• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Watch trailer: 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out

Marokkaan said:
Even when you show the names, they still dont understand... shocking.

Here you have the link, you will see the wtc investigation team

Im going to sleep. Good luck

http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/
Click to expand...

and you think that is all of them?
more than 200 people were involved in the NIST investigation into WTC 1 and 2 alone.

and still it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of experts did not come out to dispute the NIST findings.
 
Marokkaan said:
I guess the ae911truth has more experts(1500plus in a couple of years) that knows about the nist reports and building 7.

Than experts that supporting the official story
Click to expand...
False, only 0.01 percent of all engineers support your lies, and fantasy. Can't you do math to see you are in a fringe group based on lies, hearsay, and delusions?
 
BStrong said:
Try here:

http://www.highlights.com/
Click to expand...

EXCUSE ME!?!? That, sir, is one of the few things that made my visits (as well as millions of others) to the doctor's offices of my youth bearable. I'll thank you NOT to profane that wonderful bundle of knowledge & whimsical puzzles by suggesting that they would print something so ludicrous as a "paper" by ae9/11 truth!:mad:
 
WildCat said:
The ravages of dementia. Sad.

Funny how no actual experts at the pinnacle of their careers are truthers.
Click to expand...
I've been wondering about this. Or at least some of the confusion that comes with being old. Regardless, there seems to be an overabundance of old scientists no longer publishing cutting edge stuff whose names are suddenly appearing out of nowhere for these guys.

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers
My real opinion is that all this is great. If you have all this stuff and it's so powerful, you can stop posting on Youtube, the David Ike forum, the JREF and take this to a real court room. That would be great. When's the plan for this? When are Truthers going to stop thinking that posting on the JREF isn't something major? When will we be seeing discussions about this at major academic events for structural engineering or high-energy materials?

My guess is never. Either give me a date or stop pretending you're saying anything different than the slop you've always been saying.
The Platypus said:
Isn't it strange how they all think they have irrefutable proof of all their delusions, yet the only thing their brainwashing tells them to do about it is troll the internet acting like pompous idiots...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

My general impression of the kind of person attracted to Truthing is that they really do think hashing it out on the JREF is real intellectual work. It appears to be the kind of person who doesn't really understand why publishing in a Bentham journal is not the best way to do cutting edge science. They know that scientists publish things in journals and there's a thing called an impact factor that's important, but they just don't really have it all together. Maybe they dropped out of college before the got that far. Maybe they majored in something like music or psychology and didn't have to learn about research publishing. Who knows?

But I sure am getting tired of all the Youtube videos or this talk about geriatric biologists hanging out with Dick Gage at the AE911. I'm still waiting for that history-making presentation by the president of the Structural Engineers Institute at the ASCE about the demolition of WTC 7 or something like that. Or a publication in the Journal of Structural Engineering about active thermite at the WTC attacks. Come on you Truth gang, get it together. Get me some real people to listen to and stop sending me links to Youtube videos.
 
Redtail said:
EXCUSE ME!?!? That, sir, is one of the few things that made my visits (as well as millions of others) to the doctor's offices of my youth bearable. I'll thank you NOT to profane that wonderful bundle of knowledge & whimsical puzzles by suggesting that they would print something so ludicrous as a "paper" by ae9/11 truth!:mad:
Click to expand...

Highlights would be the best source for "peer" reviewed 9/11 truthbot papers, no?
 
Marokkaan said:
:D

Well show me if the experts of america read the nist report. How big is the chance all the possible experts of america are interested to read the NIST reports?
Click to expand...

Yes. Here is evidence that the Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat read the report and made some criticisms of it (but they also reject the Truther nonsense).
 
ergo said:
Same goes for 99% of the posters here, including Ryan Mackey.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the thing. You are right, but since for some reason you folks insist on only arguing your ideas on obscure internet forums, that's all we have. In the REAL world there are plenty of real experts for you to debate in the halls of academia and respected scientific and engineering journals; you just aren't doing that.

You aren't doing that because the reception you would get from them is the same that you get here. You are no more relevant there than you are here.
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
Yes. Here is evidence that the Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat read the report and made some criticisms of it (but they also reject the Truther nonsense).
Click to expand...

Ahh. its one person talking about and three person who made the report.

But they also dont like the NIST report.


The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) has published comments on the NIST WTC 7 Report. The CTBUH questions critical points of the NIST WTC 7 collapse theory and also highlights problems with the writing NIST report itself.


The CTBUH criticisms focus on two technical issues The conjectured failure of shear studs and bolts on the supposedly critical Column 79:

Several conclusions drawn in the NIST report on the contribution of structural
components in failure initiation are unexpected and have raised concerns
within the Council. These conclusions involve the role of both shear studs and
local global buckling of the floor beams in failure initiation. The Council
believes that the local connection performance was a significant part of the
global failure and would like to have seen a more explicit analysis of the
connection failure. (See also comment on Chapters 11-13.)

The NIST analysis (p. 353), shows that shear studs and the bolts holding the
primary Column 79 failed before the temperature of the steel reached 200˚C.
This implies a fundamental weakness that would be picked up by a
conventional PBD analysis. These temperatures are very low compared to a
fire protection test that assumes that steel loses strength at 550˚C.


The failure of shear studs is surprising, and has been modeled in a very
simplistic way, which may overestimate the failure of this element. Prior
studies and real fire cases have not previously identified shear stud failure as
a significant possibility Page 5

...

It is difficult to understand why the top bolts of the girder would fail at
connection to Column 79 Page 5


...


The report does not describe the detail failure mechanism of the girder
connection to Column 79. Since this was critical to the failure we would
expect to see diagrams of it, in its deflected, deformed shape immediately
prior to collapse. Page 7


And NIST's assertion that column buckling proceeded floor collapse:

We strongly believe that the initiating event was the
failure of the floor and the girder connections to the main column and that this
should be documented in Section 14.3.4. Page 7

...

