m afraid.  People reporting sounds that sounded like explosions isn’t evidence.  Nameless people on video saying they heard explosions isn’t evidence.  As I said earlier, the sounds they heard have already been explained in this thread.  Check it out.  They’re right up the page a bit.  I’m not sure why you’re having a hard time with this.  If it was a controlled demolition, there would be far, far more than just “over 100″ witnesses reporting the sound.  Powerful explosion = big noise.  There is no getting around this, not with nano-thermite, not with different kinds of explosives.  When are you, or anyone, going to address this very simple fact?Re: the nanothermite paper: So you’re choosing to believe Michael Fullerton, who has a BSc in Computer Science and so is obviously perfectly suited as a judge in this matter despite that he provides no credentials or information backing up his assertions, rather than the people who actually dealt with the paper, whose credentials and information are all a matter of public record?  Really?  That’s the guy you’re going with?  Smart choice, buddy.  This is what I mean by only listening to the people who back up the conclusions on which you’ve already landed and ignore, oh, I don’t know, the vast majority of the scientific community.  Oh, but I forget–they, like Marie-Paule Pileni, are obviously in on the plot.  Everyone is, who doesn’t agree with you.  And isn’t on YouTube, apparently.

  • Tuna Ghost

    huh, the formatting is all wonky–I included paragraph breaks that mysteriously disappeared.  

    A conspiracy, obviously.

  • Tuna Ghost

    You’re still Scum.  Anonymous spineless scum.
    *GASP*  That’s the worst kind of scum!!!!!!   

    Look buddy, everyone knows you’re not a real Truther until you’ve posted a video on Justin Beiber’s fan forum.  Until you do that, you’re just hiding.  Join the REAL debate on the Beiber fan forum, where all the pros come to debate.  If you don’t do that, you’ll prove yourself a coward who doesn’t have faith in his convictions.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    Well you know I would, except I get banned.  Also, as evidenced in this thread, as soon as they are pushed to actually address the evidence Truthers usually just stop posting.  It makes for a pretty one-sided debate, as I’m sure you’ll understand after you stop responding because you have no answers.

    As for YouTube, like I told the other twit: all the REAL pros debate on the Justin Beiber fan forum.  Why are you HIDING on YouTube?  If you don’t, you prove yourself a COWARD who doesn’t care about TRUTH at ALL.  Stop HIDING!  Be a real MAN and post on Justin Beiber’s fan page.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    Are you ever going to address the actual evidence, or just continue to post the same stuff over and over?  Like you did further down the page?  Is this what people concerned about the truth do, Camron?  Is it?  Is it, friend?

    See you on the Beiber Fan Forum!  That is, if you have the BALLS and stop HIDING on YouTube.

  • Tuna Ghost

    …so I guess you’re ignoring the answers I gave directly below?  Camron, will you tackle the evidence I presented?  I did it with yours, its only fair.  Its right down there.  Literally in black and white.  

    Tell me about the powerful explosions that aren’t loud, that don’t produce shock waves, that don’t leave evidence.  Go for it, Camron.  Tell me about the materials Michael Fullerton, who has a BSc in Computer Science and Psychology, has that proves his claims.  Tell me why he is not some crank on the internet, Camron.  Tell me why the paper is evidence of nano-thermite when the actual report itself does not claim that.  Tell me any of these things, Camron.  The discussion literally cannot move forward if you don’t.  All it can do, as is evidenced upthread, is produce the same tired arguments that have been repeatedly handled.  And then when I say “look upthread/downthread/all over the goddam thread where the questions have already been addressed”, this is apparently your cue to say “A-HA!  I win!  I win because I repeat the same stories that have been debunked several times over in the very same thread that I’m posting in now!”You really wonder why no one takes Truthers seriously?  This.  This here.  This is why.    

  • Tuna Ghost

    Look, buddy.  Imagine if some crank went to the police and asked “why aren’t you looking for evidence that Kareem Abul-Jabaar killed Nicole Brown and not OJ Simpson?”.  The police would respond, “there is no evidence at all linking Kareem Abdul-Jabaar to the murders”.  Then the crank says “Then why aren’t you looking for it???”  Does that sound reasonable?  Because that is what you are doing, right now.  That is you, here, in this comments section.  

  • Albury Smith

    Please note the line through my name at this “forum,” meaning that I’m banned from commenting:
    http://letsrollforums.com/major-9-11-truth-t20779.html
    I was banned at the Loose Change “Forum” for asking a truther why 12 different insurance companies all paid Silverstein a total of $4.68 billion if he publicly admitted to blowing up WTC 7. The moderator said my question wasn’t “sincere enough,” so he had to ban me from posting there because of it. I can’t post on 95% or more of them, and this clown thinks I’m “gutless”?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Camron-Wiltshire/510662346 Camron Wiltshire

    Here ya go!  http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/911-explosive-eyewitness-testimony

    “I’ve been collecting videos of eyewitness testimony online for many
    months and I figured the best way to present them all would be to create
    a compilation of footage instead of keeping them all separated. Here
    you have firefighters, citizens, and news reporters all telling you
    about explosions. Some witnesses explain that they felt an explosion
    before the plane even hit the building. Others report explosions in the
    basement, and the lobby. News reporters report that they’ve been hearing
    explosions all day, and one reporter Pat Dawson, spoke with the Chief
    of Safety for the NY Fire Dept. who said that he thought there were
    bombs planted in the buildings.”

    Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay by the way but nice try.

    You lose again shill.

  • Albury Smith

    There are a lot of explosions in these videos too:
    http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition
    http://www.break.com/index/landmark_tower_demolition.html
    Demolition explosives aren’t just heard by people inside the
    targeted buildings or within a block, and actually cause building collapses
    within seconds.
    Since there are quite a few FDNY in that video, here’s Erik
    Lawyer’s “firefighters” for 9/11 “truth” petition:
    http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
    How many signatories even claim to be FDNY? Aren’t they as astute as
    you are, or don’t they care what caused the collapses that killed 300+ of their
    own?

  • Tuna Ghost

    It is when names and other information aren’t given.  

    All of that is irrelevant, though.  The fact is, there are many things that account for the things that sounded like explosions that most definitely are not incendiary devices.  For instance, here’s the assistant Fire Commisioner: 

    “Assistant Fire Commissioner: “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”
    Sounds incriminating, until you read the entire quote.

    “I don’t know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.”You’ll find a lot of rescue personnel saying that they believe it was either electrical explosions or compressed air or the impact of concrete falling several stories.  Every floor has at least two electrical closets.  It could have been any number of things, really, but one thing it could not have ever been is demolitions-grade explosives.  The simple fact is, and this is what you’ve been steadily ignoring, explosions that topple buildings are very, very loud.  The shockwaves would have knocked the witnesses in the building or near the building unconscious or at the least off their feet.  The noise would have been heard by everyone within a radius of many, many city blocks, not a handful of people.  The booms heard by a small number of people (and dealing with explosions that knock down skyscrapers, 100 witnesses is a very small number) cannot and are not incendiary explosives that destroyed the towers.  If those explosions ever occurred, they would have been captured on at least one of the numerous recording devices present.When are you going to address this, Camron?  Is your plan to ignore it forever and then claim victory again?  Like all the other truthers here?  Is that what someone searching for truth does, Camron?  Is it?  Will you please acknowledge this, Camron?  Just once.  Just once, so that I can say at least one Truther openly acknowledged this fact.  You can tell me magical unicorns absorbed the soundwaves and ate all the shockwaves, just ACKNOWLEDGE.  THIS.  VERY.  SIMPLE.  FACT.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    That’s a great way to claim victory, by the way.  Sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes every time the other side scores a point?  Brilliant.  

  • Ewingsc

     
    9/11: Enhanced and Stabilised WTC1 Video (BBC World News)

    Explosions clearly visible :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxGJHTlpOc8

  • Ewingsc

     
    9/11: Enhanced and Stabilised WTC1 Video (BBC World News)

    Explosions clearly visible :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxGJHTlpOc8

  • Happy Pants

    Info on Albury Smith =

    ‘A paid back-room mole to infiltrate every possible 9/11 chat room,
    message board, and forum to create as much din, disruption, “noise,” and
    chaos as possible which constantly litters and pollutes the soup;

    effectively preventing most people from focusing on Israel’s central role in 9/11.

    A seeming obsession with minutiae where researchers spend an
    inordinate amount of time endlessly fixating on the tiniest of details
    without stepping back and exposing the bigger picture and its subsequent
    ramifications.

    Engages in rhetorical debates for
    debate’s sake; all of which is sterile, self-contained, and circular in
    nature.’

    IE: Gormless Shill

    Info on the Trade Center destruction

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/arguments-regarding-collapse-of-world.html

  • Albury Smith

    Gee, that was fact-filled. What demolition explosives leave pools of molten metal for months, and what was Israel’s “central role” in an al Qaeda suicide attack?

  • Dances with Shills

    Yes it was.

    You tell us what collapse scenario leaves molten pools of metal for months shill.

    You want more facts? You cant handle the facts.

    http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

    Maybe you could debate some facts on youtube or something. Im sure Jon would love to put you in your place.

    Scared little shill?

  • Albury Smith

    Isn’t Jon’s place chained to a fence or something while sane people ignore him? I hope you two don’t run out of Reynolds Wrap, but I’m still wondering what explosives leave pools of molten metal in debris piles for months. Does that happen in real controlled demolitions?

  • Albury Smith

    Isn’t Jon’s place chained to a fence or something while sane people ignore him? I hope you two don’t run out of Reynolds Wrap, but I’m still wondering what explosives leave pools of molten metal in debris piles for months. Does that happen in real controlled demolitions?

  • Dances with Shills

    Yeah, your “explanation” of how a building collapse can generate enough heat to keep metal molten for months is pretty lame, eh?

    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/many-witnesses-confirm-molten-metal-under-tower-rubble/

    Why are you still wondering after youv’e been told repeatedly? Intellectually comprimised are you?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O66UyGNrmSI
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yIOC1J44RYw

    If Jon is so easy to discredit, why dont you put your face to your arguments? Oh that’s right, you’re a scared little lying shill.

  • Nano_Thermite_911

    Appreciate you calling this shill out.  Don’t waste to much time on him though, he is about as concerned with 9/11 truth as George Bush is.  Thanks for again exposing this clown. 

  • Albury Smith

    Debris fires keep metal molten for months, but please feel free to enlighten me to all of the explosives that do.

  • Dances with Shills

    Alburry says, without offering any sort of explanation or evidence,  that… “Debris fires keep metal molten for months, …”, as if simply saying so, makes it the gospel truth! lol

    Debris fires keep metal molten for months! Got that everyone!? its true, because Albury Smith says so!

    He keeps saying this, even though it’s been explained to him elsewhere..

    Mike Pukmel says: ( http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/many-witnesses-confirm-molten-metal-under-tower-rubble/ )

    Dear Albury,
    Thanks for the comment. I learn as much from people who are
    convinced they must ‘debunk’ various arguments as I have reading those
    arguments themselves. In 5 1/2 years that I have spent off and on,
    reading arguments on both sides, I have never read a ‘debunking’
    argument that stuck. I don’t want these arguments to go one way or
    another, its just the way this episode has presented itself so far.
    Suppose that office fires burned at some high temperature, your
    claim of 1400 degrees is as good as any. We must look at *where* those
    fires occurred. In the twin towers, the planes struck the buildings
    about 1000 feet in the air, around the 90th floor (plus or minus).
    That’s not 90 floors of dead air space, its 90 steel floor pans with 4″
    or 6″ of concrete. Its 90 floors of carpeting, duct work, ceiling tiles,
    office furniture etc. So, when the collapses occurred, we’d expect
    the burning material to be 90% of the way up the debris pile towards the
    top (at least for the twin towers). You would have to ask yourself
    how the burning office material from around the 90′th floor, made its
    way around the bottom 90 floors worth of mass and ended up in the sub
    basements of the WTC.
    Next, if we download the videos of the twin towers just as
    collapse occurred, we see that the impact area floors compressed first.
    This means that a ten story building (the top 10 or so floors MOSTLY
    UNDAMAGED), moved downward rapidly, compressing the floors immediately
    below it. That represents roughly a one acre square box, the bottom
    of which is a steel pan covered with concrete.
    I don’t know about you, but I can not think of anything that would
    be better suited to extinguish office fires on floors 88 through 90 but a
    ten story box of concrete and steel compressing it. Then, as the top
    ten floors disintegrated, those floors were smashing through all of the
    material below.
    Picture this: 3 floors of a building on fire. The building floors
    are about one acre square. Then, a ten story building above those 3
    floors, compressing the 3 floors that were on fire into dust.
    If you look carefully at one of the towers collapse (I can never
    remember which one was the north and south tower), you will see as the
    top 10 floor piece of the building begins to move, a fireball shoot out
    of the damage area. That puff of fire was the bottom floor of the top
    section of the building compressing the floors that were on fire to zero
    height.
    What office fires, I ask you, would remain after a one acre steel
    pan filled with concrete, and topped with ten more floors with the same,
    compressed those floors?”

    Hes still waiting for an answer, lol. but Albury cant answer, and yet Albury wants more,

    “…but please feel free to enlighten me to all of the explosives that do.”

    Likes to pretend to be clever, does Albury, Did anyone claim that the molten metal was caused by certain explosives? No. The claim is simply, that there was molten metal. Albury has claimed, laughably, without backing up his psycho claim in any way, that it was debris fires..  that keep metal molten for months. After having been shown the logical reasons why that cant be so, he thinks that by throwing in a straw man,  “…but please feel free to enlighten me to all of the explosives that do.” and if someone were to answer, for example, dynamite, then he would demand videos and technical data proving that dynamite could be used in such a way. Obviously dynamite couldnt do that, and as it is impossible to prove, he would claim that as a victory.

    Im not sure there is any explosive that would do it, but Im not an expert. It doesnt matter, it’s not the issue. The issue is, the molten metal, and why its there, and for the powers that be, to provide an answer. They, and Albury, cant, wont.

    Albury has been shown conclusively, hes an idiot shill, all over the internet, but he wont concede the best way to answer questions regarding 911, would be to have an independant, transparent, investigation, but it doesnt matter what Alburry thinks, people are waking up to the fact that 911 was all a big lie, despite the best efforts of Albury Smith, 911, Gormless Shill.

  • Dances with Shills

    Alburry says, without offering any sort of explanation or evidence,  that… “Debris fires keep metal molten for months, …”, as if simply saying so, makes it the gospel truth! lol

    Debris fires keep metal molten for months! Got that everyone!? its true, because Albury Smith says so!

    He keeps saying this, even though it’s been explained to him elsewhere..

    Mike Pukmel says: ( http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/many-witnesses-confirm-molten-metal-under-tower-rubble/ )

    Dear Albury,
    Thanks for the comment. I learn as much from people who are
    convinced they must ‘debunk’ various arguments as I have reading those
    arguments themselves. In 5 1/2 years that I have spent off and on,
    reading arguments on both sides, I have never read a ‘debunking’
    argument that stuck. I don’t want these arguments to go one way or
    another, its just the way this episode has presented itself so far.
    Suppose that office fires burned at some high temperature, your
    claim of 1400 degrees is as good as any. We must look at *where* those
    fires occurred. In the twin towers, the planes struck the buildings
    about 1000 feet in the air, around the 90th floor (plus or minus).
    That’s not 90 floors of dead air space, its 90 steel floor pans with 4″
    or 6″ of concrete. Its 90 floors of carpeting, duct work, ceiling tiles,
    office furniture etc. So, when the collapses occurred, we’d expect
    the burning material to be 90% of the way up the debris pile towards the
    top (at least for the twin towers). You would have to ask yourself
    how the burning office material from around the 90′th floor, made its
    way around the bottom 90 floors worth of mass and ended up in the sub
    basements of the WTC.
    Next, if we download the videos of the twin towers just as
    collapse occurred, we see that the impact area floors compressed first.
    This means that a ten story building (the top 10 or so floors MOSTLY
    UNDAMAGED), moved downward rapidly, compressing the floors immediately
    below it. That represents roughly a one acre square box, the bottom
    of which is a steel pan covered with concrete.
    I don’t know about you, but I can not think of anything that would
    be better suited to extinguish office fires on floors 88 through 90 but a
    ten story box of concrete and steel compressing it. Then, as the top
    ten floors disintegrated, those floors were smashing through all of the
    material below.
    Picture this: 3 floors of a building on fire. The building floors
    are about one acre square. Then, a ten story building above those 3
    floors, compressing the 3 floors that were on fire into dust.
    If you look carefully at one of the towers collapse (I can never
    remember which one was the north and south tower), you will see as the
    top 10 floor piece of the building begins to move, a fireball shoot out
    of the damage area. That puff of fire was the bottom floor of the top
    section of the building compressing the floors that were on fire to zero
    height.
    What office fires, I ask you, would remain after a one acre steel
    pan filled with concrete, and topped with ten more floors with the same,
    compressed those floors?”

    Hes still waiting for an answer, lol. but Albury cant answer, and yet Albury wants more,

    “…but please feel free to enlighten me to all of the explosives that do.”

    Likes to pretend to be clever, does Albury, Did anyone claim that the molten metal was caused by certain explosives? No. The claim is simply, that there was molten metal. Albury has claimed, laughably, without backing up his psycho claim in any way, that it was debris fires..  that keep metal molten for months. After having been shown the logical reasons why that cant be so, he thinks that by throwing in a straw man,  “…but please feel free to enlighten me to all of the explosives that do.” and if someone were to answer, for example, dynamite, then he would demand videos and technical data proving that dynamite could be used in such a way. Obviously dynamite couldnt do that, and as it is impossible to prove, he would claim that as a victory.

    Im not sure there is any explosive that would do it, but Im not an expert. It doesnt matter, it’s not the issue. The issue is, the molten metal, and why its there, and for the powers that be, to provide an answer. They, and Albury, cant, wont.

    Albury has been shown conclusively, hes an idiot shill, all over the internet, but he wont concede the best way to answer questions regarding 911, would be to have an independant, transparent, investigation, but it doesnt matter what Alburry thinks, people are waking up to the fact that 911 was all a big lie, despite the best efforts of Albury Smith, 911, Gormless Shill.

    • Albury Smith

      I already gave you a perfectly valid explanation for the molten metal at GZ. The
      fires in the debris burned for more than 3 months at temperatures that were
      sufficient to keep lead and aluminum molten. UPS systems were common in the WTC
      buildings, and they use tons of lead. If you think explosives keep metal molten,
      then furnish some examples. If controlled demolitions leave molten metal behind,
      which ones have done that in the past?

      btw, Craig McKee banned me from his dog-and-pony show for not drinking his
      Kool-Aid, so I was unable to reply to the comment you posted.

      • Tuna Ghost

        Kinda hard to have a discussion when the other side bans you, ain’t it?  And if they can’t do that, like here in this very thread, they just run away without answering.  You and I know this is a sign that they are confident in their claims, when oh when will we come to our senses and admit we’re just shills???  Oh woe is me

        • Albury Smith

          I’ve been banned on several dozen “forums” run by the 9/11 “truth movement.” When they can’t do that, they simply resort to obfuscation and personal attacks. I can’t think of any that haven’t accused me of being a “paid shill,” usually as soon as they realize that I don’t drink the Kool-Aid. What a sorry bunch…
          I just noticed that “ewingsc” is posting here. He or one of his cronies banned me at a site called “Uncensored,” of all things. Hilarious.

          • Dances with Shills

            No obfuscation nor personal attacks. No Kool Aid, just logic, reason and scientific priciples.

            Alburry Smith – 911 gormless shill, out of answers, not banned, runs away.

            http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/06/9-11-sceptics-versus-logic-reason-and-scientific-principles/

          • Albury Smith

            What have I not already answered on there?

          • Dances with Shills

            His last question to you re the 911 commissioners..

            “How can that be satisfactory to anyone who had any links to those tragic events?”

          • Albury Smith

            What about the 9/11 Commission members? Not one of them, including Cleland, has ever questioned the principal findings of the report.

          • Dances with Shills

            You just cant help but to bald-face lie, you need medical supervision because you repeatedly do it when its so easy to prove your claims otherwise. get help fool.

            Co-Chair of 9/11 Inquiry: American Government Covered Up State Assistance to Hijackers

            It’s front page news today that:
            Journalists
            at Rupert Murdoch’s now-shuttered News of the World paper tried to
            access the mobile phones of 9/11 victims, a former New York City police
            officer claimed on Monday.
            It’s also front page news today that the new Secretary of Defense – Leon Panetta – said that American soldiers are in Iraq because of 9/11, even though AFP notes:
            That was one of the justifications for the 2003 US-led invasion, but the argument has since been widely dismissed.more http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/07/co-chair-of-911-inquiry-american.html

          • Albury Smith

            What principal findings of the 9/11 Commission Report have ever been refuted by any member of the commission, including Cleland? What have I lied about?

          • Dances with Shills

            Every time you post a comment its a lie shill, thats what you turd polishers do.

            And though you dont need anyone to tell you the original story stinks to high heaven, not even a gormless shill like you can pretend any of this is all OK and warrants no further investigation.

            http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/bush-and-clinton-counter-terrorism-tzar.html

          • Albury Smith

            What have I lied about?

          • Tuna Ghost

            …how does that answer Albury’s question?  How does that prove he “lied”?  You claim that evidence to the contrary is available, can I see it?  I honestly don’t see how what you posted proves that Albury is lying.  I’m very keen on information about the 9/11 investigation, help a guy out and give me a link that covers your claim.  

        • Dances with Shills

          Huffington Post is a classic example of a site that bans people for their views on 911 truth. They though, seem to have had a change of heart,

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/the-big-lie-911-truther-comic-book_n_881108.html

          Theyve now started to report on the fact that questions remain. I guess the support for a new investigation is becoming too much to ignore, even with all the censorship.

          Most other main stream media is still pretty much censored…  so, if you think “Kinda hard to have a discussion when the other side bans you, ain’t it? ”  Youre right!  But if you think your side of the debate gets the rough end of the stick….you couldnt be more wrong.

          Albury can deny or admit hes a shill – either way, he is the dictionary definition of one, as evidenced by all his postings on every 911 related forum he can lay his dirty fingers on. You want to lump yourself in with him? Go right ahead, lol, woe is you.

          • Albury Smith

            What views does HuffPo ban, and which ones regarding 9/11 “truth” are allowed? If they just discourage deep thinkers who can’t come up with anything more intelligent than calling someone a “shill,” I’d say that’s responsible journalism. The OP has already “lumped” himself in with the sane and rational side of this discussion, and you can’t ban either of us so get over it.

          • Dances with Shills

            So now youre pretending you dont know how to google

            http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=30&gs_id=3a&xhr=t&q=huffington+post+911+censorship&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=huffington+post+911+censorship&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=661c0b1152c259b4&biw=1062&bih=781

            They had a comment policy specifically banning comments related to anything other than the official version of events of 911. 

            Get over what? You embarrassing yourself all over the internet – to be known as a gormless shill since 2008? With all the time in the world to post your garbage ad nauseum, no life, and no courage to put your face on the line like others have done to argue the case? lol – You get over it.

          • Tuna Ghost

            With all the time in the world to post your garbage ad nauseum, no life, and no courage to put your face on the line like others have done to argue the case?

            Ignoring the standard online insult “lol you must have no life if you spend so much time online lolololol” (some days I spend 8 hours a day at my desk, doing absolutely nothing.  Yeah, I got free time, and it has to be spent at my desk at work.  Big effing deal), what is this insistence with posting on YouTube all about?  I don’t understand it.  Surely the claims, which are backed up with scientific studies that come complete with diagrams and lucid, easily understood sentences, are enough?  Surely you’ve take at least one logic course and learned to address the argument not the person making it.  I don’t care if your lot does or does not post on YouTube.  Frankly, the environment there is so toxic I don’t use it for anything closely resembling intellectual.  I just watch Mystery Science Theater 3000 on it and come to places like Disinfo to debate.  I’m genuinely curious as to why Truthers are so keen on posting on YouTube.  

          • Dances with Shills

            People who Albury Smith, whatever his real name is, discredits as idiots, have put their name and reputation on the line.  All im suggesting, is if he wants to be a credible debunker, he should do the same.

            But he wont. Hes scared.

          • Dances with Shills

            Hes been at it for years now, nothing better to do..  You want to pretend hes genuine, fine. lol go for it. No skin off my nose.

            http://nhtruth.blogspot.com/2010/08/professional-911-debunker-and-paid.html

          • Dances with Shills

            Pentagon Papers Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg Says that the Government Has ORDERED the Media Not to Cover 9/11

            It’s big news that the Pentagon Papers have finally been released by the government.
            But the statements from Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg about 9/11 have not been covered by the corporate media.

            http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/06/pentagon-papers-whistleblower-daniel.html

          • Tuna Ghost

            Huffington Post is a classic example of a site that bans people for their views on 911 truth.
            Well, I for one have never accused them of being overly concerned with journalistic integrity. 

            So, if you think “Kinda hard to have a discussion when the other side bans you, ain’t it? ”  Youre right!  But if you think your side of the debate gets the rough end of the stick….you couldnt be more wrong.

            …except on sites that are used primarily for discussing what happened on 9/11, as Albury and I can both attest.  Can you see the dilemma here?  A site primarily used for discussing the events of 9/11 banning members that espouse the other side of the debate?  They’re not really looking for a discussion, are they?  Is this something that someone confident in their claims would do?  

            Albury can deny or admit hes a shill – either way, he is the dictionary definition of one, as evidenced by all his postings on every 911 related forum he can lay his dirty fingers on. 

            Dude’s obviously passionate about the debate.  I could make the same claim about the poster Nano-Thermite and several others, but they don’t get labels (except from me, which are usually “dumbass” or something similar, nothing that casts aspersions on the motivations behind why they post.  Unless you count stupidity, which I’m willing to admit is not really an argument so much as an insult) because they’re on the “right” side.  

      • Dances with Shills

        Stop Lying.  You simply say debris fires can keep metal molten. Proof please. Also proof that the metal was actually lead.

        You complain about not being able to answer because youre banned. You have an opportunity to address those points here now, ??

        Cant?  Might like a refresher course on the molten metal here.

        http://www.911-see-the-evidence.com/

        • Albury Smith

          Thanks, but I certainly don’t need refresher courses from 9/11
          truther nuts. The debris fire temperatures documented in USGS
          flyovers:

          http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

          were sufficient to keep lead or aluminum molten,
          since lead melts at ~620 F, and aluminum at ~1220 F.

          Now how about providing proof that the pools of metal reported by
          eyewitnesses were steel, and that it was melted by explosives or incendiaries,
          neither of which produces heat for months?
          Please note that the fact that you’re
          not bright enough to comprehend simple science does not mean that someone’s
          lying to you.

          • Dances

            that link doesnt show that the heat was from debris fires, just that it was hot..   we already knew that.

            Now how about providing proof that the pools of metal reported by
            eyewitnesses were lead and that it was melted by debris fires, that cant produce heat for months?

          • Albury Smith

            Yes, the heat in the debris could have been from a secret nuclear reactor, an asteroid, a volcanic eruption, or any of a number of other things, but the thousands who worked there for ~8 months thought it might have been generated by the debris fires that burned for months.
            I truly hope you have competent adult supervision. 

          • Dances with Shills

            Ill take that to mean you have absolutely no way to show how a debris fire can burn with tons of dirt, ie: no oxygen, can burn for months. Fool.

          • Albury Smith

            So now the WTC buildings were filled with tons of dirt? You need to find a new hobby, fella.

          • Dances eith Shills

            ohhh… so youre saying the buildings that collapsed ON TOP OF YOUR DEBRIS FIRES weighed nothing? How stupid are you?

            Ill take that to mean you have absolutely no way to show how a debris
            fire can burn with tons of dirt, ie: no oxygen, can burn for months.
            Fool.

          • Albury Smith

            There are tens of thousands of eyewitnesses to the fact that the debris fires at GZ burned for ~100 days. If you believe that this was caused by explosives, please list all of the explosives that burn that long, and link me to some of the known controlled demolitions whose debris burned that long.
            Thanks.

          • Dances with Shills

            Ok, after you explain how a debris fire can burn without oxygen.

            Witnesses to debris fires eh? They are sure they were debris fires because they conducted tests and ruled out everything else? You’re a laughable fool.

            lol, from http://nhtruth.blogspot.com/2010/08/professional-911-debunker-and-paid.html

            Anonymous said…

                Ask Albury Smith about Elias Davidsson, and you’ll be rid of him for good.

                Elias Davidson 9/19/09:

                I wish to make it absolutely clear that there exists no evidence whatsoever that Muslim fanatics hijacked aircraft on 9/11 and flew those aircraft on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

                This alone destroys in one sweep the official legend of 9/11 and justifies the suspicion that the WTC buildings were destroyed by the same unidentified parties who staged the aircraft hoax. Anyone can guess who had the capabilities, motives and access to stage these events.

                Those who still believe in the legend of the 19 Muslim terrorists should either look for the evidence (that does not exist) or save time by reading my paper which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the non-existence of such evidence. Here:

            http://www.aldeilis.net/english/attachments/1614_noevidencemuslims.pdf

            http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php

          • Albury Smith

            No one claimed that the debris fires burned without oxygen. If you think they were something else, please enlighten me.
            Sane people simply ignore Davidsson.

