Conspiracy Theory Proof 9/11 was an Inside Job?

[winty]

All questions brought up in Loose Change have been answered in the popular mechanics article and subsequent book, as well as the full 9/11 commission report. It's about 1000 pages, go have a read.

While you're in the mood to do some reading, read "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" and "The 9/11 Commission Report - Omissions and Distortions", both by David Ray Griffin. He finds holes in both the Popular Mechanics book and the 9/11 Commission Report that are big enough you can drive a truck through.

Then there's the book "Without Precedent: the Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" by co-chairs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, in which the first six words were "We were set up to fail." Gee, if the co-chairs thought the entire commission was a crock, why should the general public show any faith in it?

Daytripper give up man, these guys will never change there mind even when the every rebuttal to their arguments are posted. I bet they haven't even read the 9/11 report, they just go on youtube and type 9/11 truth and paste videos all day.

I particularly like the part of the 9/11 report that deals with the collapse of WTC7. Oh wait a minute, that never even rates a mention in the official report.

The entire 9/11 truth movement is based on reverse science - Come up with a claim and then make the "evidence" fit what you want it to - discard everything that doesn't. You people need medication.

Sounds like the mandate for the 9/11 Report. Apparently the first public session which ultimately became the basis for the report was entitled "How did Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda plan and execute the 9/11 attacks?" Surely the Commission should've gone in with a clean slate and worked out how things were allowed to happen before trying to guess who was responsible.

 

[exe ex machina]

They won't read those books, because "it's an insult to the families of the deceased to even suggest there was something untoward", and because all 'truthers' are the "high-school drop-out makers of Loose Change", or they are "using manipulative reverse-science."

etc.

There's absolutely zero sincerity in certain naysayers of the truth movement. They refuse to even question NIST and the commission reports. Because as soon as anyone suspends acceptance, and dares to challenge those reports with real world science, they are immediately considered crack-pots or not reputable professionals in their fields -- even tho a lot of the truth movement is groups of esteemed professionals in aeronautics, engineering, science, police force, firemen, military, etc, and many of the families of the deceased believe it was an inside-job.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

David Ray Griffin (born 1939) is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology.

You want me to listen to a professor of PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION AND THEOLOGY over expert engineers who have worked and studied/taught theory at the highest level.

You guys really are stupid.

Next you will tell me to listen to a plumber about solving the current US deficit.

You guys never surprise me. How would you feel going to a class at University on structural engineering only for a priest with no background in engineering to show up and attempt to teach you?

WATCH THE BBC DOCUMENTARY PLEASE.

THE GUY WHO DESIGNED AND BUILT THE WORLD TRADE CENTRES CLEARLY STATES THAT THE WAY THEY FALL WAS CONSISTANT WITH THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE PLANES, NOT EXPLOSIVES.

The air pockets that are supposedly detonations going off are air pockets getting blasted out of the lower falls as it gets compressed from the collapse. It's stupid and false claims by college drop outs that it was explosives that that are easily explained with science that make me think you truthers really are delusional and stupid for listening to these wack jobs.

The whole "truth" movement is based on manipulation of quotes, pseudo science and a total ignorance for scientific process. The only thing that has even a minuscule scent of scientific method is the paper posted by the wackjob from Denmark about the thermite at WT7.

However that has been debunked by experts in thermite and demolition jobs. Because a hypothesis has not been proven to be false does not make it true, no one has taken the time to write a paper on debunking his theory because apparently everyone in the field has more important things to work on. That tells you how little weight and substance this guy has in the scientific world.

 

[exe ex machina]

The guy who built the towers said they were designed to withstand multiple plane attacks, built like a fly screen where they puncture a hole in the patchwork without causing the structure to collapse. All skyscrapers are built to withstand multiple plane attacks.

Dunno where you get the idea that there are no truthers who are engineers, professional pilots, scientists, etc. There are whole groups of truthers from various fields. Pilots for truth. Engineers for truth. Architects for truth. Scientists for truth. Etc.

 

[rayven]

Science is a lovely thing, especialy experiments.

