I found the missing Jolt.

[beachnut]

... And, yes, every expert who does support the official story is either a paid shill, or the government has something on them and they are being blackmailed. ...

LOL, I would ask for proof, but you have failed to do anything to support the lies of 9/11 truth; and you can't.

... paranoia and zero knowledge of physics. A common trait of 9/11 truth followers.

And this is the evidence for supporting the fantasy of CD, lies about "experts".

19 terrorists did 9/11, the failed claims of 9/11 truth are support for the failed terrorists -, supported by the anti-patriotic, anti-American, McVeigh like government haters, 9/11 truth supporters.

 

[skyeagle409]

Proof?

Proof?

Proof?


Proof? Also, please prove that your claim above is correct as applied to WTC1, 2 and 7.

Please provide a link to a credible source that puts a concise definition on "extreme force" as it applies to structural engineering.


Is that a steel-framed building? If so, please provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim.

Proof? How can we know what the shock signals should have been if we don't know what explosives were used and how?

Wow. You can do it. I politely suggest that you add this line at the end of every sentence you have posted.

Let's just say that I know EXACTLY what I am talking about, and any demolition expert will tell you that I am correct. It's that simple.

Now, let's take a look here.


The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.'

They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

Civil and Structural Engineers on WTC

120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/


Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns.

The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/


Shyam Sunder

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html


Report issued by Lamont-Doherty

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear misleadingly as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

 

[FalseFlag]

It's self evident.

If the Gage really wants an investigation, he'd use his resources to work toward that end. But he doesn't.

I guess you are ignoring the petition on the main page.

This does not surprise me. If you can ignore the statement of someone clearly affected by an explosion, you can ignore anything.

 

[FalseFlag]

Point made.
I know for a fact that at least 4 of the people here laughing at the idiocy you spout are PE's, and at least 10 have MS degrees from Universities.

Proof?

And None of us have received a paycheck for shilling yet!

This could be true. You can't prove it and I can't disprove it. I also can neither prove nor disprove you are here because you are being forced to.

The reality is this simple:

1. Skeptics are paid to be here.
2. Skeptics are forced to be here.
3. Skeptics are here because they suffer from serious mental deficiencies or conditions which prevent them from processing facts and coming to sensible, reasonable conclusions.

If I were you, I would do everything I could to avoid being accused of being here for reason number 3.

 

[FalseFlag]

Proof?

There are almost 100,000 of experts who accept that 9-11 went down the way it did.

Proof?

How is faking an attack on the World Trade Center, but then hiding the use of explosives on the inside of three buildings intellectually consistent when their use would have certainly amplified government response?

They didn't hide the use of explosives. They are clearly there. Their effects can be seen, and heard.

The issue is that the official story ignores this.

So, yes, why can't you think it through?

 

[FalseFlag]

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

The sources you listed have no credibility.

Please try again.

 

[TJM]

I guess you are ignoring the petition on the main page.

Yeah FF, that's selflessness on a level that'd give Mother Teresa a case of the queefs.

This does not surprise me. If you can ignore the statement of someone clearly affected by an explosion, you can ignore anything.

I tend to disregard statements of those clearly affected by explosions which there isn't a shred of evidence of.

 

[tfk]

This was my reason for wanting to include WTC 1&2.

Tony: “… collapse of WTC 7 (only) …”
And this strikes me as just plain silly. And not particularly useful.
Include any technical / engineering aspect of collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

All of the events of 9/11 fit together into one giant whole, and therefore require a single, overarching & self-consistent narrative.

WTC7 was, in essence, an innocent by-stander to the attacks on WTC 1&2.
The only reason for WTC7 domination in Truther discussions os the fact that some events are less visible or understandable to amateurs than the events in WTC 1&2.

And I'm going to want Tony to provide some sort of a cogent narrative that explains, in his opinion, the whole thing.

 

[Axxman300]

Proof?

The pathetically small numbers of actual professionals who've sign A&E911Troof's petition is a prime indicator of opinion.

They didn't hide the use of explosives. They are clearly there. Their effects can be seen, and heard.

You dodged my question. Why did they hide the use of explosives if they were in on it?

The issue is that the official story ignores this.

There's no official story, just reality, and the reality is there were no explosives used on 9-11.

So, yes, why can't you think it through?

I have thought it through. It is clear that you know you've failed, and instead of admitting you've wasted your time because you were fooled you're taking it out by trolling this board. We laugh at you.

I will ask again, why hide the use of explosives on 9-11? Why not hold a press conference where they display the detonation devices, and photos of the damaged steel where the hundreds of charges were set off? Why not used explosives used by Iraq/Iran to frame them for the attack?

Do you understand how silly your idea of CD is? The amount of effort to keep it secret would be beyond the capability of all of the combined agencies within the US government. A frame job would have been easier, and more effective all the way around. Instead we have 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other mid east countries, who all trained in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. How does anyone draw a line to Iraq with that plan?

 

[tfk]

Mark Loiseaux’s speculation about giant building demolition is superb. He’s a world class expert in the field.

Maybe Loiseaux and Danny Jowenko can have a debate. Oh, wait....

It’d be no contest.
Loiseaux was on site, at Ground Zero, 3 days after the attack, and stayed there for months.
Danny Jowenko never set foot at GZ.

Jowenko idiotically proclaimed WTC7 a CD … solely based on a doctored video that a couple of Twoofers showed him. The “doctoring” was removing the sound.

Jowenko was so clueless that he failed to ask the Twoofers, “where’s the sound?”

At that point in the investigation, every single real expert in the world is going to say, “Wait until the investigation concludes to see what caused the collapse.”

Only a clueless moron would say, “this was the cause” while knowing nothing beyond seeing a doctored video.

ZERO signs point to CD.

You can only believe this if you ignore the most basic laws of physics, which you obviously do.

You’ve got a serious memory malfunction.

Just a week ago, we PROVED that you haven’t the slightest clue about the laws of physics.

Once again, you are invited to state the law of physics that you THINK was violated.

You’ve never been able to do this in the past.
The probability of your being able to do it now is somewhere between Slim & None.
And Slim caught a bus out of town…

A mountain of proof exists that there could not possibly have been a CD.

Where? Saying this repeatedly doesn't make your statement true.

1. no blast sounds.
2. no shrapnel injuries.
3. no windows broken on the BACK sides of the nearby buildings.
4. Most compelling proof: zero columns or girders in the debris pile that show the “visible from 15 feet away” characteristics of either melting or explosive cutting. Every single column end, in the thousands of pictures of GZ & Fresh Kills, shows a clean machined column end. Even if the end is distorted by being crushed in the collapse. This is evidence that anyone who wanted to really know the truth can check TODAY. Those photographs are available for download. (And hundreds more, for purchase in books.)
BTW, the “swiss cheese” I Beam is unmistakeable NOT from melting. If it had melted, it would not have the remnant shape of the I Beam left in the remaining steel. It’s look like a melted candle.
5. Zero giant ingots of steel, with thousands of pounds of embedded debris (the inevitable consequence of “rivers of molten steel flowing down the channel rails”), had to be lance cut & hoisted out of the rubble & trucked away.
6. The meteorite was provably NEVER melted steel. Or aluminum. Or any other metal. There is legible paper sticking out of it. That means that it never got above about 150°C (the charring temperature for paper).
7. The rubble piles were examined in fine detail by experts trained in detection of explosives, both human & dogs. Not a single thing indicating explosives was found.
8. The debris from GZ was sorted & examined down to the size of dime. No initiators, no det cord, no “thermite holding ceramics”, none of the accessory equipment required for CD was found.

That's off the top of my head. There are 4 or 5 more.

Your delusions of moral & intellectual superiority

Where have I claimed moral and intellectual superiority? Once again, the evidence for your claim does not exist.

The delusions of intellectual superiority come out - hilariously - every single time you claim to “understand physics”.

The delusion of moral superiority emerges every single time you claim that the engineers who wrote the NIST report, who reviewed the NIST report, who have independently validated various key aspects of the NIST report, who have accepted the NIST report as substantially correct, who have written papers based on the NIST report, etc. are frauds & abettors to mass murder & treason.

You simply throw a temper tantrum and make derogatory remarks to try to convince others that you must be right.

You have GOT to learn the difference between “throwing a temper tantrum” and “laughing at your cluelessness”.

Besides, why does someone need to grow up to believe you? Even an 8yo with a basic understanding of Newton's laws of motion can see you're full of ****.

Close.
No cigar.

