Right on spot, Ernest. I get a bit tired of repeating the same thing to numb-nuts-nilo...YOUR INFORMATION SOURCES & LINKS ARE TAINTED. That last link doesn’t really say much except a bunch of ‘engineereze’. Just more crap designed to delay & confuse.  Just for the record I have taken the time to look at your links, and they are propagandistic garbage, nilo. INDEPENDENT doesn’t mean controlled MSM or government backed sources. The NIST have proven themselves compromised. Hell, they still haven’t provided a reasonable, rational, logical explanation why WTC #7 collapsed even six years later, so why should we accept their other suspect claims? This dog won’t hunt because it’s actually an elephant...with a poor disguise at that.

Thanks Patrick Henry. While I have seen many 911 deniers claiming it would take huge numbers of people to ‘mine’ the WTC, I have seen very little info on how many (or few) it would take to set the necessary charges. With unlimited access granted by Bush’s brother I don’t believe it would be that difficult. A few key people in key places could do a lot without the ‘underlings’ having a complete picture. A ‘need to know’ basis is the foundation of any well organized safe underground or covert operation. Resistance cells in the French underground during WWII raised this technique to a fine art.

In my last profession we had safes full of classified information with a thermite grenade attached to the top of it.  Once the pin was pulled the thermite would burn through the 4 drawer safe and burn through each of the drawers.  It was a field contingency which was very effective.  It demonstrated how effective a small amount of the thermite would act on hardened steel.

Now, I am a Union Sheet Metal Worker and cutting metal is very different than bending it. especially when it is covered with asbestos.

It would take less than 10 men 2 weeks to do 10 floors with shaped charges aka “squibs”, off hours.  The asbestos dust would be the give away as no one looks above the drop ceilings except contractors, the dust is so fine it would be everywhere.

Paul, while our resident debunker, nilbrains, continues to bombard us with propaganda, elsewhere at Truthdig’s Reports--Waterboarding Our Democracy, sdemetri has furnished the science, including:

A.  “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to fire.”

B.  “One of the relatively few...peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses...’An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7’” provided an analysis that showed the “[r]apid deterioration of the steel was the result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur.....This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approaced ~1000 degrees by a process similary to making a ‘blacksmith’s weld’ in a hand forge.”

Smedetri notes there is no answer given for the presence of sulfer in the steel in official reports.  “Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000 degree C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfure, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite).  Thermate is a high-level thermite analog containing sulfur developed by the military.

“Finally, sulfidation was observed in structural steel samples found from both WTC7 and one of the WTC towers, as reported in Appendix C in the FEMA report....”

Quoting Professor Jones, Smedetri notes:  “While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic. The evidence for the use of some variant of thermite such as sulfur-containing thermate in the destruction of the WTC Towers and building 7 is sufficiently compelling to warrant serious investigation.”

As I noted on that same article, “The essence of the scientific method is that ‘all theories’ be they official or alternative must be subject to the same rigourous standards of examination....[W]hile there are a number of holes in competing theories--many due to the absence of an exhaustive impartial investigation--there are even greater gaping holes in the ‘official theory.’ For me, being the skeptical atheist that I am, I will not be satisfied with any of the theories advanced to explain this pivotal event absent the science to back it up.  Dismissive denigration is not science.”

Until there is a full, open investigation by an independent scientific body made up of lawyers, judges and scientist and untainted by connections to the fascist Bush regime, a committee given full access to all classified information, there is no reason why any of us should be prepared to draw any final conclusions about this pivotal historical event.

Hot off the presses, the NIST yet again tries to explain the physics of 9/11 to the mental midgets among us who think that special effects explosives can bring down steal framed buildings.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

The fact that they even need to do this speaks very poorly of the job that the education system is doing.

Squib. 

“A squib is a small explosive device used in a wide range of industries, from special effects to military applications. They resemble tiny sticks of dynamite in appearance and in construction, although with considerably less explosive power. Squibs can be used to generate mechanical force, as well as to provide visual pyrotechnic effects both in movies and in live theatrics. Being an explosive device, a squib releases a considerable amount of energy, and can therefore be used for shattering or propelling many different materials.[1]

A squib generally consists of a small tube filled with an explosive substance, and a detonator running through the length of its core, similar to a stick of dynamite. Also similar to dynamite, the detonator can be a slow-burning fuse, or as is more common today, a wire connected to a remote electronic trigger.[2] Squibs range in size, anywhere from 2 to 15 millimeters in diameter.”

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive)

I could point you towards quotes about squibs by people who actually work in the demolitions field, but i am sure you would just say that they are in on the conspiracy. 

So tell me, exactly how many 15 millimeter diameter squibs would you need to cut through even one of the core supports of either WTC 1 or 2?

I can not wait to hear you insane and illogical response.

Paul, you gotta love Orwellians like nilbrains.  Although ground zero was not merely a crime scene thoroughly trampled on but one in which all of the evidence was removed “before” the sham investigation by the administration’s handpicked “Commission” was even formed, he runs around screaming, where’s your evidence?

PatrickHenry:

“Gravity, after the squibs cut the structural members.”

Seriously, thats a joke right?  You are trying to be funny?  Dear god i hope so.  Where is the thermite in this case?

re: #120165 by niloroth

Gravity, after the squibs cut the structural members.

#120017 by Robert on 12/13 at 1:58 pm
(607 comments total)

“Ernest...don’t worry about this “nil-rot”; he/she is just spewing garbage. He/she reminds me of “lilmamzer”.”

Very good observation, and I know who you mean. In fact they could even be the same person. Both screen names/people thrive on being the meaningless, trifling, & diversionary while hiding behind the obscurity of non-sensical pseudonyms.

All these un-American un-patriotic elements in place need to keep in mind that just as the MCA (Military Commissions Act) of 2006 granted immunity, the previous CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) granted immunity, and the attempts at retroactive immunity for communications companies that violate our privacy, they all can also be rescinded...and should be.

It’s just like a bumper sticker I saw awhile ago that read, “Tell the truth and you don’t have to remember what you said”. Mr. “I can’t remember” Gonzales is their poster child, but I would expect he understands that even after leaving office (or especially) he is still subject to prosecution for criminal acts.

Americans constantly need reminding these inhumane, illegal, unconscionable acts have been done in ‘our’ name, and stay pissed off enough to ensure all these internal American enemies are held accountable for their activities. This includes quislings, collaborators, and active participants of any stripe. This is not vengence, but justice.

Okay, so i am just curious, if WTC 1 & 2 didn’t come down as the nist says they did, how did they collapse?  Could you maybe figure out which of the methods in this diagram was used?

http://depletedcranium.com/?p=230

Please note that at the bottom of the page all those theories are linked. 

Seriously, if you are at all interested in putting the truth out there, this should be a really simple start for you all.

thanks in advance.

1dree5 & goffredo--I appreciate your sentiments, but I think we are getting to the point of overkill.  As soon as I began to realize what nilbrains was--a disengenous sociopathic Orwellian, I stopped trying to convince him of anything, allowed him enough rope to hang himself, then set the record straight, exposing nilbrains for exactly what he is--a shameless fraud.  Since that time nilbrain’s mumblings have been about as effective as a sling shot against a tank. 

The substance on this post was provided by the well thought-out comments from PaulMagillSmith, Cyrena and especially Robert, who has a brilliant knack for coming up with links that are both poignant and educational.

With nilbrains already chopped down to the point that he would have to need a ladder to spit over a curb, I really don’t think it productive to keep piling on.  His posts are beneath our scorn at this point.  They are simply irrelevant, and should be treated as such.

You guys are going at him all wrong.  He is stuck believing what this administration (PROVEN WITH EVIDENCE-OR LACK THEREOF -TO HAVE LIED NUMEROUS TIMES) has produced as being truth.
That being said, any link or hint of information he relays should not be taken seriously.  We shouldn’t even have this debate until perhaps February of 2009.  Burned tapes, deleted e-mails, problems with recollection...we would need Colombo, Macgyver AND Charlie’s Angels to get all this information back.

The guy’s a lemming trying to vomit what he hears between 11AM and 1PM.
He is the little kid stopping his feet and covering his ears...kind of like Bill O’Reilly.

Cyrena:

“Besides, I don’t argue over facts in evidence.”

Well, that about sums your stance up.  You have no evidence, and no facts to back up your assertions.  I have repeatedly asked for evidence of explosives used in the destruction of the WTC’s, and i have never had anyone present me any. 

I have continually provided references and citations to all the statements i have made.  Can anyone dispute that fact at least? 

I think you folks are getting me all wrong.  i am not a fan of Bush, i have never voted for a republican canidate for president, i have only voted for one republican for senate, and he is one of the few politicians who i think is an honestly good person, regardless of political affiliation.  Other than that, i consider myself a left leaning independent.  I am, on a daily basis, horrified by the actions of this current administration.  But, while i despise these people, i can not, as much as i would like to, pin the blame for 9/11 on them.  And i have yet to see any evidence that anyone else can either.  I personally feel very sad about the fact that there are a great many people out there who are being lied to, and are as such wasting all their energy and motivation on something that is a shoddily propped up lie. 