          • Tuna Ghost

            I wish to make it absolutely clear that there exists no evidence whatsoever that Muslim fanatics hijacked aircraft on 9/11 and flew those aircraft on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

            So the phone calls made from passengers aboard the jets to their loved ones describing Arab men armed with boxcutters doesn’t count as evidence?  Or are they in on the plot too?

          • Dances with Shills

            not to mention the truckloads of dirt that was shipped in and spread about, and all the water sprayed on top that couldnt put it out..   Shill.

          • Albury Smith

            The truckloads of dirt were brought in to make access roads, not to extinguish the debris fires, and the FDNY had difficulty putting them out with water. Were they in on the plot too?
            Here’s the “firefighters” for 9/11 “truth” petition:
            http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
            How many signatories to it even CLAIM to be in your “truth movement”?

  • Albury Smith

    I already gave you a perfectly valid explanation for the molten metal at GZ. The
    fires in the debris burned for more than 3 months at temperatures that were
    sufficient to keep lead and aluminum molten. UPS systems were common in the WTC
    buildings, and they use tons of lead. If you think explosives keep metal molten,
    then furnish some examples. If controlled demolitions leave molten metal behind,
    which ones have done that in the past?

    btw, Craig McKee banned me from his dog-and-pony show for not drinking his
    Kool-Aid, so I was unable to reply to the comment you posted.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Kinda hard to have a discussion when the other side bans you, ain’t it?  And if they can’t do that, like here in this very thread, they just run away without answering.  You and I know this is a sign that they are confident in their claims, when oh when will we come to our senses and admit we’re just shills???  Oh woe is me

  • Albury Smith

    I’ve been banned on several dozen “forums” run by the 9/11 “truth movement.” When they can’t do that, they simply resort to obfuscation and personal attacks. I can’t think of any that haven’t accused me of being a “paid shill,” usually as soon as they realize that I don’t drink the Kool-Aid. What a sorry bunch…
    I just noticed that “ewingsc” is posting here. He or one of his cronies banned me at a site called “Uncensored,” of all things. Hilarious.

  • Dances with Shills

    Stop Lying.  You simply say debris fires can keep metal molten. Proof please. Also proof that the metal was actually lead.

    You complain about not being able to answer because youre banned. You have an opportunity to address those points here now, ??

    Cant?  Might like a refresher course on the molten metal here.

    http://www.911-see-the-evidence.com/

  • Dances with Shills

    Huffington Post is a classic example of a site that bans people for their views on 911 truth. They though, seem to have had a change of heart,

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/the-big-lie-911-truther-comic-book_n_881108.html

    Theyve now started to report on the fact that questions remain. I guess the support for a new investigation is becoming too much to ignore, even with all the censorship.

    Most other main stream media is still pretty much censored…  so, if you think “Kinda hard to have a discussion when the other side bans you, ain’t it? ”  Youre right!  But if you think your side of the debate gets the rough end of the stick….you couldnt be more wrong.

    Albury can deny or admit hes a shill – either way, he is the dictionary definition of one, as evidenced by all his postings on every 911 related forum he can lay his dirty fingers on. You want to lump yourself in with him? Go right ahead, lol, woe is you.

  • Dances with Shills

    No obfuscation nor personal attacks. No Kool Aid, just logic, reason and scientific priciples.

    Alburry Smith – 911 gormless shill, out of answers, not banned, runs away.

    http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/06/9-11-sceptics-versus-logic-reason-and-scientific-principles/

  • Albury Smith

    Thanks, but I certainly don’t need refresher courses from 9/11
    truther nuts. The debris fire temperatures documented in USGS
    flyovers:

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

    were sufficient to keep lead or aluminum molten,
    since lead melts at ~620 F, and aluminum at ~1220 F.

    Now how about providing proof that the pools of metal reported by
    eyewitnesses were steel, and that it was melted by explosives or incendiaries,
    neither of which produces heat for months?
    Please note that the fact that you’re
    not bright enough to comprehend simple science does not mean that someone’s
    lying to you.

  • Albury Smith

    What have I not already answered on there?

  • Albury Smith

    What views does HuffPo ban, and which ones regarding 9/11 “truth” are allowed? If they just discourage deep thinkers who can’t come up with anything more intelligent than calling someone a “shill,” I’d say that’s responsible journalism. The OP has already “lumped” himself in with the sane and rational side of this discussion, and you can’t ban either of us so get over it.

  • Dances

    that link doesnt show that the heat was from debris fires, just that it was hot..   we already knew that.

    Now how about providing proof that the pools of metal reported by
    eyewitnesses were lead and that it was melted by debris fires, that cant produce heat for months?

  • Dances with Shills

    His last question to you re the 911 commissioners..

    “How can that be satisfactory to anyone who had any links to those tragic events?”

  • Dances with Shills

    So now youre pretending you dont know how to google

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=30&gs_id=3a&xhr=t&q=huffington+post+911+censorship&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=huffington+post+911+censorship&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=661c0b1152c259b4&biw=1062&bih=781

    They had a comment policy specifically banning comments related to anything other than the official version of events of 911. 

    Get over what? You embarrassing yourself all over the internet – to be known as a gormless shill since 2008? With all the time in the world to post your garbage ad nauseum, no life, and no courage to put your face on the line like others have done to argue the case? lol – You get over it.

  • Albury Smith

    Yes, the heat in the debris could have been from a secret nuclear reactor, an asteroid, a volcanic eruption, or any of a number of other things, but the thousands who worked there for ~8 months thought it might have been generated by the debris fires that burned for months.
    I truly hope you have competent adult supervision. 

  • Albury Smith

    What about the 9/11 Commission members? Not one of them, including Cleland, has ever questioned the principal findings of the report.

  • Albury Smith

    What about the 9/11 Commission members? Not one of them, including Cleland, has ever questioned the principal findings of the report.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Huffington Post is a classic example of a site that bans people for their views on 911 truth.
    Well, I for one have never accused them of being overly concerned with journalistic integrity. 

    So, if you think “Kinda hard to have a discussion when the other side bans you, ain’t it? ”  Youre right!  But if you think your side of the debate gets the rough end of the stick….you couldnt be more wrong.

    …except on sites that are used primarily for discussing what happened on 9/11, as Albury and I can both attest.  Can you see the dilemma here?  A site primarily used for discussing the events of 9/11 banning members that espouse the other side of the debate?  They’re not really looking for a discussion, are they?  Is this something that someone confident in their claims would do?  

    Albury can deny or admit hes a shill – either way, he is the dictionary definition of one, as evidenced by all his postings on every 911 related forum he can lay his dirty fingers on. 

    Dude’s obviously passionate about the debate.  I could make the same claim about the poster Nano-Thermite and several others, but they don’t get labels (except from me, which are usually “dumbass” or something similar, nothing that casts aspersions on the motivations behind why they post.  Unless you count stupidity, which I’m willing to admit is not really an argument so much as an insult) because they’re on the “right” side.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    With all the time in the world to post your garbage ad nauseum, no life, and no courage to put your face on the line like others have done to argue the case?

    Ignoring the standard online insult “lol you must have no life if you spend so much time online lolololol” (some days I spend 8 hours a day at my desk, doing absolutely nothing.  Yeah, I got free time, and it has to be spent at my desk at work.  Big effing deal), what is this insistence with posting on YouTube all about?  I don’t understand it.  Surely the claims, which are backed up with scientific studies that come complete with diagrams and lucid, easily understood sentences, are enough?  Surely you’ve take at least one logic course and learned to address the argument not the person making it.  I don’t care if your lot does or does not post on YouTube.  Frankly, the environment there is so toxic I don’t use it for anything closely resembling intellectual.  I just watch Mystery Science Theater 3000 on it and come to places like Disinfo to debate.  I’m genuinely curious as to why Truthers are so keen on posting on YouTube.  

  • Dances with Shills

    Ill take that to mean you have absolutely no way to show how a debris fire can burn with tons of dirt, ie: no oxygen, can burn for months. Fool.

  • Albury Smith

    So now the WTC buildings were filled with tons of dirt? You need to find a new hobby, fella.

  • Dances with Shills

    Pentagon Papers Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg Says that the Government Has ORDERED the Media Not to Cover 9/11

    It’s big news that the Pentagon Papers have finally been released by the government.
    But the statements from Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg about 9/11 have not been covered by the corporate media.

    http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/06/pentagon-papers-whistleblower-daniel.html

  • Dances with Shills

    You just cant help but to bald-face lie, you need medical supervision because you repeatedly do it when its so easy to prove your claims otherwise. get help fool.

    Co-Chair of 9/11 Inquiry: American Government Covered Up State Assistance to Hijackers

    It’s front page news today that:
    Journalists
    at Rupert Murdoch’s now-shuttered News of the World paper tried to
    access the mobile phones of 9/11 victims, a former New York City police
    officer claimed on Monday.
    It’s also front page news today that the new Secretary of Defense – Leon Panetta – said that American soldiers are in Iraq because of 9/11, even though AFP notes:
    That was one of the justifications for the 2003 US-led invasion, but the argument has since been widely dismissed.more http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/07/co-chair-of-911-inquiry-american.html

  • Albury Smith

    What principal findings of the 9/11 Commission Report have ever been refuted by any member of the commission, including Cleland? What have I lied about?

  • Dances eith Shills

    ohhh… so youre saying the buildings that collapsed ON TOP OF YOUR DEBRIS FIRES weighed nothing? How stupid are you?

    Ill take that to mean you have absolutely no way to show how a debris
    fire can burn with tons of dirt, ie: no oxygen, can burn for months.
    Fool.

  • Dances with Shills

    not to mention the truckloads of dirt that was shipped in and spread about, and all the water sprayed on top that couldnt put it out..   Shill.

  • Dances with Shills

    People who Albury Smith, whatever his real name is, discredits as idiots, have put their name and reputation on the line.  All im suggesting, is if he wants to be a credible debunker, he should do the same.

    But he wont. Hes scared.

