Toronto Life - The Informer

Insider intel on the politics and personalities shaping the city. Sign up for Preview newsletter for weekly updates

Random Stuff

437 Comments

VIDEO: this 9/11 truther ad is running on TTC screens

Great American tragedies always seem to spawn great American conspiracy theories. This has proven to be especially true in the case of the 9/11 attacks, which left plenty of video evidence behind. (In the old days, we had just one grainy 8mm film per national calamity, and we liked it.) Now, a group of 9/11 skeptics has produced a movie of its own: a 15-second ad that will run on the TTC’s video screens for the next two weeks.

The clip, embedded above, is the work of ReThink911, a group led by an organization called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. ReThink911 believes that World Trade Center building 7, which collapsed along with the Twin Towers, was destroyed by explosives, detonated deliberately by parties unknown. The official version of events is that the structure collapsed because of fire.

The alternative theory is extremely controversial, and a paid advertisement is likely the only context in which it would air in the media unchallenged—which is why the strategy here is both brilliant and a little scary. Similar ads have run in cities around North America, including one in Yonge-Dundas Square last year.

Obviously, the TTC itself has no position on what did or didn’t occur on 9/11. Advertising on subway-platform video screens is handled by an outside contractor, Pattison Onestop, whose job is to sell ad space to practically anyone who wants it. That said, TTC spokesperson Danny Nicholson says the commission did sign off on this advertisement in advance, because its content didn’t violate any policies. It will be reviewed—and possibly removed—if the TTC receives five complaints, but, at the time this post was written, there had been only one.

  • bekbob

    The video should run. The official story is ludicrous. If building 7 really fell due to fire alone, then just about every high-rise in the world is at risk. Building codes would have to be changed, which of course is not happening.

  • Clay Rochemont
  • multiphrenic

    I welcome this ad. Can’t wait to see more like it, perhaps some that will expose the lies that vaccines do anything to prevent diseases (they don’t!) or that fluoride in the water has anything to do with our teeth (it doesn’t) or that chemtrails are just a by-product of aviation (it isn’t) or that the Malaysian flight wasn’t orchestrated by NSA and Mossad secret agents to enslave engineers to work for them on a secret island (it was.)

  • Carl

    You are an idiot.

  • Christine

    You will notice that those who oppose the ads will start with the name calling campaign, but no evidence or sound reasoning as to how the buildings came down.

  • Albury Smith

    The evidence and sound reasoning have already been presented by NIST, and you choose to ignore it. Ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to demonstrate for you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png

    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.

    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

  • Albury Smith

    There’ve already been 40 revisions to the 2009 and 2012 I-Codes as a result of the NIST WTC investigations:
    http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/about.cfm

    How many have Gage and his “experts” prompted?

  • Albury Smith

    These building collapses must seem “ludicrous” to you too:
    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/firesafetyengineering%26theperformanceofst
    Do you also find mandatory SFRM or other passive fireproofing in all steel-framed hi-rises ludicrous?
    Ask the FDNY why WTC 7 collapsed, and why no one was killed when it finally did:

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

  • Laura

    I too welcome this ad. The fact that this building came down by controlled demolition has been proven countless times by thousands of professionals, and never disproven.

  • DavidPylyp

    What purpose does repeating this story do> In the absence of clear information people invent conspiracies.

  • Laura

    There is no doubt that there is an absence of clear information. That is on the government to address. Have you visited the http://rethink911.org/ site and reviewed the facts? There is no doubt that building 7 came down by controlled demo. The only question is WHY.

  • Albury Smith
  • Daniel

    This site usually clears up most truther silliness…

    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/

  • Christine

    Yes, let’s look at the NIST reports, excellent suggestion. Let me see if I understand the claim: Fire lead every single column in a building that was 0.5 km high to give way suddenly in about the time it takes to breathe in and out at a normal rate. And then it did it again about an hour later to another 0.5km high skyscraper, in exactly the same way. And then again in the late afternoon, a building 47 stories high, built in the 80′s (I would call this a fairly new structure), in about 7 seconds, down it goes. And this is based on their computer models – super, so why will they not release the parameters of their models? Let’s debate it. Compare the model to the actual collapses, see if they match. This is progress.

    Now, I would ask you to demonstrate on video with audio the collapse of a steel high rise in less than 10 seconds caused by fire – the reason NIST has given for all 3 buildings – fire caused the ultimate failure through a series of events. Better yet, please demonstrate even a slow collapse of any high rise steel structure from fire. Do not show earthquakes, or fire damage of wooden structures, let’s see a steel frame modern high rise, that is fire protected to the codes in place at the time, come down due to fire.

    It’s interesting that you think fire can do any of the damage to the components you mention in a matter of hours but you claim explosives and incendiaries can not. There are many videos of demolitions of high rise buildings, look them up. Everyone should look them up, and compare them with the towers destruction. What do you see? Don’t believe me or any one else, look for yourselves. Do your own research, do not rely on me or anyone else to tell you what is true.

    I would encourage you all to look up ‘NIST’. Who do they answer to? Who did they answer to at the time they did their reports? It’s really very interesting actually, the reporting line and where it leads.

    I am not sure what you mean by ‘secretly’, please be more specific.

    I would be pleased to debate you on this. Thank you for the chance to do so.

  • Laura

    The NIST report is a joke. They say the collapse was due to fire. It was not and could not have been as the rethink911.org so clearly states.

  • Christine

    Excellent! Thanks for posting this. Now see the model of their collapse and compare it to any video you can find of building 7 coming down. Do they match? Any of you out there who are engineers, chemists, physicists, fire protection specialist, investigators, please review this report carefully. Use your scientific training to critically assess this report, and post it. Look for unusual things in the model that random office fires cannot account for. Look for testing to support the claims. And look – NIST is accountable to the Department of Commerce for the US government. Follow the money to see where that leads. Do you think they have it within their capacity to be objective given who signs their paychecks?

  • Cold Hard Truth

    The absurd collapse of WTC 7 and the ridiculous Bin Laden capture and body dump into the ocean says it all about that day.
    A pile of lies.

  • Cold Hard Truth

    For years Albury Smith has attacked legitimate 911 questions across every media outlet in Canada.
    Who do you work for ?

  • Cold Hard Truth

    “It’s a scam. It’s absolutely disgusting.”
    -Senator and former 9-11 Commissioner Max Cleland talking about the 9-11 Commission.
    Senator Cleland eventually resigned from the commission in disgust.

  • Albury Smith

    The top ~242′ of WTC 7′s EXTERIOR collapse took ~5.4 seconds, and the entire 610′ took roughly 8.5 seconds, after 9 or 10 seconds of interior collapse. Look at some collapse videos and then tell me how your 9/11 “researchers” got 6.5 or 6.6 seconds without being able to see the bottom floors. If you’d like some real progress, read 3.5.2 Aspects following the Global Collapse Initiation here (NCSTAR 1A):
    http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
    People with doctorates in structural engineering don’t spend weeks doing ANSYS & LS-DYNA modeling without examining their results, and NIST fully explained the very obvious discrepancy between their animation and the videos past a certain point.
    Given the nature of a global building collapse, they just don’t get any faster or slower, regardless of the triggering event.
    NIST has proven its hypotheses with scientific rigor; I simply suggested that you hold Richard Gage and his “experts” to the same standard. W14 X 730 columns were used in all 3 collapsed WTC hi-rises, and they look like this:
    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
    NIST claims 130 to 140 dB at a kilometer for ONE cut, so let’s see how quietly it can be done.

  • Albury Smith

    You haven’t read the NIST reports and aren’t an SE. Once again, ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to demonstrate for you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

  • Albury Smith

    Your “Gotcha!” is completely destroyed by 3.5.2 in NCSTAR 1A. I’d suggest reading it:
    http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

    If you disagree with NIST’s modeling, ask your “experts” when they plan to release their own ANSYS & LS-DYNA models.

  • Albury Smith

    I’m retired, and answering questions isn’t attacking them.
    Whom do you work for?

  • Christine

    As to your first point – so what? Even if we added all those times together we are still talking about seconds. If you are appealing to authority then I would like to invite other doctorates out there to look at the report. NIST has not proven it’s hypothesis at all, nor it’s claims, in my assessment, but let’s see what other experts think. Don’t take my word for it, all of you who have knowledge in this field, analyze it for yourselves.

    I’d like you to explain how fire can cause those columns you referred to to collapse, suddenly, for three high rises all on the same day in a very similar way, in, at most, in less than 20 seconds even if we accept your times.

    Also, please explain: ‘Given the nature of a global building collapse, they just don’t get any faster or slower, regardless of the triggering event.’ How does this reconcile with some of the laws of physics we have come to accept as true? Please cite those laws that you feel support this assertion. Then those of you with physics backgrounds can assess to see if it makes sense. Are you saying that all building collapses are the same time regardless of the amount of structure beneath them, and the nature of the structure? I am really interested in hearing other opinions on that.

    Also, how about you explain Figure 3-15 – the regression line, and the equation of the line, and the ramifications of that. NIST has included the equation of the line but seems to fail to address what it means. Please correct me if I’m wrong, if it’s in the report I would like to know how they address a regression line that has a value that is equivalent to the acceleration due to gravity. Newton’s laws apply here, I believe. If you need help in applying some of the laws of physics I would be happy to help you, but I am sure there are many others out there who could do it even better. Are there any physics teachers or professors out there who want to weigh in? Is everything we learned in physics class wrong in general or did the laws somehow get suspended just on 9/11?

    I’m not sure what you are trying to convey with the dB measurement. Why would we use a NIST value to begin with? Where is the exact reference to this and what kind of substance are they referring to when they quote this? If you are trying to say no one heard anything, again I urge all of you to look this up, to see if there were reports of explosions on that day. I suspect you will all find that there were.

    May I suggest to all of you to carefully watch and listen to the Toronto 9/11 hearings:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpiVv8tQdmY

    Most of these presenters, as well as the panel, are doctorates. If you want to appeal to authority then you should give these presentations a listen. If you really want to get into the details watch these presenters in the ‘uncut’ versions so you can listen to the questioning of the presenters. Very interesting.

  • Christine

    I have read it, and understood it. Are you an SE? I urge all of you ‘SE’s’ out there to please read it, and comment. Why limit it to SE’s, how about other engineers, architects, physics professors. And once again, please demonstrate how fire can do this.

  • Albury Smith

    Please list the structural engineers with doctorates at your Toronto sham, not the philosophers, architects, HS science teachers, “peace studies” professors, theologians, etc. My first point is that they’re lying about the collapse times and stupid enough to try to divine the causes of the collapses from timing them. Fig. 3-15 in NCSTAR 1A shows a ~2.25-second period of WTC 7′s EXTERIOR collapse at g, and the collapse sequence and framing details fully explain why. Theoretically, it could actually have EXCEEDED g for part of that time, since the interior had already been collapsing for ~8 seconds at that point.
    If you’d like to appeal to authority, the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, AIA, RIBA, and other recognized and established professional organizations won’t be much help; they all just ignore your 9/11 “truth movement.”

  • Albury Smith

    That’s already been done in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, 1-9A, etc. SEs are the most qualified to understand a forensic structural engineering issue, and Gage has only ~3 dozen who even CLAIM to be SEs.
    If you’re interested in the truth, ask him and his “experts” to show you their hypothesis on one of these:
    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
    A video demonstration with audio would be a LOT cheaper than the ads they’re running in Toronto, as well as being much more meaningful. 11 of the 24 core columns in WTC 7 were W14 X 730s, as were the corner columns in each tower’s core.
    Go for it.

  • Jimmy

    wait explain that last part?

  • Christine

    I’d be happy to reread that part, and the whole report, and see if in fact my ‘gotcha’ is completely destroyed as you state. I urge all of you who are familiar with modelling to do the same. If NIST would release their parameters, like scientists should, then other scientists can replicate it, and see if it’s supported or refuted. It would also allow us to see if their inputs are realistic. That, I believe, is how good science is done. Tax payer money was spent in making up this model, yet they won’t release the information. Curious.

    Did NIST actually examine the real structure, or just use an animation? Is this how the analysis of building failures is typically done – a computer model? If anyone out there has knowledge or expertise in building failure investigation, I would be interested in knowing how they are typically done. Do you actually examine the building at all or just do up an animation and keep the parameters secret?

  • Albury Smith

    You VERY obviously have never read NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, and 1-9A. The NCST Act proscribes public release of their COMPLETE input & results FILES; the parameters (input data) are furnished in detail in those NIST releases.
    Please get informed before libeling people with nonsense. 3.5.2 in NCSTAR 1A explains to anyone who’s ever had even a basic science course why the animation had too much error after the first ~6 seconds. They were not trying for accuracy there; they were analyzing the triggering events. Do you know anything at all about error analysis? Presence of error does not invalidate all of the findings.

  • Christine

    OK, we have a challenge here. Structural engineers, kindly weigh in on this. If you have a doctorate even better. I am not appealing to authority, look for yourselves. Read the report, look at the videos, review the laws of physics and chemistry. Look at the Truth movement stuff and the official explanations. Be critical of all of it.

    Next Mr Smith, prove your assertion that the academics presenting at the Toronto hearing are ‘lying’ and ‘stupid’ – back to the name calling. Let’s see your equation for your statement – theoretically it could have exceeded g. How about you explain this concept simply using the well established laws of physics, if you can.

    Physicists and other PhD’s – how do you feel about being told that you are not qualified to weigh in on this at all unless you are an ‘SE’? Please read the report and decide for yourselves using the principles of science. This is all I ask. Use your knowledge and assess it yourselves. Watch what you want and critically assess it, don’t take this Albury Smith guy’s word for it, nor mine. Inform yourselves, beyond just the NIST report, but in all the strange events of that day.

  • Albury Smith

    Go to the ASCE web site and search “WTC collapses” if you want some other opinions from SEs. Search Richard Gage or anyone else in your 9/11 “truth movement” and see what turns up. Are they lying about the collapse times? Gee; you tell me:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
    Have you read 3.5.2 in NCSTAR 1A, or are you just content to assume that real SEs are too stupid to check their own models?

  • Christine

    Convenient – are you saying they are not allowed to release everything, but just some stuff?

    I will review again the parameters that are furnished in detail, as others should as well.

    ‘They were not trying for accuracy there’, also convenient. Why not? Triggering events don’t have to be modelled accurately? How can you rely on them to be the actual triggering event then, accurately? How about those who know something about error analysis weighing in then? And animation?

    An error estimate gives you the likelihood that your findings represent something ‘true’, in laymen’s terms. It tells you how confident you can be in the findings. Are you saying the presence of error does not pose limitations on the findings, that they are not related?

    I will reread those sections as you have pointed out. Those with more than a basic science course, please read this report to see if you agree.

    I am not asking anyone to accept anything I say. It is not me who is being libelous, it is you my friend.

  • Christine

    I have read it, and will reread it in light of your comments. I am not content to assume anything. I don’t think real SE’s are too stupid to check their own models. I can only guess why this model is by your own admission filled with inaccuracies and errors which would presumably limit the usefulness of the findings. But again, don’t take my word for it. And all of you out there reading this, do not only go the the site Mr Smith sends you to, or the ones that I suggest. Do your own research.

    These days, there is a move for scientists to declare if they have any conflicts of interest when they are publishing findings. I suggest that everyone check for this as well when assessing the evidence out there and its source.

  • Christine

    Retired from what, if you don’t mind my asking?

  • Christine

    Are you saying the approximately 36 who claim to be SE’s are not SE’s? Are you able, and prepared, to prove that? What is your background? You are now interested in the cost effectiveness of a video, which you claim would be cheaper, (I have no idea what that has to do with anything), but in any event, on what basis would it be cheaper? You’d still have to get your video evidence out there. I find your reasoning unintelligible. But guess what, if we are going to move into the realm of economics, in the Toronto hearings there is a very interesting presentation on insider trading related to the events of 9/11, by someone who has expertise in the field of econometrics.

  • Albury Smith

    You apparently still haven’t read 3.5.2 in NCSTAR 1A, or don’t understand what error analysis means.
    It is also not “convenient” that the NCST Act proscribes PUBLIC release of complete input and results FILES; it’s the law, and the input data’s conveniently furnished in full by NIST in the papers you’ve never read.
    Why haven’t Gage and his “more than 2100 experts” even STARTED their own ANSYS & LS-DYNA modeling? Isn’t MORE THAN FIVE AND A HALF YEARS long enough?

  • Albury Smith

    You don’t have to “guess why this model is by [my] own admission filled with inaccuracies and errors which would presumably limit the usefulness of the findings”; the explanation’s spoon fed to you in NCSTAR 1A. The inaccuracies and errors are AFTER the stages they were analyzing. You were very content to assume that the OBVIOUS mismatch was evidence of incompetence, dishonesty, or both.

  • Albury Smith

    ~45 years in commercial construction management and supervision, including many steel-framed building projects. Since I agree with these people:
    http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/team_members.cfm
    and you don’t, your backgound is much more relevant.

  • Albury Smith

    I certainly HOPE they’re not really SEs, and ~3 dozen out of “more than 2100 experts” is pretty anemic.
    I’m suggesting that Gage, et al. demonstrate their own hypothesis, since they aren’t proving anything but ignorance with their fumbling assaults on NIST. This is what passes for a demonstration, and it’s accompanied by lies about the collapse times for both towers:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM
    Ask him to try that ridiculous stunt at an ASCE, NCSEA, or SEI conference.

  • Christine

    I have not ‘re’read it in the last hour or two after your comments. But I will give your comments due consideration while I do. In the meantime, please enlighten us on error analysis as it relates to this. I gave a lay definition of error as it applies to findings in general and have asked you a question. You seem to be dodging it, or you don’t know anything about how the estimation of error limits the findings.

    As to how long is takes to do a ‘ANSYS & LS-DYNA modeling’ (you seem to love the acronyms, I prefer to speak in plain language as I have nothing to prove), let’s see how long it took NIST to do the building 7 one, with all of the resources at their disposal (Department of Commerce)…

    WAIT A MINUTE – their final report came out in November 2008? That’s more than 7 years, with all the money they got to do this? NOW THAT’S JUST SOOO FAST! Now I would have thought that FIVE AND A HALF YEARS would have been plenty, but they did us one better! 7 years and 2 months! BRAVO!

  • Andrew Waterloo

    Nobody claims that building 7 fell due to fire alone.

  • Christine

    What do you mean the inaccuracies and errors are after the stages they are analyzing? How can they determine any inaccuracy or error if they are not analyzing it? I mean how do you analyze something and determine it’s inaccuracies and errors if you don’t analyze it? You are making NO SENSE AT ALL. Do you have any experience in research?

  • Albury Smith

    I’m not suggesting that Gage and his “experts” do a full report, just the FEA using the same ANSYS & LS-DYNA software that NIST used. If I have to enlighten you on error analysis after you’ve read 3.5.2 in NCSTAR 1A, it probably isn’t worth the trouble.
    Funding for the WTC 7 investigation was delayed, but what’s the “right” time for the report to have been released? I’m sure it would’ve been “too soon” if it’d come out a few years earlier. The ~5:21 PM collapse is only suspicious to 9/11 troofers, not to these live eyewitnesses:

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

    Ever wonder why Gage doesn’t do his dog-and-pony show in an FDNY firehouse or union meeting? I don’t.

  • Albury Smith

    It would make NO SENSE AT ALL to someone who hasn’t read 3.5.2 in NCSTAR 1A, or to someone who’s never studied error analysis. I’ve done both. Are you having trouble opening the link, or just with reading?
    http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
    You apparently want to stay ignorant…

  • Christine

    I have a Bachelor of Science with an emphasis is biophysics. I have a Master’s in Research Methods, which includes advanced statistics, nearly complete, I have just to defend my thesis, which was to critically appraise a research project. I have 25 years of management, policy, research, analysis, and clinical experience.

    I see you are not a ‘SE’ either. I think I might have the upper hand when it comes to critically appraising scientific findings over you, if that was your point.

  • Albury Smith

    All that alleged science education and you’ve never encountered error analysis in a quantitative analysis lab.
    Amazing…

  • Christine

    why are you referring to the same website over and over? Is it yours?

    You don’t have to enlighten me, I am suggesting you enlighten the readers – I guess it’s not worth the trouble as you say.

    You brought up the timing, now you are explaining it away.

  • Christine

    I understand error analysis perfectly well. How about yourself?

  • Albury Smith

    You brought up the release date of NCSTAR 1A, so you explain why it’s so suspicious or whatever. The quotes I posted are from FDNY and other first responders who WERE THERE, and many have their own links. Are they all trying to fool you?

  • Christine

    I have no trouble opening the link, as I hope others will not either. I have read it. I understand it. I will reread it in light of your comments. I understand error analysis full well. My challenge to you is that you do not.

  • Albury Smith

    “Myself” still suggests READING 3.5.2 in NCSTAR 1A.

  • Albury Smith

    Mmmm; yeah, whatever…

  • Christine

    I brought up the release date in reference to your insisting that others should have had something similar done well before that time. You were chastising others for not doing it in 5 and a half years, I was pointing out NIST took 7 years 2 months. I have nothing to explain, those are the facts.

    So is the answer to my question on the website ‘yes’ that is your website?

  • Christine

    And there you have it – the ‘whatever’ that people who have nothing more to say give you. Behold. How about explaining error analysis instead? Enlighten us. I can start you off if you want.

  • Christine

    Will do. I am going to make a cup of tea and look over it in light of your comments tonight. I will get back to you with a thoughtful analysis, based on my academic training and experience, in the next day or two. How about you do the same? If you can’t explain the concept then you don’t understand it, wouldn’t you agree?

  • Jason James Bickford

    WTC 7 fell on average 7 floors per second (47 stories imploded in 6.5 sec.). One second after the onset of the collapse, the speed of descent was almost 10 meters/second; after two seconds, almost 20 meters/second; and at the end, about 60 meters/second (over 200 kilometers/hour). This rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which – combined with the uniformity of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the building – is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition. Can you argue to the contrary? Use physics, thanks!

  • Jason James Bickford

    WTC 7 fell on average 7 floors per second (47 stories imploded in 6.5 sec.). One second after the onset of the collapse, the speed of descent was almost 10 meters/second; after two seconds, almost 20 meters/second; and at the end, about 60 meters/second (over 200 kilometers/hour). This rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which – combined with the uniformity of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the building – is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition.

  • Jason James Bickford

    WTC 7 fell on average 7 floors per second (47 stories imploded in 6.5 sec.). One second after the onset of the collapse, the speed of descent was almost 10 meters/second; after two seconds, almost 20 meters/second; and at the end, about 60 meters/second (over 200 kilometers/hour). This rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which – combined with the uniformity of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the building – is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition. Debate me.

  • Jason James Bickford

    When the skeptics have the facts, you go for the ad hom. Telling!

  • Jason James Bickford

    WTC 7 fell on average 7 floors per second (47 stories imploded in 6.5 sec.). One second after the onset of the collapse, the speed of descent was almost 10 meters/second; after two seconds, almost 20 meters/second; and at the end, about 60 meters/second (over 200 kilometers/hour). This rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which – combined with the uniformity of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the building – is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition. That’s proof.

  • Albury Smith

    Not that it’s relevant, but I’m not Mark Roberts and those FDNY and other live eyewitnesses’ quotes are from his web site. NIST released NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, 1-9A, etc. in October, 2008, and didn’t start their WTC 7 investigation on 9/11. ANSYS & LS-DYNA modeling of WTC 7′s column 79 area can certainly be done by “more than 2100 experts” in less than five and a half years.

  • Albury Smith

    There’s literally nothing more to say. READ 3.5.2 in NCSTAR 1A or stay ignorant; I really couldn’t care less.

  • Jake Lane

    NIST has refused to release the parameters of their models, models which they claim support their version of events ie. that the collapse of tower 7 was due mainly to fire damage. Can anybody give me an explanation as to why they will not?

    I might add that NIST claims it would jeopardize public safety to release these parameters;

    “Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety.” Patrick Gallaher, Director of NIST.

    Is it not vital to public safety to disclose as much information as possible in relation to the collapse of a public skyscraper? What are they hiding? This is deception at the highest level and no amount stereotypical name calling can change that.

  • Albury Smith

    What the hell is wrong with you? Don’t “look it over,” READ IT. If you don’t understand it, I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you.

  • Albury Smith

    WTC 7′s EXTERIOR collapsed in ~8.5 seconds, vs. ~6.16 seconds for free fall from 610′. The EXTERIOR fell at g from t=1.75 to t=4 seconds, for reasons fully explained by the collapse sequence and framing details. Since you obviously know more about it than all of LIVE FDNY EYEWITNESSES I quoted, please feel free to ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to demonstrate for you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png

    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.

    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

  • Christine

    Anemic? Jeez. Now I am going to have to calculate the relative proportion of ‘SE’s as compared to other ‘E”s and ‘A’s to see if that is actually anemic. I might even throw in some error measurement just for fun – to see how well the ‘sample’ agrees with the ‘population I am estimating. You sure are putting me to work!

    Your fumbling statements in support of NIST are a much more amusing stunt I must say. With friend like you…well you know the saying. If you understood the report you would be able to defend it much more effectively, one would think. In any case I am happily reading it as we speak with your insightful comments in mind.

    I will have to educate myself on all those acronyms you just hurled at me yet again. I assume they are organization of high repute. I’ll be sure to inform myself and see what I can do.

  • Christine

    Pardon me, I will READ it AGAIN. You couldn’t explain it to me if you tried. We both know that.

  • Albury Smith

    If you’re really foolish enough to try to divine the causes of building collapses by timing them, at least get the times right. WTC 7′s EXTERIOR took ~8.5 seconds, and is impossible to determine to the nearest 1/10 second. The entire collapse took at least 16 seconds.

  • Albury Smith

    Nice obfuscation job. Didn’t any of my comments register with you?

  • Albury Smith

    TIME IT instead of spamming over and over with the same lies.

  • Christine

    There is plenty to say. Are you not able to explain error analysis? Ok I will start. Error analysis is basically, in my own words, an attempt to quantify the preciseness of a measurement. Oh right you don’t care. Fine by me. But the rest of you might be interested in error analysis so here is a useful site from Columbia University, NYC. http://phys.columbia.edu/~tutorial/

  • Albury Smith

    Why work? Just read some troofer garbage and be smarter than all of these people:
    http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/team_members.cfm

  • Albury Smith

    You’re right; I couldn’t explain it TO YOU if I tried.

  • Christine

    Awe, troofer. That’s my new favourite. I love it when that’s all there is left to say. Calling us troofers. I am a proud troofer! It’s better than being an ignoramus, of that I am certain.

  • Albury Smith

    Nice Google job. Now read 3.5.2 in NCSTAR 1A.

  • Christine

    Ha nice one! Reminiscent of grade 3.

  • Christine

    I only googled the website. I know error analysis full well. Test me.

  • Albury Smith

    They’re nearly synonymous. Please be very careful around hi-rise buildings:
    http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/09/911-truther-killed/

  • Christine

    Page 3 – November 2008 is the one you quoted. This is your reference, not mine.

  • Albury Smith

    Explain 3.5.2 in NCSTAR 1A.

  • Albury Smith

    Page 3 of what?

  • Christine

    Ha, you are on fire! Pun intended. Am I to take your link as a threat then? Not very wise on a public forum.
    9/11 Truther Mysteriously Killed By Falling Building.

  • Christine

    ? of the NIST report you gave the link to…

  • Christine

    Sure. I am going to READ it right now, and post back to you.

  • Canadian, eh

    Well supported argument Carl, I can see why you did not become an engineer or an architect!

  • Canadian, eh

    You did not list the eye-witness report of Barry Jennings, emergency manager in the WTC complex for 30 years, who reported many explosions in WTC7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI

  • Stefan Beaudoin

    You know the funny thing is, you don’t have to be a engineer to clearly know that the building was imploded. Just remember playing with Lego when you were kid, did your towers fall like that? No right. Unless you broke all he supports at once, right?
    So clearly, why did this happen? And to one of the most secure buildings? I think a independent review would be welcome, unless of course there is something to hide.

  • Stefan Beaudoin

    It fell at free fall, case closed. Question is why?

  • Stefan Beaudoin

    You know what, its like your looking for excuses as to why it didnt collapse in free fall. Anyone with a clue, just from the multiple videos can determine this.
    Along with the video and audio evidence, put together to show prior knowledge, heard explosives and many other things, point to one clear thing Sherlock.
    Controlled demolition!

  • Albury Smith

    Poor Jessie Evans. He was “just asking questions” and KABOOM!!! Only 27 too. How sad… :-(

  • Albury Smith

    That’s the date of the final report; the draft for public comment was released in August, 2008. I hope you’ve gotten farther than page 3 by now…

  • Christine

    Wow it’s worse than I remembered. Now I know you have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously people, you have to read this carefully. I am going to have to write a lot in order to critique this. In essence though, they are comparing two versions of their computer based simulation with a few bits of evidence they have found mainly on video, and the agreement is not impressive at all in my view. Worse, there is no observation or evidence at all for the two key events, the buckling of 79,80, and 81, and the ‘buckling of the columns across the core’, which they claim are NA. For these events, all there is is their two versions of the simulation, and the spread of their estimates is large, much larger than I would expect was reasonable. And then, based on this, they say that the uncertainty gets worse after this simulation for the rest of the collapse. But that they could replicate the kink but the rest of the model cannot be relied upon.

