Wrong. I said he may have been afraid, first off.

Second, I was referring to his private testimony he gave to the 9/11 commission behind closed doors. He mentions explosives in a document (complaint) submitted by an attorney - an entirely different scenario than going solo in a face-to-face "tribunal".



So what? Does he specifically deny the existence of a fireball? No. But because he didn't mention the fireball in his complaint, you leap to the feeblest of conclusions, and claim that he is therefore denying it existed?! Come on, get serious. That's the sort of smear tactics Roberts uses all the time. It doesn't work.

There seems to be an endless supply of conspiracy theories regarding 9/11... While I wouldn't put it past our govt, I still can't bring myself to fully believe it was an inside job. Everyone here makes excellent points (as well as on other forums tackling the same topic); maybe i'm just hoping for the best out of a horrible tragedy.

You're referring back to this, I assume?....

"My story has not changed." But, "It is a well known fact that I was believeing the goverment official story early on. As I asked questions and put things together, the whole thing changed from their side and also from mine." Then, "I do not say there were bombs in the building."

Where is Roberts' source(s) for these quotes?

The quotes are linked, but the link just sends you to another page on Robert's site. And the page doesn't even have those quotes!

I'd like to know where to actually find them, and then I'll comment on it further.

Ah, we're back to the argument that if you actually studied the collapses you're automatically biassed in favour of the government.
You are shifting the goalposts again.
How would you like it if I asked you for anti-"official" structural engineers, then objected to any who are members of AE911Truth because that showed a lack of independence??

Hiding the charges under the spray-on insulation was the only way turbonium could think up for concealing a CD setup. Your thermite set-up couldn't conceivably be hidden in that manner, yet you support turbonium. You are being misleading.

As your idea of an "unconventional controlled demolition" can look like whatever you want it to, it is hardly any form of evidence. Sudden initiation isn't what happened, both towers showed bowing of the walls before collapse. All the other features you list are also predicted by the engineering analyses of a "natural" collapse.

You can't have horizontal separation when the penthouse is sitting on the rest of the structure. When did you demonstrate that charges at high level could be fired seconds before the rest?

Try office fire and heavy damage from an aircraft impact.

All the factors were changed at once so that they could only run three cases - if each was varied separately you would need hundreds of cases. None of the variables were changed beyond what was consisdered to be the uncertainty in the estimates of the values used for the baseline case. Note that the agreement with the impact damage was still good for the severe case, so the actual impact severity was more than the baseline. The less severe case gave poor agreement. In going from baseline to severe case, NIST were not "moving further away", they were moving towards and beyond the actual impact.
You still do not grasp the significance of the bowing prediction. No-one else has managed to predict the bowing using any other set of circumstances, so the severe case is the only one that fits this aspect of the evidence. It fits it very well, not just predicting bowing as a phenomenon, but correctly predicting its location too. From the way the damage and the bowing are releated, it is clear that the bowing will start at an impact level intermediate between the baseline and severe cases, and such an impact would give a better match to the impact damage than either of the cases run. There is no problem in engineering terms with accepting NIST's conclusion.

You are not qualified to judge how plausible Gilsanz's theory is, and as he has a computational structural model and you don't, I know who I'd put money on.
You keep on about "preconceived conclusions", but if a building is damaged and catches fire, then collapses, the damage and fire are the obvious places to start. If a technical analysis starting from that damage and fire leads to a collapse, then you need to find extra evidence that a CD predicts and the "natural collapse" doesn't before you need to explore CD as a cause. You have yet to find any evidence in this category.

He assumed a very large quantity of dust because it was the only thing he could think of to absorb the energy of the collapse. He gave no justification for picking such a large quantity.

If you cannot come up with a plausible alternative theory which you can agree on, only two mutually incompatible theories, why should I believe either?

I'm suggesting that any CD involves a lot of equipment that is difficult to hide, and you have failed to prove otherwise. Magic "cutting edge techniques" like q24's thermite column cutter have to be demonstrated before anyone believes in them, and couldn't be hidden as you suggest in any case.

Now you are going for q24's "It's a CD if it looks like a CD and it's a CD if it doesn't look like a CD". This argument is unfalsifiable, hence worthless.

"Implausible" is only your opinion, and you have no structural engineering background, so what is your opinion worth?

Any engineer can check the published papers on the collapses, and I've no doubt that the subject will become part of the education of every future structural engineer. I know that the reasons for past engineering disasters played a part in my own engineering education. I work in the aerospace industry, and I've discussed the collapses with my colleagues. All these engineers can all check for themselves how plausible Gilsanz is. What does an engineer in a different discipline have to lose by speaking out? What does a student engineer planning to go into the financial sector have to lose? How about a retired engineer? An engineer in Iran or China?

He tells his story to everyone in the media who puts a microphone in front of his face, gives public talks about it, but he is scared of the powers that be? You are just quibbling.

If he thought at that point that the fireball had the significance he now attributes to it, he would have included it.

I suggest that you look a little harder at that second page:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/idonotsa...hasn%27tchanged
The middle quote is there, and some close approximations to the other two quotes - "From day one, I have told the same story" and "I always talk about explosion, not bombs". All quotes from Rodriguez on that page are linked to sources.

You guy's wouldn't believe the truth unless it punched you directly in the mouth..

Here is an example of some lady trying deliberately to alter a sound track on a 9-11 film.

YouTube has numerous films where kids have increased the audio, to suggest explosive sounds.

It's either idiocy, or some weird agenda, or monetary desire to sell lies to fools willing to part with their money.

For example-

Link1

Link 2

I don't need to prove that the charges would be "difficult" to hide. The only relevant point is that the charges could have been hidden. Whether or not that would have been difficult to do makes no difference.



You're missing the point. To correctly revise your quote: "It's a conventional CD if it looks like a conventional CD and it's an unconventional[i] CD if it looks like an [i]unconventional CD".

In other words, they both look like CD's. The only distinction is the method of CD.



More than someone who displays no evidence of even having a structural engineering background, that's for sure.



First of all, my point was to explain why it may be difficult for those within the engineering community to speak out. I didn't say that none of them had spoken out. I'm quite sure you realize that there are qualified engineers speaking out against the NIST theories, don't you? There are websites specifically devoted to disputing the official account of collapse(s), which have an ever-increasing membership of qualified professionals.

You must be aware of such sites as this?...

http://www.ae911truth.org/

They currently have 317 architectural and engineering professionals who have signed a petition, demanding that Congress initiate a new, fully independent investigation.

So that settles your contention that there are no engineers speaking out.

Guys, I haven't read through all of the above posts. Lemme tell you something. I think in terms of probability. Remember probability? Probability is the damnest thing. You start with the probability of A happening, and then multiply that by the probability of B happening.

Here we go. A group of well-trained and devoted terrorists use (we don't know which) foreign power to forge passport documents that pass United States security. Probability of that? maybe 1 in (however many tourists or immigrants enter the U.S. in a given year).

Said terrorists purchase training to fly Jumbo Jet aircraft. Well, they entered the U.S. and were resident students or whatever. Maybe 1 in 1000.

Somehow, they gained expertise in materials engineering to the point that they knew that the flash point of jet fuel would melt the particular type of steel used in WTC. Well, probability that Osama bin Laden recruited material science specialists or had the engineering background to "know" or train this type of knowledge: maybe 1 in 100,000.

That the FBI did not recognize the potential (and don't BS me about FBI's mission is to investigate for U.S. domestic state and federal criminal law...) - or CIA for that matter (and I put U.S. intel above Mossad - maybe Mossad ruled in the 1970's but not post-Reagan) 1 in 300,000,000 (about the population of the U.S.) God knows NSA computers track all our internet traffic and phone calls as it is.

So, we have 1 in a million X 1 in a thousand X 1 in a hundred thousand X 1 in three hundred million.

Of course these numbers are unqualified as I am writing this off the cuff. But, just use the probabilities.

Is it possible that a group of fifteen or so terrorists entered the U.S. and lived underground for 3 to 5 years undetected with a mission to destroy WTC? Yes, it's possible. Is it likely? Probably not...

