529 Responses to “A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories”

1. 3 year old Kid Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm

   Rather than calling it the Cynic’s Guide, it should be called the CRETINS GUIDE. Perhaps Nick Pole can explain why Building 007 was totally omitted from even one single mention in the Commission Report he found to be so good and comprehensive? Do you suppose they accidentally forgot to mention 3 and not 2 buildings were disintegrated to dust and little rubble on the day of 911? How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each? All this stuff about jet crashes and burning building is totally irrelevant - How can the 80+ UNDAMAGED, Strongest & Heaviest Bottom floors (under the jet crash floors), be crushed to dust sand rubble within, (according to NIST; the video evidence and seismic data) 10 seconds, when if it were a 417 metres of empty vacuum the top bit fell through - it would take 9.22 seconds Precisely. How can a building offer next to no resistance yet 1 second prior to the initiation of destruction sequence the very fact the building was upright states it had a minimum of 1 times working load? Yet if you observe the blueprint the building were designed with 3 times working load in mind as they always have more than 100% redundancy as are the building codes. So, seeing as for example the UNDAMAGED 50th floor was designed to carry 3 times the 60 floors above it, and we are guaranteed it had to carry at least 1 times the 60 floors above it, and the lower the floors the tougher and heavier they were - It is just not physically possible to collapse a body through the path of most resistance at near free speed – it defies all common sense and at least three laws of physics. So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges? And if it is physically not even possible for Gravity to destroy the burning buildings within 10 seconds as is Physics fact - then it was not the fire or the jet crash nor the terrorist who brought the buildings down on 911. Even additional bombs in the basement and elsewhere would not destroy the buildings in 10 seconds; it would require precision set, precision timed demolition on at least every third if not every second floor. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

2. 3 year old Kid Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:53 pm

   Its like this, over 400 Architects and Engineers, myself included - prove the 911 destruction was controlled demolition. Here is all the absolute proof http://www.ae911truth.org/ Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

3. Sul Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:36 pm

   Conspiraloon Alert! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

4. Longman Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:44 pm

   No really. How many architects, engineers, physics etc have said there’s a problem with the “official” story? Not bleedin many. And most of those who have are doing so to further their own agenda. Wise up. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

5. paul w Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:46 pm

   3 year old Kid Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm The question is how can you be so totally ignorant? Go and read the following websites: 9-11 Myths Screwloosechange.blog Internet Detectives. All your questions will be answered. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

6. paul w Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 12:26 am

   “Perhaps Nick Pole can explain why Building 007 was totally omitted from even one single mention in the Commission Report he found to be so good and comprehensive?” It wasn’t their job. A report on WTC7 is currently underway and is expected to be released soon (and before you say ‘why has it taken so long?’ you must remember that, unlike 9-11 truther rubbish, these reports have to be accurate, scientific and professional.) “Do you suppose they accidentally forgot to mention 3 and not 2 buildings were disintegrated to dust and little rubble on the day of 911?” That’s because the buildings didn’t ‘disintegrate into dust’ and I wouldn’t call the remnants of the two Towers ‘little piles of rubbish’. You do, but then, you’re a truther. What has reality got to do with anything? “How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each?” Have you actually READ the NIST report? Please do. “All this stuff about jet crashes and burning building is totally irrelevant” ??????? “How can the 80+ UNDAMAGED, Strongest & Heaviest Bottom floors (under the jet crash floors), be crushed to dust sand rubble within” Er, have you READ the NIST report? Please do. (the towers were ‘cylinders’ that used the inner core columns and outer skin for strength, the floors within suspended between the two, hence the open-plan design of the floors.) “according to NIST; the video evidence and seismic data) 10 seconds, when if it were a 417 metres of empty vacuum the top bit fell through - it would take 9.22 seconds Precisely.” Er, have you READ the NIST report? Please do. “How can a building offer next to no resistance yet 1 second prior to the initiation of destruction sequence the very fact the building was upright states it had a minimum of 1 times working load? Yet if you observe the blueprint the building were designed with 3 times working load in mind as they always have more than 100% redundancy as are the building codes.” ???????? (no, really, have you READ the NIST report?) “So, seeing as for example the UNDAMAGED 50th floor was designed to carry 3 times the 60 floors above it, and we are guaranteed it had to carry at least 1 times the 60 floors above it, and the lower the floors the tougher and heavier they were..” No, the FLOORS were NOT designed to carry the 60 flo0rs above (read the comments above about the tower design and read the NIST report). “It is just not physically possible to collapse a body through the path of most resistance at near free speed – it defies all common sense and at least three laws of physics.” And what, precisely, are there three laws of physics? (the Nobel prize for anyone who can answer this correctly) So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges?” Er, gravity without a capital ‘g’? “And if it is physically not even possible for Gravity to destroy the burning buildings within 10 seconds as is Physics fact - then it was not the fire or the jet crash nor the terrorist who brought the buildings down on 911. A ‘Physics fact’ Really? “Even additional bombs in the basement and elsewhere would not destroy the buildings in 10 seconds; it would require precision set, precision timed demolition on at least every third if not every second floor.” Phew, glad you cleared that up! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

7. Dave D Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 1:57 am

   911 conspiracies = DEBUNKED Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

8. Sail Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 2:14 am

   Great show! How about a part 2? Now we have more people speaking AGAINST the truth movement than actually belong to the movement. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

9. john Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:33 am

   to all the counter intelligence people that are posting lies please be aware that the truth will out and you will be punished. Notice that the guy who tried to counter 3 year old kids claims, gave no facts himself, told you to look at a report that he does not quote anything from, etc. Look at all the debunking sites and interviews all of them are obviously bogus as they never tackle the facts just attack the personalities. http://www.netctr.com Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