  • Dances with Shills

    Hes been at it for years now, nothing better to do..  You want to pretend hes genuine, fine. lol go for it. No skin off my nose.

    http://nhtruth.blogspot.com/2010/08/professional-911-debunker-and-paid.html

  • Albury Smith

    There are tens of thousands of eyewitnesses to the fact that the debris fires at GZ burned for ~100 days. If you believe that this was caused by explosives, please list all of the explosives that burn that long, and link me to some of the known controlled demolitions whose debris burned that long.
    Thanks.

  • Albury Smith

    There are tens of thousands of eyewitnesses to the fact that the debris fires at GZ burned for ~100 days. If you believe that this was caused by explosives, please list all of the explosives that burn that long, and link me to some of the known controlled demolitions whose debris burned that long.
    Thanks.

  • Albury Smith

    The truckloads of dirt were brought in to make access roads, not to extinguish the debris fires, and the FDNY had difficulty putting them out with water. Were they in on the plot too?
    Here’s the “firefighters” for 9/11 “truth” petition:
    http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
    How many signatories to it even CLAIM to be in your “truth movement”?

  • Dances with Shills

    Ok, after you explain how a debris fire can burn without oxygen.

    Witnesses to debris fires eh? They are sure they were debris fires because they conducted tests and ruled out everything else? You’re a laughable fool.

    lol, from http://nhtruth.blogspot.com/2010/08/professional-911-debunker-and-paid.html

    Anonymous said…

        Ask Albury Smith about Elias Davidsson, and you’ll be rid of him for good.

        Elias Davidson 9/19/09:

        I wish to make it absolutely clear that there exists no evidence whatsoever that Muslim fanatics hijacked aircraft on 9/11 and flew those aircraft on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

        This alone destroys in one sweep the official legend of 9/11 and justifies the suspicion that the WTC buildings were destroyed by the same unidentified parties who staged the aircraft hoax. Anyone can guess who had the capabilities, motives and access to stage these events.

        Those who still believe in the legend of the 19 Muslim terrorists should either look for the evidence (that does not exist) or save time by reading my paper which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the non-existence of such evidence. Here:

    http://www.aldeilis.net/english/attachments/1614_noevidencemuslims.pdf

    http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php

  • Dances with Shills

    Ok, after you explain how a debris fire can burn without oxygen.

    Witnesses to debris fires eh? They are sure they were debris fires because they conducted tests and ruled out everything else? You’re a laughable fool.

    lol, from http://nhtruth.blogspot.com/2010/08/professional-911-debunker-and-paid.html

    Anonymous said…

        Ask Albury Smith about Elias Davidsson, and you’ll be rid of him for good.

        Elias Davidson 9/19/09:

        I wish to make it absolutely clear that there exists no evidence whatsoever that Muslim fanatics hijacked aircraft on 9/11 and flew those aircraft on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

        This alone destroys in one sweep the official legend of 9/11 and justifies the suspicion that the WTC buildings were destroyed by the same unidentified parties who staged the aircraft hoax. Anyone can guess who had the capabilities, motives and access to stage these events.

        Those who still believe in the legend of the 19 Muslim terrorists should either look for the evidence (that does not exist) or save time by reading my paper which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the non-existence of such evidence. Here:

    http://www.aldeilis.net/english/attachments/1614_noevidencemuslims.pdf

    http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php

  • Dances with Shills

    Ok, after you explain how a debris fire can burn without oxygen.

    Witnesses to debris fires eh? They are sure they were debris fires because they conducted tests and ruled out everything else? You’re a laughable fool.

    lol, from http://nhtruth.blogspot.com/2010/08/professional-911-debunker-and-paid.html

    Anonymous said…

        Ask Albury Smith about Elias Davidsson, and you’ll be rid of him for good.

        Elias Davidson 9/19/09:

        I wish to make it absolutely clear that there exists no evidence whatsoever that Muslim fanatics hijacked aircraft on 9/11 and flew those aircraft on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

        This alone destroys in one sweep the official legend of 9/11 and justifies the suspicion that the WTC buildings were destroyed by the same unidentified parties who staged the aircraft hoax. Anyone can guess who had the capabilities, motives and access to stage these events.

        Those who still believe in the legend of the 19 Muslim terrorists should either look for the evidence (that does not exist) or save time by reading my paper which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the non-existence of such evidence. Here:

    http://www.aldeilis.net/english/attachments/1614_noevidencemuslims.pdf

    http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php

  • Dances with Shills

    Ok, after you explain how a debris fire can burn without oxygen.

    Witnesses to debris fires eh? They are sure they were debris fires because they conducted tests and ruled out everything else? You’re a laughable fool.

    lol, from http://nhtruth.blogspot.com/2010/08/professional-911-debunker-and-paid.html

    Anonymous said…

        Ask Albury Smith about Elias Davidsson, and you’ll be rid of him for good.

        Elias Davidson 9/19/09:

        I wish to make it absolutely clear that there exists no evidence whatsoever that Muslim fanatics hijacked aircraft on 9/11 and flew those aircraft on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

        This alone destroys in one sweep the official legend of 9/11 and justifies the suspicion that the WTC buildings were destroyed by the same unidentified parties who staged the aircraft hoax. Anyone can guess who had the capabilities, motives and access to stage these events.

        Those who still believe in the legend of the 19 Muslim terrorists should either look for the evidence (that does not exist) or save time by reading my paper which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the non-existence of such evidence. Here:

    http://www.aldeilis.net/english/attachments/1614_noevidencemuslims.pdf

    http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php

  • Dances with Shills

    Ok, after you explain how a debris fire can burn without oxygen.

    Witnesses to debris fires eh? They are sure they were debris fires because they conducted tests and ruled out everything else? You’re a laughable fool.

    lol, from http://nhtruth.blogspot.com/2010/08/professional-911-debunker-and-paid.html

    Anonymous said…

        Ask Albury Smith about Elias Davidsson, and you’ll be rid of him for good.

        Elias Davidson 9/19/09:

        I wish to make it absolutely clear that there exists no evidence whatsoever that Muslim fanatics hijacked aircraft on 9/11 and flew those aircraft on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

        This alone destroys in one sweep the official legend of 9/11 and justifies the suspicion that the WTC buildings were destroyed by the same unidentified parties who staged the aircraft hoax. Anyone can guess who had the capabilities, motives and access to stage these events.

        Those who still believe in the legend of the 19 Muslim terrorists should either look for the evidence (that does not exist) or save time by reading my paper which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the non-existence of such evidence. Here:

    http://www.aldeilis.net/english/attachments/1614_noevidencemuslims.pdf

    http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php

  • Albury Smith

    No one claimed that the debris fires burned without oxygen. If you think they were something else, please enlighten me.
    Sane people simply ignore Davidsson.

  • Albury Smith

    No one claimed that the debris fires burned without oxygen. If you think they were something else, please enlighten me.
    Sane people simply ignore Davidsson.

  • Albury Smith

    No one claimed that the debris fires burned without oxygen. If you think they were something else, please enlighten me.
    Sane people simply ignore Davidsson.

  • Dances with Shills

    LOL – too funny!

    http://911liarsexposed.blogspot.com/2010/03/niels-harrit-versus-troll.html

    Niels Harrit Versus A Troll
    I had the comments section open to Liberal White Boy’s Posting on Lucky Larry, ( http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2010/02/mr-larry-pull-it-silversteindid-you.html?zx=6d74569b5cca690c ) when I noticed a couple of comments by this tard named Albury Smith.

    Now it’s a flame war, and I’m looking for a blowtorch.

    Incidentally, he left a link in a number of his postings (apparently, he will repeat postings like a mental patient – I guess he hasn’t read the definition of INSANITY) – this is where he attempts to “debate” Dr. Niels Harrit.

    http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/norwegian-state-television-presents-911-truth/#comment-102

  • Dances with Shills

    LOL – too funny!

    http://911liarsexposed.blogspot.com/2010/03/niels-harrit-versus-troll.html

    Niels Harrit Versus A Troll
    I had the comments section open to Liberal White Boy’s Posting on Lucky Larry, ( http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2010/02/mr-larry-pull-it-silversteindid-you.html?zx=6d74569b5cca690c ) when I noticed a couple of comments by this tard named Albury Smith.

    Now it’s a flame war, and I’m looking for a blowtorch.

    Incidentally, he left a link in a number of his postings (apparently, he will repeat postings like a mental patient – I guess he hasn’t read the definition of INSANITY) – this is where he attempts to “debate” Dr. Niels Harrit.

    http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/norwegian-state-television-presents-911-truth/#comment-102

  • Tuna Ghost

    …how does that answer Albury’s question?  How does that prove he “lied”?  You claim that evidence to the contrary is available, can I see it?  I honestly don’t see how what you posted proves that Albury is lying.  I’m very keen on information about the 9/11 investigation, help a guy out and give me a link that covers your claim.  

  • Dances with Shills

    Every time you post a comment its a lie shill, thats what you turd polishers do.

    And though you dont need anyone to tell you the original story stinks to high heaven, not even a gormless shill like you can pretend any of this is all OK and warrants no further investigation.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/bush-and-clinton-counter-terrorism-tzar.html

  • Albury Smith

    What have I lied about?

  • Craig Welbourn

    WTC7 was a 47 story steel framed building as wide as a football field and taller than Niagara Falls. It was supported by 24 core columns and 58 perimeter columns, 82 columns in all.

    The official story is that WTC7 collapsed into its own footprint “because of fires fuelled by office furnishings.” It did not collapse, as FEMA had initially speculated, due to debris from the Twin Towers or a diesel tank in the building. NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the agency charged with writing the official story) claims that WTC7 was “the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires”.

    According to NIST, fires created “differential thermal expansion” between the steel beams and the concrete floor on the 13th floor. The expanding steel beams sheared off the studs that attach the concrete floors to the steel beams. This caused column 79 to buckle and fall onto its adjacent column, which fell onto the next column and so in what NIST calls a “progressive collapse” until the entire building fell into its own footprint. To prove it, they took seven years to create a computer model to simulate the collapse, and stated that they had shown for the first time that “fire can induce a progressive collapse.”