    Even more interesting is 3.6 – the second bullet. How do you explain that?

  • Albury Smith

    That’s news to the FDNY, whose job is to save lives. It’s too bad Mr. Jennings wasn’t in Dallas/Fort Worth to tell everyone about these real demolition explosives in a much smaller hi-rise:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

    Maybe some of the dead people in a 10-mile radius didn’t hear them…

  • Albury Smith

    No, it didn’t, but ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

  • Christine

    Are you suggesting the draft is to be taken more seriously than the final report? You sent the link, not me. I yes I have.

  • Christine

    Are you just going to post the same exact thing over and over again? It’s a copy and paste with you.

  • Christine

    Wow. You actually posted something that foolish.

  • Albury Smith

    Time the EXTERIOR collapse yourself:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo
    Free fall from 610′ takes ~6.16 seconds.

  • Albury Smith

    3.6 explains how honest people time the part of WTC 7′s EXTERIOR collapse that they can actually see. Why don’t you explain the 6.5 or 6.6 seconds from your 9/11 “researchers”? Ask them to run their own ANSYS & LS-DYNA models too.

  • Albury Smith

    Some minor additions and changes were made in the final report. Glad you’ve gotten past page 3 by now.

  • Christine

    That’s not an answer at all. The free-fall part – explain that please.

  • Christine

    So what? You send the link for a November 2008 document, why are you going on about other stuff and other dates? I am quoting the final report.

  • Albury Smith
  • Albury Smith

    If you only knew how foolish you sound…

  • Albury Smith

    The perimeter W14 X 500 columns were 100% moment connected to spandrel beams, and HAD TO stand or fail all at once. At t=1.75 seconds, the MEASURABLE resistance ceased for ~2.25 seconds.
    Why won’t you explain the 6.5 or 6.6 seconds from your 9/11 “researchers” for the entire 610′? They certainly didn’t get it from any available video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

  • Stefan Beaudoin

    Enough with the language talk. Build a skeleton of a building using tooth picks and make it 48 Stories. How can that skeleton come down into its own footprint and at free fall? If every toothpick at mid level, between floors is cut at the exact same time, thus leaving the whole structure, with no support. All at the same time.
    I also don’t understand your clear support of NISTs, altered and conformed evidence to fit there theory.

  • Christine

    Nothing I have said in this forum even comes close to the comment you made above. I can’t believe you are as old as you claim. A selfish child has more common sense than that.

  • Albury Smith

    It’s encouraging that you’re at least reading some version of NCSTAR 1A. It’s been out for more than 5-1/2 years.

  • Canadian, eh

    Albury Smith, why is it so difficult to accept the idea that perhaps criminal elements within the US Government pulled this off and/or covered this up for the benefit of these criminal elements? Your worldview cannot handle such truth? Say this happened, why would you not want to know? By now I am pretty sure that also you must conclude the US misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq only benefitted a few corporations and their owners and were started under false pretenses. Why do you defend such evil-doing and continue to argue against a proper understanding of the root cause of all this? It is obvious for all to see that the ’911 investigation’ completed to date was a complete sham and has been seriously questioned by many serious people. To start a name-calling session to prove that a lie is the truth is not going to work. Also you should welcome an investigation. If you are right, you would be proven right.

  • Albury Smith

    Which video clip here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo
    shows only a 6.16-second total EXTERIOR collapse?

  • Albury Smith

    Poor Jessie Evans. PLEASE be careful around hi-rise buildings…

  • Christine

    ‘MEASURABLE resistance ceased for ~2.25 seconds’ – what does that mean when all resistance is gone, so gone you can’t even detect it anymore? This building was built to resist, from what I understand it was overbuilt – extremely strong. How did all of the resistance disappear suddenly at all and wind up accelerating at the rate of gravity? Use the laws of Newton here.

  • Stefan Beaudoin

    Have the feeling your a spook, who’s job is to disinform.

  • Theodore Trout

    Buildings do not implode unless primed to. This is not a theory; just a simple statement of fact, easily proven by someone with Gage’s expertise.
    It’s interesting to note that 10 days into the mystery of the missing Malaysian passenger plane people are theorising about it all over the media, but that no-one has been able to ask a straight-forward question or make a straight-forward observation about the implosion of the three towers since September 12th, 2001 without being labelled a conspiracy theorist.

  • Albury Smith

    These are criminal elements:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW8_Zbsirdw

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWVC4JBjtEE

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6obQ5naNn0

    From OBL’s 1998 (second) fatwa: “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies-civilians and military-is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, ‘and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,’ and ‘fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God [blah, blah, blah...]‘”

    GeeDubya’s Iraq blunder was catastrophic, but the US was as good as in Afghanistan LONG before the 5:21 PM building collapse that has you so worked up. The first plane crash would’ve done it; 9/11 was al Qaeda’s THIRD SUICIDE attack on the US in just over 3 years.

  • Canadian, eh

    Christine, keep it up. Evil prevails when good men and women stand by and do nothing. A lot of people simply cannot handle ugly truths. George Orwell knew: truth is treason in the empire of lies.

  • Theodore Trout

    Albury has been showing up where-ever this topic is discussed for many years. Sure showed up quick this time !

  • Albury Smith

    Please read NCSTAR 1A. Columns don’t resist too well when they’re snapped and sideways.

  • Christine

    I will. Thanks. But just in case of misadventure, can someone please identify this Albury Smith guy? Threats in postings are just so ill advised. If anything happens to any of us ‘troofers’, then we can give the investigators his information. Actually I have a policeman friend who investigates just this thing.

  • Christine

    Look I’m not a religious person so I’m not going to get into that. I will limit my remarks to the science, thanks.

  • Albury Smith

    “Your”? “Who’s”? I have a feeling you’re not bright enough for this discussion.

  • Albury Smith

    This may be helpful to you too:
    http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
    No need to thank me.

  • Christine

    Read it, like I said. Understood it, like I said, like I have shown. I don’t think the laws of Newton included ‘don’t resist too well’. Do you even know anything about the laws of Newton?

  • Albury Smith

    You’re not doing too well in that regard either. Not “getting into” the people behind the 9/11 SUICIDE attacks and their reasons for wanting to murder Americans is just plain ignorance.
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military-jan-june98-fatwa_1998/

  • Albury Smith

    Do you know anything about collapse dynamics? Uh, no.

  • Christine

    I’m not ignorant to it. I am just not going to debate that. I am not a fan of any religion. I will limit my comments to what I know best.

  • Albury Smith

    Since Gage* has all of this “expertise,” ask him and his “experts” to demonstrate for you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png

    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.

    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

  • Christine

    I wonder if you do, please elaborate. I know more than you I bet.

  • Albury Smith

    The NCST Act proscribes PUBLIC release of complete input and results FILES; the input data’s spoon fed to your “researchers” in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, 1-9A, etc. When are Gage and his “more than 2100 experts” going to run their own ANSYS & LS-DYNA models?

  • Albury Smith

    You needn’t be a fan of any religion to understand why al Qaeda has wanted to murder Americans and other “infidels” for the last 2+ decades. Have you bothered to read The Looming Tower or any other definitive book on al Qaeda and the origins of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism?

  • Albury Smith

    If you’re baffled over the ~2.25 seconds at g, you know nothing at all about collapse dynamics or the structural details of WTC 7, especially its 100% moment-connected exterior.

  • Christine

    I know a lot on that subject, probably more than you. But this strays very far from the physics and error analysis that I feel I have enough expertise to give an opinion on. This subject is for another forum, at least for me it is. I will respectfully limit my comments to the scientific argument at hand.

  • Stefan Beaudoin

    Lol, don’t need to be bright to see the truth.

  • Christine

    I am not baffled at all. You misunderstand me. I believe I have a good understanding of those concepts. I just don’t think you know. I was asking for you to elaborate. If you want me to explain it all then we will have to put it off to another time because this is not a small concept. But I am willing.

  • Stefan Beaudoin

    Funny how he talks in circles…

  • Albury Smith
  • Christine

    I’m going to sign off for now. It’s been an interesting and energetic chat. Bottom line – don’t take my word for anything. Do you own research. Have a good night everyone.

  • Albury Smith
  • Christine

    Sure, I’d like you to explain how fire broke those so bad that there was no resistance. They are very impressive indeed.

  • Christine

    That’s just a picture of a steel beam – did you send the right link?

  • Albury Smith

    You’re apparently very baffled.
    rpt: WTC 7′s perimeter W14 X 500 columns were 100% moment connected to spandrel beams, i.e. they HAD TO stand or fail all at once. At t=1.75 seconds, they were snapped and sideways and the MEASURABLE resistance ceased for ~2.25 seconds.

  • Albury Smith

    You REALLY need to get past page 3 of NCSTAR 1A.

  • Albury Smith

    That’s “just a picture” of what 11 of the 24 core columns in WTC 7 looked like. W14 X 730s have 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross-sectional areas. Ask Gage to show you how they’re secretly cut with explosives.

  • Christine

    What snapped them, where did the energy come from, fires? Seriously man, come on. That’s just not possible. What you are claiming is just not based in science. Please refer to the laws of Newton. Calculate the energy required for this to take place. Fire can not do it.

  • Christine

    How are they bent to ‘no resistance’ with fire? That is even more implausible.

  • Albury Smith

    Your ignorance is astonishing! READ NCSTAR 1A.

  • Albury Smith
  • Jake Lane

    You’re simply wrong. Copying and pasting the same information on every post does not make it right.

    But for arguments sake lets assume you are correct. Can you explain why on earth, if the data is “spoon fed” to us by NIST, would they proclaim that releasing said information would jeopardise public safety, knowing full well that they had already released that information?

    You’re claim is fundamentally flawed, contradictory, and wrong.

  • Christine

    I read it, I understand it, I have shown that. You don’t, you can’t even do anything put spew out the stuff in the report almost verbatim. Calling me ignorant doesn’t make it so, and it doesn’t change the laws of physics.

  • Christine

    I’ve read it. I understand it. I disagree with it. I find it deeply flawed and implausible. This is my assessment of it, and I would like for the readers to assess it for themselves.

  • Christine

    Ha, can’t help but thank you for this one. Tinfoil hat. I had to chuckle. Lightens the mood a bit actually.

  • Canadian, eh

    I know you have bought the propaganda. By yelling and screaming, doesn’t make it the truth. 911 was an inside job, organized by certain elements within the Mossad using AL-CIA-duh’s OBL network as patsies. With the complicity/cooperation of criminal elements within the US Gov and CIA they almost got away with it, were it not for the internet and Youtube and many whistleblowers within the US power structure. It is telling that an honourable Zionist like Barry Chamish also admits this is the ugly truth http://barrychamish.com/Newsletters2012/solving9-11-100.html Criminals who did this, hijacked entire faiths for their propaganda wars and set up people of different faiths against each other. I am a man of faith and at a deeper level this is a war between good and evil; I don’t think you have to be a religious person to see that.

    The truth is coming out, supported by credible sources within the US military http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/28/mossad-bush-planned-executed-911/ , a branch of government that was lied to and suffered the most because of this horrible event.

    Yes, it is very hard to stomach that criminals we thought we honourable men can be so deceptive and would murder 3,000 Americans for money and power while pinning the blame on their enemies. But such is the evil brilliance of people who think they are exceptional and who fight wars “by way of deception”. If you research history you will conclude that many wars are started off with these so-called falseflag operations. See the Documentary “Fog of War” by Robert McNamara who says that the Golf of Tonkin incident was also a falseflag incident that was fabricated by the US to start the Vietnam war (and nearly 60,000 Americans died there for that lie). In fact, similar criminal elements are now working very hard in the Syria and Ukraine to get the next conflict going under false pretenses. It is time we put a stop to this insanity! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZNXt_u7Cr0&feature=player_detailpage

  • Christine

    I have READ IT. It’s implausible. It strains credulity.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Cite your sources. Because mine are NIST, the authors of the ” official ” story.

  • Jason James Bickford

    I’ve posted the explanation using physics, sighting the adjudged figures used by NIST. What are you talking about?

  • Jason James Bickford

    You realize you’re criticizing my method for transferring the text to the comments section, not my actually argument, right? Typical cognitive dissonance. Nothing to see here. Maybe I should scramble around the sentence structures of the physics so it’s palatable to your sensibilities? Two planes. Three towers. Wtf? That’s all I’m saying.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Because you can’t handle the truth.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Funny how nobody actually argues the physics of the collapse. Just ad hominems and straw men arguments.

  • Jason James Bickford

    The Official story claims that burning jet fuel in air can weaken ALL the steel girders evenly (hence symmetrical collapse due to gravity of all columns perfectly), yet both ends of these outer and inner massive columns were outside the fire zone to differing degrees hence heat would have conducted up and down very efficiently at different rates, and many columns were not even subjected to any significant fire. Are we really expected to believe that fire can weaken steel evenly despite the core columns conducting heat efficiently at varying rates away from varied regions of temperature? And then there’s WTC Building 7, which imploded at free-fall yet wasn’t even hit by a plane.

  • Jason James Bickford

    A striking feature in the collapse of WTC 7 is symmetry. The collapse progressed evenly throughout the building, and the debris piled up almost completely within the foundations of the building.
    The symmetry of WTC 7′s descent means that all of its steel supports – 25 central and 58 peripheral columns – were destroyed almost simultaneously. Any asymmetry in the damage to structures would have led to asymmetrical collapse. By contrast, a symmetrical collapse without the controlled use of explosives would violate the principle of least resistance. Local office fires (typically dying out in about 20 minutes in any given location) and structural damage here and there could not have weakened all the central and peripheral support structures in a way that would have caused all of them to fail at the same moment. The simultaneity of the destruction of support structures throughout the building can, however, be explained by controlled demolition.

  • Jason James Bickford

    I don’t create if the collapse took an hour start to finish, I’m talking about the 6.5 seconds of free fall that the revised NIST report ADTIS TO. So, what’s your point? Regardless of the collapse’s overall timeframe, NIST admitted to the period of FREEFALL. You seem confused about the removal of lower resistance.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Anything at an elevated height has gravitational potential energy. If it falls, and none of the energy is used for other things along the way, all of that energy is converted into kinetic energy – the energy of motion, and we call it ‘free fall.’ If any of the energy is used for other purposes, there will be less kinetic energy, so the fall will be slower. In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. Instead it ACCELERATED INTO FREEFALL. again, this is in the revised NIST reports on 9/11.