To have a case, you need to show that it would have been possible to hide a CD set-up taking months to prepare without any risk of the building staff noticing anything suspicious. All you have so far is an unqualified opinion.

As no-one on your side of the argument seems able to agree on what an unconventional CD would actually involve, this does not help your case. All I can see is people picking on each little aspect that they don't understand and weaving some piece of speculation around it. The trouble is, these bits of speculation do not join together to make a consistent story. A typical example is you proposing very small HE charges that are easily hidden, while q24 goes for very big thermite charges to explain the molten cascade down WTC2. HE doesn't explain the cascade, large thermite charges can't be hidden under the spray-on insulation. Until the proponents of unconventional CD can agree on what unconventional CD actually is, my characterisation of it as anything that doesn't look like a conventional CD seems pretty accurate.

I'm an aerospace engineer, but I had a general engineering education that included structures.

Er, it was your contention that there are no engineers speaking out, not mine. I said that most engineers accept the official story, you claimed that they only said that because they couldn't speak out: "Who's going to take a stand against the entire community, when it might cost him his career?" You are arguing with yourself here.
As to AE911Truth, if you check out the thread on that, you will see that they do not check if their members actually hold the qualifications they claim, and some of the statements those members make raise considerable doubts. The "disputing the official account" by this organisation is curiously based almost entirely on quoting the ususal conspiracist arguments rather than publishing technical rebuttals to the papers that explain the collapses.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...6598&st=150

You seriously believe that only one fake passport gets past US immigration each year?

What's to stop apparantly legal residents with the money enrolling in flight school? Try 1 in 1 for this.

Completely irrelevent. First, there is no evidence that they planned for anything beyond the aircraft hitting the buildings. Second, the collapse mechanism didn't involve steel melting.

Seeing that crimes do occasionally occur, even in the US, I think you overestimate the prowess of the FBI and the intelligence services.

In other words, if you make up a lot of big numbers, you get even bigger numbers if you multiply them together. Surprising

No, you are just quibbling. How many times do I have to tell you - I said he may have been too scared to mention explosives. But it's a totally irrelevant matter anyway, so stop quibbling about it.



Amazing logic. It seems you don't even know what your actual argument is. Or, maybe you do know what your argument is, but you can't understand the fact that your examples don't support your argument.

Rodriguez said nothing about the fireball in his complaint. That does not mean he denied its existence. You assume he "would have included it" if he thought it existed. That's simply your opinion. You run off with that opinion as if it's a proven fact, and make a nonsense conclusion.

It's time you showed some actual evidence for your argument, or concede that it has no validity. Personal opinions and wild leaps in logic do not cut it.



Excuse me? There are "some close approximations"?? I asked you for source(s) for the actual quotes you posted -not "close approximations" of them.

Roberts (and you) claim this to be a DIRECT quote from Rodriguez...

"I do not say there were bombs in the building."

I asked you for a source for that quote. Apparently, YOU DON'T HAVE A SOURCE FOR THAT QUOTE. You just give me this quote...

"I always talk about explosion, not bombs - since I am not an explosives expert."

This is NOT a "close approximation". And even if it was, that wouldn't excuse what you and Roberts are doing.


So far, I know that you and Roberts are guilty of not providing a source for this quote...

"I do not say there were bombs in the building."

(That's bad enough, especially since you and Roberts are the ones trying to make your whole case by picking away at Rodriguez' quotes!)

I also know that you are unable to provide a source for this quote.

And now, I'd like to know this - exactly WHY are you unable to provide a source for this quote?

Is it because Roberts made it up?

I told you that Roberts was spewing out nonsense. It appears that you're quite happy to just keep on regurgitating it.

I had said that the numbers were off the cuff. Can you proceed with a more objective probability scenario? I'm having dinner now.

