I had no idea of the magnitude of the “disinformation game.”
“Disinfobots” or “defenders” using “honey pots” of pseudo evidence lure people into endless argument — with the obvious intent of maliciously fouling the 9/11 debate.
It was only when I started this website that I began to see the patterns. Thankfully, I was warned by others more experienced than myself.
But now, I believe, the time for debating is long past. The only issue left is to discuss is the makeup of the official and transparent inquiries/congressional hearings/royal commissions, etc. We need to talk about when they should start and how they could be financed.
A few defenders of the 9/11 official story have targeted this site for some time. Three, I believe, are professionals in the construction industry, though they seem more expert at cluttering the threads with endless, inane, short comments that deflect discussion away from the core issue. And they often do their research so quickly that I believe they must be working off a 9/11 Disinfo Manual.
About a week ago, I challenged them to write a thesis — their version of the 9/11 building collapses. I told them that if it was done with conviction, I’d publish it. Two of them — El Kammo and XingFu — emailed me directly (only hours apart) and suggested that they’d be up for a Skype interview — with conditions. I’d never suggested that, so their identical proposals could not have been mere coincidence. They must be in contact with one another (along with Johnyboy). Maybe they even work in the same office — and that’s fine with me if they do. Since then, they seem to have ramped up their assault on this site. In a way, that’s a compliment.
Though we three have now communicated cordially by email to discuss a possible Skype interview, Mary Maxwell has warned me that they have dark intentions of damaging this site — and could be being paid to do so. Their recent jabs have become more personal: They’ve attacked Richard Gage (and his salary) and Niels Harrit (for being a “crackpot”). I suspect these are defenders with malicious intent, which leads me to conclude that debating them would be futile.
These type of defenders will continually argue against further inquiry. Their reaction is a red flag, signaling, to me, that an investigation of Building 7 is all the more important. I’m reminded of the decades-long deflection of criticism and defensive walls erected by the Catholic church concerning crimes of pedophilia.
Let me be upfront. I believed in the official story of 9/11 until Building 7 was brought to my attention. After my own deductions, I reluctantly came to the conclusion that Building 7 was not brought down by fire. And this opened the burrow. [Note my use of italics for emphasis.]
Building 7: The Tipping Point
The collapse of Building 7 is exceptionally profound. It looks so plain, so obvious, so simple. Were explosives used? If so, society is in trouble.
Whenever questions arise about Building 7, they initiate social uncertainty.
I aim to be pragmatic. Let me take you back to my meeting with Professor Jonathan Barnett, a fire expert who contributed to the FEMA and NIST reports. When I met Prof. Barnett in October 2014, we discussed 9/11 (mainly B7) for an hour and a half. In the end, I could find no logic in his side of the debate. I questioned his/NIST’s conclusion that Building 7 came down in a symmetrical collapse as a result of fire damage to column 79. Surely the collapse would then demonstrate some lateral asymmetry?
Here I’ll paraphrase our very long discussion:
Me: “Did you look for explosives?”
J.B.: “There was no evidence of explosives.”
Me: “But it looks like a demolition.”
J.B.: “There were no signs of a demolition.”
Me: “But it just collapses like (that).”
J.B.: “It was brought down by column 79 failing — consistent with fire.”
Me: “But the NIST computer modelling doesn’t match the real collapse.”
J.B.: “We were the best minds in the country.”
Me: “But why didn’t you look for explosives?”
J.B.: “We were at the site. There was no indications that it was brought down by explosives.”
Me: “But did you look?”
J.B. “We didn’t need to . . . .”
Around and around we went.
I quote an extract from the audio of Barnett (in video below):
“I could argue that I have a theory that also matches the evidence and is predicted by computer modelling …. Why did the computer model predict what occurred?… So you don’t want to believe the computer model? I can just tell I was sitting there with twenty of the nation’s best engineers and we were all comfortable with our hypothesis… there was a white board with all the hypotheses and we all agreed on this …. I can just tell you the facts and the science predict what occurred…. Well someone else could come along and say an explosion could have done it also. Well maybe except I have no evidence… and prove it wasn’t Martians.”
I thus wrote in an article later: “I concluded that the investigating teams – these extraordinary experts – had gone through some kind of mind or thought manipulation.”
The Opposite of Obvious
Barnett said to me, “There was no need to look for explosives.” But . . .
If it looks like a perfect demolition, why would you not investigate the obvious?
As I have written in a comment before: There is a corpse. There are bullet holes in the corpse but only a bloody knife at the scene. The neighbour owns the knife. Thus, is the neighbour the murderer? No, not necessarily. You have to find the gun (the murder weapon), discover whose blood is on the knife, and then work out who pulled the trigger.
Why are the defenders so against further inquiry? To quote Christopher Brooks in a comment he made: “The comm-entities (defenders) do a service in demonstrating a very different moral “ruler” than I hold true, because they have expressed satisfaction with the integrity of the 911 Commission investigation, which was very clearly designed and staffed to limit accountability and keep selected information hidden from essential scrutiny.”
There is one possibility that is rarely discussed (and that fits with Larry Silverstein’s “pull”): Maybe the CIA had pre-planted explosives in the building many years before — not because of 9/11, but because of national security in the event of a war; that under certain circumstances this important building could be pulled to stop another nation getting access to CIA files. And maybe this was then activated on the day of 9/11. This would be logical, even believable, but highly improbable. And why the cover-up?
But back to evidence, proof, debate, and inquiry. I believe this is what the debate should be about.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
The collapse by fire is essentially based on one unseen action/failure within the building, this purportedly backed by a computer modelling (as seen in this 13-second video). The defenders of the official story claim the building had a most unusual design flaw.
Reasonable doubt is used in criminal cases. Thus let us use a similar “rule.” Can it be determined “beyond all reasonable doubt” that fire was the cause of Building 7’s collapse? Absolutely not.
Is there another logical explanation that can be derived from the facts? Yes, there is another possible — highly probably — explanation for the destruction of B7:
- It looks like a perfect controlled demolition, identical to hundreds of other buildings that have been brought down by explosives.
- No other steel high-rise building has collapsed in a similar fashion as a result of fire.
- For several floors, the building is in free fall — that is, falling without any resistance.
- The NIST computer modelling does not replicate the real collapse (on video).
- There was evidence of molten metal (for weeks) afterwards.
- A scientific study suggests thermitic material in the dust (which may or may not belong to B7).
- Witnesses heard a countdown and heard booming sounds.
- The BBC announced the collapse 20 minutes before it came down.
- The leaseholder said “pull” with regard to the building (though he later claimed that the word was a reference to “evacuation,” not demolition).
- Barry Jennings reported that he was in an explosion on the stairs when trying to evacuate.
- There were fires, but only a small percentage of the building had been affected.
- Thousands of professionals and experts (in architecture, engineering, mathematics, metallurgy, physics, chemistry, etc.) believe it was demolished by “explosives.”
- It is obvious that the finding “caused by explosives” would have been extremely challenging for NIST to present to superiors in the US government.
- There are people and organisations trying to suppress Building 7 information and evidence.
Surely it is not necessary to prove 100% that explosives were the cause of Building 7’s destruction before there can be a new and transparent investigation. At least a dozen of the facts cited above create more than reasonable doubt that fire caused the collapse.
Regardless of whether you call it reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, or legal burden of proof, any one of the aforementioned points makes the official hypothesis for B7’s quick demise dubious. If you tote up the more than a dozen points of contention listed above, the NIST finding of fire as causation must come under serious scrutiny.