    The problem is it’s fiction. In the real world, the coefficients of expansion of steel and concrete are almost the same (13.0 10-6 mm/K for steel; 14.5 for concrete). This means that steel and concrete expand at essentially the same rate, so that studs won’t shear during a fire. NIST recognises this: “…steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion.” To get around this problem, NIST deliberately used a coefficient of zero for concrete in its model so that the steel would expand but the concrete wouldn’t, thus shearing the studs causing the collapse. To quote NIST: ““No thermal expansion … was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.” So NIST, by its own admission, made up a story and falsified its data to support it.

    But that’s just the beginning. NIST also states in its official report of “…a free fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]…” In other words, all of the 82 supporting columns, across the entire width of a football field, simultaneously offered no resistance. NIST’s spokesman Shyam Sunder stated that “[A] free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” Thus, for the first time in history, all of the supporting columns of a steel framed building failed simultaneously “primarily due to fires”. In fact, WTC1, 2 and 7 were the first and only steel framed buildings in history to suffer total collapse from any cause other than controlled demolition.

    To reiterate: The official story is that WTC7 collapsed due to a “progressive collapse” “primarily due to fires”. Also, the collapse was “free fall … for approximately 2.25 s[econds]” meaning that it had, according to NIST,” … no structural components below it.” And, to get their simulator to corroborate their official story, NIST admitted to deliberately falsifying crucial data: ““No thermal expansion … was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.”. Thus the official story is scientifically fraudulent.

    So what really happened? Maybe the discovery in the dust of active nano-thermite, an explosive a thousand times
    more explosive than thermite, might be a clue.

    • Albury Smith

      Differential thermal expansion in composite flooring systems is an
      established fact, since the steel obviously heats up more quickly in fires than
      thick concrete slabs, and has a different elastic limit. NIST determined that the 2′-0″
      o.c., 3/4″ shear studs, which were on the beams only, began failing at ~300 F,
      i.e. well below the maximum temperatures posited in the NE corner of the 12th
      floor. There were only 24 interior columns in that large football field space
      you described, and the beam spans were up to ~52′, with girder spans of ~45′.
      The key to the NIST Probable Collapse Sequence is the shearing of 4 ASTM 325
      bolts that were 7/8″ in diameter and connected the 44/79 girder to column 79,
      along with the subsequent sagging of 5 W25 X 55 asymmetrically loaded beams.
      Unlike the theory that multiple W14 X 730 (730# per lineal foot!) columns were
      secretly cut by explosives and then left no explosively-severed ends in the
      debris, there’s actually evidence for partial collapses under the east end of
      the penthouse, but there’s nothing stopping your “truth movement” from providing
      evidence for its own hypothesis. Attacking NIST’s does nothing to further that
      end.
      Aside from claiming that a segment of the main WTC 7 collapse was “too
      fast,” the 9/11 “truth movement” has not established any actual times under the
      NIST hypothesis, and that should certainly have been addressed by now. If it’s
      true that free fall can only occur when every column is severed, regardless of
      the condition of the supporting structure below ~150,000 tons of falling
      building, then the same analysis of WTC 7’s collapse times should be done on
      known controlled demolitions, since it’s rarely if ever necessary to place
      charges on every column, and much of the destruction very quickly occurs simply
      from gravity.
      There has been no “discovery in the [WTC] dust of active
      nano-thermite,” but it has been conclusively established that rust, sulfur,
      silicon, and aluminum were present, and that they “reminded” a few people of
      something for which they provided no exemplars for comparison. NIST doesn’t have
      the luxury of working to these lax standards, but since you’re accusing them of
      incompetence and dishonesty, you might start wondering why some of these
      oversights haven’t been addressed. Along with the collapse times analysis I
      suggested above, it’s also reasonable to expect these exemplars of nanothermite
      or related MIC to be forthcoming, as well as a demonstration of the conclusion
      reached in the Bentham paper that painting explosives on steel columns is a way
      to sever them. Don’t hold your breath waiting.

      • Craig Welbourn

        You might be right. I’m only discussing what NIST has reported in its final report on the collapse of WTC7.

        NIST (not I) says that WTC7 collapsed into its own footprint “because of fires fuelled by office furnishings.”
        NIST  claims that WTC7 was “the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires”.

        According to NIST, fires created “differential thermal expansion” between the steel beams and the concrete floor on the 13th floor. The expanding steel beams sheared off the shear studs that attach the concrete floors to the steel beams that led to a “progressive collapse” and stated that they had shown for the first time
        that “fire can induce a progressive collapse.”

        NIST also states that “…steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion.”

        To get around this problem, NIST deliberately used a coefficient of zero for concrete in its model so that the steel would expand but the concrete wouldn’t, thus shearing the studs causing the collapse.NIST: ““No thermal expansion … was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.”

        These are NISTs words, not mine.

        My problem with this is that NIST, by its own admission, falsified its data to support their official story.

        NIST also states states in its official report of “…a free fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]…”

        So, if you can’t believe NIST, who can you believe?

        • Albury Smith

          NIST did not admit that it “falsified data,” or attempt to “get
          around” anything; they simply explained their methodology. Differential thermal
          expansion was observed to have caused shear stud failure at temperatures well
          below those around column 79 on the 12th floor, and they issued no statement
          that steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion in the
          full range of temperatures posited for that location between 3 PM and the time
          of the collapse. I see nothing problematic in your other
          reiterations of NIST statements, but you’re implying significance that isn’t
          there.

          WTC 7 was the first tall building to collapse solely from fire, but
          certainly not the first steel-framed structure to collapse for that reason, and
          its framing plan and collapse sequence should make it very obvious why the
          debris was contained by the much more closely-spaced and moment-connected
          exterior columns. The 2.25 seconds of acceleration that was indiscernible from g
          is hardly anomalous if you consider the collapse progression, but your
          “researchers” are welcome to calculate the times for the 3 stages under the
          Probable Collapse Sequence in NCSTAR 1A. Since they’re foolish enough to use
          collapse times as indicators of the cause, it’s more mandatory than
          optional.

          I don’t know what you think I “can’t believe” from NIST, but I’d be
          glad to give you a list of claims from Gage, et al. that I wouldn’t believe if
          I’d told them myself. Please feel free to explain how they came up with 6.5 or
          6.6 seconds for the entire facade collapse of WTC 7, for starters. NIST timed
          the top 242′ in 5.4 seconds, and didn’t attempt to time the entire 610′ for very
          good reason. Do Gage, Ryan, Jones, and others in your “truth movement” have
          another video that doesn’t have buildings and dust blocking the view of the
          bottom and making it impossible to determine when the collapse ended, or do they
          have X-ray vision? Try timing it yourself to the nearest 1/10
          second:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

          • CraigWelbourn

            NIST states that “differential thermal expansion occurred between the steel floor beams and concrete slab when the composite floor was subjected to fire.” The composite floor is the steel beams made composite with the floor slab by means of the shear studs. They claim that the differential thermal expansion caused the steel to expand and move over the concrete until the shear studs broke. Even though NIST itself acknowledges, and I again quote from the official report, “steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion.”

            To prove their point, they fed their variables into their computer model to demonstrate how WTC 7 would have reacted to its fires. So, what did NIST feed into its computer that caused it to say that the steel would have expanded so much more than the concrete slab that the 2′-0″ o.c., 3/4″ shear studs began failing at ~300 F?   
            NIST said (ie admitted) that it told the computer that the steel beams had been heated; but the concrete floor slab had not. To again quote NIST, “No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.”

            I am not arguing that the official report is false. Quite the contrary. I am in fact quoting it. But in the official story NIST admits, or at least states, that they fudged the data to support their story.

            btw, verification of 2.25 second free fall:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA

  • Craig Welbourn

    WTC7 was a 47 story steel framed building as wide as a football field and taller than Niagara Falls. It was supported by 24 core columns and 58 perimeter columns, 82 columns in all.

    The official story is that WTC7 collapsed into its own footprint “because of fires fuelled by office furnishings.” It did not collapse, as FEMA had initially speculated, due to debris from the Twin Towers or a diesel tank in the building. NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the agency charged with writing the official story) claims that WTC7 was “the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires”.

    According to NIST, fires created “differential thermal expansion” between the steel beams and the concrete floor on the 13th floor. The expanding steel beams sheared off the studs that attach the concrete floors to the steel beams. This caused column 79 to buckle and fall onto its adjacent column, which fell onto the next column and so in what NIST calls a “progressive collapse” until the entire building fell into its own footprint. To prove it, they took seven years to create a computer model to simulate the collapse, and stated that they had shown for the first time that “fire can induce a progressive collapse.”

    The problem is it’s fiction. In the real world, the coefficients of expansion of steel and concrete are almost the same (13.0 10-6 mm/K for steel; 14.5 for concrete). This means that steel and concrete expand at essentially the same rate, so that studs won’t shear during a fire. NIST recognises this: “…steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion.” To get around this problem, NIST deliberately used a coefficient of zero for concrete in its model so that the steel would expand but the concrete wouldn’t, thus shearing the studs causing the collapse. To quote NIST: ““No thermal expansion … was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.” So NIST, by its own admission, made up a story and falsified its data to support it.

    But that’s just the beginning. NIST also states in its official report of “…a free fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]…” In other words, all of the 82 supporting columns, across the entire width of a football field, simultaneously offered no resistance. NIST’s spokesman Shyam Sunder stated that “[A] free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” Thus, for the first time in history, all of the supporting columns of a steel framed building failed simultaneously “primarily due to fires”. In fact, WTC1, 2 and 7 were the first and only steel framed buildings in history to suffer total collapse from any cause other than controlled demolition.

    To reiterate: The official story is that WTC7 collapsed due to a “progressive collapse” “primarily due to fires”. Also, the collapse was “free fall … for approximately 2.25 s[econds]” meaning that it had, according to NIST,” … no structural components below it.” And, to get their simulator to corroborate their official story, NIST admitted to deliberately falsifying crucial data: ““No thermal expansion … was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.”. Thus the official story is scientifically fraudulent.