Rodriguez himself says he mentioned explosives to the 9/11 Commission:
http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/arti...18131/28031.htm

Quibble as much as you like, there is plenty of evidence of Rodriguez contradicting himself:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/idonotsa...hasn%27tchanged

Roberts appears to have paraphrased Rodriguez' statement, but I don't see that he has altered its meaning. In any case, Roberts' link from the papaphrase leads to the actual quote, so Roberts isn't hiding anything. The fact remains that Rodriguez claims not to mention bombs, but does just that.
With your record on the Apollo hoax thread, you are hardly in a position to accuse anyone else of making up quotes:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...nium&st=408

From what I've seen over the last few years, it seems like the first of any new type of terrorist attack has a good probability of succeeding, because the security forces are not looking out for it. As long as hi-jacks normally ended peacefully, it wasn't worth the effort of confiscating all passengers' box cutters or nail scissors. Once it has happened, the chances of a repeat attempt fall, but the chances of another new type remain high. Even then, some types of attack remain hard to stop because of the sheer impracticality of searching everyone carrying a bag/wearing shoes/etc on public transport.

No. You don't understand what is and what is not relevant to "have a case". There already IS a case - a case for a new, independent investigation. We have overwhelming evidence that three WTC buildings were brought down by CD. That demands a criminal investigation. The specific details of the crime - who was involved, how could the charges have been hidden, etc. - are borne out through the investigation.

You're putting the cart before the horse.



Again, most of the specific details of a crime - like 9/11 - can only be brought to light through an investigation. The evidence we have already warrants that investigation. You need to realize that.



I never would have guessed that in a million years. Heh.



Are you implying that some of them are lying about their credentials? Let's go to an extreme, and say 2/3 of them were lying. That would still mean ~100 members of ae911truth are qualified professionals who dispute the official account.

You have no relevant argument here.

Weak-minded persons who proclaim that numerous U.S. government agencies, private companies, and other individuals killed all those people, are simply deluded. What was their goal? When will they achieve that goal?

These knee-jerk, j***-a** brained paranoids have intellectual "soft-spots" where light fails to penetrate.

Their credentials are meaningless, without indisputable examples, clear and proven beyond all doubt and artful lies.

Oh, of course. This is more like internet gamesmanship, than reality.

What an insult to all those who suffered and died.

I just would like to add that 15 of the individuals portrayed as the terrorists became affiliated with Al Qaeda only in 1999-2000... after a CIA infiltration plan happened to commence in 1999. At any rate, this does not suggest they were the lifelong, diehard Al Qaeda fanatics that many people expect.

Yes, from the point of view of world leaders, people are a resource of their nation. What do you think you, or a few thousand others like you, are worth to your country? Are you indispensable or do you have a price? As an extreme example to prove the case, let’s say your country’s leaders had a choice… unlimited oil and guaranteed world pre-eminence for the next 100 years… or MID’s welfare. Tell me which they will take.



The PNAC, their neoconservative agenda, the required “new Pearl Harbor” to further their plan, infiltration of the US government by these people and historical precedent is all imaginative, wishful thinking????????????

Why would I be arguing that “if you actually studied the collapses you’re automatically biased in favour of the government”, when I have previously linked to 300+ construction professionals who, having studied the collapses, completely disagree with the official version? I gave the definition of “independent” as when I say…

“There are in fact more independent construction professionals who have spoken out against the ‘official’ story than are in favour of it.”

… or ask you to…

“provide your list of independent construction professionals who support the official fairytale”

… you for some reason continue referring to the NIST team. You do know NIST are an agency of the US Government and as such cannot be seen to be speaking out against that government, don’t you? At least that is policy of the British civil service and I am sure it is similar for the US: -

“Also, under regulations first adopted in 1954 and revised in 1984, members of the Senior Civil Service (the top management grades) are barred from holding office in a political party or publicly expressing controversial political viewpoints, while less senior civil servants at an intermediate (managerial) level must generally seek permission to participate in political activities. The most junior civil servants are permitted to participate in political activities, but must be politically neutral in the exercise of their duties.”

I would certainly consider implying that the WTC buildings were destroyed by anything other than airliners and/or fire is an extremely controversial political viewpoint. What value NIST’s ‘conclusion’ when it is preconceived and politically determined?

So come on, where are the “hundreds of thousands” of independent construction professionals who support the ‘official’ story, or at least 300+ rivalling the number of those who oppose it?



My own assertion is that selective placement alone, whatever the charge type, is sufficient for concealment of the controlled demolition providing that WTC security and/or maintenance was overviewed by the ‘correct’ people. I still though support the idea that it may have been possible for linear shaped cutting charges to be concealed beneath the fireproofing.