The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of
the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and then
buckling of internal columns. Page 10


However, the CTBUH also casts serious doubt on NIST's entire thermal expansion fairy tale by suggesting that cooling was in fact taking place around the magical Column 79 at the time of failure:


It appears that the fire on Level 12 had passed its peak in the area of Column
79. Is it possible that failure occurred as part of the cooling cycle? Page 6


And questions NIST's hypothesis about floor beams buckling both theoretically and with experimental data:


It is surprising to see in-plane buckling of the beam as being a key generation
of the initial failure, since it would be expected that the floors would bend out
of the way on their major axis, combined with a local buckling of the bottom
flange, like those found in the Cardington Fire Tests. Page 6

Finally, the CTBUH states that it finds the NIST report confusing and contradictory:


The report is rather confusing because the floor analysis is considered in
Sections 8, 11 and 12. It would be better if there was a complete
reconciliation of the analysis models. Page 6
...

In these sections NIST states that the initial failure was caused by the failure
of the floor system, in particular the connections to Column 79, that led to the
column becoming excessively slender and buckling. These statements
contradict the summary section 14.3.4 that identifies the initiating event as the
buckling of Column 79. Page 7
 
And this is what they say about the truth movement, he does not tell who of the truth movement. Because there are several different truth movement with their own idea.

"no credibility whatsoever in the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building
professionals"


"we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings"

Is this the only thing they can say, they dont have arguments or going to explain why?


If u read this, u see they dont get serious about the truth movement, so there is a big chance, and its also logic, they dont give it attention because there are conflicts of interest
 
Dave Rogers said:
No. What they are saying, in effect, is that none of you are worth bothering with.

Dave
Click to expand...

Of course that will a debunker always say, the option of conflicts of interest, you dont even care.

Just ignore the 1500 experts:D
 
Marokkaan said:
Of course that will a debunker always say, the option of conflicts of interest, you dont even care.
Click to expand...

It's not the debunkers saying it. It's the body that represents the real experts in high rise building construction. They consider you beneath their notice. You can handwave that away as much as you like, but it demonstrates that you have no relevance outside your own fantasy world.

Dave
 
Marokkaan said:
Of course that will a debunker always say, the option of conflicts of interest, you dont even care.

Just ignore the 1500 experts:D
Click to expand...

yes that is best, for a long time i didn't ignore them, i took them serious untill i realised they are not out to get the truth, they are out to sell DVD's and get their 15 minutes of fame on national TV now and then,

once they are able to confice large masses of Experts i will listen to them again.
 
Marokkaan said:
Ahh. its one person talking about and three person who made the report.

But they also dont like the NIST report.


The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) has published comments on the NIST WTC 7 Report. The CTBUH questions critical points of the NIST WTC 7 collapse theory and also highlights problems with the writing NIST report itself.


The CTBUH criticisms focus on two technical issues The conjectured failure of shear studs and bolts on the supposedly critical Column 79:

Several conclusions drawn in the NIST report on the contribution of structural
components in failure initiation are unexpected and have raised concerns
within the Council. These conclusions involve the role of both shear studs and
local global buckling of the floor beams in failure initiation. The Council
believes that the local connection performance was a significant part of the
global failure and would like to have seen a more explicit analysis of the
connection failure. (See also comment on Chapters 11-13.)

The NIST analysis (p. 353), shows that shear studs and the bolts holding the
primary Column 79 failed before the temperature of the steel reached 200˚C.
This implies a fundamental weakness that would be picked up by a
conventional PBD analysis. These temperatures are very low compared to a
fire protection test that assumes that steel loses strength at 550˚C.


The failure of shear studs is surprising, and has been modeled in a very
simplistic way, which may overestimate the failure of this element. Prior
studies and real fire cases have not previously identified shear stud failure as
a significant possibility Page 5

...

It is difficult to understand why the top bolts of the girder would fail at
connection to Column 79 Page 5


...


The report does not describe the detail failure mechanism of the girder
connection to Column 79. Since this was critical to the failure we would
expect to see diagrams of it, in its deflected, deformed shape immediately
prior to collapse. Page 7


And NIST's assertion that column buckling proceeded floor collapse:

We strongly believe that the initiating event was the
failure of the floor and the girder connections to the main column and that this
should be documented in Section 14.3.4. Page 7

...

The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of
the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and then
buckling of internal columns. Page 10


However, the CTBUH also casts serious doubt on NIST's entire thermal expansion fairy tale by suggesting that cooling was in fact taking place around the magical Column 79 at the time of failure:


It appears that the fire on Level 12 had passed its peak in the area of Column
79. Is it possible that failure occurred as part of the cooling cycle? Page 6


And questions NIST's hypothesis about floor beams buckling both theoretically and with experimental data:


It is surprising to see in-plane buckling of the beam as being a key generation
of the initial failure, since it would be expected that the floors would bend out
of the way on their major axis, combined with a local buckling of the bottom
flange, like those found in the Cardington Fire Tests. Page 6

Finally, the CTBUH states that it finds the NIST report confusing and contradictory:


The report is rather confusing because the floor analysis is considered in
Sections 8, 11 and 12. It would be better if there was a complete
reconciliation of the analysis models. Page 6
...

In these sections NIST states that the initial failure was caused by the failure
of the floor system, in particular the connections to Column 79, that led to the
column becoming excessively slender and buckling. These statements
contradict the summary section 14.3.4 that identifies the initiating event as the
buckling of Column 79. Page 7
Click to expand...

woot? you believe the NIST WTC7 report was made by only 3 persons?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom