911 inside job - for what?

[Stundie]

Yes indeed! Apparently, you failed to read the conclusions in their reports.

These reports were not signed by every single structual and civil engineers and demolition companies for you to conclude that all of them agree with the NIST theory...lol

[skyeagle409]

These reports were not signed by every single structual and civil engineers and demolition companies for you to conclude that all of them agree with the NIST theory...lol

The overwhelming majority came to the same conclusion and remember, Steven Jones and Richard Gage have been discredited in that regard.

remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Edited March 26, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

The overwhelming majority came to the same conclusion and remember, Steven Jones and Richard Gage have been discredited in that regard.

remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

So if the 123,000 member of the ASCE do not question the NIST report. That must mean they agree with it....

So if the 80,000 members of the AIA do not question the NIST report. That must mean they agree with it....

I think you have knocked me out with this stunning logical fallacy...lol

[skyeagle409]

So if the 123,000 member of the ASCE do not question the NIST report. That must mean they agree with it....

So if the 80,000 members of the AIA do not question the NIST report. That must mean they agree with it....

That is right, because that is where the evidence has been pointing. In other words, we have evidence proving that fires brought down the WTC buildings,, yet there is not one shred of evidence of explosives, recovered or otherwise,

[skyeagle409]

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

[Stundie]

That is right, because that is where the evidence has been pointing. In other words, we have evidence proving that fires brought down the WTC buildings,, yet there is not one shred of evidence of explosives, recovered or otherwise,

Clearly you do not understand logical fallacies...

Because you are sticking to the argument....lol

Showing us all how weak your arguments and points are...lol

Pssst!! Have a read....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[Stundie]

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

They didn't conclude the WTC7 was demolished because they didn't have any steel to examine did they??...lol Edited March 26, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

They didn't conclude the WTC7 was demolished because they didn't have any steel to examine did they??...

They didn't need to. Read the reports. Not one shred of evidence of explosive materials was ever found at ground zero. Without explosive evidence, you have no case.

Edited March 26, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

So if the 123,000 member of the ASCE do not question the NIST report. That must mean they agree with it....

So if the 80,000 members of the AIA do not question the NIST report. That must mean they agree with it....

Let's take another look.

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives

http://web.archive.org/web/20070809030224/http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

[poppet]

wtc 7 sure came down in a neat pile,hardly any damage to the neighboring buildings.

neat hole in building 6 some say this was caused from the falling tower.

building 6 has 8 floors ,i can count 8 here so where is the debris from this building ?

wtc 7 left hand side of image between the relatively unmarked building's ,47 stories high made of steel and concrete came to this debris pile in about 10 seconds really !! gee they sure don't make like they used to.

[Stundie]

They didn't need to.

So now your argument is that they do not need to look or examine any steel to determine how it collapsed?? :blink lol

This will come back and bite you, as I'll show you in a moment again the hypocritical lengths you will go to, to defend your theory.

Read the reports.

I've read them and so have lots of other people but there arguments and evidence are not that convincing I'm afraid. lol

Not one shred of evidence of explosive materials was ever found at ground zero.

Because they were never looked for...lol

Without explosive evidence, you have no case.

So if there is no evidence of explosives, then I have no case. Yet the NIST have no evidence of the steel in WTC7, then they have no case according to your own logic.

• No evidence of explosives on the steel = No case.
  
• No evidence of steel weakening the building = No case.
  

You truly are one logical retard in that you will happily contradict yourself and screw up your own arguments in order to prove your theory.

Its hilarious to watch this pantomime of contradictions....lol

Now I know what you will say next, the videos show the building on fire, therefore a case it collapsed via fires, even though we have videos of explosions too...lol

• No evidence of steel weakening the building but video showing WTC7 on fire = Proof and evidence.
  
• 
  No evidence of explosives on the steel but video showing explosives = Proof and evidence then right?? lol
  

[skyeagle409]

So now your argument is that they do not need to look or examine any steel to determine how it collapsed??

They didn't need to look for explosive evidence because the evidence would have covered ground zero in thousands of feet of detonation cords and blasting caps. No evidence of either was found.

[skyeagle409]

So if there is no evidence of explosives, then I have no case. Yet the NIST have no evidence of the steel in WTC7, then they have no case according to your own logic.

• No evidence of explosives on the steel = No case.
  
• No evidence of steel weakening the building = No case.
  

In regards to "no evidence of explosives on the steel, if there were, then there would have been evidence of detonation cords and blasting caps. None were found.

Columns are fully loaded with explosives and hooked

Blasting caps are used as a catalyst to set off the explosives loaded in support columns.

As for the no evidence that fire weaken the WTC steel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35zZeNcIAZ8

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse

of the World Trade Center Buildings

Disprove Explosives Theory

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse." - Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towersopposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tiltedas it came crashing down."

"The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."

Key findings include:

• Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
  
• Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.
  
• The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.
  

Read more here: Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

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

Now, what was that you said about no examinations, observations, or, no evidence that fire weaken steel?

Edited March 26, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

wtc 7 left hand side of image between the relatively unmarked building's ,47 stories high made of steel and concrete came to this debris pile in about 10 seconds really !! gee they sure don't make like they used to.

I might add that is not indicative of a demolition implosion process, as noted by demolition experts.