  • Steve Laney

    How the F**K do you three High Rise steel Structures come down in a controlled Demolition fashion? How the F**k does all the contradictions on that day go unanswered??Why the F**k is there Pilots, Firefighters and all other kinds of groups for 911 truth??? Because something F**kin impossible happened that day,,, wake the F**k up.

  • Carl

    The well-supported arguments and facts were provided TEN YEARS AGO. You and bekbob are idiots because ten years later you are still using such old and debunked tropes and believing nutty conspiracy claims which weren’t even logical in the beginning..

  • Carl

    Try reading Wikipedia. This has all been done.

    The free-fall BS is no better than the rest of the nonsense.

  • Carl

    You are a lot like the creationists who keep tossing out the same old bunk no matter how many times reality has been explained. I demand you prove the Earth is more than 6000 years old! Why are there still monkeys?

    That’s what you sound like to non-crazy people.

  • Albury Smith

    What input data isn’t in the NIST reports I cited? Are you having dificulty getting the ANSYS or LS-DYNA software? Dr. Gallagher’s 7/9/2009 letter only states that the NIST FILES can’t be publicly released; “more than 2100 experts” could certainly run their own NEW AND INDEPENDENT models with the input data spoon fed to them by NIST.

  • Albury Smith
  • Albury Smith

    Yesterday you were still marveling over the fact that the computer animation doesn’t match the videos of WTC 7′s collapse, so you’ve obviously not read or understood NCSTAR 1A. When discussing a report on something, at least intelligently, it’s necessary at times to “spew out the stuff in the report almost verbatim.”

  • Albury Smith

    Ask some of these readers:
    http://www.asce.org/

  • Albury Smith

    Let’s put a stop to the insanity in this article first, and then deal with the insanity of blaming al Qaeda suicide attacks on da Joos. Ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to demonstrate for you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

  • Albury Smith

    Secretly cutting these with explosives in Manhattan strains credulity:
    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
    The WTC 7 collapse hypothesis in NCSTAR 1A is accepted by the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, AIA, RIBA, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, structuremag.org, ENR, etc. There’s not even a mention of Richard Gage in any of their publications or on their web sites. He and his ae911″truth” are completely ignored by real SEs and other professionals.

  • Albury Smith

    Unlike Gage, Ryan, and your other 9/11 frauds, the NIST engineers don’t have X-ray vision, so they only timed the top ~242′ of the WTC 7 EXTERIOR collapse. It took 5.4 seconds, and the other 368′ didn’t disappear in 1.1 or 1.2 seconds. 5.4 seconds for 242′ from rest is ~40% longer than free fall time, as explained in 3.6 here:
    http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

  • Albury Smith

    I didn’t bother to check your “physics,” but if you managed to get the free fall velocity right at every interval, it has nothing to do with the total actual ET for the 610′ collapse of WTC 7′s EXTERIOR. Try timing it from any of these video clips:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

  • Albury Smith

    Thanks for admitting that you have no idea what the official (NIST) story is for any of the 3 collapsed WTC hi-rises.

  • Albury Smith

    Do yourself a favor and read this:
    http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
    You’re completely clueless.

  • Albury Smith

    Your precious free fall period lasted ~2.25 seconds, not 6.5 seconds, and began at t=1.75 seconds of WTC 7′s EXTERIOR collapse. If you don’t care about the entire 610′ time, at least quit lying about it.

  • Albury Smith

    You must be referring to the report you’ve never read. Let’s see on video with audio how your “external force removes the supporting structure” of one of these typical WTC 7 core columns:
    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
    4.91″ flanges and 3.07″ webs should be a snap for your “experts.”
    Go for it…

  • Albury Smith

    You DO have to be an engineer to be a member here:
    http://www.asce.org/
    They ignore Richard Gage and his “experts.”

  • Albury Smith

    Were you there? The government of Pakistan doesn’t agree with you, nor do al Qaeda or bin Laden’s 3 wives and 11 children who lived with him in the Abbottabad compound until May 2, 2011.
    A 5:21 PM hi-rise collapse that no one’s ever heard of had no effect whatsoever on subsequent US foreign policy.

  • Albury Smith

    That’s why 9/11 troofers have threatened to kill Mark Roberts:
    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/semiliterateparanoiacswhofantasizeaboutt
    This is why he doesn’t bother with them anymore:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

  • Albury Smith

    Well before that (November, 2008) time? Who said anything about that?

  • Albury Smith

    Why are you two standing by and doing nothing? These typical WTC core columns are readily available:
    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
    as are explosives and video cameras.
    Go for it.

  • Albury Smith

    No one except NIST, the ASCE, SEI, NCSEA, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ENR, structuremag.org, etc.

  • Albury Smith

    W14 X 730s are way too heavy and compact to be used as beams, and are used almost exclusively as columns in high buildings that need very long spans. A typical beam in WTC 7 was a W24 X 55, i.e. MUCH lighter and with a much greater distance between flanges. Ditto for the typical W33 X 130 girders.

  • Albury Smith

    When are you going to start? Cause divining building collapses by their fall rates is junk science, not physics.

  • Albury Smith

    Spam much?

  • j holmer

    Watch testimony by Barry Jennings. Barry worked in WTC 7 and testified to a bomb going off in WTC 7 on the 7th 8th floor on the morning of 911. He could still see WTC 1 and 2 standing. Kenneth Johannemann and William Rodgrigues have also testified to bombs going off in the basement of WTC 1 and 2. Barry and Kenneth have been killed and William has testified to being persecuted for telling the truth. Also note, right now – 10s of bankers are being “suicided” for offering testimony in trillions dollar financial crimes (libor, derivative, forex crimes etc). The are all the same people trying to create a new world order. People need to take a stand before the NWO kills you or sticks a chip in you. Your choice.

  • j holmer

    Also people should note that on 911 – 3 planes hit 3 targets without being intercepted by the US air force (NORAD stood down on 911). Further, the pentagon was hit 1 hour and 23 minutes into the attacks that day (US government version). The jet that hit the pentagon off course (highjacked) for about 40 to 50 minutes before hitting the pentagon – according to the US government. There are 2 air force bases 5 and 10 minutes from the pentagon. LOLOL. Why was this plane (and even the second plane that hit the tower) not intercepted by the US air force. Note also, that one of the planes flew over the Indian Pt nuclear power plant. I can assure you that the US government does not allow 1 2 or a rediculous 3 planes to fly willy nilly in US air space without being challenged. It is absolutely retarded that people believe this crap. WTC 7 demolition and Norad stand down are just two of hundreds of ridiculous absurdities that occurred that day. Couple that to Iraq war lies and 08 multi deca trillion dollar bailout lies – and guess what you got – a new world order.

  • j holmer

    Richard Gage is doing a cross Canada tour (rethink911). Make sure you support him. I’m going to his London show on Sunday. Wake up people and tell your friends, family and co worker about the NWO plans to destroy the planet. Canada is 1.4 trillion in debt (provincial and federal). Ontario is 280 billion provincial debt. Interest rates are 0 % ( due to bid rigging – libor scandal). This is check mate. There is no way out except debt slavery. Wake up. Elite bankers are trying to destroy the planet through derivatives (12 trillion in Canada – LOLOL), usury (why did we borrow 35 billion off the illegal private federal reserve in 08/09 – why did our prime minister – mark carney – former head of goldman sachs Canada – lie about these massive Canadian bank bailouts – see report by David MacDonald), illegal wars (Iraq – WMD lies) and false flags (911 – WTC 7 demolition). Stop the BS with ford and beiber. Get with the real issues.

  • Albury Smith

    WTC 7 was built over an existing ConEd substation, and transformers explode when their secondaries are shorted by plane crashes across the street. Demolition explosives don’t have 1 hour and 42 minute delays and then work ~1200′ higher up, nor do they take 7+ hours to work.
    It’s a shame that Rodriguez and Jennings weren’t in Dallas/Ft. Worth when this real C/D occurred:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
    They could’ve told everyone in a 10-mile radius who wasn’t deaf of deceased that they heard demolition explosives going off.

  • j holmer

    You guys have an answer for everything – if you are telling the truth, then why persecute William Rodriuez (interviewed by Rosie O’Donnell on “Hollywood speaks out”. Why kill bankers (happening right now), why kill Barry Jennings and Kenneth Johannemann and tens of other 911 absurdity witnesses. Most importantly – why is the US government 17 trillion in debt. Why are Canadians 1.4 trillion in debt. How can a sovereign nation be in debt???? To who are they in debt? LOLOL. Obviously the Canadian or US government is not sovereign – the Rothschild and rockefellers of the world are the ones in control End the NWO.

  • Albury Smith

    You asked why some crackpot heard explosions long before any WTC hi-rise collapsed and I answered your question. Rodriguez also sued the US government for these alleged secret C/Ds, and for the military C-130 that fired the secret high-powered microwave weapon that “really” caused UA 93 to crash near Shanksville. That’s your idea of a reliable witness?

  • j holmer

    And i’m suppose to believe the US government version of 911 events – the same government that killed the Kennedys (remember – Ted had a plane crash in 64), that has allowed the bankers and military industrial complex to blow up the middle east (Iraq war is a complete fraud and genocide), lied about 08/09 bailouts (7.7 trillion versus 700 billion TARP lie as per Mark Pittman/Bloomberg supreme court lawsuit against the illegal private federal reserve – and where is Mark Pittman?????), is currently engaged in “shutting up” tens of elite bankers who are obvious whistleblowers in trillion dollar derivative/libor/forex crimes and has driven Americans illegally into 17 trillion debt with a private banking cartel while illegally lowering interest rates to 0% (which makes a complete mockery out of money – every politician not voicing out about this absurd massive crime should be fired).

  • j holmer

    I’ve seen testimonies by Barry Jennings, Kenneth Johannemann and William Rodriguez. They all testified to secondary explosion either in the basement of WTC 1 or 2 or in WTC 7. These buildings were pre set for demolition. The US government has since killed Barry and Kenneth and has persecuted William Rodriquez (as interviewed by Rosie O’Donnell in “Hollywood speaks out”). The US government has killed 10s of witnesses to 911 absurdities and 911 truthers, that I’ve seen, and probably persecuted (or bribed) hundreds more.

  • Jaye

    Buddy, think about it, how do the two tallest building in the world fall STRAIGHT down from a fire at the tops of the buildings. You’re gonna eat your words in the next decade.

  • Jaye

    List your sources.

  • Albury Smith

    The US military has been completely out of Iraq since December, 2011, and has attacked no one because of a ~5:21 PM building collapse that no one’s ever heard of. Here’s a typical day at the office for your al Qaeda and other Sunni heroes:
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/03/dozens-killed-another-bloody-day-iraq-20143192266501288.html

  • Albury Smith

    What key findings in the final 9/11 Commission Report did Max Cleland ever disagree with?

  • Steve Laney

    Whats your angle Albury? Why this constant posting, with circle like talk and no real answer?Its funny how there is Pilots, FDNY, Architect’s, scholars, etc for 911 truth, because of all the impossibilities of that day. We also had the Toronto hearings and Nist conforming their evidence to fit the model they wanted ( So altered evidence).
    So really who are you Albury Smith?

  • Steve Laney

    I am ex-Military, so lets use logic and talk about something else, the Pentagon. The most secure and well guarded Military facility in the World ( along with S4, Nuclear Facilities, etc). Guarded by Surface to air missiles and everything else in between and above.
    How can it be struck, pretty much long after its known a attack is happening????? A small Cessna flying to close to the restricted Air space is immediately intercepted and warned.
    So we are expected to believe that this all failed that day, the 100′s of Security cameras that day, somehow none captured any video? The video they released, shows nothing and is altered.
    Surface to air missiles were on Brunch break?
    No Fighter Aircraft, could intercept?
    The supposed Aircraft pilot performed a impossible approach.
    How about John Lears recent statements about the impossibilities of the planes hitting the Towers as such? I guess John as the most experienced Pilot, most different types of aircraft flown, Ex-CIA pilot and all the other great stuff, doesn’t know what he is talking about, Right?
    I think John is right.

  • Steve Laney

    Nice fake sites, who pays you to do this??

  • bekbob

    Well, that settles that then, thanks.

  • j holmer

    “The US military has been completely out of Iraq since December 2011″. So what, The US military has been out of Vietnam for about 40 years – that doesn’t change the fact that at least 3 million innocent people were killed there and around 1 million innocent people have been killed in Iraq (extrapolating from 06 Lancet study by researchers at John Hopkins University). Millions of people have been killed in the middle east and trillions lost – all based on lies – and WTC 7 demolition is the biggest lie of them all.

  • http://youtu.be/g-GFBEX5bjY Greta

    “The alternative theory is extremely controversial” Sorry, what? The official explanation is what is controversial. Who sees this and doesn’t understand that it’s just another building brought down with explosives?

  • Albury Smith

    I’m not the topic here, and only your 9/11 “truth movement” is suggesting any impossibilities. How many SEs were at the Toronto debacle? You’re ignored by the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, etc.

  • http://youtu.be/g-GFBEX5bjY Greta

    From the 9/11 Oral Histories (collected by the FDNY in the months after 9/11)

    “[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like
    on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”
    –Firefighter Richard Banaciski

    “I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You
    know like when they demolish a building?”

    –Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

    “[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges
    on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’.”
    –Paramedic Daniel Rivera

    Lots more where those came from.

  • http://youtu.be/g-GFBEX5bjY Greta

    “[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like
    on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was
    going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”–Firefighter Richard Banaciski

    “I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You
    know like when they demolish a building?”

    –Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

    “[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges
    on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’.”
    –Paramedic Daniel Rivera

  • Albury Smith

    The NYT isn’t a “fake site,” nor are any of the others. Who pays you to post here?
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

  • http://youtu.be/g-GFBEX5bjY Greta

    Mr. Smith, have you switched to our side? Over 100 of those testimonies talk about explosions: http://www.911truth.org/explosive-testimony-revelations-twin-towers-in-911-oral-histories/

  • Albury Smith

    So why do you keep telling it? Ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png

    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.