Thus . . .
End the Futile Debates
I ask myself: Is it not futile to debate the likes of JohnyBoy, El Kammo and XingFu, who are allegedly construction experts? Surely they are not interested in balance, much less truth. If they are prepared to trash a 40-year professor of chemistry without analyzing the evidence he puts forth, then clearly they will trash anyone, especially non-scientists/non-technical experts such as yours truly.
Gumshoenews does not have to prove exactly how Building 7 collapsed. The weight of evidence is clearly and squarely against the official story. No matter how confusing or vitriolic the debate, the facts cannot change — or be changed to suit political agendas.
To me, it’s really simple. Based on the overwhelming weight of the facts before us, anyone with integrity would support an open, transparent investigation that is not controlled by the very people or organisations that might be implicated.
And if you are against such an investigation, your motives seem mighty suspicious to me.
The activities of the ‘protectorate of mass murderers’ that has been seen here use the same modus operandi used in about 2008 for thousands of comments in Mike Rudin’s BBC productions ‘The Conspiracy Files’. There were about three of Mike Rudin’s program’s dealing with the demolition of the towers and building No 7.
Same method, similar type of person defending these murderers, just as The ABC’s Jon Faine and Josh Frydenburg MP did to Kevin Bracken in October 2010. Steve Liebmann of radio 2UE used the same method against Bracken on or about 21.10.2014.
Clearly there has been an effort to ridicule and debase anyone questioning 911.
As we all know, ridicule, sneering and raising irrelevant matters such as alleged holocaust denial does not found an argument against a reason not to believe the official ‘hogwash’ ( per LT Col’ Bob Bowman USAF ret’ rip) as noted in his comment at http://www.patriotsquestion911.com.
By the way Bob headed Reagan’s space defence system, or something of a similar title. He told me he left the program due to his objection to militarising space. He was also an interceptor pilot for a period and told me that there was no doubt that the US airforce interceptors were stood down for a pediod on 911, they could have intercepted the wayward aircraft in ten minutes. He also did 101 missions over Vietnam!
According to Rudin, the BBC. Jonathon Faine, the ABC, SBS, Josh Frydenburg MP., Ray Hadly etc., the 400 professors and all the retired military lists up to 2011 at the patriots site and government officials also listed
in the US are wrong to question 911.
Anyone want to buy some old Iraq wmds including Holder’s mobile biological outfits? Then ring John Howard’s office, he may have some left over.
Correction: the disgracefull efforts by Faine, Frydenburg and Liebmann were in October 2010, not in 2014.
Apols’.
I’d like to buy some Soviet ICBM’s from the “missile gap” if anyone has them in a bottom drawer.
More videos
2:20 fascinating answer
We should be calling Mr Faine again
And be accused of being a flat earthed, hollocaust denier etc, the man has an agenda and should be ignored as an irrelevant ABC waste of money. His form
was followed by suggesting the murders of USN crewmen on the Liberty was a mistake, as he recalled, as well as taking on Malcolm Fraser he ignores any correction asked of him by Joe Meadors, a crewman on the Liberty who watched his mates being murdered by Israeli torpedo boats, and mirage jet fighters , strafing life rafts and departing without offering assistance.
The ABC is a shameful waste of tax payer’s money and a fraud with no credibility.
An orange
Not my day. Holder should be General Powell who suckered the UN into the bio lab rubbish from curve ball, despite warnings from German intelligence that CB was unreliable.
Pity about the dead Iraquis!
See the BBC production ‘ the spies who fooled the world’.
Not hard to fool our Canberra lot!
They are still suckered by their 911 conspiracy fairy tale causing our soldiers to be deceived and killed.
In addition Bob told me that the protocols for interception were changed in July 2001 so that such action was changed from the military to the executive. It was changed back after 911. By coincidence, Lucky Larry took up the lease of two asbestos ridden white elephants at the WTC in July 2001 and went to the doctors on the morning the towers were struck.
Luckeeeeee!
Thanks for calling Mr John McCain
The lead NIST investigator Shyam Sunder admitted that for about one third of the time of the WTC7 collapse the building was collapsing at free fall speed. This is literally impossible according to the laws of physics unless explosives are used to remove the impediments. The fact that the 9/11 Commission report failed to even mention Building 7 is a huge clue.
The offical account of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is similarly impossible if one considers that the laws of physics still applied on 9/11. As to how those two latter buildings were demolished is an interesting question. Harrit, Jones and others have postulated that thermite was used. There were certainly traces found there that should not have been. That theory is open to the criticism that thermite does not have the necessary explosive power to create the effects seen on that day.
More recent research, found on the Veterans Today website among others, demonstrate that small scale nuclear devices were used. This was noted in a 2003 US Government report that was classified immediately. Hardly surprising. That report was leaked last year, although you won’t read about it in the msm.
James, no doubt you would recall that NIST had to acknowledge 2-3 seconds of free fall from commencement of collapse because David Chandler caught Sunder out, chandler has a few videos on the subject re 7. Also for the two towers.
As for the towers, nukes and thermate, I am open to the possibility that the thermite was used, to not only to bring the exterior down but also to lop the girders etc, into suitable lengths for easy loading in the clean up and to the further possibility for mini nukes being necessary to bring down the central core of elevator shafts.
Rodriguez description of explosion/s in the basement fits an explosion more effective than thermate. Recall his description of a worker with his arms ‘skinned’? (My summary)
Clearly the propaganda pancake explanation was rubbish as the elevator shafts were not ‘pancakeable’.
(:-
Finished the vegemite yet?
Proposing that nukes were used on 9/11 is like proposing that Martians actually attacked Earth during Orson Welles’ broadcast of War of the Worlds.
\][//
Dee, you mention decades of protecting paedophiles.
In that regard there appears not to be an institution/group that has not had a history of protecting that scum. Why?
One reason has been expressed or inferred in the present Royal Commission is for the protection of the name of the the institution, culture etc.
They have been exposed in the present hearings and it is a common agenda.
Similarly, there are some ‘protectors of mass murderers’ who operate under the same misguided intention. They wish to protect their agenda, their country, their culture, their religion, their social
group and/or simply, to protect their criminal mates or there is a combination of all of the above.
Those who have protected or used such paediphile scum as blackmail targets are the next to be exposed. Already, there are reports of honey traps sponsored by agencies to blackmail victims in order to achieve control of policy in an official capacity.
911 is another opportunity to entrap perpetrators who had an ‘innocent role’, I.e. not knowing the real story and when implicated are blackmailed into supporting the official mass murder scenario. Many in the US were even promoted, when they should have been stripped of their positions.
One similar example is in the way criminal organisations operate: unless a victim is compromised for the criminal cause, they do not progress in the organisation, (e.g. In politics). If they threaten to expose, they are murdered.
As they say: ‘ he was given an offer he. could not refuse’.
Then their are the used idiots who are convinced to be the boys under the demands of loyalty to their bosses for cultural, patriotic, religious and social reasons. One day they may get a reward from the Don or a promotion.
One day they may have an autographed football from their hero.
Weird lot they are, truth and justice are overtaken by their team’s anthem and are blinded to any other possibility.
At worse some are just paid prostitutes to sell a cause or scenario for political ends.
