911: Professional experts says it was staged

[Scott G]

By the way, the computer model deformations on page 84 of the pdf version of NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 looks nothing like what WTC 7 atually looked like pre-collapse, or even during collapse for that matter.

[Little Fish]

It’s just useful to hear what you already know put in a different way sometimes.

sure, one only needs to see the clip of wtc7 to know, but to see the fatal flaw in the official believers argument is to really know. just to clarify my epiphany is seeing the fatal flaw in the arguments of those that believe the official story.

it is absurd to accept the official technical NIST explanation AND accept the "official" explanations of foreknowledge.

these two things are completely contradictory.

one is something which could not have been predicted, the other is something which was predicted. to accept both as true is classic doublethink. doesn't this point boil the whole foreknowledge thing down and underscore the importance of the "bbc world" clip with wtc7 in the background? It is not congruent with NIST's technical explanation of collapse. A question to official story believers is what am I missing here?

a familiar name not seen in a while and look what happens, laugh :-p.

nice to see you around again, hope you're well.

[Scott G]

sure, one only needs to see the clip of wtc7 to know, but to see the fatal flaw in the official believers argument is to really know. just to clarify my epiphany is seeing the fatal flaw in the arguments of those that believe the official story.

it is absurd to accept the official technical NIST explanation AND accept the "official" explanations of foreknowledge.

these two things are completely contradictory.

one is something which could not have been predicted, the other is something which was predicted. to accept both as true is classic doublethink. doesn't this point boil the whole foreknowledge thing down and underscore the importance of the "bbc world" clip with wtc7 in the background? It is not congruent with NIST's technical explanation of collapse. A question to official story believers is what am I missing here?

If the case can be shown to be ironclad, I think it would help. The information in wikipedia certainly doesn't include this. I want to find exactly where NIST states both that the North Tower (WTC 1) debris had a negligible effect on the subsequent collapse of WTC 7 as well as where they say that the actual collapse was impossible to predict.

nice to see you around again, hope you're well.

Well, I've been worse off, laugh :-). I'm alright. Taking a small course on the law, we'll see how it goes.

[Rafterman]

911Truth: Architects & Engineers agree it was staged controlled demolition

Experts Speak Out. Altogether more than 1,500 Architects & Engineers that have signed the calling for a new investigation of the destruction of the 3 buildings in WTC , 911.

Source:

http://conspiraciesforums.com/YaBB.pl?num=1315022038

VIDEO EMBED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded

This same tired and pathetic crew has been pushing this crap for 10 years now.

1,500 architects and engineers? Really? What's that, like .05% of architects and engineers in the world? I can find 1,500 people who believe that I can blow poodles out of my ass, but that proves nothing.

Look, I work at one of the most prominent architecture schools in the US and I've seen these guys peddling their books and videos at AIA conferences. I've yet to see more than 1 or 2 people stop and talk with them over the course of an entire day. Most simply ignore them or openly mock them as they walk by.

Not to mention, every single point they're trying to make has been debunked so many times it's pathetic. Anomaly hunting and supposition is not proof of anything.

[Q24]

it is absurd to accept the official technical NIST explanation AND accept the "official" explanations of foreknowledge.

these two things are completely contradictory.

one is something which could not have been predicted, the other is something which was predicted. to accept both as true is classic doublethink. doesn't this point boil the whole foreknowledge thing down and underscore the importance of the "bbc world" clip with wtc7 in the background? It is not congruent with NIST's technical explanation of collapse. A question to official story believers is what am I missing here?

They would say the precise mechanism of failure does not need to be known to determine the building was in danger of collapse. I would say, without knowing this “extraordinary” potential mechanism existed within the building, there would be no reason to believe collapse could occur at all.

There was simply nothing to observe that would have given any great confidence WTC7 was to collapse… and yet, there was all that confidence apparent on scene, not only of collapse, but the fact it was going to be global along with the timing.

It‘s madness to defend. It was a blatant demolition. If I followed the official narrative I’d give up on WTC7, accept the demolition and attempt to incorporate it into the story - “they did it for safety reasons” or something. Although that opens up a whole can of worms, so I guess they cannot.

I downloaded the PDF of that article from the link you provided. It's 130 pages long though; could you cite where it specifically states that the damage from the WTC debris was "confirmed [to be] superficial, i.e. had no bearing on the collapse which was induced entirely by plain old office fire… officially"?

Take your pick: -

• “Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.”
  
• “Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.”
  
• “Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7.”
  