    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

  • http://youtu.be/g-GFBEX5bjY Greta

    Here is the very best case so far made for why the official explanation is incorrect. Not by Richard Gage but by physics teacher David Chandler–the same person whose work forced the NIST to concede that WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds, which they previously claimed would be impossible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-KosTYUs4I

  • Albury Smith

    Nice quote mining job. Which ones claimed to have heard DEMOLITION explosIVES and linked the loud bangs inside the burning buildings to a hi-rise collapse? How many FDNY are 9/11 truther nuts? You picked some of the very few that even said “seemed like” or “you know like…” when describing the collapses. Are Rivera, Gregory, and Banaciski in your 9/11 “truth movement”?
    Here’s what a real explosive demolition sounds like, although on a MUCH smaller building:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
    Do you need someone less than a block away to tell you he heard demolition explosives?

  • Albury Smith

    What 9/11 “truth” organization did these firefighters join?

  • Albury Smith

    What 9/11 “truth” organization did any of these firefighters and other NYC first responders join?

  • http://youtu.be/g-GFBEX5bjY Greta

    Here’s a bunch more: http://youtu.be/SNLa93Q_rvM

    Occam’s razor: if a lot of people heard and saw explosions, they were most likely caused by explosives.

  • Albury Smith

    Occam’s razor: if a lot of people heard and saw explosions but aren’t claiming to be 9/11 truther nuts, they probably aren’t.

  • Steve Laney

    Well you post so much and talk in circles, so yeah, you make yourself the topic..

  • Albury Smith

    You didn’t have high profile and credible people in building construction at your Toronto debacle; you had a few crackpots who are ignored by the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, AIA, RIBA, structuremag.org, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ENR, etc.
    What’s your game, Steve?

  • Albury Smith

    NIST didn’t claim that One-Trick Chandler’s precious ~2.25 seconds at g was impossible, and he didn’t “force them to concede” anything. Since you’re into the junk science of divining the causes of building collapses by analyzing their acceleration rates, ask him, Richard Gage*, and your other 9/11 “experts” to demonstrate for you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png

    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.

    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

  • Albury Smith

    This is “another building brought down with explosives,” although much smaller than any of the 3 WTC hi-rises, and the columns were pre-cut with oxyacetylene torches:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
    Turn up the volume and learn something.

  • Canadian, eh

    Apart from the 2100 engineers and architects who came forward and said the official story is a fraud, we have many pilots like John Lear and military personnel making the case. http://www.veteranstoday.com I know it is unbelievable, but it is the ugly truth.

  • Stefan Beaudoin

    So explain then, how three three buildings fall like controlled demolition, into their own foot print? Why is there Molton steel? Why is there expolsions

  • Steve Laney

    My game is that those buildings came down in there own footprint, controlled demolition wise. I want to know why? Your trying to discredit and paint anyone who questions the official version as a crackpot or ignored by everyone, when clearly that’s not the case.

    So your telling me all the witness testimony in here, video is a fake?

    http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167

  • Albury Smith

    Gravity determines how something falls, molten STEEL was unconfirmed, there was PLENTY of lead and aluminum in all 3 buildings, explosives and incendiaries don’t keep any metal molten for 100+ days, and demolition explosives are heard for many miles.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

  • Steve Laney
  • Albury Smith

    When did I tell you that? None of the FDNY and other live eyewitnesses quote mined by your 9/11 “truth movement” for the word “explosion” ever claimed to have heard DEMOLITION explosIVES and linked them to a WTC hi-rise collapse, and the loud bangs in the burning buildings didn’t come from the collapse initiation areas high up in the buildings. How many FDNY attended your Toronto debacle?
    None? Here are some of the MANY reasons why:
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc
    http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande
    http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/insidethetowers:summaryofwitnessaccounts

  • Albury Smith

    That’s up to you. They obviously are.

  • Steve Laney

    Are you for real? Of course gravity does and that’s how they fell! Molten steel was confirmed, by photo, video and eyewitness testimony, before the collapses and months after!!! Oh yeah, forgot, people just blow off explosives all the time..silly me.

  • Steve Laney

    Are you for real? They say it right in the videos!!! Oh let me guess, they were saying explosives and where, but were on drugs..silly me again. Why are you so against a independent review? How does that affect you? Don’t say taxes, because I am sure enough donations could be put together to fund it. So Albury?? why do you care so much? how about you really answer?

  • Albury Smith

    1) NO explosives or incendiaries keep ANY metal molten for 100+ days.
    2) Show me some pre-collapse photos of molten STEEL, not aircraft aluminum coming from exactly where UA 175′s fuselage wound up near the NE corner of the South Tower.
    3) There are PLENTY of sources of “explosions” in fires, including BLEVEs, flashovers, backdrafts, gas tanks & cylinders, shorted transformers, debris falling ~1200′ through express elevator shafts, and fuel vapor igniting in confined spaces.

  • Albury Smith

    There are PLENTY of sources of “explosions” in fires, including BLEVEs, flashovers, backdrafts, bursting gas tanks & cylinders, shorted transformers, debris falling ~1200′ through express elevator shafts, and fuel vapor igniting in confined spaces.
    Since you obviously drink the Kool-Aid, ask Richard Gage and his “experts” to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png

  • Steve Laney

    Hey Crackerhead, you know full well what type of game your playing. Ohh silly me, forgot that office workers keep Gas tanks and Cylinders at their desks and as for explosions, they were described by firefighters, guess what??? Part 3 of your bogus try. They would have heard all those types before!!!!!!

  • Albury Smith

    That’s why the FDNY has few to no 9/11 truther nuts. They HAVE heard explosions in burning buildings before, and gas tanks are not unusual in parking levels, nor are gas cylinders in mechanical equipment areas.
    Here’s what real demolition explosives sound like:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
    The FDNY you’re quote mining didn’t hear any.

  • Steve Laney

    You never answered the questions I posed you, so I will ask you again….Why are you so against a independent review? How does that affect you? Don’t say taxes, because I am sure enough donations could be put together to fund it. So Albury?? why do you care so much? how about you really answer?

  • Steve Laney

    Your a paid spin doctor, its so obvious, give it up man.

  • Albury Smith

    Why are you so against an independent review? You don’t really think Gage and his “more than 2100 experts” have conducted one or ever will, do you? What they’re proposing isn’t even remotely possible, and they have no motive or evidence for it. Send him a big donation if you think it’ll help.

  • Albury Smith

    What a stupid thing to say…

  • Albury Smith

    The portions of building mass above the fire and impact damage levels weighed ~125,000 and ~65,000 TONS respectively. How do the two tallest building in the world keep standing after those huge masses collide with intact structure below from a story height or more? 236 of the 283 columns in each WTC tower were IN PLAIN SIGHT, so you tell me how they were secretly cut with explosives.

  • Albury Smith

    People don’t just blow off explosives all the time where I live. Did you mostly hear the word “explosIVES” in the eyewitness testimony you’re quote mining, or “explosIONS”?
    Please feel free to list all of the explosives that keep steel molten for 3+ months.

  • Jason James Bickford

    You contribute nothing. Nice cognitive dissonance. You’ve got there, btw. My physics check out. If you disagree, SAY WHY, DONT JUST DRIVE BY.

  • Jason James Bickford

    LIAR. Photos of molten steel at ground zero exist all over the internet. Ground Zero’s molten steel could even me seen by satellite.

  • Jason James Bickford
  • Jason James Bickford

    Neither before or after 9/11 has office fire caused a steel skyscraper to collapse. How did office fire generate enough heat to remove lower support columns of wtc7? This allowed for a unilateral FREEFALL collapse. NIST admits FREEFALL, so don’t go there with your fake gravity math. The entire collapse took 16 seconds. Six seconds after the onset of the penthouse caving in the building went down in ten seconds, 6.5 of those seconds were at FREEFALL. NIST admits this but cannot explain it. Perhaps you can ?

  • Albury Smith

    If your new cause divining physics checks out, show me a paper on it from asce.org.

  • Albury Smith

    Qualitative analysis by satellite? Why don’t the FDNY, Local 40 & 361 ironworkers, or the SEAoNY, PANYNJ, NSF, FEMA BPAT, and other SEs at Ground Zero during the ~8 months of cleanup find the molten METAL in the debris FIRES suspicious? Once again, please list some of the explosives that keep any metal molten for months. If it’s incendiaries today, list some of them too.
    Thanks in advance.

  • Jason James Bickford

    That’s what we call an ad hominem. You’re attacking the character of the people presenting the information because you can’t attack the actual information put forth by Rethink911.org. That’s quite telling.

  • Jason James Bickford

    SEMANTICS SMOKESCREEN ALERT!

  • Jason James Bickford

    He is either viscously in denial and protecting his paradigm, or he’s one a misinfo troll on the dole.

  • Albury Smith

    Red-hot steel isn’t molten, molten aircraft aluminum flowing briefly from the ~81st floor at the NE corner of the South Tower isn’t steel, no explosive or incendiary keeps any metal molten for 100+ days, and that’s a really good photo of a column cut with an oxyacetylene torch. Explosives don’t leave gray slag around the cuts they make. Duh.

  • Jason James Bickford

    EXPPLAIN- how did WTC7 office fire melt steel support columns as NIST suggests but never explains ? Maybe you have the missing math, but NIST sure doesn’t.

  • Jason James Bickford

    That’s highly likely.

  • Jason James Bickford

    YOURE A LIAR. THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING. PHYSICAL, EYE WINESS, CHEMICAL, AUDIO, VIDEO- they all concur. We were lied to. Who are you working for?

  • Jason James Bickford

    I’m not a creationist, I studied biology at one if the finest universities in the world. Regardless, thats just ANOTHER AD HOMINEM ATTACK, as you’ve got nothing to actually argue with, so you resort to name calling an insults. If I’m crazy point out the flaw in my “crazy” math. Thanks!

  • Albury Smith

    One-Trick Chandler’s precious segment at g lasted 2.25 seconds, not 6.5, and was part of the ~8.5 seconds of EXTERIOR collapse. The reason for it is explained in NCSTAR 1A.
    It is not that unusual for steel-framed BUILDINGS to collapse solely from fire:
    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/firesafetyengineering%26theperformanceofst
    WTC 7 was the only steel-framed HI-RISE to do it, for reasons also explained in the NIST papers you’ve never read.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Really? Wikipedia? Zzz

  • Albury Smith

    I don’t like profiteering charlatans. Ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to demonstrate for you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png

    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.

    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

  • Jason James Bickford

    Maybe you are unaware of this, but NIST ADMITTED TO FREEFALL BUT NEVER EXPLAINED IT. NEITHER DOES WIKIPEDIA. Can you? No.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Actually NIST admitted FREEFALL in 2008 after stonewalling the WTC 7 report for years! They didn’t explain how FREEFALL was reached, however. It seems you’re the one believing a conspiracy.

  • Albury Smith

    FACTS ALERT! Please name some of the FDNY who are 9/11 truther nuts. Local 40 & 361 ironworkers? SEAoNY, FEMA BPAT, NSF, or PANYNJ structural engineers? ANYONE who worked at GZ during the ~8 months of cleanup?

  • Jason James Bickford

    What debate. You’re not debating, you’re unsung ad hominems all over the place and liying and ignoring evidence when it’s presented to you. I’ve watched the debunk the debunker videos you share. It’s circular logic when it’s not totally irrelevant and straw manning the truthers claims. You don’t debate, you troll.

  • Jason James Bickford

    “One trick Chandler”? That was a pretty significant trick. The idea of the one trick pony is that it does one thing really well. In Chandlers case, if he even was a “one trick” as you claim, that trick was pointing out the failure of NIST. That’s significant. They were forced to change their story, and then WERE FORCED TO ADMIT WTC7′s FREEFALL THOUGH THEY CANT EXPLAIN IT. CAN YOU? We are waiting…

  • Albury Smith

    When did NIST EVER suggest that ANY column in WTC 7 melted to cause the collapse?
    Please stop embarrassing yourself and READ NCSTAR 1A:
    http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

  • Albury Smith

    You don’t have any evidence.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Your links do nothing whatsoever to explain how office fires can take down a steel skyscraper like NIST claims is the case with WTC 7. I will ask, ONE MORE TIME, HOW DIES OFFICE FIRE CAUSE A SKYSCRAPER TO COLLAPSE AT FREEFALL? Explain, enough with your youtube bullshit. Explain, in words. Here. Thank you.

  • Albury Smith

    Figure 3-15 here, genius:
    http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
    It’s in 3.6 TIMING OF COLLAPSE INITIATION AND PROGRESSION
    Facts aren’t “circular logic.”

  • Jason James Bickford

    Thermite is nowhere near as loud as explosives. The 9/11 truth movement believes, based on evidence from Dr. Steven Jones and others, that thermite was used at ground zero. You’ve not addressed this. You straw man truthers by insinuating that we think explosives were used to cut support columns. THAT ISNT OUR CLAIM. STOP THE STRAW MAN BS AND ACTUALLY DEBATE.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Every eye witness is a crack pot according to you. That’s a great defense, I mean stellar debating there Albury, do you litigate with that brain? Didn’t think so.

  • Albury Smith

    The perimeter columns were 100% moment connected to spandrel beams, the interior was already collapsing, and there was no MEASURABLE resistance from t=1.75 to t=4 seconds of the EXTERIOR collapse because it either stood or failed all at once. At t=1.75 seconds, the 57 W14 X 500 columns all buckled in near unison.
    One-Trick Chandler’s fos, but would be a big hit here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrD5_V9JWZU

  • Albury Smith

    IOW, you want me to read NCSTAR 1A FOR YOU? Go away.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Literally dozens of eye witnesses are on record saying they heard explosions. Several NYFD men are on video explaining that the explosions came in sequences, like a “controlled demolition”. But they didn’t say it EXACTLY like you want them to, so they’re crazy. Before you claimed here they don’t exist. Then when proven wrong you claim they’re “nut-jobs”. I’m guessing the 9/11 truthers were psychic and placed all those people in harms way at ground zero before the attacks in order to start a conspiracy?

  • Jason James Bickford

    You really need to study Occam’s razor again, or for the first time. You’re doing it wrong. Dead wrong. Fool. Now I know you’re a complete phoney.

  • Albury Smith

    OK; it’s incendiaries today, so let’s see it:
    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
    Just stand up a short length of one of those, load it up with thermite, and show us on video how it all works out for you.

  • Jason James Bickford

    The Official story claims that burning jet fuel in air can weaken ALL the steel girders evenly (hence symmetrical collapse due to gravity of all columns perfectly), yet both ends of these outer and inner massive columns were outside the fire zone to differing degrees hence heat would have conducted up and down very efficiently at different rates, and many columns were not even subjected to any significant fire. Are we really expected to believe that fire can weaken steel evenly despite the core columns conducting heat efficiently at varying rates away from varied regions of temperature? And then there’s WTC Building 7, which imploded at free-fall yet wasn’t even hit by a plane.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Albury- DONT FORGET TO STAY AWAY FROM TALL BUILDINGS!

