William Kelly Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Jack, Sometime in October they will implode the Sands Hotel Casino in Atlantic City, much like they did the Marlboro Blenheim and other classic Boardwalk hotels over the years. Films of this demolition will be all over the place after it happens. From what I remember of witnessing other hotels being demolished, the charges are set at the base and the explosions cause a reverse mushroom cloud that spreads out from the bottom and the building collapses into the explosion. The WTC towers on the other hand, are on fire at the top, and the mushroom cloud there moves downward as the building collapses, opposite of the controlled demolitions with the clouds at the bottom and the intact upper floors collapsing into the cloud. Now I'm not an engineer, but to me that's a Big difference and easily recognizable by any witnesses. That discrepency would have to be explained before I could believe that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition from the base. Though I'm open to persuasion. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 Jack,Sometime in October they will implode the Sands Hotel Casino in Atlantic City, much like they did the Marlboro Blenheim and other classic Boardwalk hotels over the years. Films of this demolition will be all over the place after it happens. From what I remember of witnessing other hotels being demolished, the charges are set at the base and the explosions cause a reverse mushroom cloud that spreads out from the bottom and the building collapses into the explosion. The WTC towers on the other hand, are on fire at the top, and the mushroom cloud there moves downward as the building collapses, opposite of the controlled demolitions with the clouds at the bottom and the intact upper floors collapsing into the cloud. Now I'm not an engineer, but to me that's a Big difference and easily recognizable by any witnesses. That discrepency would have to be explained before I could believe that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition from the base. Though I'm open to persuasion. BK Bill...OBVIOUSLY you did not look at the slide presentation, since that is addressed. What you describe is traditional implosion; Building Seven was imploded from the bottom, in the manner you describe. The TWIN TOWERS WERE IMPLODED FROM THE TOP DOWN. The slide presention shows the difference clearly. Look at the powerpoint show, please. It takes about 30 minutes...but well worth it. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-1.phpBE SURE TO CLICK AT BUTTONS ON BOTTOM OF SCREEN TO ADVANCE SLIDES. Looks like the 911 LIARS are afraid to tackle 318 pages of scientific evidence! Now the 911 TRUTHERS have the LIARS on the run. Jack Funny when we ( the “debunkers”) respond quickly to one of Jack’s posts he and his protégé accuse us of being CIA agents with a research stall who monitor the forum 24/7. If after 4 hours we don’t respond to his thread about a 318 slide presentation he claims that we are "afraid" and "on the run". Funny that Jack often refuses to resond to debunkings of his claims, some have gone unresponded for years. Even if we were to spend an average of only 15 seconds per slide (including loading time) it would take about 80 minutes to watch the whole thing. This would not include time to write, research and post a response. Note that some of the slides include video clips that have to load and are longer than 15 seconds. His claim that one can watch the whole thing in “about 30 minutes” is simply untrue. I did skim through it and other than Gage’s flow charts and diagrams which looked like they might have taken out of John Nash’s garage I didn’t see anything particularly new here, it’s the same old unsupported claims, disinformation, misinformation and quotes taken out of context repeated ad infinium in numerous books, sites, films etc. One the distortions that he repeats is that a UL insider/whistleblower showed that his company fire-tested the steel used the WTC and that NIST’ conclusions are untenable . The truth is that Kevin Ryan has a BS in chemistry and worked for a water testing bought by UL a few months before 9/11 and was no way involved in the parent company’s standards testing company, other than having a science background he has no special qualifications for analyzing how steel would react to fire (as opposed to the structural engineers who prepared the NIST report). Ryan’s unsupported claim that UL’s chairman told him other people at the water testing lab that UL had tested the steel No one else backs his claim which was denied by UL and contradicted by NIST, the Port Authority, Leslie Robertson (the lead structural engineer of the WTC) and a few journalists who researched the history of the towers. He also claims to have expert backing for his claims but he draws mainly on the research of a particle physicist, a computer programmer and the aforementioned water tester. This we are to presume is supposed to outweigh the research of numerous structural engineers. Another problem is that he provides no backing for many of his claims. Instead of presenting an impossibly large document to debunk perhaps Jack can single out 10 – 20 points Gage made (with slide #’s) that he thinks are most compelling. I could play the same trick as jack and present a link to a website and as him and the other truthers here to debunk the whole thing. On truth that Gage refuse to aknowledge is that all three buildings showed signs of unstability before they collapsed and people predicted they would fall before hand. Many are detailed here http://911stories.googlepages.com/accounts...instabilityande If Jack fails to debunk the site in 4 - 5 hours he is obviously "affraid", "on the run" and a "xxxx" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) of all the features of the towers, the strangest [in my opinion and of several physicists and others] is the large intact block of floors [from above the plane impact and fires] that tilted, broke off and started to tumble to the ground unattached to the lower part of the building, with huge mass and angular momentum. It should have [by all rules of physics], but did NOT fall to the ground alone. Before it hit the ground, it too exploded [mysteriously] into a fine dust....there is NO way to explain this other than pre-planted explosives of some kind. This is another smoking gun that has never been explained...there are many others. Peter this was discussed in the Bazant and Zhou paper (structural engineering Northwestern u) and by Eduardo Kausel (Civil Engineeiing structures group MIT and in the NIST. Did you actually read their acounts if so how did find them unsatisfactory? If not shouldn't you do so before claiming this is unexplained? Can you back your claim s that the upper part was "unattached", "falling to the ground alone" and "exploded [mysteriously] into a fine dust"? This is what he was talking about EDIT - photo added Edited September 25, 2007 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 Forget it all you supporters of the official version...its all over....but the last pieces to fall to earth and crash....as did the WTC...Watch and weep......this is a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF THE OFFICIAL VERSION! http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-206.php and more coming in the scientific journals!.....nighty-night official fairy-tale! You can run, but you can't hide.... You can stall and come back with more lies to support the official ones...but no one is buying. Game over. It was an inside job. It was mass murder and the murderers need to be caught and punished...they will be found as a few in the very highest circles of the current Government, Military, Financial, and Intelligence apparatus. What we need is a real investigation, but those who pulled this off, I fear, are also in control of any investigation [parallel with Dallas]! So, I suggest we round-up a People's Posse! And make Citizen's Arrests. It is really time for an International Inquest and Trial on the events of and surrounding Sept 11, 2001 and some related 'terror' events.......... NB - the bull of coffeman from B is dealt with in this enourmous work...and destroyed.....sorry 'charlie'...you loose.....your on the wrong side of the truth...I hope by being a misguided 'patriot', but for whatever reason...on the wrong side. You are selling political 'snake oil' and I think you know it. If you don't....hope you catch on.... Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center — Alan Miller James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11. Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_al...ief_of_nist.htm August 21, 2007 Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.” “I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.” Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said. In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.” Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!” World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.wmv ] Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.” In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.” Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.” Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.” Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.” Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said. Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated: “In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding. "I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ... "All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these. 1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ... 2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ... 3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error? 4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that. 5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ... 6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?" [The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s statement to the Science Committee can be found at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/scien...hsy24133_0f.htm ] Dr. Quintiere is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves. Quintiere is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including: · The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982) · The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986 · The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST · The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association His presentation “Questions on the WTC Investigations” was given twice at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference; Education Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). Recordings of the presentations can be purchased from the National Fire Protection Association at http://www.fleetwoodonsite.com/index.php?c...bc57ec492fa21e3 Colby will dismiss Dr. Quintiere as being UNQUALIFIED. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Forget it all you supporters of the official version...its all over....but the last pieces to fall to earth and crash....as did the WTC...Watch and weep......this is a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF THE OFFICIAL VERSION! http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-206.php and more coming in the scientific journals!.....nighty-night official fairy-tale! You can run, but you can't hide.... You can stall and come back with more lies to support the official ones...but no one is buying. Game over. It was an inside job. It was mass murder and the murderers need to be caught and punished...they will be found as a few in the very highest circles of the current Government, Military, Financial, and Intelligence apparatus. What we need is a real investigation, but those who pulled this off, I fear, are also in control of any investigation [parallel with Dallas]! So, I suggest we round-up a People's Posse! And make Citizen's Arrests. It is really time for an International Inquest and Trial on the events of and surrounding Sept 11, 2001 and some related 'terror' events.......... NB - the bull of coffeman from B is dealt with in this enourmous work...and destroyed.....sorry 'charlie'...you loose.....your on the wrong side of the truth...I hope by being a misguided 'patriot', but for whatever reason...on the wrong side. You are selling political 'snake oil' and I think you know it. If you don't....hope you catch on.... Peter How do you come to such a definite conclusion (inside job) when the main source you used in your post to back up your claims doesn't agree with you? Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 My main source was http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-206.phpLook at and study that and tell me you still believe the official verson and I'll tell you you are in denial......political and personal/psychological denial....or just can't 'see' the nose on the face of America. Believing all aspects of the official version, or believing that it wan't an inside job, are not the same thing. Just because there are problems with the investigation does not mean it was a false flag attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) My main source was http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-206.phpLook at and study that and tell me you still believe the official verson and I'll tell you you are in denial......political and personal/psychological denial....or just can't 'see' the nose on the face of America. Believing all aspects of the official version, or believing that it wan't an inside job, are not the same thing. Just because there are problems with the investigation does not mean it was a false flag attack. To say the 'official version' is flawed, is being overly polite......it is a knowing lie to protect the guilty. Same as in Dallas. What do you propose as middle-ground?...the Islamic terrorists went to every floor dressed as Ace Elevator and cut into the gypsumboard planting tons of electronicaly controlled thermite and detonators?.......the buildings did not come down due to the planes.....nor fuel...nor fires.....simple as that...there are many questions about the planes themselves, but that is not important...even if fake 'commercial' flights flown by remote control hit the towers, the planes did not bring them down. Anyway, all the evidence points not toward, but AWAY from the 'offiical version'. Why did the Bush Admin. NOT want an inquest and when forced to have one controlled by an int lligence insider? Why did they not explore all possiblities and like the WC seek to wrap up the official version in some phony legitimacy? The physics doesn't fit. The evidence was removed. The totalily of witnesses was ignored. The alternate theories were NOT even explored. It was a cover-up. If it wasn't an inside job it was Lee Harvey Oswald again.......all over again....but this time Atta and Co.....forget it...they are patsies....they may even have though they were pulling off an attack, but they were preempted. I think they were likley only told they were on an exercise simulating an attack. To know the truth we'd need a real investigation. That is the LAST thing the Government wants.....WHY?! I ask you WHY?!....because they are afraid of the truth. The truth is the ONLY thing that can remove them from power.....so it must be employed. No group since the Third Reich have so deserved to be removed from power...sorry to say....except the Soviets and they have been delt with. The current US Admin is just another Evil Empire in need of destruction.......the truth is the only weapon to use and the only one that will work. You're entitled to your opinion Peter. Even one of the sources you use to back up your claim disgrees. My own opinion based on the evidence I've seen and heard is that a combination of impact damage, and steel beams/supporting trusses weakened (NOT melted) by the resultant fires led to collapse of the upper floors - once that had begun a total collapse driven by gravity was probably inevitable. Thanks for the anti-US Government rant but you're preaching to the converted - I'll stick to examining the evidence! Edited September 25, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) The closed minded speak again ... and of course your opinion , no matter how wrong it may be , is the only one that matters , right Dave ? Give it up Peter ... Some people can't see the truth of anything ... Not even when ALL of the evidence points to a conspiracy and confirms that the official version is a pack of government lies and a cover-up. You are correct that Atta is Oswald all over again . Edited September 25, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 The closed minded speak again ... and of course your opinion , no matter how wrong it may be , is the only one that matters , right Dave ? Wrong again Duane old bean! As far as I'm concerned, opinions are like arse-holes - everyone's got one. Give it up Peter ... Some people can't see the truth of anything ... Not even when ALL of the evidence points to a conspiracy and confirms that the official version is a pack of government lies and a cover-up. Now who's opinion is the only one that counts? And you can make blatantly false statements like "ALL the evidence points to a conspiracy" as often as you like, but it won't make anyone take your views seriously. Maybe I've just read too much "truther disinformation" (melting point of steel being too high, holographically projected images of planes, death rays in outer-space, micro-nukes, ambiguity re "pull it", cruise-missile attacks etc etc) and have thrown the baby out with the bath-water. You're guilty of this yourself by propping up Jack's claim about WTC6 being blown up, when the video and photographic evidence clearly shows his timeline to be wrong. So I'll carry on looking at what evidence I can from both sides, and making my own personal judgement after that, regardless of whether you or anyone else chooses to label me "closed-minded", "in denial", "shill" or whatever derogatory term happens to be in vogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 (edited) New article by Dr. Reynolds regarding Newtonian Laws : Does anybody have a magnifying glass ??? Edited September 26, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 26, 2007 Author Share Posted September 26, 2007 New article by Dr. Reynolds regarding Newtonian Laws : Does anybody have a magnifying glass ??? Sorry about that. I guess the image exceeded the size limit, even though others have posted far larger images here. Well, this is a new article at http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/a/GH/GH_carcrash.html ...so click on the URL and see the original. Thanks, Duane! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 (edited) Whew ! .. I'm so glad you fixed the problem ... I tried to enlarge the text using MSN paint but it was a no go . You're welcome Jack . Edited September 26, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 Pity they have such a hard time explaining events such as this: (F-4 Phantom on rocket sled hitting concrete at Sandia National Labs) or engineers, in consultation with computer programmers, who actually do computer analysis and modeling rather than speculation: http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/ Even water can cut through steel under the right conditions: (Water jet cutting through 3" steel plate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 New article by Dr. Reynolds regarding Newtonian Laws : Gotta love the truthers they got some guy who earned an BS in Electrical Engineering from MIT in the aarly 70's who after a few years decided to got to medical school and become a family practicioner and they call him a "MIT engineeer" they get a particle physicist to analyze the collapse of the towers and then they get an economist to spout on about physics. They make sure to call him Dr. so that you know he has a PhD but curuiously forget to mention that it's not in science. Most of the truther scientists Jones, Ryan, Hoffman etc dismiss Reynolds and Woods as crackpots, it not hard to see why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now