Imagine if you flew a jet into the world trade center, then again flew another jet into it.

then you flew one into the pentagon, you'd expect similar marks on the point of contact the plane made with the buildings

You see there's video of a plane flying into WTC actualy multiple video. In all you can see where the wings hit, quite clearly. in fact in a couple you can see the planes nose come out the other side...

But then you have the pentagon, no wing marks....no video...........video exists of the pentagon hit, but we are not allowed to see it.

WHY ?

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

The guy who built the towers said they were designed to withstand multiple plane attacks, built like a fly screen where they puncture a hole in the patchwork without causing the structure to collapse. All skyscrapers are built to withstand multiple plane attacks.

COMPLETE MYTH. Proves to me you have not done your homework. GO WATCH THE BBC DOCUMENTARY AND LISTEN TO THE GUY HIMSELF EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY IT FAILED. There are no manipulated out of context quotes used that you 'truthers' love, simply an interview where he has a chance to explain the whole thing in detail.

 

[smiths]

WATCH THE BBC DOCUMENTARY PLEASE.

Watched it today, thought it was good. Prior to seeing it I was kinda sitting in the middle of whether it was a conspiracy or not, but had looked at some of the theories just out of interest.

Doco explains all of the theories pretty well. I still don't understand how WTC7 fell still (the footage they showed it was a very clean colapse, no blowouts like the main WTC towers), but other than that I agree everything else seems legit. As for WTC7 ill just stay on the fence for now.

Pretty freaky about the guy who made the movie 6 months before the attack.

 

[exe ex machina]

Complete myth? You're very selective, choosing the only source (leslie robertson) of the group of builders/designers who contradicts not only the rest of his fellow designers, but also himself with his own past statements.

source

What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11

9/11 Blogger
Wednesday, February 21, 2007

What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11

An analysis of contradictions in statements by Building Designer Leslie Robertson

By Arabesque[1]

Before 9/11

�A previous analysis [by WTC building designers], carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing�[2]

(Between Early 1984 and October 1985):

�However, O�Sullivan consults �one of the trade center�s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.� He is told there is �little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.��[3]

1993

�[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.� But, he says, �The building structure would still be there.�[4]

�The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: �The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707�DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.� However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.�[5]

2001

�Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, �I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,� though does not elaborate further.�[6]

[Leslie Robertson:] �The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.�[7]

[Frank A. Demartini:] �The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.� Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.[8]

Sept 3-7, 2001�just before 9/11

�The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. [Leslie] Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. [Robertson] concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly.�[9]

After 9/11

�The engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said. �We're going to hold off on speaking to the media,� said the partner, Rick Zottola, at Leslie E. Robertson Associates. �We'd like to reserve our first comments to our national security systems, F.B.I. and so on.��[10]

�The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access�and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access�to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.�[11]

�[The] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in 2005 state that it has been �unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.��[12]

�In 2002, Leslie Robertson wrote: �To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.�[13]

�[Leslie Robertson:] I support the general conclusions of the NIST report� The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it� Yes there was a red hot metal seen [in the WTC rubble] by engineers. Molten�Molten means flowing�I�ve never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal, or by the way if they had seen it, if they had performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was.� Steven Jones in discussion With Leslie Robertson [MP3] by KGNU Radio, Denver, CO, Oct 26, 2006

Analysis:

Robertson has made some glaring contradictions in his statements.

� Robertson claims that the building was designed to only survive plane crashes at speeds of 180 mph. Interestingly he made this claim only a few days before 9/11.[14] A quote by Building Designer Skilling indicates that �A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing�.[15] Robertson must resolve this apparent contradiction. It is a very suspicious statement given the fact that it would be reasonable to consider the maximum speed of a plane flying into the Twin Towers. Is it possible that Robertson was asked to leak this �deliberately misleading information� just before 9/11? However, this is just speculation. Also suspicious is the fact that he said in 1984-5 that there was �little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.�[16]

� Robertson says that the building was not designed to survive jet fuel fires: �To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire�. This claim is suspicious for two reasons: why would they design the towers to survive plane crashes without considering the jet fuel? And more importantly, John Skilling claimed in 1993 that they did consider the jet fuel when they designed the buildings.[17] Given this fact, which statement is more likely to be correct about jet fuel fires being considered?

� NIST is also contradicted when they claim that there was no �evidence to indicate consideration of� thousands of gallons of jet fuel�. This statement is clearly false. See John Skilling�s statement: �Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire� The building structure would still be there.�[18]

� In an interview with Steven Jones, Robertson claims that he had �never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal.� This statement is extremely suspicious considering the fact that Robertson himself claimed to have seen it in a published news report! This contradicts his own statement about seeing molten metal: �Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.�[19]. As well, substantial eye-witness testimony supports observations of Molten Steel.[20]

� Robertson is also incorrect when he says that �if they had seen [Molten Steel, they had not] performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was. This statement is false. FEMA analyzed samples of the molten steel.[21] However, NIST did not even mention the molten steel and called it �irrelevant to [their] investigation.�[22] This could have simply been a mistake by Robertson.

Is Robertson being pressured to lie and make false statements? Was he asked to leak a false statement just before 9/11 about the speed of the planes having an impact on their destruction? Are these contradictions by accident or mistake?

A news report stated that he wanted to give his opinion to the FBI before making his comments public. This in itself is not overly suspicious�but his contradictions are. No clear answers to these and similar questions can be obtained through speculation alone�Leslie Robertson must account for these himself. If another 9/11 investigation is obtained, it is clear that Leslie Robertson will have to answer these and other relevant questions.

[1] http://www.911blogger.com/blog/877

[2] Paul Thompson�s Complete 9/11 Timeline: (see February 27, 1993)

[3] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

See here: [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004]

[4] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]

[5] [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71]

[6] [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001]

[7] [Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17]

[8] http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/
141104designedtotake.htm

[9] [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 138-139, 366]

[10] �Believed to Be Safe, the Towers Proved Vulnerable to Jet Fuel Fire�

By JAMES GLANZ

http://www.punjabilok.com/america_under_attack/
believed_tobe_safe.htm

[11] [US Congress, 3/6/2002; Associated Press, 3/7/2002]

[12] [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13]

[13] [Robertson, 3/2002]

[14] [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001] These articles the day after 9/11 make clear the fact that this statement was made before 9/11: �Les Robertson, the Trade Center's structural engineer, spoke last week at a conference on tall buildings in Frankfurt, Germany�.

[15] Complete 9/11 Timeline: (see February 27, 1993)]

[16] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

See here: [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004]

[17] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]

[18] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]

[19] [SEAU News, 10/2001] This fact was observed by David Ray Griffin and Paul Thompson�s Complete 9/11 Timeline.

[20] http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

[21] See here for pictures and comments in FEMA�s report mentioning the melted steel:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

�Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.� 1

�The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.�

�The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.�

Evidence of evaporated steel as reported by the New York Times:

�Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened� �Fire and the structural damage� would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated�� from:

Glanz, James (2001). �Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,� New York Times, November 29. 2001.

[22] See here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html#13

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

Watched it today, thought it was good. Prior to seeing it I was kinda sitting in the middle of whether it was a conspiracy or not, but had looked at some of the theories just out of interest.

Doco explains all of the theories pretty well. I still don't understand how WTC7 fell still (the footage they showed it was a very clean colapse, no blowouts like the main WTC towers), but other than that I agree everything else seems legit. As for WTC7 ill just stay on the fence for now.

Pretty freaky about the guy who made the movie 6 months before the attack.

Listen man, I agree that questions need answering. But the fact is the majority of these 'truthers' simply turn a blind head when scientific explanations from people who know what they are talking about are planted in front of their face.

WTC7 was a unique situation in that no fire had been left to burn that long without any water to control the fire. Add in multiple sources of ignition (imagine the amount of office furniture and other peices inside) and you get temperatures that are capable of making the steel frames weaker - add in an immense weight and you get a freefall collapse. In my opinion it is not an outlandish idea, at least more reasonable than tonnes of thermite and explosives being strapped to a building without anyone noticing. Did you see the procedure required to properly strap the steel frames? It requires a lot of manpower and effort, there is no way you could do this without someone in the building seeing something suspicious and reporting it.

I can accept that it collapsed due to the fires and failure of the sprinkler system. I do however believe there was a massive failure by the Government to react properly to the situation. They were not prepared and did have some evidence of an attack. This evidence was not communicated properly to all the appropriate channels (CIA failed to communicate to the FBI about the terrorists entering the USA for example). This I can agree on, but the idea that everything was staged by the Government is simply not true.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

BLALA

Listen GO WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY. Those quotes prove to me that the analysis the performed in 1964 and 84 were not very good, because clearly the towers did collapse from the impact. Where are the full copies of the analysis so they can be reviewed for scientific method and validity? A structural engineer professor from UC Berkley has analysed the construction drawings of the towers and also agrees the plane brought them down (it is in the video as well).

As for the molten steel myth:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Have a nice day, step outside and smile

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

Science is a lovely thing, especialy experiments.

Imagine if you flew a jet into the world trade center, then again flew another jet into it.

then you flew one into the pentagon, you'd expect similar marks on the point of contact the plane made with the buildings

You are extremely stupid. The Twin Towers were not constructed with recently re-enforced concrete walls built to withstand bomb blasts genius. They are two totally different buildings and if you can't accept that then you need your eyes and brain checked.

Second, HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY HAVE VIDEO SHOWING THE PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT? You are guessing, there is no proof to your argument you are simply assuming things which again shows how stupid you are.

If 100's of witnesses and multiple photographs are not enough to convince you a plane hit the Pentagon then **** off, you are a moron and nothing will convince you. The people living in the nearby apartment that saw the plane approach and hit must all be CIA agents right?

 

[exe ex machina]

Did you read it?

If you did, then you would retract your previous declaration of "complete myth" and realize the towers could withstand plane attacks.

If you didn't read it, snubbed your nose at it, then your BBC documentary will likewise be snubbed at.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

Did you read it?

If you did, then you would retract your previous declaration of "complete myth" and realize the towers could withstand plane attacks.

If you didn't read it, snubbed your nose at it, then your BBC documentary will likewise be snubbed at.

YES I READ IT. NOW GO WATCH THE BBC DOCUMENTARY.

If you knew anything about construction and limits you would know they are not always right, even after modelling - particularly when talking about a 757 hitting a building at 500mph. I have 10X more faith in modelling and expert theory based in 2001-2011 period than that done in 1964 and 1980, where no scientific report or model has been shown to prove how they did the modelling and if it was valid or not. The guy would probably suggest it could stand after a nuclear bomb for gods sake, he built the thing - it's his baby. The problem is shit got real and a plane did actually hit the thing, unfortunately he found out that his design was not actually as good as he believed.

 

[smiths]

Listen man, I agree that questions need answering. But the fact is the majority of these 'truthers' simply turn a blind head when scientific explanations from people who know what they are talking about are planted in front of their face.

WTC7 was a unique situation in that no fire had been left to burn that long without any water to control the fire. Add in multiple sources of ignition (imagine the amount of office furniture and other peices inside) and you get temperatures that are capable of making the steel frames weaker - add in an immense weight and you get a freefall collapse. In my opinion it is not an outlandish idea, at least more reasonable than tonnes of thermite and explosives being strapped to a building without anyone noticing. Did you see the procedure required to properly strap the steel frames? It requires a lot of manpower and effort, there is no way you could do this without someone in the building seeing something suspicious and reporting it.

I can accept that it collapsed due to the fires and failure of the sprinkler system. I do however believe there was a massive failure by the Government to react properly to the situation. They were not prepared and did have some evidence of an attack. This evidence was not communicated properly to all the appropriate channels (CIA failed to communicate to the FBI about the terrorists entering the USA for example). This I can agree on, but the idea that everything was staged by the Government is simply not true.

I never said I thought there was anything to the thermite or bombs strapped prior myth, and I don't think there is.

Can't see how fire could've caused it though, the exterior of the building was untouched so you have to ask how one would begin in the first place. Footage I saw briefly showed the building in good tact and no signs of fire.

Imo the collapse of 1,2 caused the ground beams to become unstable then it either went naturally or they gave it an explosive boost.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

I never said I thought there was anything to the thermite or bombs strapped prior myth, and I don't think there is.

Can't see how fire could've caused it though, the exterior of the building was untouched so you have to ask how one would begin in the first place. Footage I saw briefly showed the building in good tact and no signs of fire.

Imo the collapse of 1,2 caused the ground beams to become unstable then it either went naturally or they gave it an explosive boost.

See you I can actually have a discussion with, these other nutters are on a whole new planet.

Watch this, it shows the fires and damage to the exterior from debris blasted out of the WTCs. The fires caused the steel to expand and lose its integrity, add to that the weight of 47 stories of building and you get a freefall collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=related

 

[exe ex machina]

So you read it, therefore you acknowledge Leslie Robertson contradicts himself and his fellow WTC builders/designers. So you can now put that BBC documentary to bed in terms of advocating what Leslie Robertson said.

That was easy. So what you got next?

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

So you read it, therefore you acknowledge Leslie Robertson contradicts himself and his fellow WTC builders/designers. So you can now put that BBC documentary to bed in terms of advocating what Leslie Robertson said.

That was easy. So what you got next?

Actually if you watch the documentary you would also see a professor in structural engineering from UC Berkley clearly explain how and why it collapsed from the impact. He also had some other things to say about how it was designed and the problems associated with it.

 

[exe ex machina]

I'll watch the BBC documentary, but first let's establish something.

Just one part of the BBC doco you pushed was that the builder of WTC said the collapse of the buildings were consistent with a plane collision and/or fire. You said that due to his statement "therefore anyone who claims scientifically that the buildings did not collapse due to a plane collision is an idiot, liar, not a credible engineer/scientist, and it is complete myth to suggest otherwise, or that the very builder of the WTC could be wrong."

However, after reading the stuff I quoted you to read, where it is plainly shown that this same man, Leslie Robertson, has constantly contradicted himself, and his fellow WTC builders/designers, in the past and after 9/11 that the buildings were indeed built to handle multiple plane collisions and fire, that they were designed to not collapse etc.

So, do you now retract this point? Do you now retract that part of the BBC documentary where Leslie Robertson says what he says - now that you acknowledge he HAS INDEED contradicted himself and his fellow builders? Further, do you also now retract your own statement that "anyone who scientifically claims that the WTC towers did not collapse from plane collision and/or fire is an idiot, a liar, or not a credible scientist?"

If you do, then that now means you must open yourself to accepting the validity of all those truther scientists and engineers and their hypotheses that the WTC collapsed from explosions and thermite. Claims that are also substantiated by video evidence and scientific testing of the rubble, dust, and metal.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

I'll watch the BBC documentary, but first let's establish something.

Just one part of the BBC doco you pushed was that the builder of WTC said the collapse of the buildings were consistent with a plane collision and/or fire. You said that due to his statement "therefore anyone who claims scientifically that the buildings did not collapse due to a plane collision is an idiot, liar, not a credible engineer/scientist, and it is complete myth to suggest otherwise, or that the very builder of the WTC could be wrong."

However, after reading the stuff I quoted you to read, where it is plainly shown that this same man, Leslie Robertson, has constantly contradicted himself, and his fellow WTC builders/designers, in the past and after 9/11 that the buildings were indeed built to handle multiple plane collisions and fire, that they were designed to not collapse etc.

So, do you now retract this point? Do you now retract that part of the BBC documentary where Leslie Robertson says what he says - now that you acknowledge he HAS INDEED contradicted himself and his fellow builders? Further, do you also now retract your own statement that "anyone who scientifically claims that the WTC towers did not collapse from plane collision and/or fire is an idiot, a liar, or not a credible scientist?"

If you do, then that now means you must open yourself to accepting the validity of all those truther scientists and engineers and their hypotheses that the WTC collapsed from explosions and thermite. Claims that are also substantiated by video evidence and scientific testing of the rubble, dust, and metal.

I would love to read/watch some peer respected top structural engineers from top firms/universities who promote the demolition theory - please point me in the right direction?

 

[exe ex machina]

There are many truthfor911.org sites out there, if you google search. Where you can look thru the people involved and see their credentials.

architects and engineers for truth: http://www.ae911truth.org

.