    One of the unavoidable, but unstated, implications of the “official” i.e., self-crushing building theory of 9/11, is that ALL steel frame high-rise structures are on the verge of collapse at any moment, due to their “tremendous weight.” They can just barely hold themselves up (supposedly) and all it takes is some type of “trigger” and they will fall in a heap like a house of cards. The 100-year track record of steel frame structures prior to 9/11 confirms that this is obviously NOT the case. These buildings would never be built if this were true.

  • Albury Smith
  • Jason James Bickford

    Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion. In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance (to make a considerable understatement). If everything had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even if for only a fraction of a second, this would have been a miracle – meaning a violation of physics.
    Anything at an elevated height has gravitational potential energy. If it falls, and none of the energy is used for other things along the way, all of that energy is converted into kinetic energy – the energy of motion, and we call it ‘free fall.’ If any of the energy is used for other purposes, there will be less kinetic energy, so the fall will be slower. In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.

  • Jason James Bickford

    The analysis relies very heavily on an assumption of no mass-loss from the WTC during the fall. Yet, the videos and images clearly show that heavy girders were laterally ejected (Not to mention the loss of 300,000 tonnes of concrete and other stuff)? When an impacted floor begins to fall, it does not go from zero to free-fall speed instantaneously! There is a delay while it accelerates up to that speed. This transition region WILL make a significant difference and that point alone shows the official account is fundamentally flawed.

  • Jason James Bickford

    “I remember getting a call from the 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 then we watched the building collapse.” –Larry Silverstein

  • Albury Smith

    You didn’t answer my question, so they apparently didn’t say what YOU wanted them to say.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Explain away that shit!

  • Jason James Bickford

    I remember, as a kid, listening to Walt Disney explain the concept of the “Plausible Impossible.” When a cartoon character runs off the edge of a cliff, for example, into mid-air, if he turns around and scrambles back fast enough he can save himself from falling. This is impossible of course in “real life,” but a skilled animator can nonetheless make it seem quite plausible.

    The self-crushing building theory is another example of the “Plausible Impossible,” and tremendous effort has been expended — again involving skillful animation — to sell the plausibility of this notion. But self-crushing steel frame buildings do not actually exist in “real life.”

  • Albury Smith

    Are you a spokesman for the FDNY? How many of them are 9/11 truther nuts?

  • Jason James Bickford

    Albury, So You actually believe that on the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor?
    These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001. This 757, a 28 meter-wide airliner, disappeared into a 5 meter-wide tunnel, leaving no trace of it’s nearly indestructible titanium alloy Boeing engines, it’s black box, or any bodies or DNA of the passengers. The other plane in Shanksville also disappeared, and was never seen at the “crash site”, itself simply a 15 foot long five feet deep smoking ditch with no plane parts or bodies. Not even a drop of blood?

  • Jason James Bickford

    DONT FORGET TO STAY AWAY FROM TALL BUILDINGS!

    One of the unavoidable, but unstated, implications of the “official” i.e., self-crushing building theory of 9/11, is that ALL steel frame high-rise structures are on the verge of collapse at any moment, due to their “tremendous weight.” They can just barely hold themselves up (supposedly) and all it takes is some type of “trigger” and they will fall in a heap like a house of cards. The 100-year track record of steel frame structures prior to 9/11 confirms that this is obviously NOT the case. These buildings would never be built if this were true.

  • Albury Smith
  • Jason James Bickford

    Cue the ad hominem attacks…

  • Albury Smith

    You’re simply lying about the collapse times:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
    but what force was present to PREVENT the lateral ejection of tower debris?

  • Albury Smith

    It’s a waste of time trying to explain this to you.

  • Albury Smith

    “I remember getting a call from the 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 [THE FDNY!] made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.” –L. Silverstein

    “We have never, ever heard the term ‘pull it’ being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with.” -Brent Blanchard of Protec in A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2, & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION
    VIEWPOINT

    http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

    (Check it yourself on any C/D contractor’s web
    site.)

    If Larry Silverstein publicly admitted to blowing up his own
    property, why did Swiss Re, Lloyd’s, Zurich Financial, Copenhagen Re, and at least 8 other major insurers all pay him a total of $4.68 BILLION? They all fought his 2
    planes = 2 incidents claims, and most of them won in court.

  • Albury Smith

    You must think explosives account for all of the destruction in real C/Ds. They’re actually only a catalyst; gravity does 99% or more of the real demolition.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Again. Noting but bullshit links. You cant EXPLAIN.

  • Albury Smith
  • Albury Smith

    Explaining doesn’t work with you either.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Again, you cannot explain what he was referring to, but you have a bullshit quote from another true believer like you. That’s telling. YOU HAVENT EXPLAINED WHAT LUCKY LARRY WAS TALKING ABOUT

  • Jason James Bickford

    Bullshit. I got those figures from NIST. Try again!

  • Albury Smith

    Read it until it sinks in.

  • Jason James Bickford

    COP OUT! Faced with some facts you back down! You never tried to explain in the first place because YOU CANNOT. Bye now.

  • Albury Smith

    9 & 11 seconds were loose debris figures. 9 seconds is FASTER than free-fall time from 1368′.

  • Jason James Bickford

    This doesn’t how FREEFALL speeds were reached and neither do you, because you can’t. NIST NEVER EXPLAINED HOW THE FREEFALL THEY WERE FORCED TO ADMIT OCCURED WAS MADE POSSIBLE.

  • Albury Smith

    Please write a paper on cause divining building collapses by acceleration and submit it to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

  • Albury Smith
  • Jason James Bickford

    You’ve no evidence for that, as you’ve explained nothing.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Exactly! Now we agree! Gravity self crushed wtc7? No! For the free fall to have happened lower restraints would have to have been removed, ie, support columns would have to be severed simultaneously, as in a controlled demolition. You’ve never once attempted to explain how an isolated office fire can remove supports so that gravity can do the other “99%” of the work.

  • Jason James Bickford

    If? He did, and you posted the quote yourself. Have you bothered to explain what else he could’ve been talking about?

  • Jason James Bickford

    I never claimed those figures. ANOTHER STRAW MAN. The collapse took a total of 16 seconds, six for the penthouse collapse, ten for the whole thing to implode. 6.5 of that implosion was at FREEFALL. If you want to try to argue, don’t use the straw man, it’s a dead give away you’re full of shit.

  • Jason James Bickford

    COP OUT CENTRAL

  • Albury Smith

    Not TO YOU.

  • Jason James Bickford

    NIST doesn’t explain how FREEFALL was reached. I read it. Did you? You’re hoping others won’t.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Again. COP OUT

  • Jason James Bickford

    Why not?

  • Albury Smith

    Analyze the acceleration in this real explosive demolition:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
    and then tell me which floors collapsed because of explosives and which ones solely or almost solely from gravity.
    You and One-Trick are peddling snake oil.

  • Albury Smith

    Then why did Swiss Re, Lloyd’s, Zurich Financial, Copenhagen Re, and at least 8 other major insurers all pay him a total of $4.68 BILLION?

  • Jason James Bickford

    ” I’m not the topic here”. But you employ cop outs and ad hominems. Seems legit

  • Jason James Bickford

    That’s a cop out. You didn’t answer his question.

  • Albury Smith

    NIST did, and you cited their figures. See item #6 here:
    http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm
    unless reading actual facts pains you too much.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Gage runs a registered non profit. Nice try.

  • Albury Smith

    So don’t cop out; write and submit.

  • Albury Smith

    Send One-Trick Chandler a BIG donation; maybe he’ll send you some more Kool-Aid.

  • Albury Smith

    rpt: how many SEs were at the Toronto 9/11 circle jerk?

  • Jason James Bickford

    He’s got to be a paid troll, nobody is this serious about irrationally employing horrible debate to attack decent folks asking for an investigation. The amount of energy he spends straight up lying is telling. Most folks who don’t want to hear about 9/11 truth don’t go to these lengths to slander folks, cop pout, straw man and use ad hominems. I’m not sure if he’s watched the videos he posts or just expects other won’t.

  • Albury Smith

    Gage is a fraud running a fraudulent 501(c)(3). The US government is not in the business of determining what’s “educational,” and he’s taken full advantage of it, as plenty of other tax cheats have.
    Ask him to spend some of that donation $ showing you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
    Here’s his ONLY 9/11 “research”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM
    How pathetic.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Address the molten steel in the photos I linked that you claim don’t exist. Thanks. Liar.

  • Albury Smith

    http://www.asce.org/
    Search it for any mention of Gage, Chandler, or any of your other 9/11 crackpots.

  • Jason James Bickford

    The mainstream establishment curiously largely ignores the 9/11 movement? That’s evidence on our side, actually.

  • Albury Smith

    rpt: please list some of the explosives that keep any metal molten for months. If it’s incendiaries today, list some of them too.
    Your photos don’t show any molten steel. Duh…

  • Albury Smith

    Yes, genius; being totally ignored by the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, AIA, RIBA, structuremag.org, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ENR, etc. makes you extra special.

  • Albury Smith

    I HOPE you didn’t stray too close to a hi-rise building, Christine! You’ve been quiet for a coupla days, so I’m a little worried…

  • Jason James Bickford

    I’m not analyzing anything but what happened on 9/11. Diversion tactics and bullshit.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Our argument is that these mainstream publications are powerless. NIST has already been shown to fudge their figures and then change their numbers according to mr. griffins analysis. You can’t explain why they did that.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Exactly, I point out your lies and you change the subject!

  • Albury Smith

    That’s a good little sheep. Sorry for asking you to think.

  • Jason James Bickford

    That thermite, a military grade incendiary compound, cuts through steel and is used for controlled demolition isn’t controversial. At all.

  • Albury Smith

    What have you submitted so far? What has your retired theology professor?

  • Jason James Bickford

    Those quotes speak for themselves, you’re the one playing semantics.

  • Albury Smith

    Instead of just drinking One-Trick Chandler’s Kool-Aid, please ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to demonstrate for you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

  • Jason James Bickford

    That the CIA created and funded al quaeda isn’t controversy. It’s admitted by the CIA in papers obtained through a freedom of information act request.

  • Jason James Bickford

    LIAR, WE LINKED TO YOU PICTURES OF THE MOLTEN STEEL

  • Albury Smith

    Which of the ones you carefully quote mined for the word “explosion” are 9/11 truther nuts? THAT speaks for itself.

  • Jason James Bickford

    You’re a proven liar. I’m mean bold faced crazy and provably dishonest all over this thread. Cognitive dissonance, straw men, appeals to popularity. You’re so full of it. Every time we catch you, you change the subject or lash out with name calling. That is quite telling.

  • Jason James Bickford

    Pointing out other deniers exist isn’t refuting our overwhelming evidence. That’s called an Argumentum ad populem, and you should know better. You’re Captain Logical Fallacy all over the place .

  • Albury Smith

    The CIA funded the Afghan (already created) mujahideen through Pakaistan’s ISI during their war with the Soviets in the ’80s, i.e. before they even knew what al Qaeda was, and long before this:
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military-jan-june98-fatwa_1998/

  • Albury Smith

    You’ve never seen molten steel, huh?

  • Jason James Bickford

    The symmetry of WTC 7′s descent means that all of its steel supports – 25 central and 58 peripheral columns – were destroyed almost simultaneously. Any asymmetry in the damage to structures would have led to asymmetrical collapse. By contrast, a symmetrical collapse without the controlled use of explosives would violate the principle of least resistance. Local office fires (typically dying out in about 20 minutes in any given location) and structural damage here and there could not have weakened all the central and peripheral support structures in a way that would have caused all of them to fail at the same moment. The simultaneity of the destruction of support structures throughout the building can, however, be explained by controlled demolition. This is why we are asking for a new investigation.

  • Jason James Bickford

    AGAIN- NIST ADMITTED FREEFALL AFTER CHANDLER WAS PUBLISHED.

  • Albury Smith

    There are plenty more “deniers” in the NCSEA, SEI, RIBA, AIA, SEAoNY, and here:
    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi
    Are your crackpots published in ANY established scientific or engineering journal, or just spewing their nonsense on truther nut web sites and YouTube?

  • Jason James Bickford

    Actually, it’s solid physics. You can’t just say that and it’s true. The rate of collapse proves removal of lower supports and young debunk that. So you make BOLD FACED LIES

  • Albury Smith

    When did NIST EVER suggest that ANY column in WTC 7 melted to cause the collapse?

  • Albury Smith

    The NIST SEs aren’t stupid enough to try to divine the causes of building collapses by timing them.

  • Albury Smith

    Please explain physics to these people:
    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi
    Enlighten the NIST WTC investigators, the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, etc. while you’re at it.

  • Jason James Bickford

    NIST: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahren- heit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Cel- sius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)” [3].
    Agreed. I’m also in agreement with Prof. Thomas Ea- gar on this point:
    The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true…. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual usual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
    We are in remarkable agreement, then: the WTC fires were not capable of melting steel. Of course, NIST then may have trouble explaining the molten material flowing out of the South Tower just before its collapse, as well as evidence for temperatures much higher than NIST’s reported 1,100 °C

  • Jason James Bickford

    NIST: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Cel- sius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)” [3].
    Agreed. We also find agreement with Prof. Thomas Ea- gar on this point:
    The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true…. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not un-usual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel [18].
    We are in remarkable agreement, then: the WTC fires were not capable of melting steel. Of course, NIST then may have trouble explaining the molten material flowing out of the South Tower just before its collapse, as well as evidence for temperatures much higher than NIST’s reported 1,100 °C

  • Jason James Bickford

    But thermite does, bro.