• “The third simulation was the same as the first, except that no debris impact damage was included. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the contribution of debris impact to the WTC 7 global collapse sequence and whether WTC 7 would have collapsed solely due to the effects of the fire.
  …
  The third LS-DYNA analysis demonstrated that the fire-induced damage led to the collapse of WTC 7, even without any structural damage from the debris impact.”
  
• “WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed.”
  
• “Even without the initial structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.”
  
• “The initial westward progression and the overall speed of the collapse was not sensitive to the extent of the estimated structural damage to WTC 7 due to the debris from the collapse of WTC 1.”
  

The debris damage to WTC7 was neither here nor there to the collapse.

If the case can be shown to be ironclad, I think it would help. The information in wikipedia certainly doesn't include this. I want to find exactly where NIST states both that the North Tower (WTC 1) debris had a negligible effect on the subsequent collapse of WTC 7 as well as where they say that the actual collapse was impossible to predict.

Nothing is ironclad where human interpretation is involved.

Anyhow…

The fact NIST admit their own collapse theory would be “the first known instance” and “an extraordinary event”, taking them seven years to come up with and relying on the idea the building was, unlike all comparable examples, “not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse”… would all suggest the witnessed collapse was unpredictable.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

[The Silver Thong]

Not to mention, every single point they're trying to make has been debunked so many times it's pathetic. Anomaly hunting and supposition is not proof of anything.

I guess all it took was a few guys with box cutters to bring down three builings all in the same fashion in NY. Crash a plane in PV and slam one into the pentagon. Ya 17 guys with box cutters did this.

edit: 19

Edited September 10, 2011 by The Silver Thong

[Little Fish]

I guess all it took was a few guys with box cutters to bring down three builings all in the same fashion in NY. Crash a plane in PV and slam one into the pentagon. Ya 17 guys with box cutters did this.

edit: 19

edit: where is the evidence for boxcutters?

there is only the Ted Olsen hearsay from the Olson call which the FBI said never connected (duiration: zero seconds) at the missoui trial.

no other mention of boxcutters in the official story.

[The Silver Thong]

edit: where is the evidence for boxcutters?

there is only the Ted Olsen hearsay from the Olson call which the FBI said never connected (duiration: zero seconds) at the missoui trial.

no other mention of boxcutters in the official story.

I heard boxcutters were used. I could be wrong and I guess I am. So 19 men did this bare handed with no help. 19 men changed the world bare handed wow. There is no doubt in my mind that 9-11 was fabricated to conform us to an agenda of self destruction. The world has gone to schitt since then and the world economy is in the crapper. The so called Taliban seems to have served it`s purpose.

[Q24]

edit: where is the evidence for boxcutters?

there is only the Ted Olsen hearsay from the Olson call which the FBI said never connected (duiration: zero seconds) at the missoui trial.

no other mention of boxcutters in the official story.

Yes, it was from Ted Olson’s account on September 12th, 2001 that the reports of hijackers armed with box-cutters came.

That is Solicitor General, Ted Olson, who represented Bush in the 2000 election court case, which ensured Al Gore did not receive a vote recount.

It is peculiar his wife was the only passenger alleged to have made a call from Flight 77.

Uniquely amongst the four flights, I am inclined to believe this one was taken straight from Operation Northwoods.

[psychoticmike]

its amazing how people are blinded by their beliefs when there is so much contradicting them. The official 9/11 story is clearly incorrect, there needs to be a new unhindered investigation to put all claims and beliefs to rest and unveil the truth. I'm just curious, have any of you seen footage of the plane hitting the pentagon? I can't find any that shows that, just a little white enlongated object half a second before it hits the building. correct me if i'm wrong, but how come out of all the security cameras in the area, they haven't slowed any of it down clearly showing a plane?

[Q24]

its amazing how people are blinded by their beliefs when there is so much contradicting them. The official 9/11 story is clearly incorrect, there needs to be a new unhindered investigation to put all claims and beliefs to rest and unveil the truth. I'm just curious, have any of you seen footage of the plane hitting the pentagon? I can't find any that shows that, just a little white enlongated object half a second before it hits the building. correct me if i'm wrong, but how come out of all the security cameras in the area, they haven't slowed any of it down clearly showing a plane?

Yes I have.

The white object you mention is smoke from one of the engines/wings, likely due to impacting the light poles on approach and/or a generator in front of the Pentagon. If you look to the area left of the smoke in that frame, the plane tail can be seen to appear above the tree line along with the fuselage lower down.

It really is terrible quality footage but the outline of a plane is there.

I like to think if the footage were faked they would have made the plane clearer.

After reading descriptions of the 85 videotapes in FBI possession, it seems they would not show the flight path or impact. Unfortunately the Pentagon rooftop cameras and VDOT highway cameras (which may have captured something) are not included in the list.

I think the question is not whether a plane did or did not impact the Pentagon, but rather the identity of that aircraft which has never been proven.

[psychoticmike]

Yes I have.

The white object you mention is smoke from one of the engines/wings, likely due to impacting the light poles on approach and/or a generator in front of the Pentagon. If you look to the area left of the smoke in that frame, the plane tail can be seen to appear above the tree line along with the fuselage lower down.

It really is terrible quality footage but the outline of a plane is there.

I like to think if the footage were faked they would have made the plane clearer.

After reading descriptions of the 85 videotapes in FBI possession, it seems they would not show the flight path or impact. Unfortunately the Pentagon rooftop cameras and VDOT highway cameras (which may have captured something) are not included in the list.

I think the question is not whether a plane did or did not impact the Pentagon, but rather the identity of that aircraft which has never been proven.

ok, thanks for the video. I just think that there would have been better footage, i mean they can slow down a bullet on video and see it quite clearly so why not this? theres just so many inconsistencies in the whole story.

[bee]

ok, thanks for the video. I just think that there would have been better footage, i mean they can slow down a bullet on video and see it quite clearly so why not this? theres just so many inconsistencies in the whole story.

underlined.....I know....I tried to get to the bottom of it in my thread last year.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=191892

that video provided by Q24 of a supposed 'something' hitting the Pentagon is totally unsatisfactory

(sorry Q24 but it is)

it's obvious that the whole what-ever-happened at Pentagon would have been filmed from many directions

but the public is given next to nothing. Just a crappy short CCTV of 'something'.

ridiculous, IMO, that we expected to swallow that.

as it's the 10th anniversary of that fateful day I also want to again extend deep sympathy to all the families

of those who died, and those who were injured or affected by it. This includes soldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afganistan.

[bee]

What are opinions concerning the destruction of WTC 7, as presented in this video? Posters who disagree with "the facts" as described in the video, your reasons for disagreement would be welcome.

Karlis

-=-=-=-

well.....I think that Directed Energy Weapons were used to bring down WTC 1,2 + 7.

so I suppose I disagree with 'the facts' as described in the OP video.

I think the emphasis put on conventional demolition using thermite is heavily

promoted to steer away from Directed Energy Weapons.

This video presents a different angle and different evidence.

While I think that many good points are brought up I still believe that planes, actual planes,

were flown into the Twin Towers....and everything else after that was damage limitation.

I am a bit perturbed by the Alaskan Magnetometers at the end of Part Two...and the stuff about

Hurricane Erin...

If relevant, I'm not sure how this would fit into my 'theories'.....

but anyway here's the two part video

[Scott G]

I downloaded the PDF of that article from the link you provided. It's 130 pages long though; could you cite where it specifically states that the damage from the WTC debris was "confirmed [to be] superficial, i.e. had no bearing on the collapse which was induced entirely by plain old office fire… officially"?

Take your pick: -

• "Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."
• "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001."
• "Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7."
• "The third simulation was the same as the first, except that no debris impact damage was included. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the contribution of debris impact to the WTC 7 global collapse sequence and whether WTC 7 would have collapsed solely due to the effects of the fire.
  …
  The third LS-DYNA analysis demonstrated that the fire-induced damage led to the collapse of WTC 7, even without any structural damage from the debris impact."
• "WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed."
• "Even without the initial structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001."
• "The initial westward progression and the overall speed of the collapse was not sensitive to the extent of the estimated structural damage to WTC 7 due to the debris from the collapse of WTC 1."

The debris damage to WTC7 was neither here nor there to the collapse.

Other then that it (allegedly) caused the fire, got it. Thanks, saved me much time sifting through that pdf, laugh :-).

If the case can be shown to be ironclad, I think it would help. The information in wikipedia certainly doesn't include this. I want to find exactly where NIST states both that the North Tower (WTC 1) debris had a negligible effect on the subsequent collapse of WTC 7 as well as where they say that the actual collapse was impossible to predict.

Nothing is ironclad where human interpretation is involved.

Laugh :-). Fair enough. I'll settle for ironclad amoung logical people :-p.

Anyhow…

The fact NIST admit their own collapse theory would be "the first known instance" and "an extraordinary event", taking them seven years to come up with and relying on the idea the building was, unlike all comparable examples, "not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse"… would all suggest the witnessed collapse was unpredictable.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Wonderful. Thanks muchly Q.

[Scott G]

Yes I have.

The white object you mention is smoke from one of the engines/wings, likely due to impacting the light poles on approach and/or a generator in front of the Pentagon. If you look to the area left of the smoke in that frame, the plane tail can be seen to appear above the tree line along with the fuselage lower down.

It really is terrible quality footage but the outline of a plane is there.

I like to think if the footage were faked they would have made the plane clearer.

After reading descriptions of the 85 videotapes in FBI possession, it seems they would not show the flight path or impact. Unfortunately the Pentagon rooftop cameras and VDOT highway cameras (which may have captured something) are not included in the list.

I think the question is not whether a plane did or did not impact the Pentagon, but rather the identity of that aircraft which has never been proven.

I responded to this point of yours in this new thread, as I think it deviates too much from original topic in this thread...

[skyeagle409]

911Truth: Architects & Engineers agree it was staged controlled demolition

Experts Speak Out. Altogether more than 1,500 Architects & Engineers that have signed the calling for a new investigation of the destruction of the 3 buildings in WTC , 911.

Source:

http://conspiraciesf...?num=1315022038

VIDEO EMBED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded

I disagree that chemical explosices were planted in the buildings. First of all, who in their right mind is going to carry thousands of pounds of explosives and thousands of feet of detonation cables hundreds of feet up those stairs without being noticed?

Listening to the CNN newscast, the first building started to buckle seconds before the collapse. There was no chemical explosion. The second building began to buckle and shake, and secords later, it collapsed and still, no chemical explosion.

The supporting structures of both buildings were seriously damaged by both aircraft, so at that point the upper levels were being supported by weakened beams damaged by the aircraft, which were now being weakened further by the heat of the fires to it was just a matter of time before the buildings would collapse.

[drakonwick]

After 10 years, conspiracy still looms over the 9/11 events.

Personally, I think it's safe to say, that the twin towers were brought down after jetliners crashed into them, mainly due to intense heat and structural damage. WTC-7 collapsed not long after do to severe structural damage from WTC-1 falling. I do not believe it was a controlled demolition. If you have seen a building collapse, you will notice that the weight alone from the other floors, will cause the building to collapse in the same manner as WTC-7.

A plane did hit the pentagon, there is pictures and footage showing whats left of the plane after the impact.

What I think everyone should question, is whether or not the government knew about this event before hand and then allowed it to happen.

Was 9/11 set up and then allowed to happen? These I think are questions that should be thought about. As the official story, just does not completely add up to me.

[+susieice]

Who is crazy enough to carry demolition charges up into a burning, hot building, unless you are trying to say that the charges were preset in all the WTC buildings just in case something like this ever happened. Certainly no one would have carried them up into the impact zones.

I do believe however, that our Government had more information about the pending attacks. How much they knew will probably never be told. Did they know there was a plan to use planes in a terrorist attack and if so, did they know the date, places, times?

[el midgetron]

Yes I have.

The white object you mention is smoke from one of the engines/wings, likely due to impacting the light poles on approach and/or a generator in front of the Pentagon. If you look to the area left of the smoke in that frame, the plane tail can be seen to appear above the tree line along with the fuselage lower down.

I am uncertain if I agree with that assessment. The "tail section" looks to me like it is likely the result of video distortion. If you notice the spot where the "tail" appears, there is an object there before and after, probably the distant tree tine. The distortion occurs at the same instance that what I assume is a trail of smoke appears underneath. I suspect the distortion is a result of the difference between light and dark illumination, triggered by the bright "smoke" below. If you notice just to the right of the highlighted area there is another distant object which seems to display a similar distortion effect, resulting in another sharp vertical edge. The same vertical edge can been seen extending downward into the smoke trail (if you draw a straight line down the back of the tail to the ground).

Also, the tail section of AA flight 77 should have been mostly white (more the like the color of the smoke trail), yet the "tail" in question is dark and is more consistent with the background treeline.

The sharp vertical edge seen above is the result of distortion (even if it was flight 77) as the tail section of a Boeing 757 is slanted in the rear.

[Q24]

I am uncertain if I agree with that assessment. The "tail section" looks to me like it is likely the result of video distortion. If you notice the spot where the "tail" appears, there is an object there before and after, probably the distant tree tine. The distortion occurs at the same instance that what I assume is a trail of smoke appears underneath. I suspect the distortion is a result of the difference between light and dark illumination, triggered by the bright "smoke" below. If you notice just to the right of the highlighted area there is another distant object which seems to display a similar distortion effect, resulting in another sharp vertical edge. The same vertical edge can been seen extending downward into the smoke trail (if you draw a straight line down the back of the tail to the ground).

Also, the tail section of AA flight 77 should have been mostly white (more the like the color of the smoke trail), yet the "tail" in question is dark and is more consistent with the background treeline.

The sharp vertical edge seen above is the result of distortion (even if it was flight 77) as the tail section of a Boeing 757 is slanted in the rear.

It is certainly low quality footage - poor show for a building backed by the world’s largest defense budget!

There are two sets of footage in the video.

If we look at the first close-up, the same plane shaped object can also be seen: -

There is no plane in the left frame, there is a plane in the right frame.

It helps to flick back and forward between these two frames at 0:18 - 0:19 in the video to see what appears.

The plane fuselage is visible, the same tail section can be seen (though lower in the treeline in this footage), along with the smoke which originates from the wing area.

Regarding colour of the plane - the Pentagon facade is a light colour also but appears dark in the video.

Regarding slant of the tail - remember the plane is not coming in at a right-angle to the building but at approximately 50^o which would reduce the slant visible.

I have also seen analysis of this footage concerning location of the object and distance from the camera - conclusion, the plane is of correct size and dimensions to match a 757.

Then consider the downed light poles on approach, requiring a 757 equivalent wingspan to impact… the debris matching that of a 757 at the site (there’s more than appears at first glance)… the 100+ eyewitnesses, many of whom saw the final approach and even impact… consider that those who carried out 9/11 had already shown they can use Boeing aircraft to impact buildings…

I say this as someone who knows the official 9/11 story to be incorrect and previously doubted the Pentagon impact - a missile, explosives, small aircraft or flyover does not fit the evidence in any way, shape or form.

[arglebargle]

I saw the 'evidence' put forth by these 1500 'experts' and I found it highly unconvincing. Like the white hot metal, which they just assumed was steel, without actually bothering to check. Other metals can get white hot at much lower temperatures, and the cameras white balance could have been off, so it's not a very good basis for drawing conclusions.

The 'explosions' that pop out the side of the building as it falls every now and then is explained as being cutter charges, but to me it seems infinitely more probable that they're due to air being compressed as the tower collapses and pushes vast amounts of air down under it, until the pressure becomes powerful enough to escape through the side, only to start building up again almost immediately, causing explosions with regular intervals.

It's a long presentation, but those two points were ones I made particular note of, and over all I was not impressed with their conclusions.

[Rafterman]

I guess all it took was a few guys with box cutters to bring down three builings all in the same fashion in NY. Crash a plane in PV and slam one into the pentagon. Ya 17 guys with box cutters did this.

edit: 19

The planes helped a little bit.

[Stundie]

I saw the 'evidence' put forth by these 1500 'experts' and I found it highly unconvincing. Like the white hot metal, which they just assumed was steel, without actually bothering to check. Other metals can get white hot at much lower temperatures, and the cameras white balance could have been off, so it's not a very good basis for drawing conclusions.

Eyewitnesses at GZ claim it was steel and there are no other eyewitness references to other molten metals such as aluminium or lead.

How do you propose they check it? And if you doubt it was steel as claimed, then what metal do you claim it is?

The 'explosions' that pop out the side of the building as it falls every now and then is explained as being cutter charges, but to me it seems infinitely more probable that they're due to air being compressed as the tower collapses and pushes vast amounts of air down under it, until the pressure becomes powerful enough to escape through the side, only to start building up again almost immediately, causing explosions with regular intervals.

The problem is if it was air being compressed as I see it with my layman eyes, is that one of the expulsions happens more than 40 floors below the collapse zone and some of the expulsions travel upward.

If it was a build up of air being compressed, then I can't see how see these expulsions would happen in this way.

It's a long presentation, but those two points were ones I made particular note of, and over all I was not impressed with their conclusions.

Well I would suggest the conclusions that it was molten steel is much more credible than it being any other metal.

And as for it being air compressed, I don't but the argument because the ones which happen many floors below the collapse zone do not continue with the expulsions as it continues to collapse. The expulsions happen in a burst, if it was air, then the expulsion would continue throwing out all kinds of office debris as it collapsed.

I think if it was compressed air, the expulsions would be more uniformed and wouldn't be in bursts.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Stundie

[Stundie]

The planes helped a little bit.

What? Even with WTC7?