Correctly stated: ONLY an 8 year old understanding of Newton’s laws (in other words: no understanding at all), produces your knowledge-free comments about my understanding of physics.

Although I’ve got to give you credit for one thing: It only took you FOUR posts to figure out that something that hasn’t move one millimeter in 30 years has NOT been “accelerating at 32 ft/sec² for all that time”.

You got it far, far quicker than Tony Szamboti did.
LMAO.

Now, have you finally figured out yet why it takes no energy to deliver heavy weights long distances, when they are part of a tilting assembly?

Nah, didn’t think so…
LoL.

Now, tell me again about MY misunderstanding of physics, FF...
LoL.

 

[Spanx]

Go ahead, prove me wrong. You can't. Credible experts won't support the fantasy you call the official story.

.

Yet they will support Richard Gage who keeps saying "we don't know"

Go ahead and prove me wrong.

 

[tfk]

We know who TSz is, but who is tfk? I think both parties need to prove they are experts.

Posted long, long before you every showed up here: tinyurl.com/canv4kn

I’ll save you a post: “No, I don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not you believe me.”

I also think it's unwise to hold the debate on this forum.

Are you actually, you know, literate?
The debate is not being held here.

ETA: We also need verified experts who will substantiate individual claims and settle disputes. Without that, the debate is pointless.

The debate WILL be completely over your head.
I couldn’t care less about that.

It will not be over the head of the vast majority of readers. Or people with a clever 15 years old’s reasoning abilities.

Still leaves you out, I’m afraid.

Easy example, just for illustration: Debater 1 says a bolt is 3/5" in diameter. Debater 2 says that same bolt is actually 5/8" in diameter. The NIST report agrees with debater 1, but debater 2 says both NIST and debater 1 are not correct.

The person who wrote this is a clueless idiot.

Debater 1 is an idiot.
NISt would NEVER say that any bolt used in the WTC towers was a 3/5” bolt.

There are no Unified Thread Standard bolts that are 3/5” diameter.
There are no UNC/UNF bolts that are 3/5” diameter.
There are no SAE bolts that are 3/5” diameter.
There are no ANSI/ASME bolts that are 3/5” diameter.
There are no ISO bolts that are 3/5” diameter.

Between 1/4” diameter & 5/8” diameter, bolts come in 1/16” increments.
Above 5/8” diameter, they come in 1/8” increments.

I know this, because I’ve spec’d screw threads on hundreds of designs in my career.
Tony knows this too, I strongly suspect.

You, on the other hand, …

The NIST report will be the arbiter of any such disagreement.

Another expert on structural engineering would be brought in to resolve the conflict. Ideally, as many credible experts as possible would volunteer to settle these kinds of disputes. Without this, the debate is pointless.

For you, the debate is pointless.

If you want to set up YOUR debate, do so.
This one isn’t yours.

I also think AE911T should get involved, and the 2500+ signers need to start speaking up.
If AE911T is legitimate (which I think it is), the signers should be willing to lend their expertise to this.

LMAO at troll bait.

 

[skyeagle409]

The sources you listed have no credibility.

Please try again.

Sorry, but that is reality.

The experts have spoken and their proof is backed by the fact that you have been unable to refute the evidence that proved no explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings.

 

[tfk]

Nonsense.

This is absolute nonsense. Ask 100 real experts with any one of those degrees to participate in this debate. Let me know what responses you get. They will laugh at you, or they just won't respond. No credible expert is going to support the official story, or your fantasies, unless they are on the payroll of the people trying to suppress the truth.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. You can't. Credible experts won't support the fantasy you call the official story.

And, yes, every expert who does support the official story is either a paid shill, or the government has something on them and they are being blackmailed.

Yes, that is also my opinion, but it's an informed opinion, and I'm confident it is the truth. You can not get intelligent, educated, reasonable people to defend a lie unless you pay them or blackmail them. It's that simple.

This post is just adorable.
So cute...

 

[skyeagle409]

Proof?

They didn't hide the use of explosives. They are clearly there. Their effects can be seen, and heard.

QUOTE]

Proof! Seems that you have been overlooking my references for some reason, so here they are once again so you can't missed them the second time around.


The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

https://web.archive.org/web/2007080...western.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf


Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns.

The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/


WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Thank you - that makes three of us maybe 4 If Crazy Chainsaw has decided to join.

I do need a "tongue in cheek" smilie if anyone has access to one.

So far no explicit support.

Bear in mind that I am supporting THEIR demands for a "New Investigation" - so their option is to cease supporting it OR agree with me.

THEN I simply pointed out some obvious consequences of a "New Investigation" that is run with subpoena powers and para-legal process. Within the provisions of "rule of law" and due process under the US Constitution.

I am not a US citizen but I admire the US Constitutional setup. Must be unique in its "bottom up empowerment" - Government of the people as permitted by the people.*

If they disagree with the U S Constitution there is nothing I - as a UK born citizen of AU - can do about it.







* I've been studying US Constitutional Law since getting involved in Forums - my interest raised from moderating the "Same Sex Marriage" emancipation moves esp in CA.
.... I especially like the 2nd Amendment provision - giving the people the right to bear arms to shoot the Government if it gets out of hand. Haven't seen it interpreted in its original literal meaning in recent years tho'.

Of course I have joined the best thing that can occur is to get Gage, Cole, and Tony S. Under oath.

 

[ozeco41]

Of course I have joined the best thing that can occur is to get Gage, Cole, and Tony S. Under oath.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Would be fun to send them a greeting card strait to their holding Cells after the Judge locks them away. For perjury.

 

[ozeco41]

Would be fun to send them a greeting card strait to their holding Cells after the Judge locks them away. For perjury.

Depends on your definition of fun I suppose.

But in sequence the greatest "fun" would be to see them caving in under cross examination. Death by a thousand cuts quite probably spread over some hours.

This sort of thing:

Q: Mr Sz - I draw your attention to Exhibit X - a paper titled "Missing Jolt" with a co-author MR T Sz.

..are you the T Sz identified as co author of this paper?

A: Yes.

Q: I draw your attention to this marked paragraph here. (Waves paper and points to a marked paragraph.) Could you read that paragraph to the Court Mr Sz. (Hands paper to witness.)

A: (reads to court - probably in low voice - its the first trick nearly all of them try.)

Q: Could you raise your voice Mr Sz so the court can hear the text?

A: (Complies - reads again louder)

Q: Do you hold that statement to be true Mr Sz.

A: (Tries "waffling")

Q: The question is quite straightforward Mr Sz - do you - today - in this court - hold that quoted statement to be true?

and it gets messier from there. Paragraph by paragraph till even you and I and the dozens of debunker witnesses in the public gallery start to feel sorry for the witness.


Because there is no way out.

It isn't an internet forum with access to the full range of debating tricks.

Nor an audience of "the Choir" he can preach anything to and they will lap it up.

Hard edged reality - and no where to go.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Depends on your definition of fun I suppose.

But in sequence the greatest "fun" would be to see them caving in under cross examination. Death by a thousand cuts quite probably spread over some hours.

This sort of thing:

Q: Mr Sz - I draw your attention to Exhibit X - a paper titled "Missing Jolt" with a co-author MR T Sz.

..are you the T Sz identified as co author of this paper?

A: Yes.

Q: I draw your attention to this marked paragraph here. (Waves paper and points to a marked paragraph.) Could you read that paragraph to the Court Mr Sz. (Hands paper to witness.)

A: (reads to court - probably in low voice - its the first trick nearly all of them try.)

Q: Could you raise your voice Mr Sz so the court can hear the text?

A: (Complies - reads again louder)

Q: Do you hold that statement to be true Mr Sz.

A: (Tries "waffling")

Q: The question is quite straightforward Mr Sz - do you - today - in this court - hold that quoted statement to be true?

and it gets messier from there. Paragraph by paragraph till even you and I and the dozens of debunker witnesses in the public gallery start to feel sorry for the witness.


Because there is no way out.

It isn't an internet forum with access to the full range of debating tricks.

Nor an audience of "the Choir" he can preach anything to and they will lap it up.

Hard edged reality - and no where to go.

Unbelievable nonsense you are posting here, fantasizing that I am somehow making up the fact that there is no deceleration observed when the descent of the North Tower is measured.

Nobody who has measured it has claimed to observe it, other than an anonymous poster (femr2) whose claim was quickly laid to rest when it was pointed out that the jolt he claimed to have measured occurred between stories, which is impossible.