[skyeagle409]

Now I know what you will say next, the videos show the building on fire, therefore a case it collapsed via fires, even though we have videos of explosions too...lol

• No evidence of steel weakening the building but video showing WTC7 on fire = Proof and evidence.
  
• No evidence of explosives on the steel but video showing explosives = Proof and evidence then right??
  

None, whatsoever. No detonation cords nor blasting caps nor any evidence of explosives for that matter, not even on video, audio nor from seismic monitors. Without evidence, you have no case..

[Stundie]

In regards to "no evidence of explosives on the steel, if there were, then there would have been evidence of detonation cords and blasting caps. None were found.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I take it you have never heard of wireless technology...lol

I suppose that this is the only way to connect to the internet......lol

Columns are fully loaded with explosives and hooked

As for the no evidence that fire weaken the WTC steel.

None of it was examined by the NIST

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse

of the World Trade Center Buildings

Disprove Explosives Theory

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse." - Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towersopposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tiltedas it came crashing down."

"The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."

Key findings include:

• Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
  
• Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.
  
• The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.
  

Read more here: Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

Sorry but police, firemen and civilians do not have the experience or expertise to see the warning signs and are not qualified to make that judgement.

Just like they are not qualified or have the expertise to identify molten steel or explosions apparently...lol

Now, what was that you said about no examinations, observations, or, no evidence that fire weaken steel?

It ain't just what I said, it is what your bible the NIST said about their report into WTC7....lol

Its hilarious watching you claim that these police, firemen and civilians do no have the expertise to identify molten steel or explosives, but then in the next breath, they have the expertise and knowledge to determine the warning signs a building is going to collapse.

The funniest part is that you do not see how pathetic your arguments are and how dumb you look everytime you hypocritically contradict yourself without realising what you are doing....lol

[skyeagle409]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I take it you have never heard of wireless technology...

But, you have implied that explosives were used and yet, you have provided not one shred of evidence, while on the other hand you have been debunked and refuted with undeniable evidence, and that is what counts.

As I have said, no evidence, no case.

The funniest part is that you do not see how pathetic your arguments are and how dumb you look everytime you hypocritically contradict yourself without realising what you are doing....lol

The amusing part is that you have failed to refute the evidence.

[Stundie]

None, whatsoever. No detonation cords nor blasting caps nor any evidence of explosives for that matter, not even on video, audio nor from seismic monitors. Without evidence, you have no case..

So now because the only way to set explosives off is with detonation cord....hahahahahahahahaha!!!

Jesus, the stupidity of your arguments is the equivalent of you pointing out that someone has there pants down, while you are standing there with your pockets folded out, with your zip undone exposing yourself, looking like a trouser elephant. lol

The thing is, you are serious...you think this is a serious argument...lol

[Stundie]

But, you have implied that explosives were used and yet, you have provided not one shred of evidence, while on the other hand you have been debunked and refuted with undeniable evidence, and that is what counts.

As I have said, no evidence, no case.

The amusing part is that you have failed to refute the evidence.

Oh the irony, it if was pill, you would be at the morgue lying on a slab, over dosed on it...lol

[skyeagle409]

Its hilarious watching you claim that these police, firemen and civilians do no have the expertise to identify molten steel or explosives, but then in the next breath, they have the expertise and knowledge to determine the warning signs a building is going to collapse.

How amusing considering that it doesn't take an expert to observe a buckling building to understand that the building is buckling.

Oh the irony, it if was pill, you would be at the morgue lying on a slab, over dosed on it...lol

That doesn't work, and the work for you is to come up with explosive evidence, which you have failed to do.

[Stundie]

How amusing considering that it doesn't take an expert to observe a buckling building to understand that the building is buckling.

Yes it does.

Only a structural engineer has the capability, expertise and knowledge to make that call according to your OWN logic...

Therefore you have no case...lol

That doesn't work, and the work for you is to come up with explosive evidence, which you have failed to do.

Well I do have evidence n the form of eyewitnesses and videos capturing explosions, but when someone thinks that they know better than those who were at GZ, how can they ever be convinced?? lol Edited March 26, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

Yes it does.

For all to see, where is your evidence? No money, no case.

[skyeagle409]

So now because the only way to set explosives off is with detonation cord...

Still no evidence on your part that refutes the evidence I have presented?!

[Stundie]

For all to see, where is your evidence? No money, no case.

Eyewitnesses and videos capturing the explosions are not evidence apparently.

Real evidence consists of sitting behind a keyboard claiming that everyone is wrong because they have more expertise and knowledge, even though they were not at GZ apparently....lol

Still no evidence on your part that refutes the evidence I have presented?!

Evidence you have presented in the form of non experts.

Just like the evidence I presented, from non experts! lol

[skyeagle409]

Eyewitnesses and videos capturing the explosions are not evidence apparently.[/quoe]

Eyewitnesses did hear bomb explosions.

Not bomb explosions. BTW, what type of explosions are common in New York City? On another note, no video exist that depicts explosions during the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Molten Aluminum

A photograph leaked from the ASCE-FEMA investigation shows a stream of what appears to be molten aluminum exiting from the northeast corner. This would indicate that what was left of the aircraft when it reached the north end of its travel was massive enough to have destroyed at least one floor.

NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4

Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten material began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.