    So what really happened? Maybe the discovery in the dust of active nano-thermite, an explosive a thousand times
    more explosive than thermite, might be a clue.

  • Nano_Thermite_911

    Destruction of Evidence mean anything to you?  NIST admits they used NO STEEL from Building 7 to create their computer models.  They won’t even share the code for any scientists to verify their findings citing it as a “National Security Risk”  GIve me a Fucking Break.  

  • Albury Smith

    Steel that’s been handled by dozens of people and seen by thousands is no longer “evidence” at some point, and does not warrant extra moving costs and storage, or unnecessary delays in collecting on its millions of dollars in scrap value. There were FEMA BPAT, ASCE, PANYNJ, SEAoNY, and NSF engineers on site, many from the first days of the cleanup, along with a number of experienced demolition contractors, and it doesn’t take any specific expertise to spot columns or other steel that isn’t mechanically broken. Columns that are snapped off at their connections could not possibly be mistaken for those with cutter charge signatures on their ends.
    If melted or explosively-severed column ends had really been found at GZ, Steven Jones wouldn’t have to use photos of columns cut with torches to prove anything. Does the manufacturing and misrepresentation of evidence mean anything to you?

  • Albury Smith

    Differential thermal expansion in composite flooring systems is an
    established fact, since the steel obviously heats up more quickly in fires than
    thick concrete slabs, and has a different elastic limit. NIST determined that the 2′-0″
    o.c., 3/4″ shear studs, which were on the beams only, began failing at ~300 F,
    i.e. well below the maximum temperatures posited in the NE corner of the 12th
    floor. There were only 24 interior columns in that large football field space
    you described, and the beam spans were up to ~52′, with girder spans of ~45′.
    The key to the NIST Probable Collapse Sequence is the shearing of 4 ASTM 325
    bolts that were 7/8″ in diameter and connected the 44/79 girder to column 79,
    along with the subsequent sagging of 5 W25 X 55 asymmetrically loaded beams.
    Unlike the theory that multiple W14 X 730 (730# per lineal foot!) columns were
    secretly cut by explosives and then left no explosively-severed ends in the
    debris, there’s actually evidence for partial collapses under the east end of
    the penthouse, but there’s nothing stopping your “truth movement” from providing
    evidence for its own hypothesis. Attacking NIST’s does nothing to further that
    end.
    Aside from claiming that a segment of the main WTC 7 collapse was “too
    fast,” the 9/11 “truth movement” has not established any actual times under the
    NIST hypothesis, and that should certainly have been addressed by now. If it’s
    true that free fall can only occur when every column is severed, regardless of
    the condition of the supporting structure below ~150,000 tons of falling
    building, then the same analysis of WTC 7’s collapse times should be done on
    known controlled demolitions, since it’s rarely if ever necessary to place
    charges on every column, and much of the destruction very quickly occurs simply
    from gravity.
    There has been no “discovery in the [WTC] dust of active
    nano-thermite,” but it has been conclusively established that rust, sulfur,
    silicon, and aluminum were present, and that they “reminded” a few people of
    something for which they provided no exemplars for comparison. NIST doesn’t have
    the luxury of working to these lax standards, but since you’re accusing them of
    incompetence and dishonesty, you might start wondering why some of these
    oversights haven’t been addressed. Along with the collapse times analysis I
    suggested above, it’s also reasonable to expect these exemplars of nanothermite
    or related MIC to be forthcoming, as well as a demonstration of the conclusion
    reached in the Bentham paper that painting explosives on steel columns is a way
    to sever them. Don’t hold your breath waiting.

  • Craig Welbourn

    You might be right. I’m only discussing what NIST has reported in its final report on the collapse of WTC7.

    NIST (not I) says that WTC7 collapsed into its own footprint “because of fires fuelled by office furnishings.”
    NIST  claims that WTC7 was “the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires”.

    According to NIST, fires created “differential thermal expansion” between the steel beams and the concrete floor on the 13th floor. The expanding steel beams sheared off the shear studs that attach the concrete floors to the steel beams that led to a “progressive collapse” and stated that they had shown for the first time
    that “fire can induce a progressive collapse.”

    NIST also states that “…steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion.”

    To get around this problem, NIST deliberately used a coefficient of zero for concrete in its model so that the steel would expand but the concrete wouldn’t, thus shearing the studs causing the collapse.NIST: ““No thermal expansion … was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.”

    These are NISTs words, not mine.

    My problem with this is that NIST, by its own admission, falsified its data to support their official story.

    NIST also states states in its official report of “…a free fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]…”

    So, if you can’t believe NIST, who can you believe?

  • Albury Smith

    NIST did not admit that it “falsified data,” or attempt to “get
    around” anything; they simply explained their methodology. Differential thermal
    expansion was observed to have caused shear stud failure at temperatures well
    below those around column 79 on the 12th floor, and they issued no statement
    that steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion in the
    full range of temperatures posited for that location between 3 PM and the time
    of the collapse. I see nothing problematic in your other
    reiterations of NIST statements, but you’re implying significance that isn’t
    there.

    WTC 7 was the first tall building to collapse solely from fire, but
    certainly not the first steel-framed structure to collapse for that reason, and
    its framing plan and collapse sequence should make it very obvious why the
    debris was contained by the much more closely-spaced and moment-connected
    exterior columns. The 2.25 seconds of acceleration that was indiscernible from g
    is hardly anomalous if you consider the collapse progression, but your
    “researchers” are welcome to calculate the times for the 3 stages under the
    Probable Collapse Sequence in NCSTAR 1A. Since they’re foolish enough to use
    collapse times as indicators of the cause, it’s more mandatory than
    optional.

    I don’t know what you think I “can’t believe” from NIST, but I’d be
    glad to give you a list of claims from Gage, et al. that I wouldn’t believe if
    I’d told them myself. Please feel free to explain how they came up with 6.5 or
    6.6 seconds for the entire facade collapse of WTC 7, for starters. NIST timed
    the top 242′ in 5.4 seconds, and didn’t attempt to time the entire 610′ for very
    good reason. Do Gage, Ryan, Jones, and others in your “truth movement” have
    another video that doesn’t have buildings and dust blocking the view of the
    bottom and making it impossible to determine when the collapse ended, or do they
    have X-ray vision? Try timing it yourself to the nearest 1/10
    second:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

  • CraigWelbourn

    NIST states that “differential thermal expansion occurred between the steel floor beams and concrete slab when the composite floor was subjected to fire.” The composite floor is the steel beams made composite with the floor slab by means of the shear studs. They claim that the differential thermal expansion caused the steel to expand and move over the concrete until the shear studs broke. Even though NIST itself acknowledges, and I again quote from the official report, “steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion.”

    To prove their point, they fed their variables into their computer to demonstrate how WTC 7 would have reacted to its fires. So what did NIST feed into its computer that caused it to say that the steel would have expanded so much more than the concrete slab that the 2′-0″ o.c., 3/4″ shear studs began failing at ~300 F? 
     
    NIST said (ie admitted) that it told the computer that the steel beams had been heated; but the concrete floor slab had not. To again quote NIST, “No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.”

    I am not arguing that the official report is false. Quite the contrary. I am in fact quoting it. But in the official story NIST admits, or at least states, that they fudged the data to support their story.

    btw, verification of 2.25 second free fall:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA

  • Anonymous

    NIST states that “differential thermal expansion occurred between the steel floor beams and concrete slab when the composite floor was subjected to fire.” The composite floor is the steel beams made composite with the floor slab by means of the shear studs. They claim that the differential thermal expansion caused the steel to expand and move over the concrete until the shear studs broke. Even though NIST itself acknowledges, and I again quote from the official report, “steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion.”

    To prove their point, they fed their variables into their computer to demonstrate how WTC 7 would have reacted to its fires. So what did NIST feed into its computer that caused it to say that the steel would have expanded so much more than the concrete slab that the 2′-0″ o.c., 3/4″ shear studs began failing at ~300 F? 
     
    NIST said (ie admitted) that it told the computer that the steel beams had been heated; but the concrete floor slab had not. To again quote NIST, “No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.”

    I am not arguing that the official report is false. Quite the contrary. I am in fact quoting it. But in the official story NIST admits, or at least states, that they fudged the data to support their story.

    btw, verification of 2.25 second free fall:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA

  • Anonymous

    NIST states that “differential thermal expansion occurred between the steel floor beams and concrete slab when the composite floor was subjected to fire.” The composite floor is the steel beams made composite with the floor slab by means of the shear studs. They claim that the differential thermal expansion caused the steel to expand and move over the concrete until the shear studs broke. Even though NIST itself acknowledges, and I again quote from the official report, “steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion.”

    To prove their point, they fed their variables into their computer model to demonstrate how WTC 7 would have reacted to its fires. So, what did NIST feed into its computer that caused it to say that the steel would have expanded so much more than the concrete slab that the 2′-0″ o.c., 3/4″ shear studs began failing at ~300 F?   
    NIST said (ie admitted) that it told the computer that the steel beams had been heated; but the concrete floor slab had not. To again quote NIST, “No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.”

    I am not arguing that the official report is false. Quite the contrary. I am in fact quoting it. But in the official story NIST admits, or at least states, that they fudged the data to support their story.

    btw, verification of 2.25 second free fall:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA

  • Anonymous

    NIST states that “differential thermal expansion occurred between the steel floor beams and concrete slab when the composite floor was subjected to fire.” The composite floor is the steel beams made composite with the floor slab by means of the shear studs. They claim that the differential thermal expansion caused the steel to expand and move over the concrete until the shear studs broke. Even though NIST itself acknowledges, and I again quote from the official report, “steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion.”