10. Neil Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am

    I was responsible for this documentary, so it’s nice to see it’s provoking a reaction. 3 Year Old Kid - Nick Pole didn’t mention anything about building 7 because we didn’t speak to him (whoever he might be). Nick Pope probably didn’t mention it because, to be honest, we only had about 15 minutes to speak to him (we spent most of the time we had with him talking about UFOs, his area of expertise.) Neither he nor I are experts when it comes to that sort of thing. His was a good contribution because he talked about looking at Truth Movement evidence alongside evidence put forward that explains the generally accepted narrative. His experience of getting hate mail from Truthers was very interesting, I found. I’d be very interested in seeing the evidence you have for precision timed demolition on every third or second floor. Witnesses to these demolitions being set, maybe one of the people who set the demolitions and has since been racked with guilt at the consequences of his actions. If you - or anyone else for that matter - has anything like this, please get in touch and we’ll dedicate a whole three hour show to it. “Do you suppose they accidentally forgot to mention 3 and not 2 buildings were disintegrated to dust and little rubble on the day of 911?” We didn’t mention it because the documentary was only 17 minutes - it’s hard to cover a subject as big as 9/11 conspiracy theories in such a short time. Also, we were working on the assumption that the vast majority of listeners weren’t really aware of the conspiracy theories, so we had to do it from a standing start, so to speak. Given more time, I’m sure we would have covered things in more detail. Also, if you think only three buildings were destroyed at the World Trade Center site that day, you need to do more research. Paul W - What was it one of the people in the debate talked about? “Confirmation bias”? He’s depressingly right when it comes to the truthers, I’ve found. Sail - we’re going to do Cynic’s Guides to more things (UFOs, as I mentioned, will be one) but I hope to maybe return to the Truth Movement, or perhaps one on conspiracy theories in general. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

11. Matthew Revell Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

    I’m Neil’s co-host on the Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute (i.e. the other cretin). Just like to note that our website is http://www.radiophonic.org.uk, where you’ll also shortly be able to subscribe to a podcast of the show. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

12. c0intelpr0 Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    WTC 7 - The Truth Exposed Debunking the lies and misrepresentations of the so-called 9/11 ‘Truth’ movement regarding World Trade Center Building 7. http://youtube.com/watch?v=GdpEtOcEmtU Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

13. Reptor Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

    You guys have hit the nail on the head. Kudos to you both for having the balls to produce this, I’m sure many truthers will be calling for blood now. Any report on the kind of feedback you’ve had since the show? Please keep us all informed of what you’re doing, and thank you to all who had the guts to take part and promote this show. The cult is slowly being exposed thanks to brave efforts like this. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

14. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 7:51 pm

    I stand by what I say, it was the Cretins guide to 911. A guide By cretins - For Cretins. Forget who was flying the jets and lost their passports and bandannas, etc, that is totally irrelevant re the destruction sequence. It is not physically possible to have a falling body fall through the path of most resistance. EVER NEVER!!!!! And to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed is even more impossible than impossible. Just, a minute I am falling over with laughter, hold on. Sorry about that, I could not type and laugh at the same time. Why are qualified people unwilling to come forward? The Physics of 911 is so simple that most people who values their career will NOT touch it - because it is SO Obviously a Controlled Demolition. I now need to go and watch cartoons. However, for those who want the professional opinion of 400 Architects and Engineers regarding the Controlled Demolitions on 911 go Here:- http://www.ae911truth.org/ Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

15. Ashley Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    Yeah these troofers I don’t know, I’m sure there are logical explainations for the collapse of 3 steel framed buildings in to their own footprint (the only 3 steel framed syscrapers to collapse due to fire damage in history). I’m no scientist so I can’t give answers as to how these buildings didn’t topple (as logic would expect as they were hit on one side), I also cannot give you an explaination as to how jet fuel that burns at a maximum of 1500F could melt steel that had been certified to 2750F. I’m sure the BBC (and IIRC CNN) have an explaination of how they predicted the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before its collapse (I just can’t seem to find explainations for this despite hunting for them). If I predicted someones murder I’m sure it would be investigated thoroughly but this kind of examination of our BBC is not required (an examination would be a bit of a problem as the BBC have said they have lost all of their footage from Sept 11th 2001, quite amazing if true). Of course the PNAC report that said that the desires of America to spread their democracy would not have enough support without some kind of ‘new Pearl Harbour’ is not a prediction of any sort (published one year prior to 911) The strange lack of fighter jets over the most protected piece of airspace in the world (the Pentagon) is again understandable (albeit not to me) and the 2 released CCTV images are the only footage of the plane despite the amount of cameras focussed on this building. Funny how Rumsfeld gave 3 different accounts of his actions on the morning of 9-11 to the commission and they, rather than querying this they combine 2 of the accounts and completely ignore the other. Of course the fact that good old Dick Cheney says he arrived in the Whitehouse bunker at 10am despite witnesses putting him there some 35 minutes earlier (i.e. before the plane hit the Pentagon). Cheney was also reportedly told about the plane heading towards the Pentagon at 40, 30, 20 and 10 miles out and was asked ‘if the orders still stand’ and he said that they did (these obviously weren’t the scramble orders to jets to intercept this plane as is standard operationg procedure as these orders were never given). Your freind and mine George Dubya says that he saw the first jet hit the tower before going in to his meeting with his intellectual superiors in the pre-school classroom (this was of course impossible as the only footage of this wasn’t shown until the following day). When he was told of the second plane hitting he sat there for another 20 minutes reading a book about goats rather than responding to the obvious problem. Then of course Dubya spent endless hours to try and connect Iraq with Osama and the attack (despite the well known fact that Osama hated Saddam nearly as much as Dubya). I’m completely with George when he says ‘Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th’ it’s just I don’t think that he is looking at the same conspiracy theory as me. Hey-ho it’ll be Iraq next, they are currently being told to stop their weapons program despite the fact that the IAEA have said that they don’t have one. There’ll be some poxy Powerpoint presentation on their nuclear prowess (that or a false flag of some description). The endless war on terror really will be endless if we carry on chasing weapons that don’t exist. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

16. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance? Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed? That is - in the absence of controlled demolition. Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. http://www.ae911truth.org/ There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

17. Reptor Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    400 professionals? Around the whole world you manage to find 400? Is that it? If there was any fact in these claims then ALL engineers etc would be crying out. In fact from the 400 professionals how many are experts in the fields relevant to the science of these claims? Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked. You might not like it. It might not sit with your opinion but that’s the facts. Deal with it. You got it wrong. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

18. Ashley Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    Reptor what are you on about? Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked? Where’s this? In Wonderland? A lot of the debunking has since been debunked but you fail to mention that in any way, shape or form. There are so many unanswered questions it is positively farcical, I guess that’s why there are so many people calling for a ‘proper’ investigation (inside and outside America). Do you dispute the idea that western governments have proposed and even carried out false flag operations to further their own agendas? Have a look in to Operation Gladio in Europe and Operation Northwoods in the US. It is absolutely amazing that a former Prime Minister of Italy can comment along the lines of ‘all the intelligence community knows CIA and Mossad carried out 9-11′ and it is all but ignored. If you have a look at the video where Osama claims responsibility for the 9-11 attacks watch to see which hand this ‘Osama’ uses to write with, then visit http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm and notice that it says ‘Bin Laden is left-handed’. Strange but true, I guess your retort would be that Osama did it on purpose to test our super special agents or some such cobblers. If you really think a bloke in a cave with a load of his mates armed with boxcutters can carry out these attacks then I think you need to re-evaluate the evidence. I noticed recently that there are proposals to install equipment in planes to allow the use of mobile phones, surely this tech is useless as this was already possible on United 93 nearly 7 years ago. so what gives? Like I said the amount of inconsistencies, half-truths and obvious untruths are there for anyone with a willingness to look and a mind open enough to think that governments don’t always tell the truth to their citizens. For me the one which clinches it is seeing 3 steel framed buildings collapsing in to their own footprints. I am no expert but I do know that even demolitions teams can’t guarantee this to happen when they place charges and do it on purpose. 2 of the 3 buildings were hit by planes, if they had weakened the structure sufficently it would have been on one side of the building along with the fires being concentrated on that side also thus I would expect them to fall over rather than in to themselves (imagine a Jenga tower, flick out a block on one side, start a fire in that space and what would you expect to happen? I bet the last thing you’re thinking is a nice neat pile, it would go over to one side). Then there’s WTC7 (although looking at the Commission’s report you’d do well to notice it). The explainaition of this collapse is that it caught on fire from one of the other buildings that collapsed, some diesel tanks caught on fire and alakazzam another nice neat pile. Now as far as I’m concerned steel hardened to withstand 2750F fires for 2 hours collapsing due to avaiation fule fires with a max of 1500F in an hour and a bit is one thing (the majority of the fuel burned off in the fireball when the plane hit the building anyway and there are also pictures of people standing looking out of where the plane hit surely they would have quite literally melted if we are to believe the steel in the towers did), but to believe that diesel which is significantly less combustible could do the same is akin to something from a fairy tale. You can believe what you want at the end of the day, everyone has the right to make up their own mind. If you want to swallow what I see as BS then that’s up to you and I have no concern for trying to convince you otherwise but please stop trying to fit your blinkers on to everyone else, if the conspiracy theories are so far fetched then people will work it out for themselves without your particular brand of troofiness. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

19. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    Thank you Reptor, you are really making my day. Well, go on then just don’t talk about it - let us see the maths and actual Physics. Debunk the Physics, now is your chance old chap. Give us one single experiment or example were a falling body takes the path of most resistance due to gravity alone. Secondly, give us one single experiment or example were a falling body takes the path of most resistance and falls at nearly freefall speed using gravity alone. And then just for extra points to prove we qualified folk don’t know what we are talking about and how super brainy you are - show the world the maths to back up the claim. Please show the Physics and the Maths. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

20. Reptor Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    I don’t have to prove squat. You’re the ones making ridiculous claims, it’s up to you to prove yourselves. You tried. You failed. Move on. If 911 was an inside job why haven’t the media reported on it? Why haven’t insurance companies refused to pay up? Why hasn’t any one of the THOUSANDS of people who need to be in on it come forward? Please troofers, try to think logically. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

21. Ashley Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 12:33 am

    Hahaaaa Reptor your entire response to my problems with the official story consists of ‘they couldn’t possibly do that’. Well I bow to your superior knowledge and reasoning, I can see from your responses that you are totally close minded on this issue. All of the stuff I’ve put in my responses to you are freely available online, have a look in to it. We aren’t making stuff up, the no planers and space weapons and hologram BS is not where we’re coming from (these theories are at best put forward by idiots or at worst a deliberate attempt to paint all people who don’t fall for the official story as nutcases). My specific problems as listed above (at the risk of repeating myself) are: - Only 3 steel framed modern skyscrapers have suffered a collapse due to fire damage. All 3 of those happened on 9-11 and all 3 collapsed into their own footprint. Now as I see it, the damage would have been asymetrical as the planes impact and main focus of the fire would have been on one side of each of the buildings. If this impact and subsequent fire had melted the steel (impossible due to the hardened steel and the burning temperature of kerosene as mentioned above, but even if we ignore that fact) then the buildings would have toppled over due to the second law of thermodynamics (the law of entropy). Now there is always an exception to the rule, so even though it contravenes the laws of physics I could probably write off one of the buildings exhibiting this behaviour as a freak occurence, but 3 freak occurences on the same day? Puhrlease! The fact that all 3 buildings collapsed at near freefall speed (i.e as if there was no resistance), if you look at the dust clouds created from the crushing/exploding? of the cement those clouds would have taken a lot of energy to create (i.e. made a lot of resistance). If these clouds had been created by the natural collapse of the buildings each floor would have taken an amount of time to collapse and create the dust clouds and this ‘resistance’ would have slowed the collapse substantially (it didn’t). The fact that WTC7 had no impact from a plane, there were what appeared to be some minor fires looking at the footage but the only propellant they can put in this building is diesel which burns substantially cooler than kerosene, but this building collapsed due to this fire when even kerosene from the planes doesn’t burn hot enough to melt the steel! The many eye witness accounts that describe explosions at WTC7 as it was collapsing, to quote on NYFD employee ‘there was a pop, pop, pop as each floor went, like a demolition’ Now you mentioned the insurance companies and this is one that intrigues me, when I see video of the recent purchaser and insured party that owned WTC7 a Larry Silverstein on video saying how he agreed with the fire department to ‘pull’ WTC7 (’pull’ is a term used by demolitions teams for the implosion of buildings using detonations), I wonder how on earth they agreed to pay out. I’m sure my house insurance wouldn’t pay out if my house burned down and I was on record as saying that I threw a molitov cocktail at it. Just out of interest I’d like to know where you come up with the idea that it would take ‘THOUSANDS’ of people to do something like this, just think about the staff member in the Whitehouse bunker asking Cheney ‘if the order still stood’, if this order was not to scramble fighter jets to protect the Pentagon then would the staffer have had to have been in on it or would he just have been obeying the commands of his superior? Would he now like to stand up and inform on Dick Cheney, how far would he think that would get him, other than the dole queue and loss of pension etc? What could each person on their own know? It’s exactly how terrorist organisations work, in cells. Ever heard the term ‘plausible deniability’? The whole conspiracy could not be uncovered unless every person in every part decided to blow the whistle, now what each person has knowledge of would be a little part of the big picture and they would see their knowledge as inconsequential. I mean the evidence for the US and UK going to war was clearly fabricated, the 45 minutes claim, the nuclear and biological arsenal, the mobile chemical labs (something a student dreamed up that was then put forward as fact), how many people must have been involved in that? How many of them are likely to have signed the official secrets act or the American equivalent? How many of them would be willing to risk a spell in jail to blow the whistle on something that on its own doesn’t really carry much weight. Some other random ones: - How did the BBC and CNN predict the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before it collapsed? Why is Osama seen writing with his right hand in the video where he claims responsibility when the FBI website clearly says he is left handed? Did Osama forget which hand he writes with or are the FBI misinformed? Just because they say you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you ;) Question everything and look for yourself, don’t believe me or believe someone else, make your own mind up (what I would say is that a commission report that cost 1/80th of the amount of money spent on finding out what Bill Clinton was doing with his cigars is not the best place to start, also NIST couldn’t get real world models of the towers to fall over so they did a computer simulation so they could alter the parameters. Hey it’s no wonder people are asking for another investigation eh?) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

22. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 12:38 am

    Thank you for that failure to Debunk the 911 Controlled Demolition Physics Reptor. No one is forcing you to do anything old chap. We are not your enemy or a hostile or some sort of weird cult, we are 400 + Architects and Engineers including many people who actually design and build steel framed skyscrapers. But, if you claim some 400 professional Architects and Engineers at http://www.ae911truth.org/ are incorrect, and you can not even give one example of a falling body taking the path of most resistance then you really do not represent any credibility if you can not back up what you are claiming. All those questions you mention about why haven’t the media reported on it? Why haven’t insurance companies refused to pay up? Why hasn’t any one of the THOUSANDS of people who need to be in on it come forward? Are nothing to do with Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. To answer any of those questions would be pure speculation and engaging in conjecture and conspiracy theories. We at AE911truth.org only deal with Science and Engineering facts. And the important indisputable 911 facts are these:- It is physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance. It is even more physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance at almost freefall speed. Forget about if bandannas and passports were unburned whilst flying out of a suitcase that itself was totally incinerated. Forget that jet fighters failed to defend the pentagon despite being on guard 24/7. All that sort of stuff is bum fluff. Now I will ask you again to either back up what you claim or stop trying to impress about stuff you clearly know very little about. As I have said before and I will say again, this particular media diatribe was A 911 guide By cretins - For Cretins. And the fact you cannot back up your ridiculous claims does somewhat prove my point. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

23. Strug Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 1:43 am

    What many of you people are overlooking about this broadcast is that it is not looking at the evidence it is mainly looking at how troofers conduct themselves. Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories. This has been proven on this very page. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

24. Fawk Off Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 1:45 am

    Look at this site http://www.debunking911.com Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

25. paul w Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 7:28 am

    Ashley Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm | Link to this “I’m sure there are logical explainations for the collapse of 3 steel framed buildings in to their own footprint (the only 3 steel framed syscrapers to collapse due to fire damage in history).” Yes, the logical explanations can be found in the NIST report. Have you read the NIST report? “I’m no scientist so I can’t give answers as to how these buildings didn’t topple (as logic would expect as they were hit on one side” You don’t need to be a scientist - for the building to ‘topple over’ it would require a force pushing from the side. There was none. The only force on the towers was the greatest; gravity. The towers had no-where else to go but straight down. What were they going to do, tap-dance around New York for a while? PS. Have you read the NIST report? “I also cannot give you an explaination as to how jet fuel that burns at a maximum of 1500F could melt steel that had been certified to 2750F.” That’s because it’s impossible. The steel didn’t melt, it was heated and LOST STRENGTH, as neatly explained in the NIST report. Have you read the NIST report? “I’m sure the BBC (and IIRC CNN) have an explaination of how they predicted the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before its collapse (I just can’t seem to find explainations for this despite hunting for them).” Hunt some more (hint: try 9-11 Myths, Screwloosechange or Internet Detectives.) Everyone involved knew WTC7 was coming down, that’s why they cleared the area and no-one was killed. the building was gutted by savage, multi-floor fires, one side had massive structural damage from debris from the collapsing towers, and the fucking thing was starting to lean over at an alarming angle…so, they figured it was probably gonna fall. Funny that… Also, it fell down because gravity was the greatest force, or do you believe it should have joined the towers in a pirouette around New York? have you read the NIST report? “If I predicted someones murder I’m sure it would be investigated thoroughly….” It was. The 9-11 investigation was the largest in US history (and the world?) “Of course the PNAC report that said that the desires of America to spread their democracy would not have enough support without some kind of ‘new Pearl Harbour’ is not a prediction of any sort (published one year prior to 911)” Sigh. The reference to a ‘new Pearl Harbour’ was taken completely out of context bu the 9-11 truthers. The comment came during a debate about military prowess. The speaker suggested that history showed military improvements often came after some sort of dramatic event which spurred R&D within the military. He suggested this would occur if there was another dramatic events like a ‘new Pearl Harbour’. “The strange lack of fighter jets over the most protected piece of airspace in the world (the Pentagon) is again understandable (albeit not to me)” One of the major findings of the investigation was a shocking lack of communication between the different services…between NORAD, the civilian flight controllers, pilots, etc. In short, a level of incompetence. There were THOUSANDS of planes in the sky that day…jeez, go do some bleeding research (hint: read the NIST report). “the 2 released CCTV images are the only footage of the plane despite the amount of cameras focussed on this building.” Actually, no. There were bugger all cameras ‘focused’ on the building…they were focused on the car entry, the service station forecourt, etc., as most cameras are. “Dick Cheney… ‘if the orders still stand’” I’m getting tired, so get off your lazy backside and go find out. “Then of course Dubya spent endless hours to try and connect Iraq with Osama and the attack” You mean Bush was being a politician and trying to use 9-11 to push through his own agenda! Unbelievable! Enough. You are a moron. Next…. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Link to this “So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance?” Me! (and a few hundred thousand engineers and physics professors) Gravity dictated where the thing was gonna go, and it dictated straight down. Where else was it going to go? Up? Sideways? Tell me, what is it about gravity you don’t understand? “Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed?” Me! (and ditto). The issue here is that word NEAR…it was NEAR free-fall speed, NOT free-fall speed. Tell me, genius, what speed should it have been? A second longer? Two seconds? have ANY of your morons read the NIST report? “Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. http://www.ae911truth.org/ There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details” Er, more to the point, how many have NOT joined? (hint: tens of thousands) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

26. Edward Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 8:52 am

    When just Dr Steven Jones was speaking out it was “just one expert - that means nothing”. Then when there were 20 experts speaking out it was “just 20 experts - that means nothing”. Now there are over 400 experts speaking out and it’s “just 400 experts - that means nothing”… What’s your threshhold for reality denial? How long until you wake up? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

27. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 9:40 am

    Edward, don’t expect these failed Communist and failed Socialists (NOW claiming to be CULT WATCHERS) to wake up EVER. The fact is, they are science savvy poor - they are literally unable to grasp and logically process the important scientific 911 facts. They are so weak minded and so perversely politically driven they allow 911 dust to cloud & choke their judgments; unburned bandannas to blind their vision and this so called “Cult Watch” Characters are the perfect example of were because they were not the centre of attention at somebody else’s public meeting, and because someone just happened to give them a heckle, they now are prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater and are equivalent to becoming holocaust type deniers. And all this stuff peddled by the likes of Strug. Quote:- “What many of you people are overlooking about this broadcast is that it is not looking at the evidence it is mainly looking at how troofers conduct themselves. Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories. This has been proven on this very page.” Well pardon me for holding a professional scientific opinion about the most important aspect of 911, that being it is physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance at near freefall speed - it now turns out these characters don’t actually want to focus on what http://www.ae911truth.org/ is actually saying (the HARD scientific FACTS) but how some supporters address & behave at public meetings. Well what can one say. How is this for scientific method:- They wheel in a left wing disgruntled socialists from “Cult Watch” who is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake UFO expert who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it - when neither of these Cretins has even the savvy to question if the CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official 911 Conspiracy plot. I mean how sort of low can these Cretins Go? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

28. Booger Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    When has your ‘professional scientific opinion’ undergone peer review? Nuff said. Btw describing those who do not share your views as ‘cretins’ is cult logic in action. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

29. Ashley Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    Paul W Thank you for your erudite reply and for the assertion that I am a moron, unfortunately this is the same kind of personal attack that tries to discredit an argument by resorting to insults as is commonly used by believers of the offical conspiracy theory (if you can’t discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger with an ad-hominem attack - nice). Your insistence on repeating your ‘have you read the NIST report’ question does not make our arguments go away. NIST initially tried to use real world models to explain the collapse of the 3 buildings, they were completely unable to do this so then changed tack and used a computer simulation to prove their theories (where they could alter the input parameters to their hearts content). Now call me a cynical troofer conspiraloon but if they can’t get real world models to exhibit the behaviour they claim was responsible for the collapse and have to resort to doing it in theory then I have little faith in their findings. When you tell me to read the NIST report to find out about how the lack of communication between the different services was one of the major contributing factors I’m guessing you mean the 9-11 commission report rather than the NIST report as the NIST report has no such information in it (of course you know this as you keep asking us if we’ve read it, you wouldn’t ask that question unless you had read it yourself eh ;) You are clearly out of your depth regarding the idea that these buildings would topple over, if the plane impact and resultant fire was one one side of the building then the stresses on the building would be asymetrical. If the stresses on the building were asymetrical you would expect the top of the building to topple over to one side (as explained earlier think Jenga or if you are feeling up to it google for ‘the law of entropy’). If as you claim that the steel lost strength then that would give even more credence to the idea that the top of the building would have toppled to one side or the other, a weakened piece of steel would not concertina down on itself rather it would go towards the path of least resistance (it would bend before breaking). How you can claim that the 9-11 investigation was the largest in the world when the sum total of money spent on the 9-11 Commission report came to approximately $500,000 (just to put this in perspective over $40 million dollars was spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky investigation). All your sighing and huffing and puffing does absolutely nothing to water down my arguments it just makes you look like you are in the playground rather than having an adult conversation. With regards your assertion that there were only 2 cameras focussed on the area of impact at the Pentagon is absolutely hilarious, this is the most protected building in the world, if you are really of the mind that the images they’ve shown are the best they can offer then seriously I ask you to reconsider. In all likelihood it would be impossible to walk up to that building without a camera being able to get a good look at your face (this would be to deter terrorists from walking up and putting bombs up against the walls, DOH). I would dearly love to know what you meant by the following: - “Dick Cheney… ‘if the orders still stand’” I’m getting tired, so get off your lazy backside and go find out. Are you in receipt of knowledge that explains this away because you should let people know as no-one else is! As for WTC7 being ‘gutted from savage multi floor fires’ that is clearly preposterous, go look at some archive footage and come back and say it again. WTC7 was not leaning in any direction whatsoever, there are loads of different angles the collapse was filmed from, please point me in the direction of one which shows this ‘leaning’ (also if it was leaning then the law of entropy would cause us to expect it topple over rather than down and in on itself but the laws of physics don’t seem to be able to convince you of anything). With regards your question on how long it should have taken WTC7 to collapse, Stephen Jones calculated that just from the resistance of the concrete (ignoring any resistance the steel columns may have had) that the building should have taken just over 10 seconds to collapse rather than the 6.6 it did take (freefall speed with no resistance and in a vacuum would have taken 6 seconds). As for the PNAC comment being taken out of context, I have read the report myself (it’s freely available online) and I fail to see where you are coming from with this. The gist of it is that America will not be able to spread it’s Pax Americana around the world unless a Pearl Harbour type incident occurs so as to make it a populist move. With regards the BBC premonition of the collapse of WTC7, I’m sorry your explaination holds no water. This is only the 3rd modern steel framed skyscraper to collapse due to fire damage, no-one could have predicted its collapse some 25 minutes prior. Please don’t resort to name calling again Paul it only serves to show an element of desperation on your part and that is not a good way to win an argument. Oh btw I loved how you called me lazy and then went on to answer half of my points by calling me a moron, is this not laziness epitomised ;) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

30. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Thank you for that Booger, I am quite happy for people to have differing views, and even be wrong , right or indifferent. Indeed the whole of science is built on modifying hypotheses and testing them against the available evidence in an iterative process. But to claim a group of 400 professional Architects and Engineers are plain wrong, and then not offer any proof to back up the ludicrous claim “IT WAS GRAVITY WOT DONE IT GOVE” – is just not on. I ask, IS that the actions of CRETINS or of serious investigation, learning & discovery? Is there anything to learn from such pig headed stupidity? Apart from the fact some people are born CRETINS. Speaking of which - here is a quote from one chap paul W Quote:- “Enough. You are a moron. Next…. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Link to this “So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance?” Me! (and a few hundred thousand engineers and physics professors) Gravity dictated where the thing was gonna go, and it dictated straight down. Where else was it going to go? Up? Sideways? Tell me, what is it about gravity you don’t understand? “Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed?” Me! (and ditto). The issue here is that word NEAR…it was NEAR free-fall speed, NOT free-fall speed. Tell me, genius, what speed should it have been? A second longer? Two seconds? have ANY of your morons read the NIST report? “Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. http://www.ae911truth.org/ There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details” Er, more to the point, how many have NOT joined? (hint: tens of thousands)” End quote. This individual proves the point perfectly, not even a GCSE Architecture, Physics or Engineering qualification to his name, has never contacted any of the tens of thousands of qualified individuals he claims so speak for – but guess what - he is right and the outspoken 400 + Architects and Engineering professionals at http://www.ae911truth.org/ ARE WRONG? Now I ask - does anybody see a problem with this chap’s logic? So here we have yet another opportunity, another volunteer to show us the Physics and the maths which proves it is even physically possible for a body to take the path of most resistance and indeed at near freefall speed too – so Go on Mr paul W - let us have it sir. We can take your TRUTH. Show us the Physics and Maths, which proves your hypothesis sir. Show us this Physics and Maths supported by your alleged: tens of thousands professionals. And if you are unable to do that for whatever reason – just tell us all about one experiment we can do which proves it is physically possible for a body to pass through the path of most resistance due to gravity alone. EVER! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

31. Peer Review Please Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

    Why are troofers ignoring the PEER REVIEW issue? GET A PEER REVIEW PEER REVIEW!! PEER REVIEW!! PEER REVIEW!! Without that your science ain’t worth shit. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

32. Ashley Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    PEER REVIEW PEER REVIEW blah blah blah. Which academic journal is going to print it for your required peer review? Lecturers are losing their jobs for daring to question the official story, which particular journal do you suggest they look to? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

33. OMG!! Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    You dismiss a peer review? OMG. Maybe those who lost their jobs have done so because they have shown themselves to be incapable. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

34. Ashley Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    No I am not dismissing a peer review, what I am asking is what journal is likely to agree to print something that questions the official story when academics are losing their positions for daring to even question it. I’m sure a lot of people would love the opportunity to have their thesis reviewed by their peers, unfortunately they have to find someone to print it (or do you think that they write their thesis and post a copy to all their peers for a ‘peer review’?) At the moment it’s like the ‘Emporers New Clothes’, there are a few brave souls pointing out the naked facts but they are few and far between. I think a lot of academics question the official story but after seeing what has happened to their peers when they stood up to be counted they have preferred to voice their concerns off the record. I mean I am no scientist and I can see the hallmarks of controlled demolition all over the 3 collapses on 9-11, demolition experts could not have collapsed those buildings in to neater piles if they had tried. I am supposed to believe that 2 towers with asymetrical damage and one that just had a fire in it collapsed in to their own footprints which is something even demolition teams would have struggled to do. Sorry but I’m not buying it, you can if you like but I’m not. I also think that on a wider level the problem with most people who look at the evidence and refuse to entertain the idea that the administration either made it happen or let it happen is the ‘what if it’s true’ factor. If the US administration is complicit in any part of this then that would pretty much blow the notion of democracy in America out of the water. I think some people don’t want to see what the evidence points to because it is so horrible and the implications are so wide ranging that peoples psyches are protecting them from recognising it. Don’t think for a minute that Dubya would have any compunction about putting civilians in harms way, he has no scruples and sent an army to war based on false pretexts against someone who was an ally up until he invaded Kuwait (and tried to kill his daddy - oh the humanity). If you have a scout round the web you might even find a picture of Rummy Rumsfeld out in Iraq shaking the hand of the leader of Iraq (and at the time he was using chemical warfare against the Kurds, it’s funny how we can point this out as a justification for war now, when it wasn’t even enough to stop Rummy cow-towing to him at the time it happened! Oh and the US supplied the raw materials that Saddam used to make his chemical weapons and gas the Kurds! Funny how a lot of this extraneous information gets filtered out isn’t it?). The world is a very strange and dangerous place and it doesn’t really work like they taught you in school. The idea that America and the UK can spread democracy with bullets and cluster bombs and try and force our culture on to other countries which for the most part have a different belief system is dangerous in the extreme. I mean the Disney style fun park planned for the green area in Bahgdad, I feel like I’ve followed Alice down the rabbit hole. Anyway, I digress, I think that the there should be a new inquiry in to 9-11. I mean the 9-11 Commission report started with a belief in the official story and anything that didn’t fit with that wasn’t disproved, it was simply ignored. I think the US owes it to the 3,000 odd people who died that day and also to the dead soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the countless Afghani and Iraqi civilians killed by a force in its ‘War on Terror’ that if you believe the official story was as a direct response to the acts of that day (despite the fact that the neo-cons have had their eye on Iraq since before dubya rose to infamy). My personal opinion is that it is an affront to the memory of the dead that the US can spend 80 times more money investigating the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal than it did on the 9-11 Commission Report! But hey that’s just my opinion, you don’t have to believe me just have a look at the facts for yourself and make your own mind up (like I did). Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

35. Rom Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    I used to be like you. I used to believe 911 was an inside job. Then I looked at the counter evidence and discovered it wasn’t. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

36. RINFer Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

    Incase you missed it … http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. “Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7″ points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse. 9/11 demolition theory challenged An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total. One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a “controlled demolition”. The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell. Resistance to collapse Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures. In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts. “The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse,” Dr Seffen told the BBC News website. Dr Seffen was able to calculate the “residual capacity” of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse. His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down. This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground. He added that his calculations showed this was a “very ordinary thing to happen” and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings. The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center. This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers. Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive “squibs” can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble. Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm Dr. Keith A. Seffen http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/ Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy… For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is… “Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science Northwestern University The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows… http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News: Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?”, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001). That means it’s not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It’s had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors. I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no “theory of intelligent design” except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.” http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ The paper… http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html Editor: Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder corotis@colorado.edu http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis Editorial Board: Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego http://kudu.ucsd.edu/ Henri Gavin, Duke University http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/ Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/ Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/ Nicos Makris, University of Patras http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5 Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592 George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/ James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/ Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact Journal of Engineering Mechanics More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse… Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y. “Addendum to ‘Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis” (pdf) Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370. Brannigan, F.L. “WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings” Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150. Clifton, Charles G. Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001. “Construction and Collapse Factors” Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108. Corbett, G.P. “Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster” Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135. “Dissecting the Collapses” Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation” JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor. World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (also available on-line) Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A. “Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center” The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48. “Collapse Lessons” Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103 Marechaux, T.G. “TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering” JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17. Monahan, B. “World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135. Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D. “Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?” Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800. National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs “Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center” Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002. Pinsker, Lisa, M. “Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site” Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001). The print copy has 3-D images. Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online) Post, N.M. “No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report” ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14. Post, N.M. “Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing” ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14. The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects A resource site. “WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives” ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

37. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am

    Dr Seffen should be commended for at least trying. Even NIST did not do the 10-second destruction sequence. (I wonder Why?) Dr Seffen is a very capable person and his mathematics skills are very good indeed. However despite being rather imaginative and having a jolly good attempt at modeling the impossible - his analysis has several key glaring flaws some of which I have listed here:- He has assumed there was no cross bracing. (The WTCs were all heavily cross-braced). He assumes the towers collapsed uniformly – yet damage and fires were more prevalent on one side and we have a video of the top portion toppling. He assumes there was no reinforced concrete when in fact there were 300,000 tonnes in each 110 floor WTC building. His paper defies conservation of energy – there was less than 10% of the necessary energy in the entire upright structure needed to do what Dr Seffen claims happened. His paper defies conservation of momentum. He claims the top smaller section crushed the heavier lower section whilst the top lighter section stayed in a perfect intact condition until after it had finished destroying the much larger and heavier lower 80+ floors. These are the less technical problems with the paper of which can be proved easily almost none mathematically via freely available evidence. Regarding peer review, whilst it is very important, it has one or two very deep flaws. In the case of this particular Seffen paper the referees are anonymous. So how can this paper be effectively peer reviewed if the referees can not be contacted to make comments and back up their approval by providing actual EVIDENCE. In relation to all my works, I never have it peer reviewed via journals. I keep it secret because of commercial reasons. So shipmates and Cult watch pirates - Hands up all those who think burning jet fuel in air can weaken steel? DUH!!!! Is there anybody else apart from Dr Keith Seffen that believes in Free Energy machines? If so, does anyone want to buy a safe seafront villa in Baghdad? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

38. Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am

    RINFer As mentioned previously NIST started their investigations using real world models, they could not get these models to collapse and had to resort to computer simulations in order to prove their theory. Now I KNOW that I could get a team of demolition experts to effect a collapse like that on a real world model, I wouldn’t have to resort to theory to prove that the buildings could collapse in an identical manner. Now what I am being asked to believe is that chaotic asymetrical damage to the buildings had a uniform effect in dropping these buildings in a fashion that demolition teams would be proud of. Demolition teams to this day cannot guarantee to drop buildings neatly, some of them don’t even fall when the charges are blown and cost a fortune to bring down. It would probably be flippant of me to suggest that we could do away with all of these specialised demolitions companies and just start fires in the buildings we want to demolish as 3 out of 3 had uniform collapses on 9-11. I maintain that a lot of academics in the conspiracy camp would like to get their thesis reviewed by peers but are unable to get them published. Why should this be? I’m sure that if their theories are so easy to shoot down, if the gaping inconsistencies can easily be explained away then journals would jump at the chance to be the one to disprove the conspiracy theorists. I could go off to a site that holds the conspiracy POV as you have for the non-conspiracy POV and copy and paste a page of their site to debunk your debunking but what would that serve, you’d just find one to debunk my debunking of your debunking ad infinitum. The only way to bring clarity to this situation is for a full and exhaustive new inquiry that has both the funds and powers required to get to the truth. If there is nothing that has been hidden then this shouldn’t be a problem (please don’t quote cost as a deciding factor as it certainly isn’t in other facets of the so called ‘War on Terror’) At the end of the day I admit that I haven’t gone in to much of the detail, but what I have done is use my own eyes, my own thought processes and drawn my own conclusions based on what I can see and my experiences in the real world (rather than one of abstraction). I am using my own critical faculties, I mean if I saw a car crash and someone came out of the windscreen I would guess that they weren’t wearing their seatbelt and their momentum carried them through the glass. You could provide me with a peer reviewed document that suggested a James Bond style ejector seat could have caused it or that they could have jumped but that wouldn’t necessarily make it so, I’m a simple soul and would call it as I saw it. When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition, when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition, when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull), when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage, when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel, when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire), when I see molten metal coming from the buildings (consistent with thermite or thermate), when sulfur residue is found on the steel after the collapse (consistent with thermate) then is it any wonder I ‘leap’ to the deduction that it was controlled demolition, is it any wonder that I think a new inquiry is not just called for but vital in getting the answers to these questions. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

39. paul w Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 1:04 am

    RINFer Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm Good effort, but you’ll get no-where: truthers are insane. Just read the ravings of 3 year old Kid, Ashely and Co…it ‘aint gonna t work, they’re too far gone. Too many bongs, too much paranoia, too many out-of-whack brain cells, too many insecurities. Is this attacking the person? Damn right it is - if the NIST /Commission reports and the vast amount of online material from various experts and eyewitness doesn’t change their mind, nothing will. I post here so anyone new to the 9-11 ‘truth’ garbage has an opportunity to listen to the other side. This is a very poorly represented faction of the ‘truth’ movement; don’t expect them to offer debunking sites to newbies so they can compare things. “I just want to talk facts and not attack the person”…. Pah. It’s all troofer bunk. I posted an answer to their idiotic comments, and said ‘moron’ once, and their reply? They answered NONE of the issues I raised but whined on about name-calling. Pathetic. All they ever do is run and hide when caught in the headlights of reality. Have to say though, their later posts on how the buildings should have fallen is a riot. What a bunch of fruit-cakes. Reply |