So when i ask for evidence, i am not lying, i would love to see it, but so far i have seen nothing that is even close to convincing.  The fact of the mater is that i have most likely seen and researched the 9/11 truth position more than anyone else on this site.  I would say, having seen the arguments put forth by you folks, that i am far better prepared to make your case than you are, the only difference is that i have also looked at the other side.  And i hate you break it to you, but the evidence lines up with the official version far better than it does with the conspiracy version.  So while we (and i mean the rational memebers of the opposition to this administration) are out working to change things, you (the people sucked into the tin foil hat conspiracy theories) can continue to turn people off to our message.  So ask yourself, who is really helping the bush administration out?

Ernest, Cyrena & Paul:

Many thanks for your comments. I can see clearly that we have common goals & objectives. We value TRUTH and integrity.

Your efforts and persistence to reveal the TRUTH are clearly visible in your comments. I read your comments one by one and I just want to say that you are remarkable individuals.

Ernest...don’t worry about this “nil-rot”; he/she is just spewing garbage. He/she reminds me of “lilmamzer”.

Cyrena...No need to pay me at all. I can tell that you have a golden heart. And that is enough for me.

Paul...keep up the good work and you are right about “word of mouth salesmen/women for the truth”. Each one of us can make a big contribution for standing up and conveying the TRUTH. Our AIPAC controlled News Media have their own agendas and most of what they convey is far away from the truth.

Guys...keep up the good work and don’t let “nil-rot” sidetrack you with his garbage.

#119964 by niloroth

Nope nimrod,

I’m not one of your detainees, so I’m not confessing to anything under your particular brand of torture. Besides, I don’t argue over facts in evidence.

It is what it is nilo. He said it. And at this stage of the game, it doesn’t really matter now, does it?

Meantime, your stuff is just soooo repetitious and boring. Nobody has avoided your questions like the plague, even though at this point, they certainly SHOULD.

Your MO is the same old shit over and over again. You want other folks to bring you evidence of the truth, even though they have, over and over and over again. Accepting that you are not stupid, (though something is clearly very dysfunctional with you) we know that you have to have some motive in mind for continuing to engage people in the same old stuff of ‘proving’ that the WTC was taken out by explosive demolition, and NOT by airplanes flying into those towers.

But you see nimrod, that’s already been done, over and over and over again. So, we KNOW the truth, and it really doesn’t MATTER what YOU think!! In other words I certainly don’t care what you think, and from the looks of things, neither does anyone else. We’ve already figured out what your deal is.

So, the best you can do is lurk around like the troll that you are, and try to attack new folks, to suck them into your sick little pastimes. I have NO idea what you gain from this, unless you just need other people to do your research for you, or unless you’re keeping a list of people who actually know the truth, so you can turn it over to your employers. Is that the plan? Do you wanna find out how many folks have finally caught on, and how much any of them might know, individually or collectively? Are you planning a massive rendition of all truthdig posters, so you can torture us for additional info, or more than likely, just get rid of us because dead men/woman tell no tales? Too late. You’ll never get us all. The inside job of 9/11 is no secret.

So, obviously, we know a whole hell of a lot, and more and more comes to the surface every day. Kind of like your hero admitting just days ago, about the NIE report on Iran. Oh yes, the neoconners did indeed HOWL when the truth came out about THAT, but even chainey had to admit that there was no way to keep it a secret, (even though he certainly tried) because he had to admit that it would eventually leak out anyway, and then look all the worse. (although I don’t know how THAT’S possible).

Still, it IS curious that you continue to engage in this, since it’s too late to convince any of us of a truth that’s long been exposed, no matter how much you try to nitpick the insignificant details. In reality, all you do is bring out more and more of the truth, for all the world to see. (or at least anybody that reads these blogs). So, is that your ‘true’ purpose? No, I doubt you’re that sophisticated. More like just the occasional psychopath that crosses our paths. So, since we can’t force you to go away, we’ll just ignore you. Or, at least I will. Besides, it’s fun to listen the other bloggers expose you for what you are anyway.

Cyrena, Robert & Paul:  Have you noticed how exposure of nilbrain’s perfidy has reduced his posts to impotent mumblings?

Cyrena, one word in particular from your excellent post sums up our resident debunker, nilbrains--Perfidy!

Paul, first things first.  We, the progressive patriots, need to continue to pressure Congress to take up impeachment.  As Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, warns us, the People of the United States need to begin to appreciate the level of Cheney’s ruthlessness.  There is every reason to believe that, if he can, he will push us into a war with Iran, then use the ensuing blowback, coupled with perhaps a new 9/11 to get dubya-the-dunce to declare a national emergency under the continuity of government executive orders now in place which would lead to suspending the constitution and the November 2008 elections, shutting down Congress and realizing his ultimate goal of unchecked, unending power.  We already know that he and dubya are guilty of war crimes.  If the current regime should leave office and if the mounting evidence were to establish his complicity in 9/11 not even the retroactive immunity that mangy dog Alberto Gonzales secured from a then Republican-controlled Congress in the form of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 would save Cheney from the same fate that awaited Saddam Hussein.

(I read one commentators observation that Cheney’s greatest accomplishment has been his ability to allow dubya to wake up each morning thinking he is actually in charge.)

Senator Biden has taken the position that impeachment must be taken up if the regime invades Iran.  But Kucinich has countered that if we wait until then, it may be too late.  Impeachment may well be the only legal tool available for defending what is left of our constitutional democracy, yet Nancy impeachment-is-off-the-table Pelosi seems more concerned about shielding her own complicity in the torture scandal and trolling for corporate dollars needed to win the next election which may never be held to even consider placing impeachment where it belongs, on-the-table.

yawn.

Still waiting for someone to point to some proof of explosives in the WTC’s.  How about maybe you find me a deomlitions expert who supports that theory that explosives brought down WTC 1, 2, and 7?  Or maybe some info on ernest’s supposed 4.2 second collapse. 

And hey, cyrena, good to see you again, you going to fess up to having lied about that pearl harbor quote yet?  Or maybe a reasponse to all those NTSB reports you said didn’t exist, and then i found for you?  Or any of the other items i have challenged you on, and you have ignored like the plague? 

Just to touch on the architects and engineers for truth group.  They might hold some weight when they comprise more than 0.007% of their respective professions.  But don’t count on it any time soon, especially as they have just become aware of the fact that debunkers were signing up as credentialed engineers and architects simply to prove that they did zero checking of credentials.

Thanks, Cyrena, and I wish I could come over for some gumbo, sounds great. In addition to owning the seafood market (sold it in ‘83 and moved from VA to Indiana to get my first degree) I also supervised the kitchen in a 140 seat seafood restaurant before that. (I joke sometimes I’ve killed a million crabs, but don’t say that too much anymore because Bush probably brags about killing a million Iraqis...sick joke). Back in VA now, and after debilitating brain surgery (physically NOT mentally), another degree from VCU, and the trevails of being one of the tens of millions of the impoverished non-elite, now set up concerts & festivals mostly for non-profits doing benefits for worthy causes. I’m well below the poverty line, but I must love the life I lead because I keep doing it. What more can one ask? At least I can sleep nights with a clear conscience, right?

So Robert, cyrena, shenonymous, Ernest, and all you other posting American patriots...What do you suggest? Violence won’t work, and obviously politics & elections are a sham, so where do we go from here? BTW, cyrena, I’ve done battle with nilo-numb-nuts on some other threads, too, and very early realized someone must be paying him to propound his lunacy. I think we should all just make an effort to not get sucked in, post something to the neophytes to not pick a fight with him regardless of how looney his posts might seem, and just ignore him...reasonable? It seems the best way to destroy his intent is relegate him to the bullshit ineffective file and move on. He might be one of many, but thankfully they are headed toward extinction, and like dinosaurs don’t realize it yet. In the long run lies will never triumph over truth. They’re ‘dead men/women walking’ just haven’t fallen down yet.

#119900 by PaulMagillSmith
• Thanks Ernest & Robert for your posts, and Cyrena I’m glad you stuck around and waded through the nilo BS.

Hi Paul, good to hear from you again, and your posts are excellent. Now, I have to admit, that I haven’t even waded through that much of nimrods (that’s my own name for nilobrains) stuff this time around, other than to delight in all of the other responses to him. I’ve even reposted a few that I was really impressed with. All I can say this time around, is that you all (you, Ernest, Robert) have done all of the work. I’ve already done my time with the moron, and quite honestly, you guys do a better job. He just pisses me off, because I always (I don’t know why) begin communicating with people as if they have a least the basic level of reason AND common decency. Like, can you connect basic dots, and do you have any level of integrity or even a whimpering of morality in your being. I assume that most people do. And, generally, I’m right. MOST people do. But, not the nilo-nimrods of the world.

That said, I wasted far too much time on him before, so I’ve not much bothered this time; EXCEPT to note what Ernest has so well articulated, that I wish I’d realized long before I wasted my own time on the other threads. This specifically (and you’ve basically said the same):

#119659 by Ernest Canning

• …”His conflation of fact is not the result of a lack of intelligence but is based instead on calculated and willful distortion—“…

Now THIS says it all. Nimrod simply cannot be THAT stupid, (and that’s pretty much what I had supposed earlier on, although I suspected some sort of personality disorder as well). And, he may well have that, but this isn’t a result of stupidity, but rather it IS highly calculated, and I’m grateful to Ernest for putting it so succinctly.

This one REALLY made me laugh…

#119585 by Ernest Canning
• See what I mean, Paul.  The moron actually thinks he has won, when all he has done is set forth his official MSNBC version of the events, ignoring basic science.  He reminds me of the guy you get into checkmate in four moves, then holds up his hands, shouting gleefully, I win!"…

Ernest, don’t EVER let me or Shenonymous, or anyone else accuse you of not having a sense of humor. This is hilarious and SO on target!! Sounds like the same kind of moron who walks along the beach and stubs his toe, and then shakes his fist at a seagull 2 miles out and says, “see what you made me do!” But, the deceit and perfidy is definitely there, so it shouldn’t be ignored. Rather, the word-of-mouth warning just has to be repeated from time to time for the newcomers.

Speaking of which, I sure wish I had some of your fish right about now. I made a trip to my local place earlier, only to discover that two of the items were missing from the bag when I got it home. But, I’m gonna hang in there until I finish up my term work tomorrow, and then I’ve got all the fixings for a Super Gumbo. (still need to get the crab, but otherwise, I’m good to go.)

Anyway, nilo-nim is very obvious in his technique to distract by stupid nitpicking, (like 8 seconds v 4 seconds). I mean really, what building completely collapses in less than a MILLION seconds, unless it’s either blown up, or subjected to a 99.9 point earthquake? And, while Dr. Jones makes the clear point that the terrorists had no way/access/tools/knowledge to plant the required explosives, (which is true) even he is overly intelligent for the lame ass official story, that doesn’t even acknowledge that they were blown up!!

They want us to believe that airplanes caused all of that damage in less than the blink of an eye. That’s what I could never understand. Why didn’t they make the official lie at least a bit more plausible? Why not blame al-Qaeda for planting the explosives, since they were blaming them for all of these other unbelievable maneuvers? They think the rest of us are as stupid as they are!!

Thanks Ernest & Robert for your posts, and Cyrena I’m glad you stuck around and waded through the nilo BS. What it boils down to is these people in denial either just don’t ‘get it’, or are paid not to. I agree with you Ernest; nil for brains is in the second category. Lame attempts, backed up only with MSM or gov sources have no credibility.

Do you remember after Bush 41 left office there was talk of criminal charges leveled against him regarding cocaine distribution conspiracy? It didn’t happen, but I don’t think 43 will get off so easy because he has so thoroughly pissed off so many people. We can’t let these monsters get away with this. They have flipped us the bird while purloining not only the treasury, but the finances of future generations. For justice to have any meaning these criminal psychopaths must be hounded to the ends of earth & time until they are run to ground.

The question is not what they did, or even how they did it. That is pretty obvious except to illinformed fools who don’t recognize the looming threat to all of us. We also know what must be done, but the question has resolved itself to HOW?

I used to own a seafood market, and when it first opened I advertised for the first couple weeks in the local paper. I stopped wasting that money, relying instead on word-of-mouth. It’s the most powerful of sales devices, because once a person is convinced by a friend of the integrity of an establishment not only does the reputation of the information (tip) giver rise, the business also gains a loyal customer. In two years I quadrupled sales.

I mention this because this seems to be where we are at in the present moment...word-of-mouth salesmen/women for the truth.

Time is a dichotomy: it is our friend and enemy. The JFK assassination was decades ago, but is still relevant because indications are a number of the same people involved, or their protegees, were engaged in the acts of 911. Many years have passed since Dallas, and the Warren report is the same BS whitewash cover-up as the 911 Commission report. Time is our enemy in regard to the JFK job, but in the ensuing time communications have improved such that time became our friend.

Time has become our friend in a weird way regarding 911. It has allowed us to communicate our suspicions & gather more evidence. The hot blooded distrust of this administration has now (through time) become a cold blooded resolve for justice. Our ranks grow daily, but they still aren’t sufficient to re-balance the scales.

This administration and their cohorts are pressed now for time, and just like a collective cornered rat they can’t afford the public attack cat to get even one claw in them or they are done for. Expect the rat to try to bite before the end of next year because that is all they have left to do. I think when something drastic happens soon, we should all turn our eyes toward Isreal, masters of the ‘false flag operation’.

Be aware, and pass your awareness on by word-of-mouth. When they see they were told the truth about how good our fish is we will win the day.

#119832 by Ernest Canning on 12/12 at 5:50 pm

...."Robert, as always you prove a master at finding the most relevant link."…

==============================

I just wanted to add my AMEN to this. It’s true. Robert, you’re an ACE at this. I almost feel like we should be paying you.

Since I can’t afford it, I’ll just say THANKS...again!!

And more from Robert’s excellent link:

“In late 2004, a group of 25 intelligence serve and law enforcement veterans sent a joint letter to Congress expressing concerns about ‘serious shortcomings,’ ‘omissions’ and ‘major flaws’ in the 9/11 Commission Report.”

The seven CIA veterans featured in the link include Ray McGovern, who personally delivered intel briefings to Reagan and Bush I.  McGovern wrote “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs.  But the present volume [refering to “American Empire” by David Ray Griffin & Peter Dale Scott] confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion:  that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by the administration precisely so they could be exploited.”

William Christianson, a 29 year CIA veteran described the 9/11 Commission Report as a “joke” and “not a serious piece of analysis at all.” He noted that there is “a strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies."--monstrous lies I might add that our resident debunker, nilbrains, continues to endorse.  Christianson adds:  “An airliner almost certainly did not hit the Pentagon....The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them.”

Melvin Goodman, PhD, a former senior CIA analyst referred to the 9/11 Commission Report as a “coverup.”

Robert, also from your excellent link is the following petition to Congress signed by over two hundred architects & engineers

“On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architechts and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01--specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.  We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC 7.”

But of course we can all ignore those 200 architects and engineers because our resident debunker, nilbrains, who never provided his or her creditials, says there is no basis for questioning the official conspiracy theory.

Robert, as always you prove a master at finding the most relevant link.  Here are a few excerpts from one segment of that link, pertaining to the 8 Senior Republican Appointees who challenge the official theory.

Paul Craig Roberts, Ass. Sec. of Treasury, Reagan admin.  “I find the facts against the official story of the [WTC]= buildings’ collapse more compelling that the case that has been made in behalf of the official story.”

Catherine Austin Fitts, form Ass. Sec. Housing, Bush I admin.  “The official story could not possibly have happened.  In other words, what the administration has put forward is essentially a conspiracy theory that does not conform to the facts.  It’s not possible.  It’s not operationally feasible....The Commission was a whitewash.”

She adds, “We have watched the US government suppress facts and restrict...the 9-11 Commission’s access to information.  We have watched the 9-11 Commission fail to answer unaswered questions and concede to official suppression....We have noted the material omissions of the corporate media.  Something does not add up.”

The link notes:  “WTC 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds....However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s ‘full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.’”

Video of WTC 7 collapse at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7 Collapse.wmv

Col. Ronald Ray (USMC), Asst. Sec. Def., Reagan admin., described the official 9/11 theory as “the dog that doesn’t hunt....I’m astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that that’s accurate.”

Barbara Honegger, Special Ass. to Chief Domestic Policy Advisor and W.H. Policy Analyst, Reagan admin.  “The US military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC [1, 2 & 7] which brought down three buildings on 9/11.” She adds, “A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, steep, high-speed 270 to 330-degree dive towards the Pentagon that Dulles Air Traffic Controllers were sure was a military aircraft [which]...would have given off the “Friendly” signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti-aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building.  Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response systems on 9/11.”

RECENT ARTICLES:

Eight Senior Republican Administration Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – “Not Possible”, “a Whitewash”, “False”

Dec. 4, 2007

Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report – Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up”

Sep. 23, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Engineers and Architects
Question the 9/11 Commission Report

Many engineers and architects have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report.  Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11.  This section is a collection of their public statements.  This website is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 270 engineers and architects that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report.  Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their professional responsibilities related to building design, construction, and other areas of engineering, demonstrates that criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, and that, in fact, it can be just the opposite.

If you are an engineer or architect who has concerns about the 9/11 Commission Report and would like your comment added to this website, please contact me.

Thanks, Alan Miller alan.miller (at) PatriotsQuestion911 (dot) com

Contact Your Local 9/11 Truth Group!

Demand a New 9/11 Investigation!

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

Richard Gage

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect – Member, American Institute of Architects.  A practicing Architect for 20 years who has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings.  Founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

* Speech at Sonoma State University 4/20/07: “Another 2006 poll by Scripps Howard, Ohio University, which found that a shocking 16% believe that the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers were brought down by explosives.  Unfortunately, my research has also concluded that this is true.  Tonight I will present to you the very clear evidence that all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed not by fire as our government has told us, but by controlled demolition with explosives.” http://ae911truth.org/aboutus.php

* Editor’s note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and was not hit by an airplane.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.

* Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 200 Architects and Engineers:

“On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.  We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.” http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

* Founding Member, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “We are a non-partisan association of Architects, Engineers, and affiliates, who are dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the ‘collapses’ of the WTC high-rises on 9/11/01.”

* Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Association Statement: “Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks.”

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Ernest:

“I haven’t taken the time to go back over the more than one hour presentation by Dr. Jones to verify whether it was 4.2 seconds or 8 seconds or some variation.  Either time limit would not negate the physics of the sudden freefall in which WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint.

Since my original post of 4.2 seconds was based solely on memory of a video presentation I had watched some months ago, I would be the first to admit that I could have been mistaken.  So what? “

Are you serious?  first off, you were pulling that 4.2 second timing out of your memory?  Really?  That is about the weakest thing i have ever heard.  Why not just say you made it up?  And no, you were not the first to admit you were mistaken.  In fact, you made that assertion (without any tangible evidence now it seems) more than once.  No wonder you can not produce any evidence of it.  You might be the most ill prepared truther i have ever encountered. 

And I note you use the term freefall in relation to the collapse, but say that the timing does not matter.  I hate to break it to you, but then dealing with the fall speed of a building, and claiming demolitions were used, the speed of the fall has everything to do with your case.  Especially if you start using words like freefall.  Do i need to explain this to you now as well?

Larry Silverstein, WTC 7,
and the 9/11 Demolition

The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building
WTC 7 was a very solid construction
9/11/2001 radio broadcast: “We were just sitting here watching all the smoke pouring up from
number 7 ... we really couldn’t see much damage on it ... I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion, it looked like it had been done by a demolition crew ... that’s number 1,
number 2, and now number 7 that have come down from this explosion and folks just simply can’t believe it. ... I just never for the life of me imagined that these huge buildings would just fall, and that’s what happened, they just crumbled.” [338kB wma download]

The above photograph shows fires in World Trade Center 7 at roughly 3 p.m., as does this wmv video of the building.

If the FEMA collapse report were true then the fires shown would have been burning throughout entire floors, not just in a few rooms.
Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11. In the documentary “America Rebuilds”, aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” [wmv download]

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: “… we’re getting ready to pull the building six.” [wmv download]

There can be little doubt as to how the word “pull” is being used in this context.

Note how WTC 6 collapses - straight down, lots of dust

Silverstein’s “Pull It” Explanation Examined
The building fire alarm system [for WTC 7] was placed on TEST for a period of 8 h beginning at 6:47:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001. Ordinarily, this is requested when maintenance or other testing is being performed on the system, so that any alarms that are received from the system are considered the result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored. [NIST]

After the initial blast [Flight 11 hitting WTC 1], Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city’s corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. “I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell,” Jennings said. [Traverse City Record Eagle 9/11/2001]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

nilbrains, I haven’t taken the time to go back over the more than one hour presentation by Dr. Jones to verify whether it was 4.2 seconds or 8 seconds or some variation.  Either time limit would not negate the physics of the sudden freefall in which WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint.

Since my original post of 4.2 seconds was based solely on memory of a video presentation I had watched some months ago, I would be the first to admit that I could have been mistaken.  So what?

There is a major distinction between good faith error and dissembling, which is what you did in conflating the very information that you yourself posted from the wikipedia reference--information reflecting that Prof. Jones most definitely did “not” voluntarily resign to avoid peer review--which was precisely the claim you made and which is refuted by the very wikipedia reference you post.  That post not only belies the assertion that Prof. Jones was trying to avoid peer review, it raises a substantial question that his “accepting a retirement” can be considered a voluntary action vs. a decision which was forced upon him by the same BYU administrators who had forced him onto leave status and forced him to remove his article from the school’s web site.

You knew all that, but went ahead and made your bogus point in the hopes that it would somehow discredit Professor Jones academic study of the WTC 7 because the other references you post, while setting forth much weaker alternative theories, certainly do not refute Dr. Jones’s academic presentation. 

There are only two possible explanations for what you did.  Either you are (a) incredibly stupid and actually believe your conflation of the facts or (b) you are an Orwellian sociopath who has made a calculated and wilful distortion as part of a project for discrediting any who question the official theory of 9/11.  From reading your many posts, I am convinced that category (a) does not apply to you.  That leaves category (b).

As I am sure other posters who have been confronted by your debunking campaign will agree, I have your number.  I’ve measured you up.  You have no credibility.  There is absolutely nothing you can say or do at this point to restore that credibility.

ernest:

Oh, good come back.  It was fact filled, and referenced very fully.  Man, you sure showed me.

ps. where is the video of a 4.1 second collapse?  Yeah, still have yet to see that.  So far it is only in your brain i guess.  Funny how i say 8 seconds, and point you to a copy of it, while you say 4.1 seconds, and don’t have squat to back that claim up.

nilbrains, you can’t change substance by using bold type.  Your dishonesty has been exposed.  Now go away!

Doh!  jumped the gun an posted before i was done, more comming soon, but that should give you an idea of the content of my next post.  Seriously, how can you live with yourself while being so dishonest?

Ernest:

All of these quotes in bold from the wikipedia article at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

(Please note that i correctly linked to it.)

The rest of the quotes are your comments.

“In post #119126 I posted a cite to wikipedia, specifically noting that Jones had already submitted his paper to peer review; that it was published but not in a peer review journal”

“Jones maintains that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication, though it has never been published in an independent peer-reviewed journal.”

He has never supported his claim that it was peer reviewed, and in this context it would have to have been published in a journal to have been peer reviewed. 

“that Jones came under tremendous pressure from BYU for his courageous willingness to present his scientific article, being forced to pull it from the BYU web site and being forced onto leave.”

“Jones’ placement on paid leave drew criticism from the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both organizations are long time critics of BYU’s record on academic freedom.[30] Jones “welcomed the review” because he hoped it would “encourage people to read his paper for themselves,” however the review was abandoned when Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007.”

He has never supported his claim that it was peer reviewed, and in this context it would have to have been published in a journal to have been peer reviewed.

911 Demo: BYU’s
Prof Jones Has Wide Academic Support

BYU Professor Has Plenty of Company in the Academic Community,
Including 60 Faculty Members from Two Utah Universities
Who Concur a Controlled Demolition Most Likely Brought
Down the WTC and Further Investigation Is Needed

By Greg Szymanski
11-15-5

Professor Steven E. Jones is another in the long line of conservatives in the political and academic world joining the 9/11 truth movement and asking to open up further investigations on the true cause of 9/11.


The BYU physics professor who believes the WTC collapsed from a controlled demolition isn’t alone in the academic community, as a group of more than 60 colleagues from two universities also agreed with Professor Steven E. Jones’ conclusions.

Jones told the Arctic Beacon Saturday in a telephone conversation from Provo, Utah, he first presented his explosive conclusions at Brigham Young University (BYU) on September 22, to 60 people from the BYU and Utah Valley State College faculties, including professors of Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Geology, Mathematics and Psychology.

After presently scientific arguments in favor of the controlled demolition theory, Jones said everyone in attendance from all backgrounds, conservative and liberal, were in total agreement further investigation was needed.

“I was quite surprised how my conclusions were received,” said Jones, adding he plans to give two continue telling the public how he came to his startling conclusions essentially ripping apart the official government story that jet fuel brought down the towers, including Building 7.

“In fact, after I researched how Building 7 fell, I am certain there existed pre-positioned explosives to bring down the three buildings.”

Jones added that the contingent of faculty members at the September seminar were all in agreement that the government needed to “come clean” and release more that 6,900 photographs and close to 7,000 segments of video footage, now being held from independent investigation by the FBI and other agencies.

Since day one, the Bush administration has safely guarded much of the 9/11evidence, including the WTC steel hauled away by FEMA and eye-witness testimony of basement explosions censored by the 9/11 Commission and the state sponsored press, as well as discrediting many other scientists or academics like Jones who have disagreed with the official story.
“We are calling for the release of all the data, including the videos and photos, in order that a cross-disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers can reach an independent conclusion,” said Jones, adding all 60 professors in attendance agreed with this course of action.

“Since I decided to come forward with my findings, I have found the people in the 9/11 community very supportive and helpful. I hope my contribution will one day help get at the truth of what really happened and specifically how the towers collapsed.”

http://www.rense.com/general68/demo.htm

(Part II)

“Jones’ theory on the way the towers collapsed was presented in a 9,000 word formal paper already approved for publication in an upcoming academic journal. The following is a partial explanation of how and why he came to his conclusions that the WTC most likely collapsed due to pre-positioned explosives. He writes:

“In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives.

“I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

And the reasoning behind his conclusions can be summed up as follows:

* The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with “controlled demolition” - and even then it’s very difficult, he says. “Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when ‘toppling over’ falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?” Jones asks. “And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The ‘symmetry data’ emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an ‘inside’ job.”
* No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.”

(continued above)

“* WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. “Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?” he asks. “That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors - and intact steel support columns - the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?” The paradox, he says, “is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses.” These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

* With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. “How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing - and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon.”

* Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

* Steel supports were “partly evaporated,” but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel - and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

* Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives “have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal,” Jones says.

* Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.”

http://www.rense.com/general68/demo.htm

Paul, let’s just take just one of nilbrains distortions.  In post #118963 he wrote that Prof. Jones resigned rather than submit his papers for peer review.  Sounds like Jones never submitted his papers for peer review and resigned “because” he wanted to avoid peer review, right?

In post #119126 I posted a cite to wikipedia, specifically noting that Jones had already submitted his paper to peer review; that it was published but not in a peer review journal; that Jones came under tremendous pressure from BYU for his courageous willingness to present his scientific article, being forced to pull it from the BYU web site and being forced onto leave.

In post #119121 nilbrains responded by