    To prove their point, they fed their variables into their computer model to demonstrate how WTC 7 would have reacted to its fires. So, what did NIST feed into its computer that caused it to say that the steel would have expanded so much more than the concrete slab that the 2′-0″ o.c., 3/4″ shear studs began failing at ~300 F?   
    NIST said (ie admitted) that it told the computer that the steel beams had been heated; but the concrete floor slab had not. To again quote NIST, “No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.”

    I am not arguing that the official report is false. Quite the contrary. I am in fact quoting it. But in the official story NIST admits, or at least states, that they fudged the data to support their story.

    btw, verification of 2.25 second free fall:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA

  • Anonymous

    NIST states that “differential thermal expansion occurred between the steel floor beams and concrete slab when the composite floor was subjected to fire.” The composite floor is the steel beams made composite with the floor slab by means of the shear studs. They claim that the differential thermal expansion caused the steel to expand and move over the concrete until the shear studs broke. Even though NIST itself acknowledges, and I again quote from the official report, “steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion.”

    To prove their point, they fed their variables into their computer model to demonstrate how WTC 7 would have reacted to its fires. So, what did NIST feed into its computer that caused it to say that the steel would have expanded so much more than the concrete slab that the 2′-0″ o.c., 3/4″ shear studs began failing at ~300 F?   
    NIST said (ie admitted) that it told the computer that the steel beams had been heated; but the concrete floor slab had not. To again quote NIST, “No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.”

    I am not arguing that the official report is false. Quite the contrary. I am in fact quoting it. But in the official story NIST admits, or at least states, that they fudged the data to support their story.

    btw, verification of 2.25 second free fall:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA

  • Albury Smith

    When David Chandler ends his career of teaching physics to high
    school kids, he might want to consider performances like this to keep himself
    busy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-P-bEHKVIE

    It’s unfortunate that SEs have to be subjected to misguided abuse
    from someone who can’t understand that collapse times are not evidence of the
    cause of one, and that the dynamic load of ~150,000 tons of falling building can
    easily make the difference between pure free fall and observed accelerations
    virtually indiscernible.

    NIST fully explained its modeling input in NCSTAR 1-9, and
    considered the concrete slab to be restrained by in-plane stiffness while the
    beams were expanding thermally. There were 28 3/4″ X 5″ shear studs welded to
    the top flanges of the ~53′  W24 X 55 beams, and all but 3 of them had failed at 300
    C. The first failures occurred at 105 C, so it’s quite obvious that even the
    slightest differential movement laterally in these assemblies will separate the
    beams from the slab. Given the asymmetrical loading in that
    location, the non-composite girders, and the gravity framing, i.e. no moment
    connections at the interior columns, the conclusion that four 7/8″ diameter ASTM 325 bolts at column
    79 would shear is amply warranted.

    I’d recommend reading the entire explanation, not simply citing and
    then repeating an inapplicable comment about coefficients of expansions that
    assumes a limited temperature range and equal heating. Please also keep in mind
    that the NIST hypotheses could be completely wrong and there’s still no evidence
    that any steel was cut with explosives. That would have been noticed by
    thousands of people during the nearly 8 months of cleanup at the WTC
    site, and the best anyone’s come up with so far is the photos of oxyacetylene torch-cut columns presented as evidence by Steven Jones.

  • Albury Smith

    When David Chandler ends his career of teaching physics to high
    school kids, he might want to consider performances like this to keep himself
    busy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-P-bEHKVIE

    It’s unfortunate that SEs have to be subjected to misguided abuse
    from someone who can’t understand that collapse times are not evidence of the
    cause of one, and that the dynamic load of ~150,000 tons of falling building can
    easily make the difference between pure free fall and observed accelerations
    virtually indiscernible.

    NIST fully explained its modeling input in NCSTAR 1-9, and
    considered the concrete slab to be restrained by in-plane stiffness while the
    beams were expanding thermally. There were 28 3/4″ X 5″ shear studs welded to
    the top flanges of the ~53′  W24 X 55 beams, and all but 3 of them had failed at 300
    C. The first failures occurred at 105 C, so it’s quite obvious that even the
    slightest differential movement laterally in these assemblies will separate the
    beams from the slab. Given the asymmetrical loading in that
    location, the non-composite girders, and the gravity framing, i.e. no moment
    connections at the interior columns, the conclusion that four 7/8″ diameter ASTM 325 bolts at column
    79 would shear is amply warranted.

    I’d recommend reading the entire explanation, not simply citing and
    then repeating an inapplicable comment about coefficients of expansions that
    assumes a limited temperature range and equal heating. Please also keep in mind
    that the NIST hypotheses could be completely wrong and there’s still no evidence
    that any steel was cut with explosives. That would have been noticed by
    thousands of people during the nearly 8 months of cleanup at the WTC
    site, and the best anyone’s come up with so far is the photos of oxyacetylene torch-cut columns presented as evidence by Steven Jones.

  • CraigWelbourn

    Unfortunately, because the official story of WTC7 has been exposed as being scientifically fraudulent (““No thermal expansion was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.”), all of your points have become moot. I’m not saying anyone knows what really happened, just that the official story isn’t it. What’s needed is a real investigation that takes all of the findings into account.

  • CraigWelbourn

    Unfortunately, because the official story of WTC7 has been exposed as being scientifically fraudulent (““No thermal expansion was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.”), all of your points have become moot. I’m not saying anyone knows what really happened, just that the official story isn’t it. What’s needed is a real investigation that takes all of the findings into account.

    • Albury Smith

      Exposed by whom, and who’s preventing your “truth movement” from doing its own modeling of composite flooring? The ASCE has no problem with the NIST findings, nor do these people:
      http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
      Numerous code revisions were made as a result of the NIST recommendations.
      What reputable organizations pay any attention to the bunk spewed by Gage, Jones, Ryan, Chandler, etc.?

  • Albury Smith

    Exposed by whom, and who’s preventing your “truth movement” from doing its own modeling of composite flooring? The ASCE has no problem with the NIST findings, nor do these people:
    http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
    Numerous code revisions were made as a result of the NIST recommendations.
    What reputable organizations pay any attention to the bunk spewed by Gage, Jones, Ryan, Chandler, etc.?

  • Albury Smith

    Exposed by whom, and who’s preventing your “truth movement” from doing its own modeling of composite flooring? The ASCE has no problem with the NIST findings, nor do these people:
    http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
    Numerous code revisions were made as a result of the NIST recommendations.
    What reputable organizations pay any attention to the bunk spewed by Gage, Jones, Ryan, Chandler, etc.?

  • Albury Smith

    Exposed by whom, and who’s preventing your “truth movement” from doing its own modeling of composite flooring? The ASCE has no problem with the NIST findings, nor do these people:
    http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
    Numerous code revisions were made as a result of the NIST recommendations.
    What reputable organizations pay any attention to the bunk spewed by Gage, Jones, Ryan, Chandler, etc.?

  • Albury Smith

    Exposed by whom, and who’s preventing your “truth movement” from doing its own modeling of composite flooring? The ASCE has no problem with the NIST findings, nor do these people:
    http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
    Numerous code revisions were made as a result of the NIST recommendations.
    What reputable organizations pay any attention to the bunk spewed by Gage, Jones, Ryan, Chandler, etc.?

  • Albury Smith

    Exposed by whom, and who’s preventing your “truth movement” from doing its own modeling of composite flooring? The ASCE has no problem with the NIST findings, nor do these people:
    http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
    Numerous code revisions were made as a result of the NIST recommendations.
    What reputable organizations pay any attention to the bunk spewed by Gage, Jones, Ryan, Chandler, etc.?

  • Albury Smith

    Exposed by whom, and who’s preventing your “truth movement” from doing its own modeling of composite flooring? The ASCE has no problem with the NIST findings, nor do these people:
    http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
    Numerous code revisions were made as a result of the NIST recommendations.
    What reputable organizations pay any attention to the bunk spewed by Gage, Jones, Ryan, Chandler, etc.?

  • sense I’m

    Albury Smith 9 11 Gormless Shill Troll – comprehensively debunked by
    logic, reason and scientific principles

  • sense I’m

    Albury Smith 9 11 Gormless Shill Troll – comprehensively debunked by
    logic, reason and scientific principles

  • sense I’m

    Albury Smith 9 11 Gormless Shill Troll – comprehensively debunked by
    logic, reason and scientific principles

    http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/06/9-11-sceptics-versus-logic-reason-and-scientific-principles/

    • Albury Smith

      You have nothing worthwhile to add to that discussion either, but how many different user names do you need?

      • Tracker

        DP needs no help and is doing a more than adequate job there of exposing you as a complete know-nothing incompetent shill. 

        http://www.911hardfacts.com/

  • sense I’m

    Albury Smith 9 11 Gormless Shill Troll – comprehensively debunked by
    logic, reason and scientific principles

    http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/06/9-11-sceptics-versus-logic-reason-and-scientific-principles/

  • Tuna Ghost

    I wish to make it absolutely clear that there exists no evidence whatsoever that Muslim fanatics hijacked aircraft on 9/11 and flew those aircraft on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

    So the phone calls made from passengers aboard the jets to their loved ones describing Arab men armed with boxcutters doesn’t count as evidence?  Or are they in on the plot too?

  • Albury Smith

    You have nothing worthwhile to add to that discussion either, but how many different user names do you need?

  • Tracker

    DP needs no help and is doing a more than adequate job there of exposing you as a complete know-nothing incompetent shill. 

    http://www.911hardfacts.com/

  • Guest

    Try and keep up fool. ( Albury Smith Lying Gormless Shill ) Your insidious bleatings are falling on deaf ears,
    as you shills are becoming even more insignificant and hilarious as
    each day passes.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/911-and-the-war-on-terror-polls-show-what-people-really-believe-10-years-later.html

    Your lies are no match for the truth, loser.

21
More in 911 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Conspiracies, Television
Jerry Seinfeld on Royal Wedding: ‘Let’s Pretend These Are Special People’ (Video)

Here could have said whatever he felt like, so I'm glad he called it like it is:

Close