It could not be predicted that the whole structures were about to enter into total and immediate near freefall collapses; the initial collapse movement was sudden. The minor bowing to the Towers’ perimeters does not indicate that ‘global’ collapse is about to ensue and in previous cases where partial collapse has occurred, this has been preceded by severe distortion of the entire collapse area.

As there is precedent for high-rise steel framed building controlled demolitions exhibiting sudden initiation, virtual symmetry, near freefall and complete collapses, yet no precedent for any other method causing these features, it appears more like your ‘natural’ collapse can look like whatever you want it to.



I was referring to the separation from its horizontal supports and the floors of the column that ran through the structure directly below the penthouse. Anyhow, I am not committed to the idea that the penthouse structure had to be destroyed before the rest. I believe it likely that the penthouse structure coming down seconds before the main collapse was not a design of the demolition but simply an effect of the initial high level charges used to weaken the building before the main charges caused complete collapse.

I demonstrated that charges at a high level may be fired seconds before the rest as in the case of the JL Hudson building. Also the Maputo demolition shows high level charges approximately 8 seconds prior to the main collapse.



Sorry, I will rephrase - it is quite ridiculous that an office fire and random damage should imitate the results of that setup.



Enough said.



The perimeter bowing was due primarily to a combination of gravity load transfer from the core and pull-in forces. So are you trying to say that an airliner impact and fire is the only possible event with the properties that would produce these factors? No, weakening and distortion of the core columns through demolition charges would produce these conditions.

You say the bowing predicted by NIST fits very well when in fact, through running the severe impact and fire cases and applying pull-in forces, the WTC1 model showed bowing of only 31 in. rather than the 55 in. observed in reality. NIST had already increased all variables to their maximum extremity and could not get a match. This indicates another factor must have caused the bowing – entirely likely the demolition scenario I mentioned above.

As for predicting the location of the bowing, if NIST had simply set the models on their merry way and bowing was predicted where observed as you imply, well that would have been quite impressive! Luckily, having read the reports, I know better than to take you at your word on these issues. In NIST’s own words: -

“The analysis of a single exterior face provided insight into the conditions that would result in the inward bowing of the south wall of WTC 1 and the east wall of WTC 2 observed in photographs.”

And further: -

“The exterior wall models were used to estimate the pull-in force magnitude and locations for each tower that would produce the observed bowing of the exterior wall.”

In other words, NIST observed the bowing in photographic evidence and then sought to provide the figures that would result in it. They saw bowing in the WTC1 south wall and so included pull-in forces precisely to that wall. This is not any sort of prediction but, as we have become accustomed to, a ‘fixing’ of the figures to support a preconceived conclusion.



What exactly is NIST’s conclusion? All confirmed is that an increased impact situation from that observed, highly questionable fire models and ‘fixing’ of figures to preconceptions can initiate collapse in a simulation. I have no problem accepting that conclusion either. But seriously, I tend to concentrate on the reality of the situation, not NIST’s ‘twilight zone’ scenario.



Gilsanz has not released his computer model of the WTC7 collapse. If it exists, for sure I would believe that, by completely removing the column below the penthouse, it simulated a kink. What I would be interested to see is how the model supposes this column was removed in the first place and further how this resulted in virtually symmetrical, near freefall, global collapse. For instance, in his FEMA paper, Gilsanz describes the fire causing collapse as having “a low probability of occurrence”, yet in his more recent paper he continually refers to the fires without question. Evidence and explanation of the cause and collapse are the vital points Gilsanz omits (basically everything then) and anyone with an enquiring mind is more than qualified to judge how comprehensive his theory is, or is not, without them.

Covert or false flag operations are by their very nature designed not to be obvious. Still, as you say, what seems ‘obvious’ is a good starting point. What irks is when a ‘starting point’ becomes a preconception, followed to the detriment of any other explanation. Why continue on a path that is proving impossible for the experts to reconcile without ‘fixing’ and ‘stretching’ the figures when there is an explanation – controlled demolition – that is supported by a host of evidence and easily answers every outstanding question.



Ross assumed that 10% of the concrete was pulverised and, judging by visual evidence of the large dust cloud during and after collapse, this appears reasonable. Incidentally, even if Ross had assumed 5% this would still have demonstrated an energy deficiency in continuing the collapse. Yes, this is an area where estimation is necessary, though it is more realistic than not allowing for the dust cloud at all, as with Bazant’s paper where it is inexplicably assumed that “all the impact forces go into the columns”.



Because in explaining the collapses, the controlled demolition has various possibilities, whilst the ‘official’ story has none.

Thanks for the link to Roberts' site again - I might have had trouble finding it the other 84 times you posted it.



No, Roberts appears to have deliberately fabricated a quote which Rodriguez never said.



You don't? Let's compare them. First, his actual quote...

"I always talk about explosion, not bombs - since I am not an explosives expert."

Now, the quote Roberts made up...

"I do not say there were bombs in the building."

Roberts' makes up a significantly different "claim" - that Rodriguez denies bombs were in the building.

It sure as hell does alter the meaning.



Ah, yes, a truly honorable man, your Mr. Roberts is.

He makes up quotes and uses them to slander and smear Rodriguez. He's a lying, deceiving weasel.



No, you're hardly in a position to take me on with this old claptrap, bub.

But if you'd like to try, be my guest.

Just don't have some kind of emotional breakdown when you finally realize you can't win what you started. Like someone else did after trying to smear me with it last month.

Thankfully, we now live in a world of computer simulations - where pigs can fly, chipmunks can speak fluent Russian, and massive steel columns offer as much resistance as balsa wood.

Its interesting how, when the same demand as is quoted above is made of you, you employ your usual diversionary tactics of changing the subject, nitpicking over matters of semantics, or claiming that you are "gathering evidence to post at a later time" which seems to never come.

Perhaps you should start providing any kind actual hard evidence for any of your opinion-based ideas - here and elsewhere - before demanding others do the same.



Cz

Evidence? What evidence? All you have is opinions. If there was any actual evidence, of course there would be further investigation, the trouble is there is no evidence.

Again, what evidence?

Of course you wouldn't. You have no qualifications, so you can't recognise when someone else does.

Badeskov did a check on four picked at random and found only one appeared to actually exist. I picked one at random and found no evidence that he was what he claimed to be. On these admittedly small samples, the proportion of liars looks more than 2/3. Note that their list doesn't include many structural engineers. I think the genuine structural engineers on that list number well below ten.
If they are genuine structural engineers, why don't they come up with technical reasons for their opinions?

As you have no engineering expertise whatever, I obviously have to explain to you (again) that there is a difference between film industry CGI and an engineering computer simulation. The difference is that the latter incorporates the physics of real-world behaviour. That is why computer simulations are used for pretty well all engineering designs these days. If you don't trust the methods used by NIST, better not enter any new buildings, because they were designed with the same methods.

Now, now. Just the second time.

No, he uses a paraphrase to link to the actual quote.

If Rodriguez says he doesn't talk about bombs, it hardly matters where the bombs he doesn't talk about were supposed to be.

As he in fact does talk about bombs (in the buildings, as it happens), he contradicts himself.

You made up a quote to slander and smear NASA, but Czero101 has beaten me to the pot, kettle comment.

I think that the link I gave was enough evidence in itself - you made up a quote (post #397), repeated it (post #406), then under questioning (post #407) had to admit fabricating it (post #408). You then claimed it was a joke, but still got a mods warning for lying (post # 410). Since then, I've found no problem in treating all your posts as jokes.

I've covered most of this is my recent replies to turbonium.
You still seem to be missing the point that a lot of the names on the NIST report are from non-government organisations, not NIST staff.

Your proposed charges are enormous, hiding them is implausible, and you have produced no evidence for your claim that maintenance staff were kept out of any areas.

Bowing is an indication of incipient structural failure, and it occured several minutes before the collapse. The failures, on that basis, were not sudden.

Where is the precedent for an occupied building being prepped for CD? Where is the precedent for a CD setup surviving impact damage and fire? Where is the precedent for a CD leaving no physical clues?
The features of the collapses have been modelled in computational simulations without the need to resort to CD, so that is how I know what a "natural" collapse looks like.
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.pdf

By horizontal separation, I meant that one side of the JL Hudson building was brought down first, while the second part, at a horizontal separation from the first, followed. In other words, left first then right. A vertical separation means top first then bottom, and you have yet to show an example of vertical separation with a several second delay. I certainly can't see it in your Maputo video, which seems to show charges going off at several levels simultaneously, first to separate the sections of the building then to demolish them - horizontal separation again.

Ah, another of your profound engineering judgements based on years of study. Perhaps you should actually start that study some time.
That apart, while the final seconds of the WTC7 collapse indeed look like a CD, there are key features that look nothing like a CD, including the damage, the long-duration fires and the penthouse collapse. The towers look nothing like a CD, full stop.

The less severe case was the one in a direction away from the actual impact, the more severe case and the baseline case bracketed it.

Er, you are simultaneously claiming that the NIST simulation fit to the bowing isn't good enough for you, and that NIST used the actual bowing as an input. You do realise that there is an incompatibility between these arguments? You can only have pull-in forces if you have a possible cause for such forces. The NIST structural and fire modelling has this cause, but your CD theory hasn't.

I did suggest that you contacted Gilsanz directly with your questions about his model, but for some obscure reason you claimed this was not practical. How impractical is it for you to send an e-mail? Why is so much more impractical than posting here?

The experts appear to think that their collapse process is far from impossible, so who are you to disagree? On the other hand, the experts for some reason do not appear to share your opinion that there is any evidence for CD, rather that the evidence rules out CD.

Your double standards are showing. After all your quibbles about NIST, you are quite happy that Ross picked a number out of thin air.
Bazant and Zhou's paper assumes that the columns take the forces because that is the conservative assumption. If the columns don't stop the collapse, the weaker parts of the structure certainly wont.

If these possibilities are mutually incompatible, the CD theory is in trouble. The official theory doea not need anything beyond the fact of the impacts and the use of standard engineering prediction methods.

The pseudo-ists would say what?

Let's not fix holes and problems in (what used to be) INS.

Let's not tighten airline travel procedures.

Let's not reconsider or act upon our foreign policy issues.

Let's conduct a witchhunt.

Let's stumble around with pre-industrial era level analysis.

Let's screw up and make some of the dumbest conclusions, any country can make.

Let's not be practical, and waste our time and efforts listening to the lesser lights of academia, or the INTERNET!


I am convinced some people are "color-blind", when it comes to dealing with various aspects of reality.

And, frankly, if the crazo suicidal types are convinced they need "connections on the inside" to make their trouble, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Ive just watched the movie, A mighty heart based on the book Mariane Pearl.
In one scene a jourmalist is interviewing a guy about the 911 bombings and the guy says it was orchestrated by the jews, that 4000 jewish people who worked in the towers did not turn up for work that day, does anyone know if this is true or ficton for the book.

That is not true at all..... Just a rumor and not a very nice one.

Indeed it is poor fiction. Here is one of the first links I found on a quick google, if you don't like the 'official'-ness of the source there are planty of other sites that discuss the same stats.

Im not doubting what you guys say, i found it hard to believe.
but the movie is based on a true story an was written by the kidnaped journalists wife. funny how she would put that in her version of the story and the movie. the wife was played by Angelie jolie.

Isn’t it strange that this ‘4,000 Israelis didn’t go to work’ rumour got such widespread coverage after 9/11 and was even given more publicity by the government website linked. Everyone seems to know about this rumour.

Yet hardly anyone seems to know that five Israeli intelligence agents were arrested in New York on 9/11 in direct relation to the attacks.

Dissemination of false rumours to discredit the truths perhaps?

The point is it’s a government report with the individual study areas tied together by the NIST team leaders and as such cannot be seen to be publicly expressing a controversial political viewpoint.

Notwithstanding the above, I took a good look at the list of NIST contractors. As I have been saying, the area of contribution is important and sure enough everything from occupant behaviour and evacuation studies to fire alarm and smoke management system analysis was revealed – completely irrelevant to the physical collapses.

It happens that the largest group of contractors are employees of Science Applications International Corporation who, as well as having had well-known public servants on its Board of Directors including a former CIA Director, interestingly are the ninth largest Department of Defense contractor in the US and have also worked with the FBI and NSA – hardly unaffiliated.

After filtering out the members who did not make a direct contribution to the Tower impact, fire and collapse initiation simulation, I was left with only four companies comprising of less than 30 listed staff altogether, plus a handful of other individuals.

Considering all of the above, NIST’s list is entirely unimpressive compared to the 300+ Architects and Engineers who are calling for a new investigation.



Linear cutting charges are not ‘enormous’ at all: -



Neither would the thermite units, used to finally initiate the collapses, be ‘enormous’ and concealment was quite plausible through selective placement around the structural columns in service areas and elevator shafts.



The downward movement of the upper block was sudden. In the case of the Madrid building where partial collapse occurred, the entire area severely distorted and sagged prior to that collapse. Limited bowing to one area of a single wall is not an indication that ‘global collapse’ is about to occur.



Sorry, I thought we were talking about the physical collapse characteristics of the buildings for which there is much precedent seen in controlled demolitions, not your personal misgivings of how the demolition setup was achieved.



Oh heck, I can’t stop laughing! It must have taken you a long time to find a ‘study’ that bad. Did you link it as an attempt to actually make the NIST report look reasonable by comparison? All the usual suspects, ie preconceptions and lack of evidence, are included, plus… wait for it… this is brilliant… in the model, the WTC1 impact is in the wrong location! Look at it – the impact is too low on the model. But hey, if the model says so… And you said that is how you know what a natural collapse looks like… when it is blatantly out of sync with reality!



The JL Hudson and Maputo demolitions both show that it can be necessary to weaken high level areas of the structure prior to the main collapse. The same can be true of WTC7. You may quibble about the demolition techniques but there are plenty more examples. The Honolulu demolition shows high level explosives approximately 9 seconds prior to collapse (see third view in the video). The Fort Worth demolition shows high level explosives approximately 5 seconds prior to collapse. It is plainly ridiculous to say that a demolition of WTC7 could not feature high level explosives prior to its collapse.



You have absolutely no concept of what “covert” or “unconventional” mean, do you?



Whoopdedoo, NIST ‘bracketed it’ between the expected case that did not initiate collapse and a severe case that did. Remind me again – did NIST at any point simulate the actual reality of the impact damage?



Er, I am stating: -

1. Through the severe case impact damage and fire, NIST could not reproduce the degree of bowing seen in photographic evidence.
2. The bowing in computer models is only in the correct location as NIST specifically placed it there.

Bearing the above points in mind, why did you write, “It fits it very well, not just predicting bowing as a phenomenon, but correctly predicting its location too”? Were you lying or was it just a complete misunderstanding on your part?

The controlled demolition scenario easily explains the bowing. Where the core is weakened by the initial linear cutting charges, additional loads and stress will be transferred to the perimeter. Also, distortion or inward deflection of the core columns due to these charges could cause a greater pull-in force than sagging floor trusses ever could.



That is a clear admittance that Gilsanz’ article does not in fact contain evidence and explanation of the cause and collapse process. Why should I be interested in contacting Gilsanz? I only point out the vital omitted areas to show how vague the theory is. You should be the one e-mailing Gilsanz as it is a bit of a joke supporting a theory you don’t understand in full.



Which ‘experts’ are you talking about now?



Ross did not pick a number out of thin air, he gave a reasonable estimate based on photographic evidence, which is a whole lot better than ignoring altogether the energy required to pulverise the concrete as Bazant did.

It is shocking you can’t even understand this very basic point – assuming that the most vital part of the structure, ie the columns, are impacted with more force than is possible, is not a conservative assumption in considering the Tower’s survival. If, as witnessed, energy is expended in breaking the floors/pulverising the concrete and lost in some of the building mass falling outside of its footprint then all of the force cannot have gone into the columns, thus giving the main structure more chance of survival.



So if there are two or more ways of executing a controlled demolition then all must be false? And because no engineering predictions have based simulations on