 

[exe ex machina]

scientists for truth: http://physics911.net/

pilots for truth: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

another link associated with arch/eng for truth: http://911speakout.org/

a broader truth group: http://www.911truth.org

etc, if you do your own research like you should/would have done if you were fair dinkum asking questions and looking for real answers.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

Ok as I thought the only scientific journal post I can find is the thermite one. Which has caused the following:

TRANSLATION OF Chefredaktør skrider efter kontroversiel artikel om 9/11 FROM Videnskab.dk

Unofficial, by Steve S.

Editor in chief resigns after controversial article on 9/11

28 April 2009

From videnskab.dk ( Danish science news service)

An article on explosives in the World Trace Center was published in a scientific journal without the editor in chief knowing about it. Now she is resigning, she tells Videnskab.dk ([science.denmark])

By Thomas Hoffman (th@videnskab.dk).

It created a great attention, surprise and suspicion when the Open Chemical Physics Journal in April published a scientific article on remains of nanothermite which were found in great amounts in the dust from the WTC.

One those most surprised is apparently the editor in chief of the journal. Professor Marie-Paule Pileni first heard about he article when videnskab.dk wrote to her to ask for her professional assessment of the article’s content. The e-mail got her to immediately close the door to the journal.

“I resign as the editor in chief”, was the abrupt answer in an email to videnskab.dk

PRINTED WITHOUT PERMISSION

A telephone call reveals that editor in chief Marie-Paule Pileni had never been informed that the article was going to be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by the journal giant Bentham Science Publishers.

“They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France.

She feels not only stabbed in the back, but is puzzled that the article on dust analysis following the terror attack on the U.S. on 11 September 2001 could at all have found its way to the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Concludes the former editor in chief.

FAILING GRADES TO THE JOURNAL

The editor-in-chief’s dramatic departure gives critics additional reason to doubt the article’s conclusions, but Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.

Nevertheless, the publication gets her to give the Open Chemical Physics Journal failing grades.

“I was in fact in doubt about them before, because I had on several occasions asked about information about the journal without having heard from them. It does not appear on the list of international journals, and that is a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad journal”, says Marie-Paule Pileni and continues:

“There are no references to the Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles. I have two colleagues who contributed to publishing an article which was not cited anyplace either. If no one reads it, it is a bad journal, and there is not use for it”, is the harsh verdict.

The professor informs us that a few years ago she was invited to be editor in chief of a journal which would open new possibilities for new researchers and because she supports the idea of open access journals where the articles are accessible to everyone, she said, “Yes” thank you.

“It is important to allow people to try and gain success, but one should not be allowed to do everything, and all this is certainly a bunch of nonsense. I try to be a serious researcher, and I will not have my name connected with this kind of thing,” concludes Marie-Paule Pileni.

DOES NOT CHANGE THE INVESTIGATION

The editor-in-chief’s decision is viewed as regrettable by the Danish chemist Niels Harrit, who is one of the authors to the controversial article on nanothermite in the dust from the WTC.

“It surprises me, of course, and it is regrettable, if it discredits our work. But her departure doesn’t change our conclusions, for it is a purely personnel related thing she his angry about. I still believe that we have carried out chemical physics, and if there is something wrong with our study, she is welcome to criticize us for it,” says Niels Harrit, Associate Professor at the Institute of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen.

It is Niels Harrit’s coauthor Steven Jones who was in charge of contact to Bentham, and therefore the Danish researcher is presently not aware which responsible assistant editor the group has been communicating with.

However, he does know the names of the two researchers –so-called referees—who have reviewed he article, but he will not give their names because they ‘are in principle anonymous’.

DANE WITHDREW FROM THE JOURNAL

Niels Harrit’s superior at the University of Copenhagen, Nils O. Andersen has himself participated in the pool of researchers who could be selected as editor, on an article which should be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. He has recently chosen to resign from the journals Editorial Advisory Board.

He informs videnskab.dk that the decision has nothing to do with Niels Harrit’s article, and that he otherwise did not achieve having any experiences with the journals, so that he cannot shed further light on how the journal operates.

“Open access is an exciting development, and as a principle the idea should be tried out for there is no reason for the commercial publishers to earn money from our work. But professionally, the journal lay at the margin of my expertise, and as I had said No to be editor of two articles, I decided that I would not use my time on anything else.”, explains Nils O. Andersen, dean of the faculty of Natural Sciences and editor of the European Physical Journal D.