  • Jason James Bickford

    NIST states: “NIST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yards where the debris was sent as the WTC site was cleared. It is estimated that roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the two towers was recovered.” “The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure…”

    Thus, only a tiny fraction of steel was analyzed from the WTC Towers, and none of the WTC 7 steel was analyzed by NIST. What happened to the rest of the steel from the crime scene?
    For months, structural steel from the World Trade Center was cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions I was put on a slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
    Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

  • Jason James Bickford

    NIST states: [Question:] “How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)— speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?” [Answer:] …As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The po- tential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of de- formation. Since the stories below the level of collapse ini- tiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos”.
    We agree with some of this, that the building “came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.” This is an important starting point. (Because of obscuring dust clouds, it is difficult to determine the exact fall times, but the state- ment that the buildings “came down essentially in free fall” seems correct when accelerations are viewed, for the WTC Towers and also for WTC 7.) Further, we agree with NIST that “the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance” to the fall – but we ask – how could that be? NIST mentions “energy of deformation” which for the huge core columns in the Towers would be considerable, and they need to be quantitative about it (which they were not) in order to claim that the “intact structure” below would not significantly slow the motion.
    Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamental law of physics in glibly treating the remarkable “free fall” collapse of each Tower, namely, the Law of Conservation of Momentum. This law of physics means that the hundreds of thousands of tons of material in the way must slow the upper part of the building because of its mass, independent of de- formation which can only slow the fall even more. (Energy and Momentum must both be conserved.)
    Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis. NIST ignores the possibility of controlled demolitions, which achieve complete building collapses in near free-fall times by moving the material out of the way using explosives. So, there is an alterna- tive explanation that fits the data without violating basic laws of physics. We should be able to agree from observing the near-free-fall destruction that this is characteristic of con- trolled demolitions and, therefore, that controlled demolition is one way to achieve complete collapse at near free-fall speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST’s calculations of how they explain near-free-fall collapse rates without explo- sives.
    We await an explanation from NIST which satisfies Conservation of Momentum and Energy for the rapid and complete destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11, or a discussion of alternative hypotheses that are consistent with momentum and energy conservation in these near-free-fall events.

  • Jason James Bickford

    I called you a liar. There is plenty of footage of molten steel pouring out if the towers and in the debris, weeks after collapse. What do you have to say to that?

  • Jason James Bickford

    Yes, Albury. Ground temperatures can be measured from space. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY. WELCOME TO THE MODERN ERA

  • Jason James Bickford

    Again. We linked the photos. Video footage exists, as do eyewitness regarding the sub basements looking ” like a foundry”. That’s a quote was from NYFD . Please explain how you missed this. Thanks.

  • Jason James Bickford

    GETTING SCHOOLED

  • Jason James Bickford

    You got served Albury.

  • Albury Smith

    NIST didn’t claim that steel melted to cause a hi-rise collapse, and a brief stream of molten metal from UA 175′s burning fuselage isn’t evidence of explosives. No metal flowed from any other place in either tower, and the South Tower collapsed LATER from the SE corner, ~208′ away.

  • Jason James Bickford

    That’s what we call an appeal to authority, and in debate it’s a red flag – grounds for suspicion.

  • Jason James Bickford

    NIST states: “NIST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yards where the debris was sent as the WTC site was cleared. It is estimated that roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the two towers was recovered.” “The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure…”

    Thus, only a tiny fraction of steel was analyzed from the WTC Towers, and none of the WTC 7 steel was analyzed by NIST. What happened to the rest of the steel from the crime scene?
    For months, structural steel from the World Trade Center was cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions I was put on a slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
    Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

    And although only a small fraction of the steel was saved for testing, it is clear that an “enormous amount” of the WTC steel was examined either for or by NIST, and the samples selected were chosen for their identified importance to the NIST investigation.
    We agree that only a “small fraction of the enormous amount of steel” from the Towers was spared and the rest was rapidly recycled. The destruction of about 99% of the steel, evidence from a crime scene, was suspicious and probably illegal, hopefully we can agree to that.

  • Albury Smith

    Uh, no; it doesn’t, “bro,” but get some thermite and one of these and show us your hypothesis in action:
    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png

  • Jason James Bickford

    Wow. You’ve clearly never seen molten aluminum. It doesn’t give off an orange and red glow. That’s steel.

  • Albury Smith

    Comb through the NFPA regulation again and you’ll see that it doesn’t apply. Was there “astounding ignorance” from the FDNY, Ironworkers’ Locals 40 & 361, and the SEAoNY, FEMA BPAT, NSF, PANYNJ, and other SEs who looked at and handled the WTC steel for nearly 8 months?

  • Jason James Bickford

    FEMA states (based on work by a Worchester Polytechnic Institute investigative team): “Sample 1 (From WTC 7)… Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure…. Sample 2 (From WTC 1 or WTC 2)… The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. …The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified… A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed…”

    We agree that the physical evidence for “severe high temperature corrosion attack” involving sulfur is compelling. Here we have grounds for an interesting discussion: How were “severe high temperatures” reached in the WTC buildings? What is the source of the sulfur that attacked the steel in these buildings? The answers to these questions may help us find the explanation for the “total collapse” of the Towers and WTC 7 that we are all looking for.
    The WPI researchers published their results and called for “a detailed study” of this “high-temperature” “oxidation and sulfidation” phenomenon. Yet the results were unfortunately ignored by NIST in their subsequent reports on the Towers’ destruction. Their failure to respond to this documented anomaly is a striking phenomenon in itself. Perhaps NIST will explain and correct this oversight by considering the high-temperature sulfidation data in their long overdue report on the collapse of WTC 7. The existence of severe high temperatures in the WTC destruction is by now very well established. It appears that NIST has inadvertently overlooked this evidence and we offer to investigate the matter with them, in pursuit of understanding and security.

  • Albury Smith

    A liar produces photos of red-hot steel, torch-cut columns, and molten aircraft aluminum and calls it C/D evidence, and then can’t name even one explosive or incendiary that keeps any metal molten for 100+ days.

  • Albury Smith

    Ground temperatures are only qualitative analyses in your little world. They never even reached or CAME CLOSE TO the melting point of steel:
    http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

  • Albury Smith
  • Albury Smith

    Qualified experts are “grounds for suspicion”?

  • Albury Smith

    It does when it’s contaminated with carpets, office contents, etc. Why did it ONLY come from exactly where UA 175′s burning fuselage wound up?

  • Albury Smith

    Are Drs. Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson 9/11 truther nuts? Uh, NO.

  • Albury Smith

    Once again, what explosive or incendiary keeps steel molten for months, and which FDNY who reported molten METAL in the BURNING debris are 9/11 truther nuts?

  • Jason James Bickford

    “No metal flowed from any other place”. A while back you said there was no molten metal anywhere. You’re just like NIST, changing your story as we show le you the evidence you’re worng. Your argument is vapor, as you’ve none.

  • Jason James Bickford

    We have enumerated several areas where we are in agreement with FEMA and NIST in their investigations of the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade Center. We agree that the Towers fell at near free-fall speed and that is an important starting point. We agree that several popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that the Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors “pancaked” to account for total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a jet) is hard to explain from the point of view of a fire-induced mechanism and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of explosives. Numerous architects and engineers would like to build from this foundation and correspond with the NIST investigation team, especially since they have candidly conceded* (in a reply to some of us in September 2007):
    “…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”.
    We are offering to discuss these matters in a civil manner as a matter of scientific and engineering courtesy and civic duty. The lives of thousands of people may very well depend on it.

    *“…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” -NIST

    (C. S. Fletcher (NIST), “Response to request for correction”, Jour- nal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 17, pp. 17-23, November 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.journalof911studies.com)

  • Jason James Bickford

    *“…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” -NIST

    (C. S. Fletcher (NIST), “Response to request for correction”, Jour- nal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 17, pp. 17-23, November 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.journalof911studies.com)

  • Jason James Bickford

    *“…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” -NIST

  • Albury Smith

    You’re a liar. No molten aircraft aluminum came from any other place in either tower, and your so-called evidence resulted in the South Tower’s later collapse from the SE corner ~208′ away, not from where UA 175′s fuselage wound up. Where should ~1800F aircraft aluminum “really” have gone if not out of UA 175′s exit hole?

  • Jason James Bickford

    *“…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” -NIST

    (C. S. Fletcher (NIST), “Response to request for correction”, Jour- nal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 17, pp. 17-23, November 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.journalof911studies.com). Explain that

  • Jason James Bickford

    Ten years ago? How do you figure? Consider it took NIST until 2008 to address wtc7, and even then- *“…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” -NIST

    (C. S. Fletcher (NIST), “Response to request for correction”, Jour- nal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 17, pp. 17-23, November 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.journalof911studies.com)

  • Albury Smith

    “We” should really ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to demonstrate for “us” on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png

    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.

    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

  • Albury Smith

    When did NIST EVER suggest that ANY column in WTC 7 melted to cause the collapse?

  • Albury Smith

    rpt: how many SEs were at your Toronto 9/11 circle jerk?

  • Jason James Bickford

    Anybody reading this can clearly see you’ve got nothing. I’m done with curiously motivated trolls.

  • Jason James Bickford

    What was Larry talking about?

  • Jason James Bickford

    Theology? Never studied theology. I’ve studied physics though. At Amherst, not a community college- WORLD CLASS COLLEGE

  • Jason James Bickford

    We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a jet) is hard to explain from the point of view of a fire-induced mechanism and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of explosives. Numerous architects and engineers would like to build from this foundation and correspond with the NIST investigation team, especially since they have candidly conceded* (in a reply to some of us in September 2007):
    “…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”.
    We are offering to discuss these matters in a civil manner as a matter of scientific and engineering courtesy and civic duty. The lives of thousands of people may very well depend on it.

    *“…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” -NIST

    (C. S. Fletcher (NIST), “Response to request for correction”, Jour- nal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 17, pp. 17-23, November 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.journalof911studies.com)

  • Jason James Bickford

    *“…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” -NIST

    (C. S. Fletcher (NIST), “Response to request for correction”, Jour- nal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 17, pp. 17-23, November 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.journalof911studies.com)

  • kawika

    “molten STEEL was unconfirmed” WHAT? Did you read the FEMA 403 Report Appendix C? Did you see Bart Voorsanger say molten steel and concrete? Did you hear Les Robertson himself say there was a river of molten steel? Did you hear the FDNY members say it was like lava?

  • kawika

    You wrote: “…show….how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″
    webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of
    24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core”

    It wasn’t necessary to cut the beefy elements, just the relatively thin connection plates holding them together.

    NIST says there was no explosion loud enough to sever column 79, but says that the failure of a 7/8″ bottom flange caused the A2001 girder to fall to floor 12 and that precipitated the global progressive collapse.

    Now that we have proven they omitted the stiffeners welded on that flange from their analyses you are reduced to challenging the loud, powerful explosions that were edited out of the videos.

    Look, lots of FDNY and NYPD heard explosions and you can see an entire building drop straight down because all resistance from eight floors was removed within a fraction of a second.

    Shame on you for being so willfully blind.

  • Albury Smith

    This is what a real C/D looks and sounds like:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
    Very few columns are cut with explosives on the upper floors of real C/Ds, so you and One-Trick should easily be able to tell us which ones were and weren’t rigged in Landmark Tower, just from all of those differences in acceleration. You did see all of that speeding up and slowing down, didn’t you? I didn’t either.

  • Albury Smith

    He was VERY OBVIOUSLY talking about THE FDNY’S decision not to risk lives trying to fight the fires in WTC 7:
    “I remember getting a call from the 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 [THE FDNY!] made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.” –L. Silverstein

    “We have never, ever heard the term ‘pull it’ being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with.” -Brent Blanchard of Protec in A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WTC TOWERS 1,
    2, & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION VIEWPOINT

    http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

    (Check it yourself on any C/D contractor’s web
    site.)

    If Larry Silverstein publicly admitted to blowing up his own
    property, why did Swiss Re, Lloyd’s, Zurich Financial, Copenhagen Re, and 8 other major insurers all pay him a total of $4.68 BILLION? They all fought his 2 planes = 2 incidents claims, and most of them won in court.

  • Albury Smith

    You sound like a real world-class scholar. What papers have you or David Ray Grifter submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics on your cause-divining junk science?

  • Albury Smith

    The debris fire temperatures may even have melted steel. Item #13 here:
    http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm
    Les Robertson did not qualitatively analayze the molten METAL in the debris fires, and is not a 9/11 troofer. Drs. Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson aren’t troofers either, and 2 little nondescript pieces of steel with unusual corrosion characteristics are not C/D evidence.
    Few to no FDNY are in your 9/11 “truth movement” either, and GZ temperatures were not hot enough to produce a “river of molten steel,” but easily melted lead and aluminum, both of which were in abundance in all 3 collapsed WTC hi-rises. Did you hear anyone say molten LEAD or ALUMINUM?
    btw, what explosives or incendiaries keep ANY metal molten for 100+ days?

  • Albury Smith

    The columns in WTC 7 were fabricated and erected in 2-story lengths, and the connections were at 3′-6″ above finished floor. According to One-Trick Chandler, every column in WTC 7 was cut multiple times with explosives in a split second, so you’re going against an “expert.”
    Good luck even getting to the connections secretly. The web splices were behind steel reinforcing plates that were up to 8″ thick on the lowest levels, so you now have to break out architectural enclosures @ 3′-6″ a.f.f. secretly, and then secretly cut through massive steel plates.
    Do you know how ridiculous you sound? The Local 40 & 361 ironworkers at GZ must’ve all been blind and stupid, huh?

  • Albury Smith

    “NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).”
    Item # 6 here:
    http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm
    The FIRST EXTERIOR PANELS actually were in free fall, and they very obviously outpaced the collapse zones. The North Tower wasn’t even down to the 47-story height of WTC 7 when the first airborne debris from ~1200′ up began hitting the pavements:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rsj7EERmFo

  • Albury Smith
  • Canadian, eh

    Let me know if you want that doxing. What a pompous idiot to be making strange threats. You can see the thinking of CIA types who ‘get rid’ of inconvenient truths like Berry Jennings by creating another explosion.

  • Canadian, eh

    Albury Smith I did not say da Joos did 911, I said that criminal Zionist elements who hijacked the good Jewish faith and the Mossad for their purpose did it. “It is 100 percent certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation.” — Dr Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College.

  • Albury Smith

    Sabrosky’s fos.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW8_Zbsirdw

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWVC4JBjtEE

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6obQ5naNn0

    From OBL’s 1998 (second) fatwa: “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies-civilians and military-is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and
    unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, ‘and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,’ and ‘fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God [blah, blah, blah...]‘”

  • Albury Smith

    NIST simply stated that modeling an entire WTC tower collapse was impossible, so why don’t you ask Richard Gage and his “more than 2100 experts” to do it?

  • hallucigenia

    The official account of 9/11 defies physics. A science-based examination of the “collapse” of the 3 WTC buildings only supports controlled demolition. We need a new investigation that holds those responsible, accountable. And that goes for the lapdog corporate press.

  • Albury Smith

    I’m all for a new investigation. You have no motive or evidence for controlled demolition, but ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to demonstrate for you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

  • Canadian, eh

    Blah blah blah – IF OBL was so happy he “did 911″ why did he deny it? http://911blogger.com/news/2013-02-02/osama-bin-laden-assures-he-did-not-plan-911

    Why did the FBI not have enough evidence to properly indict him for 911?
    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/285723-go-to-the-internet-and-go-to-the-fbi-website#

    Afghanistan would have handed him over to Bush if evidence had been provided. Bottom line, there was no proof, it was all propaganda.