Just adding David Chandler
if you google “Albury Smith 911” you will see that for years and years and years, since 911, this particular fella – who also claims to have the qualifications to debate – but never shows them, hunts down every article on 911 to offer his unqualified anonymous opinion, as if he is the final arbiter of 911 truth.
he is infatigable in his quest to obfuscate with banal minutia ad nauseam. his circular arguments always ignore evidence and under no circumstance will he say anything but the events were caused by OBL and his band of merry men.
if these people want a debate, they can have one, the good folk at AE911truth.org
http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/905-911-debate-challenge-credentialed-professionals-need-only-apply.html
are even offering a prize of $1000 ( to be donated to charity of choice ) to anyone ( qualified – i mean, after all, who wants to listen to a debate by people who only say they have qualifications? ) who can convince the majority of an audience that they are right. – put that on skype, and that will shut them up forever.
they wont do it though, theyre too scared.
also – regarding the modelling of building 7, despite the fact that it in no way even slightly resembles the demolition of building 7 in real life, they will not even release the data they used for the modelling, so no one can reproduce or examine it..
in short, it is totally unscientific, and could never be used as any sort of evidence, it would be good though if it could be used, because it is such a sloppy job, it only helps prove the case that the official explanation is impossible.
im betting that the “conditions” these pudding heads require for their skype shows, are that their identities remain a secret, no way will anyone with any credibility argue the case that the official account is correct.
Thanks Fairdinkum. I was thinking about debating as they had forwarded CV – but then proceeded to personally attack Harrit and Gage – but not science. So they will for sure attack me personally. The challenge is for them is to now argue – “is there reasonable doubt that fire was the cause of b7?’ 12 points to 2. So the debate is: should another investigation be suppressed
“So the debate is: should another investigation be suppressed”
well, there never really has been a proper investigation. we have had a whitewash, a coverup.. even the 911 commissioners themselves say they were lied to, and told “not to cross the line” – if they dont believe their own report, why should we?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/911-commission-deceived-an-unintentional-work-of-fiction-based-on-cheneys-communist-torture-program.html
so we dont need “another” investigation, but after over a decade of warmongering and millions of deaths, based on the lies of the events thay day, we do finally need, a long overdue, transparent, unfetterred, independent investigation with subpoena power, where all expert and witness testimony can be heard and cross examined under oath, until a verdict may be reached beyond all reasonable doubt. –
why anyone would ever argue against such a thing, can only mean they dont want the truth to be heard. – perhaps because they have a nefarious agenda, or they are a special breed of stupid.
there is no way these numskulls ( yes im attacking them personally here – ) these fools, would really go on video showing their faces, if those cv’s are real.. no way.. i cant imagine, but if they did agree to it.. id say do it! 🙂 – id certainly do my best to help it go viral, just for the laughs.. idots defending the indefensible, always good for a chuckle.
cheers
Thank you for the correction. Yes. Let us have an investigation…(not another) I will correct the article.
Any engineering team can access the data, the buildings designs and drawings are property of the owners, the computer programs can be purchased but will not run on a standard computer.
The models have and are continuing to be studied by engineering students.
The plans and drawings are private property not public.
I stumbled upon ‘Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out’ from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth by accident one day not that long ago. This answered many questions I had (consciously and subconsciously) concerning the collapse of the twin towers.
I was actually astonished that there was a group of people, in particular, professional people, who doubted the official story of 9/11 and I was unaware that there was such a thing as the 9/11 truth movement and if I had known, I would have considered them teenage nutter geeks who’s hormones were playing tricks on them.
After carrying out much research and spending more time on debunker websites than 9/11 truth websites in an effort to try to believe the official story, which I would prefer, I ended up being completely confused with the total disinformation I was being fed. The amount of disinformation, blatant untruths and insinuations almost proves a massive coverup.
After a while, I decided to ignore every argument and concentrate on what I could see with my own eyes and listen only to the witnesses who were on site on that tragic day.
It is completely clear that building 7 collapsed through every support column giving way simultaneously which can only happen through human intervention. ie controlled demolition.
William Rodriguez describes explosions in the basement of one of the towers pretty convincingly. I could put him in the ‘nutter’ category if it wasn’t for his story being backed up by several hundred other eye witness’s.
Barry Jennings testimony to the loose change guys and his subsequent story is compelling. The strawman argument for the BBC interview is also very obvious and blatant and actually becomes a convincer when you are aware of his history.
The testimony of the hundreds of firefighters recorded by the NY fire department is also impossible to argue with.
“Building 7, Barry Jennings, William Rodriguez” almost became a mantra for me whenever I doubt myself and when I hear any argument in support of the official story, I ask myself if it can account for their testimony and can it explain building 7s collapse. Up to know, thinking comes close and it also means I can ignore all the BS and other disinformation and not waste my time looking into it.
If someone or something can pull this off and control the main stream press and it becomes very obvious that they can, then I ask myself what else is going on and how can you believe ANYTHING in the press or on the telly.
A new investigation is required.
Rodriguez heard the energy soulds of the impact, reflecting back up the columns at 5000meters per second before he heard the 600miles per hour sound in air of the impacts above.
Jennings reports of an explosion correspond to the time one of the towers fell.
Note also fuel air blasts are well known to occur in fires, nothing new or exciting there all know quantifiable events.
Accurate. For anyone who is interested in albury smith’s techniques
– or in online text-based suppression techniques in general
– he is dealt with very effectively in the comments section here:
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/dump-%E2%80%98irrelevant%E2%80%99-pentagon-research-on-911-cit-opponents/
& here:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/09/03/uncritical-thinking-in-support-of-the-faith-based-official-911-myth/
As you will notice – his script of misdirective talking points and videos, and his pushy, control-freak demeanour – has remained completely unchanged over the many, many years that he has been at this full time.
He constantly gets banned from websites – because he is not there to listen, learn, or debate (and he doesn’t).
He is there as a continuous, bullying, bullshit billboard – designed to cram the official lie of 9/11 down people’s throats – and to try and maintain that lie in people’s minds for as long as possible.
He just keeps spamming commenters with intellectually dishonest videos and talking points – and then demands that they explain his disinfo back to him.
If you want to follow him around the internet – and study his online behavior over time – you can do so here :
https://disqus.com/by/albury/
10 year anniversary
Stopping 9-11 and Bld 7 Disinformation Deflecting Questions, Investigation and Truth – Gumshoe News
watching them squirm 🙂
the reason 911 truth doesnt go away, is because it can not be de-bunked.. if it could, why are we still waiting??? debunk already? show us the evidence that proves the official story beyond all reasonable doubt? – if it really happenned as they say it did, the evidence would be everywhere..
as it is.. all they have is g.w.bush pointing in osamas direction, saying.. “yeah, thats him man….” and all the while, the FBI says, they have no evidence of that at all..
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm
Paedophiles and their protectors and apologists are in the news in Australia at the moment, as the Royal Commission rips these evil sc apart and their protectors over decades.
Now who is worse? The protectors of paediphiles or warmongers who go invade and kill under the protection of the politicians and the mainstream media.
There are notany reports of paediphiles killing children, orphaning children, maiming children in the physical sense, destroying; children’s society, education prospects and supporting infrastructure.
On the other hand our politicians, supported by the mass media, as per ‘the plan’ exposed by General Wesley Clark, are prepared to invade countries and kill thus affecting children as referred to above.
So mass Media, who is more evil?
Considering the results in the middle
East and the invasions based on lies supported by the politicians and mass media, it would be apparent that the mass media and our politicians are more evil than paedophiles.
Consider the one million plus killed in the Middle East since 2001.
Now who are the sickest? Our politicians and mass media or a sick paediphile?
El Kammo and XingFu are professional 9/11 trolls, they’ve been operating on a Dutch Site, NuJij.nl, for years. Dutch is probably their first language. Here’s some of their work : https://www.google.nl/search?q=site:nujij.nl%20el%20kammo&gws_rd=ssl and https://www.google.nl/search?q=site:nujij.nl%20xingfu&gws_rd=ssl
@Ness,
So you Googled El-Kammo and found him on a Dutch website called nujij.
Not a piece of art is it?
You even figured out that I probably speak Dutch, wow, good job, not knowing that I excused my inproper English several times for being Dutch.
Should you look closer and understand the language, you would find out that I was Xing’s most fiercefull opponent, same goes for Jonnyboy. I was not easy on them when I was in the grey arrea regarding WTC 7.
You are referring to a Dutch nujij thread that had 5000 !! Comments. Gumshoe is in the kiddieshoes when it comes to that amount of interest.
And you just pick ONE !
Dalia can Google with my real name and CV, along with the names of my clients, only to find out that my CV is authentic.
Again I say that all Dalia needed to do was to contact me, but chose not to do such thing.
Therefore I do not understand what is going on here, I was never charched of anything, only to read here tham I have been found guilty.
Is Mary Maxwell pulling the strings on Gumshoe, I do not know, but she also could have contacted me personally.
So this is how Gumshoe works…..
I stepped into internet fora about halfway 2012
XingFu lives in Belgium, I live in The Netherlands.
Belgium is bi-languaged, French and Dutch.
Xing can handle both.
This is no secret.
I have met XingFu 3 times in person in 3 years.
I have never met Johnnyboy in person, ever.
Do I have the right to plead?
Re: “About a week ago, I challenged them to write a thesis — their version of the 9/11 building collapses”
going about it the wrong way. Instead, challenge them with a bet–take any abandoned high rise over 47 stories–set fires to it and reproduce same collapses.
We truthers should stop referring to WTC 7. Red herring–a purposely done diversion. WTC 1 and 2 were demolished by nuclear weapons. If WTC 7 did not happen. Most engineers would focus on WTC 1 and 2.
Starting just after Sept 11/01-I suspected nuclear devices were used.
Challenge any engineer to duplicate what really happened on WTC 1 and 2. Lot of high towers in Detroit that could use a cheap method to bring them down– A old jet plane and 10,000 liters of Kerosene. IMPOSABLE :^(
Good idea—i challenged them before to come up with a similar fire-B7 scenario—waited three months then was sent a building —that seemed collapsed — but when i searched, post the fire it was still STANDING. They are professional disinfo people – and I reckon they are paid. It would be great if one of them turned into a whistleblowing-troll
Have you actually read the paper on the collapses,
By Dr. Greening, and Dr. Benson, they proved the collapses mathematics, and physics beyond NIST.
Carroll – you are a gem of distraction as I said in my email to you. You can try bamboozle us non-engineer/chemists with anti-Harrit theory. As I said before – let us discount Harrit. Thus I am still waiting for a reply to query on Building 7. If it looks like a demolition – why not fully and transparently investigate thus. We DO NOT NEED TO HAVE COME UP WITH ‘THE’ THEORY OF COLLAPSE – merely to cast more than reasonable doubt on the present official one.
To repeat:
It looks like a perfect controlled demolition, No other steel high-rise building has collapsed in a similar fashion as a result of fire (let us explore), For several floors, the building is in free fall, The NIST computer modelling does not replicate the real collapse (on video).There was evidence of molten metal (for weeks) afterwards. Witnesses heard a countdown and heard booming sounds. The BBC announced the collapse 20 minutes before it came down.
The leaseholder said “pull” with regard to the building. Barry Jennings reported that he was in an explosion on the stairs when trying to evacuate. There were fires, but only a small percentage of the building had been affected.
Thousands of professionals and experts (in architecture, engineering, mathematics, metallurgy, physics, chemistry, etc.) believe it was demolished by “explosives.” It is obvious that the finding “caused by explosives” would have been extremely challenging for NIST to present to superiors in the US government. There are people and organisations trying to suppress Building 7 information and evidence.
Why not say “Harrit, I believe you’re wrong – but I’m with you in a proper investigation to see what happened.”?
If it smells like bacon burning – lets go into the kitchen and see whats cooking hey Carroll. Or are you one of cooks who have locked the kitchen door?
Dalia, people like Carroll are typical trolls, spreading disinformation. Her citing Brabant is a classic example. As I said in an earlier post, as clever as these alleged Muslim hijackers might have been, nobody has yet got around the laws of physics. That fact alone destroys the official conspiracy theory about planes, fires etc bringing down three buildings in the manner that happened.
Ned, I prefer Marmite!
How exactly were the Laws of physics violated on 9/11/2001?
Also what makes you think I am a woman when my name is Latin for Large powerful Man?
Carroll, not The English Carol.
Anyone who says the laws of physics were violated on 9/11/2001 Is as goofy as Judy Woods.
All that is required for rapid decent of the structure is rapid redistribution of load causing bolt and weld failure leading to disunification of structure.
For someone who likes to pronounce so confidently on this matter I am surprised that you should ask what laws of physics were broken on 9/11. If you bothered to read the literature you would know. Just as an example, the second law of momentum was violated, as it is literally impossible for buildings to fall at free fall speed, as Sunder acknowledged, unless the impediments to a floor’s fall are removed in advance. That can only be done by explosives, again as Sunder acknowledged. This applies to WTC7.
With WTC 1 and 2 there are a mass of scientific clues that explosives were used. For example, using physics again, the concrete could not have been converted to dust of 60 microns or less with the energy available from a gravitational collapse. The pyro clastic clouds observed occur only in either volcanoes or explosive demolitions. There are also the molten metal hot spots noted by the U.S. Geological Survey. Again not possible without explosive intervention. There are many other examples, all of which fall foul of the basic laws of physics unless explosives were used.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, the U.S. Department of Energy located a number of trace elements in the debris that are only found following a nuclear explosion. That 2003 report was classified until last year when it was leaked. A number of sites have discussed that report and its findings.
May I respectfully suggest that instead of trolling your arrant nonsense you actually take some time to acquaint yourself with the evidence? Your failure to do so, which is self-evident from your postings, only reinforces the view of myself and no doubt many others, that you are not interested in evidence, only in trying to confuse the issue.
James I thought you had read the Grav-Report that explained the lunar idiosyncrasies on the morning of Sept 11. Because of three anomalies of the moon and earth and Pluto, gravity was altered that morning. Also as a result of the special synchronicity between the tides and radio waves, it allowed favourable conditions for the weakening of steel structures. Maybe Carroll could embelish
How hot was your pyroclastic cloud?
Pyro means hot
James ONiellm. Can you prove that a high gravitational potential
Can not crush dry wall gympsum and light weight concrete into dust, after the heat of a fire has already dryed the drywall?
As for building 7:already adressed take out the bolts and there is no structure left.
Also. Black lighting and older computer monitors account for the radiation peaks.
Molten metal not surprised by that as you obviously are plenty of lead, and Aluminum to account for that with ease.
Carbon fires not thermite explain the fires best.
With the known steel water hydrogen reaction.
You people really crack me up.
Simple explanations explain things far better than thermitic fantasy.
Carroll Sanders, I am sorry to say that you are either profoundly stupid in that the questions you ask have no scientific validity; or you refuse to understand the points that are made; or, and this is my own view, you are simply a troll that takes up valuable time and space with your endless idiocies.
James O’Neil, so you can’t openly debate your Ideas with reason so you fall back on an argument that itself shows your limited understanding of the events.
Nuclear weapons without massive damage to the bath tubs and slurry walls under the towers what are you thinking, Steven E. Jones debunked Micro Nukes years ago.
What structure do you feel should interrupt the fall of a self supporting granite facade,, after the steel frame suffers Fracture induced collapse?
Ideas have to have merit and logical reasoning behind them.
Truthers have been arguing for 13 Years over 1 inch girder expansion when NIST states it was a combination of Girder expansion, and Column buckling inducing movement,
To produce girder walk off.
Truthers neglect that the Girder, and the column both move, inducing collapse of the floor structure by the time the wall falls
Most of the steel is already gone and nothing is left to provide resistance.
To the collapse of the granite façades, The steel ties that bind the mortar to the stones are all that cause it to resemble a building before it collapses.
Dalia Mae I did not receive your email,
I am receiving the comment updates but not
Your emails, I will resend you the contact information,
And confirm it is correct.
If evidence instead of lies were presented, I would be with you,
However Jones and company have an unfortunate habit of lying.
Would the Australian people agree to a tax to pay for another investigation?
Harrit has not presented anything of merit, if he has why has Mark Basile not proven it with an enert gas ignition test he promised 5 years ago?
Why does Kevin Ryan and Harrit claim to have Data and refuse to make it public knowledge if it is so conclusive?
Why didn’t Steven E Jones do dynamic experiments, to rule out
Natural phenomena for his observations instead of static laughable tests.
Looks like is not evidence of anything other than looks, and looks in themselves can be deceiving, that is why we have science and knowledge with knowledgeable people, to make sure we are not mistaken in our assumptions based on looks alone.
Oh come on…. 12 points of reasonable doubt. And maybe two to three points – pointing to fire (one being unseen and assumptions)
Do you want me to answer all your points of reasonable doubt one by one, you should know however I started researching
9/11/2001 in 2005 after direct conversation with Steven E. Jones on the 3 of June of that year, before his forced retirement from BYU. and have performed hundred of experiments on his theories over the years.
In said conversation he showed considerable lack of knowledge in the subject he was researching.
The question is why do you believe any of those points to be remotely valid?
“Remotely Vaild” – Now I feel you are wasting my time. Let me repeat :
(And I am stunned that you do not see any validity in any of these points)
1. It looks like a perfect controlled demolition Yes or No?
2. No other steel high-rise building has collapsed in a similar fashion as a result of fire. Yes or No
3. For several floors, the building is in free fall — yes or no?
4. NIST computer modelling does not replicate the real collapse (on video). yes or no?
5. There was evidence of molten metal (for weeks) afterwards. yes or no
6. Let us discount Jones…..
7. Let us discount random witnesses…
8. Did Larry say “pull” on PBS – yes or no
9. Barry Jennings reported that he was in an explosion on the stairs – Yes or No
10. only a portion of the building has burned – yes or no
11. Thousands of professionals and experts believe it was demolished by “explosives.” yes or no
12. a finding “caused by explosives” would have been extremely challenging for NIST to present – yes or no
WHAT DO I HAVE TO NOT BELIEVE CARROLL? Barry Jennings maybe? Larry was lying? That ae911truth is a hoax?
I feel you have come onto this site and are emailing me to waste my time…. (I have answered your email – but it may be the last)
Find me an abandoned high rise structure of similar design
To the world trade center buildings, you can can you not?
And then?
There are non not a one no similar structures on this planet.
Subterfuge leading question, topical of trutherism I leave you to your religious worship of your Gods in the Trutherism religion.
There is no debate with out reasoned discussion and you are definitely not interested in reason or logical debate.
Wish you the best but only a fool argues religion on the internet.
1 No, no hypersonic blasts going pop pop pop.
(2 objection leading the witness), the correct answer is No other building with intact fire proofing or concrete core, has collapsed do to fire the Madrid tower collapsed except fore the concrete core, and there are no comparable buildings to the towers.
3No not the building the left over granite wall after the steel frame collapsed. It had a two foot separation from the steel framing.
4No the collapse of the steel starts at the east penthouse, and it is impossible to see the steel framing in the video which is the part modeled by NIST. the exterior was left out of the model because it was Unimportant surported no weight load other than it’s own.
5yes molten Aluminum,600C Lead, Glass, pyrosing plastics 400C,were all present on site but not high heat materials like white hot steel at over 1500C.
8Yes while talking to a fire chief, about loss of life.
9Yes at the same time the north tower fell, note explosions, fuel air blasts are common in fires they are often called back drafts.
10Yes thats what you need to get a rapid collapse, part of the structure fails, shifting the load radically, the bolts and connections in the cold sections sheer.
11, not even 1 percent of the experts in engineering, not1 percent of the physicists.
12 no finding of explosives was possible, no evidence of Monrue’s effect or shrapnel embedded in the steel.
No finding of explosives could be found, only weld, bolt, and connection failure.
Almost all the steel and connections were photographed and no visual evidence of explosives, at all.
Last I predict that the truth movement will next proclaim they find Iron and copper microspheres in the dust.
Carroll, your answers range from embarrassing, false to desperate. Not worth replying to. (And this is unpaid)
But give the picture below to a 4 year old and ask them to SPOT THE DIFFERENCE. “Where’s Wally?” Maybe they can even spot Wally waving from one of the windows.
https://daliamaelachlan.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/building-7-2.jpg
Dalia Mae
Yours is a strawman argument, there is two foot separation
Between the steel framing and the granite facade, to allow for movement. You telling me you can see though granite I didn’t
Know you were super woman with X ray vision.
NIST never modeled the Facade why should they it was a free standing Granite wall, that played no part in the collapse initiation,
No wonder the truth movement is so laughed at no credibility, NIST did not include the Stone in the model, it played no part in the failure of the steel framing, if you want to be treated with respect don’t repeat childish non sensical arguments.
You joking surely… There’s not a kink. Surely something is attached, otherwise it would stand up and withstand a breeze in the first place.
Funny that Kaboom is not in the video of the buildings7 collapse,
What about the other known lies involving the Mayor of New York in that video?
I also can not find him listed as a fire marshal or arson investigator anywhere with New York city, or state.
You might want to fact check your information, the mayor of New York was making an appearance on TV. When Dent says he was in building 7.
Also other fire fighters have contradicted his story.
But then Alex Jones has been known to pay for people to lie on air.
Do you have any evidence other than pay to lie Alex Jones?
“Kaboom is not in the video of the buildings7 collapse,”
Carroll, interestingly, Matt Campbell, in his suit against the BBC (soon) – will show the BBC reduced the sounds of ‘explosions’ for their broadcast. I await to report more on that case.
As lawrence of arabia says – the laws of physics went awol that day….
And nitpick Dent all you like. He was there. You weren’t.
Listen to him Carroll – scrub your ears out – when he was employed he refused to comment
Jojo why don’t you just read the Scientific paper that is already written on the towers accepted by 99.9 percent of engineers,
And physisists, and has been Since 2008?
The truth movement is built on self destructive lies.
@carroll,
There is indeed a 0,001 percentage of engineers that not understand the hypothesis. And of those supposedly 2200 only 80 have a license to work on buildings, last time I looked.
However, NIST douse not start with “Dear children, the Emperor has concluded that the Baby Tower…”
Suggesting a proposal of nuclear weapon use is akin to Martians merely demonstrates the unwillingness of many to actually consider the evidence as opposed to giving vent to their biases. The US Depsartment of Energy produced a report in 2003, based in part on an analysis of the debris at WTC1 and 2. Forensic analysis is standard for all building destruction by unnnatural means. Nuclear devices leave a unique forensic footprint. That evidence was uncovered by the D of E analysis, which is why the report was immediately classified top secret. Its contents were leaked last year. If you go into the Veterans Today website and search WTC nukes it will bring up the relevant article published earlier this year. You may not like what you read, but that is hardly the issue.
WTC7 was a separate case and more of a conventional demolition using explosives. David Griffin’s book on the subject is the most coherent analysis for those starting out in this area.
Sorry about the typos in the messages below. one being; ‘Need” should be ‘Ned’.
Several paid disinfo ‘people’ float around youtube and the internet – using (now really pretty dated and transparent) text-based suppression techniques – in an attempt to try and close down any non-official story online discussions.
The cards used in their posts are :
1. Sneer
2. Smear
3. Name call
4. Lie
5. Insinuate craziness
6. Ignore any evidence
7. Constantly shout down any questioning of the official story
(easy to do when you are a team)
8. Misdirect
9. Misrepresent
10. Attempt to demoralize
11. Attempt to antagonize
12. Copy and paste a users comment and change a few words
13. Engage in time-wasting circular conversations that lead nowhere
14. Continuously attempt to constantly paint honest scientific inquiry as a ‘cult’
15. Completely ignore the questions and content in this documentary :
It is the best doco I’ve yet seen on the case for Controlled Demolition.
It contains many REBUTTAL questions to debunkers – that none of the paid pro official story shills will go near or discuss.
While they will claim they have already answered / debunked these questions – they will remain unable to do so publicly
Their script hasn’t changed much over the years – so they are easy to spot these days.
It’s a strategy of these ‘people’ to wear commenters down with constant repetition – while totally ignoring every glaring inconsistency of the official story that you present to them.
Some of the youtube users – who all use the same script, are:
50flamingbottles, john debunker, femdeathcampcontrol, neo morpheous, poetryhound, mrrandomguy86, tpryce, ctcole77, The Dark passenger, Cantonear1968, TheMsjayhawk, bagintree, factchecking 101, albury smith, and terry manning1.
Mean-spirited, willfully disingenuous, intellectually dishonest shits – every last one of them.
Their other job – is to attempt to reinforce certain false memes like no-planes, pods, nuclear bombs, aliens, holograms, Dr Judy Wood, etc – by steadily injecting them into the 911 online discussion – in order to make honest scientific inquiry into the problems with the events of 911 – look as ridiculous as possible.
This is purposefully done to malign, confuse, divide, misdirect, and make possible the public ridicule of anyone who calls the official version of events on its glaring inadequacies regarding what is 3 very obvious Controlled Demolitions.
The only thing that shuts these ‘people’ up or renders them ineffective is being shouted down by several people at once.
We can conclude that many unanswered questions have not been resolved and will remain so until a genuine open
uncorrupted criminal investigation is conducted where all the relevant suspects are in the dock for the world to observe and a jury to judge.
Until an honest criminal trial is conducted all policies and actions justified by the “Muslim Conspiracy Theory” have zero integrity and should be rejected until we identify the exact architects and full dimensions of the “terrorism” threat.
Wesley Clark, former US military General, and Nabil Naim, former Al Qaeda “General”, can both be listened to explaining from opposite but highly qualified perspectives, Muslim fanatics are tools of US foreign policy objectives.
Only lazy narrow minds blinkered by egotistical self
importance would deny the self evident reality that at the very least key people driving US foreign policy are deeply complicit in the crime of 9/11.
The Warren Commission declared Oswald shot Kennedy with a
“magic” bullet.
Eight Liberty attack investigations cleared Israel of deliberate intent.
The Nuremberg War Crimes trials claimed Germany conducted an industrial scale extermination by gassing six million.
Syria gassed their own population right before the UN inspectors for chemical warfare.
Iraq had nuclear capacity and chemical WMD in 2002.
The FBI never entrap vulnerable “terror” patsies.
The CIA never manufacture violent interpretations of ideologies
to create convenient enemies to justify bringing US democracy to Nations that didn’t even know they needed it.
There isn’t enough millimetres to measure our way to work so tomorrow is a holiday.
Bush was lucky the school wasn’t bombed on 9/11 while he read to children and conducted a press conference during a surprise terror attack on the US.
NIST has never seen any evidence of molten steel, unexplained explosions and foreknowledge that WTC buildings
were going to collapse.
Larry Silverstein is a lucky guy along with his children.
O,Neil, prominent “Al Qaeda” expert is unlucky.
If you close your eyes and plug your ears you might even believe all of the above are truthful statements.
About El Kammo; this was written a few days ago to let it rest:
@all,
Halfway 2012 I was still in the “grey area” regarding WTC 7, and awaiting the FOIA drawings to compare with the NIST drawings.
I stepped into a Dutch website that was running a thread about it. The thread was cut after 5000 !!! comments, with me entering after 3 or 4000.
There I encountered Johnnyboy as a user, and I marked him as my most fierce-full and respected opponent. I marked him as “the Librarian”, ask for a document and “Bling”, there you have it.
Johnnyboy and I have never met in person, we are just users.
The fight we had on that thread was a hard one and we found ourselves in a “pat”position(like in a chess game)
Deleting the information he provides is not a wise thing to do.(according to me).
Setting rules like for insult or being off-topic is common.
Dalia has recieved my curruculam vitae and my name and email adress.
About the connection within the “three musketeers” she only needed to ask. There was no need to write a piece, based upon a whole lot of “maybe’s” gutfeeling and assumptions, again I say, all she needed to do was just ask.
I am a structural engineer, 57 years of age, head drawing office, with a current project budget of EUR 1.000.000.000 and a current contract value of EUR 449.000.000 (excluding VAT) just for the builder, these numbers are published on the website of our client, and Gumshoe found me guilty without charge.
My work is not a secret, it is well known in my country, The Netherlands.
I never worked for the Government, that is your own Lala fantasy.
All Dalia needed to do was make the call !
Erratum:
Dalia and I had good private contact after this comment was written.
Yes El K and I have had very cordial email communication. I wrote the Disinformation article though when a number of ‘personal’ attacks came through. But this website is to discover what is going on – so if Johnyboy will refrain from the insults I’ll unblock him. I personally am willing to learn – and if someone of El Kammo’s experience can teach us something then that provides us with more knowledge. But, as I wrote in an email to El Kammo this morning:
If it smells like bacon cooking – it is most likely bacon cooking.
It might be something else…. but then it requires going into the kitchen to investigate.
And thus I posed the question re: B7
It it looks like a perfect demolition – then one should investigate such. Regardless of the design.
Keep posted on this….
It was investigated photos were taken of the steel those photos are where NIST got the information for modeling connection failure.
There is no evidence of Monrue’s effect or shrapnel from explosives.
There is no credible evidence of thermitic incendiaries.
Fire men noted the building leaning 30 Minutes before collapse occurred an a transit was used to determine lean.
A partial collapse of the Madrid Towers occurred, but the concrete core of that building prevented total collapse.
World trade 1,2,and 7 had no concrete cores, core collapse was the primary failure mode of the towers, while building 7 a unique structure with a unique counter levered beam system suffered collapses of a girder that caused column 79 to buckle leading to collapse of the floor system.
Since no other buildings built like the three collapsed buildings at the world trade center have ever suffered damage and fires like those on 9/11/2001, comparison with buildings of conventional construction are merely distractions and miss information until such time such structures are subjected to the same environment factors.
I question why there is not a comprehensive testible theory, of CD provided by those presenting such uninformed argument s?
I have had back and forth emails with Carroll now – and he concludes
“However I know how steel fails and how fast, I break it all the time….
As he knows how steel works – he believes we do not require an investigation anymore. As I said to him, if it was not so serious – I would have a stomach ache from laughing.
I just don’t understand why he doesn’t want to support a transparent investigation and prove himself right.
I am not wasting any more of my time.
You gave me no valid logical scientific reason for the expense or
Trouble of a new investigation, none Nada zippo.
You have no understanding of explosives, energy tranfer, though steel, the way the force is exerted on the connection determines failure!
Your completely clueless, no valid logical reason, no need for an investigation,.
Then you try an old truther trick of leading questions, classic
So like I said goodbye I am not going to argue to a devoted follower of trutherism.
@dalia,
So you plunge your recently discovered findings, discovered on the (old files) internet, and mark criticism as a waste of your time
Carroll – I am still waiting to hear whether those points are valid in casting reasonable doubt upon the official story of B7.
I will reference your (Carroll) Greening and Benson. The documentary on their thesis was on SBS tonite. Well they admit:
1. It was an explosion that brought the building down.
2. Port Authorities denied access to dust samples.
3. They believe they created similar conditions of an aluminium explosion in a furnace…
4. They say NIST is incorrect.
5. For their theory to be correct and unfold – TWICE – exacting very complex set of circumstances is in itself a problem
6. That evidence they needed was not found in the dust samples they had further complicates their argument
It also (unfortunately) seemed like an attempt to make a sensible Richard Gage look not so sane. That was unfortunate and not necessary in the voice over. They took a biased view implying that to believe someone from ‘inside’ planted bombs is an outrageous conspiracy theory.
The first thing one does in a scientific investigation or investigative documentary – is REMOVE ALL emotive elements from the investigation. Then review the evidence.
I will analyse the documentary in more detail in another post.
However. It seems clear that explosives brought down the buildings. That is clear from the video and lateral projections.
All that is required is to determine whether the aluminium from the planes caused the explosion under a set of circumstances
or
whether other energy devices were planted to deliberately bring the buildings down. (The only complex situation would be placing the marked suitcases on the correct floors)
What would you use as an explosive that would be thermally stable in a fire?
Rdx and TNT cook off in fires, Jones-Harrit chips are in terms of energy value less harmful to the structure than popping pop corn on the heated beams.
Ideas have to rest in logic I expect natural explosions in the buildings but do not expect those explosions to be of such extent that they are significant, because most would be low force gas and carbon dust explosions similar to those in grain elevators or coal mines.
Black powder like events not explosives like RDX or TNT.
What was the title of the program because I believe your
Confusing Dr. Greenings recent hydrogen explosion theory with the mathematical paper Benson and Greening wrote on the collapse of the towers?
There could have been an explosion in B7, I once proposed that hydrogen or other gases with carbon black would ignite, and cause a fuel air blast in the B7, to Steven E Jones.
However that requires a containment structure, to create a preasure effect I looked though the buildings plans and could
Find no such structure, in the buildings.
So I can not concur with the Greening Theory until such time
Such structure is found.
Janet
To answer your questions, on the Greening hydrogen explosions
Theory.
Did the Hindenburg zeplin burn or did it go boom, Hydrogen needs containment to create an over pressure reaction from the heated air and steam given off by the reaction.
So I can not Support Frank’s theory I as understand it.
On the other hand the speed of sound in Cold steel is 5100 meters per second, that is also the rate that compression or impact energy can travel though steel.
So a rapid energetic transfer of energy can occur, that can cause rapid irreversible connection failure.
NIST’s hypothesis has always been heat induced buckling leading column weld failure causing collapse of both towers.
NIST did not go past Column buckling,leading to collapse.
Dr.Greening and Dr. Benson did they found that 100,000lbf in a 1 foot displaced off center strike would fracture one weld in the core,
100,000lbf is the same as 2600lbs, (about the weight of a small SUV, dropped 12 feet)
That is what takes out the core the main weight bearing part
Of the towers.
Now the mass descended down the funnel effect of the perimeter columns, taking out more core columns before the top block can impact them. The mass acts like a piston in a car
Engine.
That dropping mass causes containment and air pressure effects, air effects that will cause hydrogen, CO1, and carbon dust explosions in the collapses.
The microspheres are evidence of those reactions,they form easily in the collapses, of the buildings from the hydrogen, and carbon gasses ignition of steel basicly wires, and the steel expelled from the fracturing welds, along with natural thermitic reactions.
The natural thermitic reactions occur because of friction heating and splattering and mixing of Al with Fe3O4.
Or because of hydrogen ignition of Aluminum.
Next I am not surprised that the port authority will not release samples to people investigating privately, after the lies of Steven E Jones, why would the release them the port authority is under no legal obligation to release them.
I believe they could create Hydrogen reactions in a furnace I have created similar hydrogen explosions by experimenting into the collapses.
Steven E. Jones could not create a hydrogen reaction he was clueless doing static stupid worthless tests.
They theorize NIST is incorrect however proof is lacking.
Yes the aluminum has to reach 1000C and flow dropping into water and producing hydrogen into a space with enough containment to cause a pressure effect and an explosion.
The microspheres are most likely evidence of hydrogen and other explosive reactions and could possibly be the result of
The reactions Frank proposess
I hope this helps in your understanding of the events.
molted aluminium and water go boom:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2991ev_twin-towers-the-missing-evidence-1of2-couchtripper_news
But why have you being denying an explosion then el kammo? ….. You have talked collapse from fire. We have established that explosions happened now…. on possibly a few floors…. Now you have to explain whether that can demolish maybe 44 columns. I will not be commenting until Sunday. Busy.
The people on here claim that the NIST papers were not peer reviewed, but this is not so, because NIST documented all the critique in the following paper.
It’s only some 900 pages
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/combined2008publicComments.pdf
El kammo
I sent Dalia Mae a copy of Collapse of the twin towers,
What did and did not cause it. By Dr. Greening and Dr Benson
It was all posted on an open internet forum, as the work progressed.
I hope she reads it and understands nothing seen on 9/11/2001 Is without an easy natural explaination.
It is just the way connection failure causes steel to fail, fast and rapid a loud pop and no more weld or bolts.
Steel is composed of crystals of Iron and carbon those crystals when cold can rapidly fracture, when subjected to sudden intense load.
The question is why can’t truthers present valid arguments
Backed by valid science?
I am posting here under my real name trying to explain this to you as best I can.
I go back to ‘reasonable doubt’ Carroll. Try answer my previous comments and emails on reasonable doubt. It’s all about getting a transparent process for inquiry. Will comment again on Sunday.
Dalia Mae
Under the doctrine of reasonable deubt the official story must stand until it is scientificly proven false by the prosecution, that is the Truth Movement, They have to One, Prove fire can not weaken the iron to iron crystalline metallic bonds of steel allowing for thermal expansion of steel.
Two truth movement has to prove that loss of fire proofing would not cause steel to heat to point of failure.
That cold steel will not transmit energy at 5100 meters per second, and that energy would not cause simple connection
Failure.
That there is insufficient gravitational energy as they claim for the collapses and events to happen naturally.
Dalia Mae
The Doctrine of reasonable doubt states that if doubt exists the the charged is presumed not guilty, for better an guilty man go free than an innocent man be hanged.
Your putting the natural collapse theory on trial here, it is up to those in the prosecution to prove their cases which they fail to do.
Preponderance of evidence is used in civil cases, law suits not criminal cases, just wanting to clarify what you’re
asking of people.
You are sounding DESPERATE Carroll. It is simple. If it looks and behaves like an explosion. Maybe…. Maybe it is one. You still have not answered my 12 points but rather come up with dispersing arguments.
Just pointing out what the doctrine of reasonable doubt is,
It is a protection for the accused not for the prosecution Madame prosecutor.
If you want to put the story of 9/11/2001 on trial it needs to be a fair and impartial one.
Natural explanation!
Give us a break, look at the big picture.
5 Israelis set up to watch the mass mirder and celebrating.
The Silverstein deal.
Ms. Landeur’s exposure,
E P Heidner’s thesis.
The put option scenario.
The other van filled with explosives.
Runsfield’s missin 2.3 millionissing.
The Ports authority work on the towers.
The pass port falling from the pilot.
Nothing at the alleged crash site at Phillip.
The Able Danger expose.
The devout Muslms acting like a drumken oversexed football team celebrating.
Building No 7
Silverstein pulling us.
The double take on the insurance.
A asbestos ridden pair of towers scattered over NY.
No proper investigation,
The Jersey girls insisting on a commission.
An underfunded investigation.
911 Commissioners saying they were lied to.
Bin Laden denying involvement and stating to look to Washington for the culprits.
KSM torture and says he did 911 from A to Z.
After ten years KSM has not yet been tried.
The urban Moving System fellows running off.
The 28 redacted pages of the Commission report refers to foreign countries planning 911.
I am not even going to check the spelling above:
The official story is crap why does anyone defend it?
I suggest that they have reason to protect the real mass murderers, just as many institutions protect their paediphiles for the ne of the institution.
The natural explanation is as a duck: if it waddles like a duck quacks like a duck then it is a F’n duck.
Hilarious on a thread about disinfo, and your full of it,
The Asbestos was so funny only tower one had Asbestos,
Only up to the 38th floor, New York band Asbestos, in 1970, the towers were one of the first buildings to use the new blaze shield insulation on structural steel.
Your corresponding to some one who actually studied the buildings construction and watched a movie on said construction in the 1970s The towers were a technological achievement that used the most updated technology.
Do not spread disinformation it helps no one.
Look up the reported estimates as to how much it was going to cost to remove the asbestos. Such removals have been ongoing worlwide. I take it that your mind is all on asbestos.
The asbestos was encapsulated not requiring removal, the only thing that needed replacement was the non esbestos blaze shield insulation, which needed replacement because it was flaking off the steel indangering the buildings in case of fire.
The truth movement confused the non asbestos flaking insulation with the encapsulated Asbestos insulation, that was not flaking and pulled an erroneously ridiculous number out of the air.
The towers tryed a new safer insulation without asbestos,
And the material had bad performance over time, where the asbestos insulation was still intact an encapsulated posing
No harm until the plane hit building 1 the only building with any Asbestos.
Please reference your source. Or is this from the manual they gave you?
And maybe reference the fire upgrade that occurred at the Marsh offices….
Elkammo, read, KlAPOTKE.PDF
The non explosive aerogel thermite part that Harrit said matches his chips, lowest velocity combustion rate in nano thermite,
You will get a laugh it would be ignited when the plane hits totally worthless as the CO2 gas produced would disperse into the air, not heat weaken the beams or Column.
Leave it to Harrit and Jones to pick the most worthless type of thermite.
The copper oxide thermite now that is respectable combustion velocity.
Dalia Mae,
My source is Building the World Trade Center, math Science and engineering educational
Movie, 1975, by the Random House educational project,
Random house publishing, New York, New York.
New York City Building codes, and compliance, where the papers are on file and always have been before Sept. 11/ 2001.
These whole buildings were documented from day one.
http://truedemocracyparty.net/2012/05/most-banned-book-in-the-world-200-years-together-aleksandr-solzhenitsyn/
Elmko,
what Ignna do? I gonna
Now just for Laughs I ask that the prosecution, Truth movement, present a cognitive, concise, coherent theory, backed by reason,
As to how such an Impossible, Controlled Demolition could be done.
It is the prosecutions Job to prove it’s case based on the doctrine of reasonable doubt, as the accusers that proof must include a theory of how the events occurred and what materials were used.
The truth movement at this time has no workable logical theory and only can run around shouting stupidity, so what’s your theory?
Just for laughs… 1) Find Wally, 2) Theory one: Special military style explosives were set up in the building to cover up a gold heist and battle for control of the global collateral accounts. There are many more theories.
And Carroll, as for “impossible” controlled demolition. I believe experts say it would have been a piece of cake.
I am tired on debating nonsense Carroll. You are here to distract.
Quote:
“I am tired on debating nonsense Carroll. ”
Nonsense ?
LOL… I can hardly take that comment seriously from someone who believes in chemtrails as well.
By the way, how far are you in that research ? I suppose that running around with a mask all the time DOES affect the brain after some time, doesn’t it ?
Oh have you SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT Xingfu. What a laugh. Re: your “I can hardly take that comment seriously from someone who believes in chemtrails”.
Well well well. You might want to discount the US Government then. Why are they holding “Chemtrail” hearings then?
Maybe discount the United Nations then (good idea) – “Chemtrails Discussed At United Nations Hearing On Global Warming”
https://daliamaelachlan.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/chem-700×400.jpeg
Dalia Mae,
Have you read the studies on water vapor from jet exhausts
Leading to cloud formation and global timing?
They had hearings in the US to determine if sodium Iodine crystals, can be added to jet exhausts to slow global warming though inhancing global dimiing DA.
Dalia Mae,
Just asking questions, what is the physical composition of these. Explosives are the nitrogen based with hypersonic blast waves, or are they of other composition?
Note the only things found in evidence so far are connection failure do to weld and bolt failure, no shrapnel, no Monrue’s
Effect.
Paint chips and microspheres are not evidence until proven conclusive Madam prosecutor.
Can you even define the energy fuel source for these supposed hush bomb explosives that make no sounds?
Cutter charges use a high explosive like RDX, C4, and a metal lenses, the hypersonic blast waves create a high energy plasma,
That cuts though the steel and makes a lot of noise in the process.
In other words they do not go boom, they go KABOOM.
No credible evidence exists for Aluminothermic devices, and no credible devices or materials have been proposed.
Some here have expressed that the radioactive materials found would indicate micro Nuclear devices, neglecting the black lighting, old computer monitors and picture type TV sets in the buildings.
Come on you people are claiming there is disinformation,
Let’s find the source, could it be that your the actual source of the disinformation your referring to?
Hello All.
I am new to this site.
So many denier trolls. Some with ”Qualifications”. You would think they would have their own blogs. “Disciples of Sunstien Cass”.
All demanding this ‘stupidity” about 9/11 and explosions end.
I have found they shut up real quick when asked these 2 questions.
Let’s say ”we” wanted to bring down the WTC’s.
How much explosives etc would we need to demolish the Towers?
Could we have brought down the Buildings any faster?
I saw a doco back in the 90’s about some other NYC building owner complaining when he saw the plans that the Buildings were designed to collapse. Jackson Pollock did “”Blue Poles”” also known as ”Number 11, 1952”.
Stevie Wonder wrote a song Living for the City-
http://pann.nate.com/video/202901889
Note the beginning and end of video.
Seymour Hersh wrote a book ‘The Samson Option”.
Again-
Could we have brought down the buildings any faster?
This site is for respectful debate. (I have deleted several comments from Dino as a result.)
And I will not tolerate ‘threats’ of any nature.