It has not yet been possible to get any comment from Bentham Science Publishers.

Rebuttal to the paper is posted here (basically like I said it is most likely NOT thermite but a type of paint used to coat the steel support beams)
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html

I cannot find any other articles on that site peer reviewed by respected professionals or professors in their field. It seems everyone involved that has anything to do with this 9/11 truth movement has been ridiculed by their peers and been outcast?

I am also yet to see a hypothesis from any 9/11 truth movement posted in a respect scientific journal that has been peer reviewed? Can you please show me some - thanks.

The other hilarious thing I am finding by checking out the guys who are writing these articles on the truth websites - the majority have PHD's in RELIGIOUS STUDIES !!!

Graeme MacQueen, PhD – Associate Professor of Religious Studies
David Ray Griffin (born 1939) is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology

THE FOUNDER OF THE WEBSITE YOU POSTED IS A PHYSICIST NOT A CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER

A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

He has been denounced by those who are specialists in the area he is trying to talk about. When will one of these hypothesis make it to a respect journal that has a proper peer review process? Not something where the editor doesn't even know what is being written in her journal and then being forced to resign out of shame.

You then have lab technicians writing articles and getting fired for trying to suggest they are the opinion of their company. Like Kevin Ryan.....

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.


You are listening to people who have NO IDEA what they are talking about. PHD IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES FOR GOD SAKE !!!

READ THIS PLEASE.

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

The guy who started the whole 9/11 scholars for truth refuses to get interviewed. Please watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1u3KO9kUdE

 

[CamTinley]

David Ray Griffin (born 1939) is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology.

You want me to listen to a professor of PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION AND THEOLOGY over expert engineers who have worked and studied/taught theory at the highest level.

You guys really are stupid.

Next you will tell me to listen to a plumber about solving the current US deficit.

You guys never surprise me. How would you feel going to a class at University on structural engineering only for a priest with no background in engineering to show up and attempt to teach you?

WATCH THE BBC DOCUMENTARY PLEASE.

THE GUY WHO DESIGNED AND BUILT THE WORLD TRADE CENTRES CLEARLY STATES THAT THE WAY THEY FALL WAS CONSISTANT WITH THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE PLANES, NOT EXPLOSIVES.

The air pockets that are supposedly detonations going off are air pockets getting blasted out of the lower falls as it gets compressed from the collapse. It's stupid and false claims by college drop outs that it was explosives that that are easily explained with science that make me think you truthers really are delusional and stupid for listening to these wack jobs.

The whole "truth" movement is based on manipulation of quotes, pseudo science and a total ignorance for scientific process. The only thing that has even a minuscule scent of scientific method is the paper posted by the wackjob from Denmark about the thermite at WT7.

However that has been debunked by experts in thermite and demolition jobs. Because a hypothesis has not been proven to be false does not make it true, no one has taken the time to write a paper on debunking his theory because apparently everyone in the field has more important things to work on. That tells you how little weight and substance this guy has in the scientific world.

That is ridiculous. Any decent high school student understand how a gas react when compressed. The material getting ejected wasn't air. Air, as you know, is transparent, not opaque. Gas doesn't concentrate at certain points when under pressure.

You just "believe" the government reports because they are the government reports.

 

[EasternTiger]

But the truth lies in the middle somewhere. There are so many unanswered questions in the reports that cry out for reasoned responses. However, some of the responses are fanciful in the extreme from the other side. We need to have people from both sides who are willing to have a debate on solid, reasonable grounds and not let it descend into petty name calling and fanciful arguments.

In fairness, we did have a 'robust' 9/11 Report debate about the Norman Mineta testimony, Cheney's infamous 'of course the order still stands' and the bunker timeline.

It eventually deteriorated into 'You're stupid' 'No, you're stupid' as happens on virtually every page of this thread.

There's been a few developments that I don't think have been touched on.

A few whistleblowers are slowly coming forward.

Lt Colonel Anthony Shaffer of 'Able Danger'

[youtube]Iu6yOgn2fno[/youtube]

and the most gagged person in United States History, Sibel Edmonds

[youtube]P-owdhJK5nk&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]ycd-H2k0nZI&feature=related[/youtube]