  • Albury Smith

    Your hero denied it ONCE while fleeing US airstrikes to (relative) safety in Pakistan, and then bragged about, praised his “martyrs” and “Allah,” and threatened “more Manhattans” if the US didn’t leave all Muslim lands immediately. Why didn’t he or any of his AQ cohorts ever deny it from 2002 forward?
    The US had no reason to indict OBL for the 9/11 suicide attacks and every reason not to; he was already on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for the suicide bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and the intel and sources required for another grand jury procedure would only have aided al Qaeda. The FBI had PLENTY linking him and AQ to the 9/11 suicide attacks:
    http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states
    The Taliban was not the recognized government of Afghanistan, and the US was not going to legitimize them by begging them for bin Laden after he’d murdered nearly 3000 innocent people on US soil.

  • kawika

    You wrote: “Les Robertson did not qualitatively analayze the molten METAL…”

    Les Robertson did not analyze the molten steel that FEMA had analyzed at WPI, reported in Appendix C. But have a look here Mr. Smith.
    https://onedrive.live.com/#cid=E097D925456F1330&id=E097D925456F1330!155&v=3

    That’s Les Robertson and Ed DePaola scrutinizing the beam that Sample #1 came from, before Barnett had it removed to WPI for analysis. Clearly they knew something was very odd here.

    And no matter what you say, there is no hydrocarbon fire that can do that to steel.

    Barnett is not a truther, so true. He still tries to maintain that Chinese Drywall contributed the sulfur that ate the steel. Big problem for you guys though. No Chinese Drywall was imported into the US before 2002. So I guess it’s back to sea air, or acid rain, or rubber or plastic that contributed the sulfur.

    How freaking absurd does this get anyway?

    You wrote: “… 2 little nondescript pieces of steel with unusual corrosion characteristics…”

    It was more than two. Only two are known about by a very few people. There were others if you go and look for them. Only two were analyzed by Barnett, Sisson and Biederman. Sample #2 (renamed K-16 in the NCSTAR1-3C Report, PDF page 279) was subsequently analyzed by NIST.

    But for some reason they couldn’t seem to arrange to have Sample #1 shipped down from Boston. How convenient. NIST lamented, “We couldn’t analyze any WTC7 steel because we didn’t have any. None was recovered from WTC7.” Boo Hoo, Waaa, Waaa, Waaa. Bullsh**!!

    Sample #1 WAS analyzed by another metallurgist, but I’m not here to spoon feed you. You’ll learn more if you go discover it yourself. If you dare.

    As for molten Lead or Aluminum, practically everyone understands by now that they do not glow orange, so the witnesses were not mistaken. Robertson and the FDNY saw orange metal and they understood that it was steel/iron. Stop nitpicking/distracting will you?

  • Albury Smith

    Contaminated lead and aluminum DO glow orange, and no explosive or incendiary known to mankind keeps steel molten for 100+ days. Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson are definitely not 9/11 truther nuts, and speculated that the very anomalous corrosion on the 2 small pieces of steel occurred over a long period of time in the debris fires. Try duplicating that effect with incendiaries or demolition explosives. Calling it C/D evidence is absurd.

  • hallucigenia

    Motive isn’t necessary for a new, independent evaluation of the evidence.
    Gage has really assembled the work of others. For a good physics lesson, I suggest David Chandler. In any case, I am happy that you support a new investigation, and let the chips fall where they may.

  • Albury Smith

    For a good lesson in reality, ask your 9/11 “researchers” to demonstrate their hypothesis on a typical WTC core column:
    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
    and then let the chips fall where they may.

  • Albury Smith

    Why would someone with kidney STONES be on dialysis, and what difference does it make where a non-hijacker who helped plan and finance al Qaeda’s Planes Operation was on the day it happened? Hani Hanjour couldn’t do a triple Salchow/triple toe loop either, but was issued an FAA commercial pilot certificate in 1999 for his training in cockpit simulators for Boeing wide-bodied twins, not Cessnas. His training was insufficent for takeoffs and landings, but more than adequate for steering and navigating an already-airborne 757 into a huge target in perfect weather conditions.
    You can’t seriously think that a massive airliner crash and resultant wreckage and human remains could possibly have been faked, could you? Here are some of the many CIVILIAN eyewitnesses:
    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

  • hallucigenia

    And we are to believe that a column like this failed due to burning office contents (chairs, carpet, wallboard)?

    A lesson in reality, indeed!!

  • Albury Smith
  • hallucigenia

    Thanks. I pointed out David Chandler because he explains very succinctly why a building cannot fall through the path of greatest resistance- itself- at free fall acceleration. It defies physics. ANY resistance would slow down the descent. Buildings never, suddenly, offer zero resistance. With one exception – controlled demolition.

    And, here’s a video of engineer Jon Cole slicing through a steel column with thermite, (there were thermite products occupying 4-6% of the dust at the WTC, and active thermite chips found in the dust as well.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E20yiD_QdPw

    The evidence, you see, is overwhelming.

    Best to you in your search.

  • Albury Smith

    After a ridiculous amount of screwing around with bulky contraptions, drilling and tapping, etc. to hold the incendiary, Cole got it to make a huge molten mess and eventually cut apart a W16 X 57 or similar HORIZONTAL shape, not a massive VERTICAL W14 X 730. One-Trick Chandler claims that hundreds of these cuts were secretly made in a fraction of a second, and that can only be done with high explosives, although lots of luck doing it secretly.
    Harrit, Jones, et al. could find “thermite chips” in a ham sandwich using their absurd methodology, and their imaginary miracle substance is NANOthermite, an EXPLOSIVE.

  • Albury Smith
  • Jake Lane

    “What input data isn’t in the NIST reports I cited?”

    Direct from Dr. Gallagher’s letter, the information which cannot be released in the interest of “public safety” is as follows..

    1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

    2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to~develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

    “Dr. Gallagher’s 7/9/2009 letter only states that the NIST FILES can’t be publicly released;” You are a liar.

    “more than 2100 experts” could certainly run their own NEW AND INDEPENDENT models with the input data spoon fed to them by NIST.” I’m glad you agree that NIST are withdrawing information

  • Albury Smith

    NIST is required by the terms of the NCST Act to withhold the complete input & results FILES, as clearly stated in Dr. Gallagher’s letter. He did not address the input DATA, but if your “experts” can’t find all of it in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, 1-9A, etc., they’re either not very bright or not looking. In the very unlikely event that they need input data that’s not in the NIST WTC 7 reports I cited, they could also send an RFI to NIST to get it. I doubt whether any of them has ever requested to see the files at a NIST facility, but that’s a possibility too.
    Your straw man backfired. “More than 2100 experts” and no NEW AND INDEPENDENT ANSYS & LS-DYNA modeling in the last 5-1/2+ years? Pathetic.

  • Albury Smith

    The east end of WTC 7′s penthouse collapsed in 6 seconds? What video were you looking at? It was directly above column 79, and dropped very quickly when 79 buckled from loss of lateral support for ~7 stories after the floors collapsed around it. From the onset of that collapse to the start of the main EXTERIOR collapse was a ~6.9-second interval during which the interior collapses progressed. The exterior collapse took ~8.5 seconds, and 6.5 seconds is Gage and Ryan’s lie about how long it took to fall 610′. One-Trick Chandler’s precious segment at g lasted from t=1.75 to t=4 seconds of the exterior collapse, i.e. 2.25 seconds, not 6.5 seconds.

  • Jake Lane

    Clever play on words there Mr. Smith. Unfortunately for your contradictory argument, FILES include DATA.

    Allow me to quote directly from Catherine S. Fletcher (note also that I am quoting from sources, something you refuse to do), Freedom of Information Act Officer, NIST, in a separate response to information requests, dated Jan 6 2010, which will highlight this for you.

    “We are however, withholding 74,777 files (approximately 80% of all responsive records). The NIST director determined that the release of these DATA might jeopardize public safety. This withheld DATA INCLUDES remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, all input and results files of the LS-DNYA 47-story global collapse model, and all spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.”

    You are correct that there have been no new and independent modeling. As I’m sure you know, In order to create accurate models one first needs to be able to analysis debris in order to build a picture of what happened, and hence assess correct input data. How convenient for NIST, therefore, that WTC debris no longer exists! 2100 EXPERTS are not accustomed to fabricating input data.

    “He did not address the input DATA, but if your “experts” can’t find all
    of it in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, 1-9A, etc., they’re either not very bright or
    not looking.”

    Pathetically contradictory. The input data is, apparently, available at these sources and yet Ms. Fletcher not only refuses to direct the public to these sources, she states that the data is being withheld. Baffling. Please enlighten us Mr. Smith by kindly quoting from your sources the information which would highlight Mrs Fletcher’s incompetence as Freedom of Information Act Officer.

  • Albury Smith

    Of course NIST’s files include data, but so do NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, and 1-9A, i.e. ALL of it. There’s no deep dark mystery about the Cantor/Frankel structural details, and all of the fire spread data’s spoon fed to Gage and his “experts” in those reports.
    The NIST SEs had no one else’s complete work product to look at before they started their ANSYS & LS-DYNA FEA, so why can’t “more than 2100 experts” manage to model WTC 7′s column 79 area in MORE THAN FIVE AND A HALF YEARS?
    Ron Brookman requested that a copy of the files be sent to him, and then flaunted the refusal letter to all of his 9/11 troofer buddies, but hasn’t requested to see them at a NIST facility, strangely enough. Instead of hot dogging over what he already knew that Ms. Fletcher’s letter would say, your alleged SE could much more honestly have spent his time modeling along with your other “experts.” Her January 10, 2010 letter accompanied a disc containing 8,910 files, and she explained to Brookman that NIST could not PUBLICLY release 3,370 others. How many files did NIST get to examine before they started their modeling?
    It’s inexcusable.

  • Albury Smith

    I already did – AT LEAST TWICE. Explain why any building owner would secretly demolish (impossible) a ~14 year-old, nearly fully-occupied Manhattan hi-rise that’s worth ~$800 million, then publicly admit to doing it, and then get paid ~$4.68 BILLION by a dozen or more insurance companies for all of his 9/11-related losses, including the one he admitted to demolishing. Who in the FDNY has accused him of it? Not these people:

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

  • me

    This “Smith” is no one to discuss this with. He has dominated this forum with nonsense. Any reaction puts the person responding in the same basket. Who is the fool? He who puts forth the foolish notion or he who lends it credence?

  • Jaye

    Yeah, I noticed.

  • Albury Smith

    You’re right; “this ‘Smith’ is no one [for 9/11 truther nuts] to discuss this with.” Instead of trying to divine the causes of building collapses by timing them (which you can’t even do honestly), ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to demonstrate for you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

    http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png

    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.

    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

  • me

    Let’s agree to disagree ;-)

  • Albury Smith

    What would you like to disagree with in my last comment or any of my comments here?

  • me

    I don’t think the families and survivors are “nuts”. I don’t believe you will ever concede a single point from an opposing view. If I could get you a signed confession and you would attempt to debunk it. Tell me. What would it take ?

  • Albury Smith

    Which families and survivors believe the ae911″truth” crap referenced in this article? The al Qaeda suicide attacks killed nearly 3000 people, mostly in the WTC tower collapses, and that represents tens of thousands of relatives. There are also thousands of NYC survivors, including many FDNY, so how many of them are in the 9/11 “truth movement”?

  • Albury Smith

    You didn’t answer my question.
    Do al Qaeda’s admissions on video to their 9/11 Planes Operation and their lack of any denials of it for more than 12 years count as signed confessions? 9/11 was their THIRD SUICIDE attack on the US in just over 3 years, and they WANTED the US and everyone else to know they did it.

  • me

    William Rodriquez, Robert McCalvain, Louis Cachiolli………how many “actual” victims would it take? Who are you speaking for? Not these “real life” “Gound Zero” survivors. (McCalvain lost his son and wants answers that are not so blatantly white washed).

  • me

    The evidence to the contrary is greater. Do you believe the head of al Qaeda wears jewelry? (watch,ring) Do you believe that al Qaeda was once subsidized by the U.S. government? Do you believe 17 firefighters are lying about what they saw and heard the day their brothers and sisters died? Do you believe 22 survivors are lying about what they witnessed? Watch “Loose Change”. If you debate the maker of that film on national T.V. and come away with a majority of Americans feeling as you do, I will wear a billboard for a month on a street of your choosing stating whatever you wish to state.

  • Albury Smith

    Have you sent Rodriguez a big donation yet? He heard demolition explosives in the North Tower basement one hour and 42 minutes before it collapsed from ~1200′ high up, even though no one even a few floors away heard them. He also knows that a secret high-powered microwave weapon from a military C-130 “really” brought down UA 93 over Shanksville, and sued the US government for both the demolition of the WTC and secret shooting down UA 93.
    Bob McIlvaine’s son died in the North Tower collapse, and he thinks WTC 7′s collapse ~7 hours later is the reason. Are he or any of his “Building What?” colleagues structural engineers or demolition experts, or just a tiny % of the grieving relatives of 9/11 victims?
    The FDNY lost 343 of their colleagues, mostly in the tower collapses, so how many of them are supportive of Gage’s nonsense? The FDNY had ~10,000 members in 2001.

  • Albury Smith

    Are the Loose Change creeps still around? They’ve been totally debunked by many, and are nothing but serial liars.
    I believe that terrorists don’t always adhere to your stereotypes of what Muslim extremists do and wear. AQ was not “subsidized by the US government”; the Afghan mujahideen were in the 80s, and AQ hadn’t even been formed yet.
    I also believe most of the FDNY accounts. How many of the ones quote mined by your 9/11 “truth movement” for the word “explosion” claimed to have heard DEMOLITION explosIVES and linked the loud bangs inside the burning buildings to any of the 3 WTC hi-rise collapses? How many FDNY are 9/11 truther nuts?
    There are PLENTY of sources of “explosions” in fires, including BLEVEs, flashovers, backdrafts, gas tanks & cylinders, shorted transformers, debris falling ~1200′ through express elevator shafts, and fuel vapor igniting in confined spaces.

  • Albury Smith

    What I pointed out is that YOUR 9/11 deniers don’t exist as far as the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, AIA, RIBA, structuremag.org, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ENR, etc.are concerned. You don’t have “overwhelming evidence”; you have ZERO evidence.

  • Albury Smith

    It already did happen; based on the findings and recommendations from the NIST WTC investigations, 40 revisions to the 2009 & 2012 I-Codes have been made:
    http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/about.cfm
    How many building code changes have Richard Gage and his crackpots prompted?

 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement