Times Square Billboard Calls for "Independent Investigation" of 9-11--and the People Speak

911TruthMediaBlitz.jpg
Image via ReThink911
It's always nice to be included.
The 12th anniversary of the September 11 attacks came and went pretty quietly, with the usual somber memorials at the World Trade Center site and at the Pentagon. It was probably quieter than Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) might have liked; it's a group dedicated to spreading the idea that the attacks were an inside job and the towers were felled in a controlled demolition. Perhaps you've heard of them.

A crucial piece of the group's theory revolves around the collapse of "Building 7," or 7 World Trade Center. On September 3, in part of a campaign they've dubbed ReThink911, AE911 and a related group, Remember Building 7, bought space on an enormous billboard near Times Square and took out an ad, one which reads, "Did you know a third tower fell on September 11?"

The groups bought similar billboards in Boston, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Dallas, San Diego, San Francisco, Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Sydney, and London. But the Times Square ad was meant to be the centerpiece, the small flame that would, in their words, "spark a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001." When that didn't happen, they launched an email campaign.

A little background, greatly condensed:

Rethink911.org's main feature is a five-minute video during which a succession of talking heads -- from architects to engineers to 9-11 conspiracy theorists to Ed Asner, who isn't a journalist but played one on TV -- address the "unanswered" questions about WTC Building 7, which collapsed with seeming suddenness at about 5:20 p.m. on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The building had housed offices for the U.S. Secret Service and the Central Intelligence Agency.

What the video conspicuously does not mention is an exhaustive 2008 report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which concluded that a combination of intense fire and widespread structural damage brought down the building. Popular Mechanics has heavily covered the structural reasons behind the collapses of all three towers; the magazine, too, concluded that fire and physical damage were enough to take down the building. (The magazine has spent a lot of time disproving alternate theories of the September 11 attacks; that work eventually became a book, Debunking 9/11 Myths.)

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has denounced the NIST report as fraudulent and insist the truth has yet to be revealed. Hence the billboard, which was originally paid for through September. On October 1, ReThink911 announced it had raised another $25,000 to keep it through the month.

Four days later, ReThink911 also launched "Media Blitz Week," designed to get the New York media's attention. From the website:

Join this media blitz campaign to tell the NYC media that there has been a giant ReThink911 billboard in Times Square since September 3rd. The 54-feet-tall billboard asks New Yorkers if they know a third tower fell on 9/11. A recent poll shows that, after 12 years, only 1 in 2 Americans know about the collapse of WTC Building 7. Mainstream media cannot and should not ignore this ─ but they have so far. With the participation of thousands of ReThink911 supporters like you, this can change.

The campaign targeted five publications: the New York Times, the Post, the Daily News, Newsday and the Voice.

"Two of the Village Voice's partner alternative weekly newspapers - the Dallas Observer and SF Weekly - already covered the ReThink911 campaign," the announcement read. "So there's a good chance the Village Voice will, too--if we send a loud enough message."

On Friday, we started getting the e-mails.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
79 comments
jared.hallstrom
jared.hallstrom

If you see the footage of WTC7 and think it was brought down by office fires and structural damage, you need help. If you know the truth, go about your day and don't waste time on these ancient ignorant people (some of them obviously disinformation shills). I am not a conspiracy nutjob. I have common sense, and common sense tells me that believing a 47 story building collapsing in 10 seconds is anything but controlled demolition is a strong testament to power of the ignorance of well intentioned people. Have a nice day:)

editorsvoice
editorsvoice

Is it significant that one of the skyscrapers that collapsed at the World Trade Center on 9/11 did so at free fall?

alburyt
alburyt

ANETA911 has obviously not read too many of my comments here, but why was his or her last post removed?

t99813
t99813

 @alburyt @ANETA911

"When are troofers going to realize that your fumbling assaults on the real experts from NIST do nothing whatsoever to substantiate your C/D "theory"?"

Who are the ones that submitted an Official report for WTC7?  NIST.   Where should the focus of criticism be?  The NIST WTC7 report.  Why?  because they did not produce the "best hypothesis" to explain the observational and measured data.  After submitting the fraudulent report with many of its statements supported by a computer model that visually does not match the collapse seen and failing to make key measurements; they hid their model's data.  That is why their report will continue to be criticized. 

Your second paragraph is another fools-errand.  This time instead of making your own computer model you have to go figure out the explosives that were used and then do another demonstration.  For who, you Albury?  LOL.  None of this is required because we have plenty of reason to doubt the official narrative provided by NIST.

For example, if some objective scientists were actually assigned the WTC7 investigation they would do some basic things:

1.  They would have an open mind and not predetermine that CD was not possible because terrorists could not access the building.  They would just scientifically investigate the cause of the buildings collapse.

2.  As NIST said at least several times in their owner report (example NCSTAR1A (Oct 2008) Page xxxv "However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin.  As a result, there are some facts that could not be discerned and, thus, there are uncertainties in this accounting."  They go on to say that they had sufficient information to reach firm findings.  What the quote says is I do not have alot of physical evidence because it was removed from the crime scene before I started investigating.  I do assume here that Anna believes a crime was committed and we can call this a crime scene...  Now one thing NIST has is the videos from that day.  As a statement of science, observationally, WTC7s collapse on video is sudden, total, global and symmetrical.  This was apparent to many on that day and is still apparent to those who see the video.  So observationally NIST engineers should have been thinking CD as that is what it looked like observationally.  Reminder Anna, observation, is a key part of science.

3.  An group of objective scientists would have seen this observational evidence and started to see if any data could be gathered to support a hypothesis of demolition.  This did not happen.  NIST instead did a thought experiment where they ended up choosing RDX as the demolition material (in their mind) and then determined the decibel level of that blast.  They concluded this decibel level of explosion did not occur therefore CD did not occur.  Those who did actually go do real science instead of a thought experiment have the following measured results.

NIST was informed during their public comment discussion that FREEFALL acceleration was measured in the video and their was 2.25 seconds of measured freefall that is related to the descent of the roofline we see in the video.  NIST did not take that measurement in all those years of investigating with very little evidence on hand.  Yes the videos being a key piece of evidence they had in their possession you'd expect the "exhaustive" investigation Anna believes happened to have made these measurements, but NIST did not.  

This information revealed to NIST by a science teacher who'd actually done his homework led to the revisions I addressed to Anna in a earlier post where I pointed to an example of what this new information caused NIST to edit in their report.  Verification of this for a reporter like Anna would take about 10 minutes and its only 5 pages of reading.  Here is a clip in case she wants to do some actual investigative journalism.

"I want to direct you to the DRAFT for public comment (Aug 2008) section 3.6 of NCSTAR 1A pages 40 and 41.

There is a second version of NCSTAR 1A released in Oct of 2008 that represents the final release.  Basically, the final edits were made after the public comment period and the final release of NIST's report was made.

I want to direct you to the Final Release (Oct 2008) section 3.6 of NCSTAR 1A pages 44, 45, 46"

You might ask... how could they edit this section but not really take its relevance into account in altering the narrative of their report and its conclusions?  I ask that same question because they inserted freefall into their report as if it happened in a vacuum.

Additionally, scientists actually measured forensically for explosives and found indications of demolition materials.  They published a scientific report in a peer reviewed journal.

The point here is that when objective scientists did science evidence was uncovered.  NIST did thought experiments and obviously skipped measurements.  They predetermined it was not CD and then formed a report with an unscientific computer model to back their claims.

4.  They hid their models data. See comment below.

 What do you think Anna, don't you see enough information to warrant a real story from an official source that actually criticizes the weakness of NIST's report?  I mean you said you do not have to worry about your job and are free to write about anything without reprisal, right?

ANETA911
ANETA911

Anna, please watch the Experts Speak Out video and consider revising your inaccurate statement: "What the video conspicuously does not mention is an exhaustive 2008 report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),"  

This video mentions the NIST report - many times, and the many problems with it.  It has been one of the most viewed videos on Colorado Public TV.
http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138

Basically, NIST says "here is our computer model (a cartoon) of the WTC collapse based on the data" but refuses Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests to release the data to the scientific community "for public safety".   If there is nothing to hide they will release it.

FYI: "JohnDoe090" (obviously a made up name) is not a member of the Association for Nine Eleven Truth Awareness which is opposed to the use of naughty words.  Please do not associate his comment with all 9/11 Truthers.

johndoe090
johndoe090

Anna,

Kindly, go fuck yourself.

Sincerely, 

John

t99813
t99813

 @alburyt @t99813  

Our exchange is clear to anyone reading this exchange.  I completely answered "how" the statement  “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” in its language and its' context {in the section V "Creating Tomorrows Dominant Force" in "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Sept 2000)} clearly demonstrated motive, means and opportunity.  

You are trying to say the words do not mean that without addressing the words themselves or their context.  You are trying to move the view to such a high level as to obscure this factual statement that not only represents motive, means and opportunity, but also actually describes the magnitude of the event that occurred and leading to the accomplishment of the desired and needed outcome a year after it was made.  That's a year later when members of that group were in key positions within our government.

Despite your not addressing the statement being an obvious dodge of the issue you further your deception by trying to say that the Neocons did not accomplish the majority of what was in "Rebuilding America's Defenses".  That is also not true.

First they needed to get the funding then they could implement their plan.  You want to try and focus on what exactly they used "the 911 Pentagon funding event" to actually change after receiving the funding.  What a dodge!  I think I could say ,for example, that in our new "Drone" mode and other major technological military advances that the "transformation" of the US force "to exploit the revolution in military affairs;" was achieved.  So what?  You imply we need to go do some sort of count on how many high end weapons they acquired versus what they asked for in the document.  That is irrelevant to this discussion.  A year had passed so your meaningless distraction is just a futile attempt to avoid the pertinent incriminating statement.

 This Neocon think tank in September of 2000 put forth a strong case for why they desperately needed Pentagon funding to achieve objectives aimed at securing the US super power status in the next century.  They needed and desired this funding.  They listed a means of getting the funding as a catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.  Members of this think tank were in key positions of power within the US government giving them access to everything required to execute a false flag attack.  They had resources like the Military Industrial Complex and agencies like the CIA both of which would be in favor of more funding to the Pentagon.  They could get access to everything necessary for both 911 and the Anthrax attacks. 

There is no way around this.  It is just the facts.  I understand that these facts are not evaluated or examined by anyone to include journalists like Anna.  I understand that they are obvious.  Now let's watch you provide another response that does not address the words ...
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

I'll be waiting for your next round of.... those words don't mean that.... but I (Albury) can't tell you specifically what they do mean.....  LOL

t99813
t99813

Dear Anna,

I would also like to offer you some additional information regarding NIST's exhaustive report on WTC7.

As you are supposed to be a journalist I will offer you some specific things followed by some simple questions.

1.  There are two versions of the WTC7 report so let me direct you to some simple examples that would require very minimal reading to substantiate what I put forth here.  In Aug 2008 NIST released the "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" that can easily be googled it will be NCSTAR 1A.  This version will say "DRAFT for public comment".

I want to direct you to the DRAFT for public comment (Aug 2008) section 3.6 of NCSTAR 1A pages 40 and 41.

There is a second version of NCSTAR 1A released in Oct of 2008 that represents the final release.  Basically, the final edits were made after the public comment period and the final release of NIST's report was made.

I want to direct you to the Final Release (Oct 2008) section 3.6 of NCSTAR 1A pages 44, 45, 46


Now what we are talking about here is finding these docs on the internet (take about 10 mins to find and download) and reading FIVE pages.  

These 5 pages represent more than just NIST's changes to their report following the public comment period, they represent their bias, their predetermination as to the cause of the collapse, their incompetence and their complete lack of common sense.

In Aug of 2008, seven years after the event NIST finally releases its report and has the public comment period.  {Now keep in mind if you just read NCSTAR 1A (about 70 pages) you'd see them state several times that most of the evidence had been destroyed by the time they were funded to do the investigation (Neocons delaying and covering up)}.  It was at this public comment period a science teacher informed NIST that the descent of WTC7's roofline occurred at FREEFALL acceleration.  Not at almost freefall but actual freefall.  This is NOT NIST telling the science teacher but the science teacher informing NIST.  That is correct... after 7 years the NIST team who stated many times they did not have alot of evidence had not even examined the videos they did have well enough to identify the freefall drop of WTC7 that observationally looked exactly like a controlled demolition.  Think about that! 


2.  NIST released their WTC7 report with statements and conclusions largely substantiated by their computer model and  on July 9, 2009 NIST's director made that computer model's data SECRET.  You might think... well that's not that substantial.. except this is what was made secret according to NIST's memorandum.

"1.Al 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."

You could go look up what the term "full disclosure" means and easily come to the conclusion that NIST's model with its secret data cannot be considered scientific but "faith" based as it derives its legitimacy purely from the fact the government released it.  It's authenticity is based on authority... that is not science.

You could also ask why a collapsed buildings model data from 12 years ago would be considered a "Public Safety" Issue and need to be withheld.


This are just some of the very very obvious things that tell anyone looking into WTC7 that there has been a coverup.

t99813
t99813

@alburyt   @t99813

When you say "No DESIRE or NEED for a "new Pearl Harbor" is stated in it" referring to Rebuilding America's Defenses... it is just not true.  I will clearly demonstrate how your statement is untrue.

In "Rebuilding America's Defenses" section V titled "Creating Tomorrows Dominant Force" the Neocons clearly state the importance of the transformation that needs to occur.  The entire document is put forth by the Neocons in Sept of 2000 as what is required for America to maintain its superpower status in the new century.  The Neocon's see the need as urgent to America's future.  According to them America needs to dominate militarily in the next century to maintain our super power status.  Note:  this is exactly what America has been doing since 911 (dominating militarily).

They explicitly state that the transformation is not going to occur because the Pentagon is not getting the funding required to make the transformation.  In the section V they are very concerned about the lack of funding for the Pentagon and urgently emphasize how this funding is absolutely necessary to achieve the "transformation".  On page 51 they state
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

The words "a long one" mean that the lack of Pentagon funding will make the "transformation" process take a long time.  For the Neocons this is bad as the "transformation" is imperative to America's dominance as a super power in the next century.  "a long one" means that due to a lack of funding it is going to take a long time... "a long one" is not a good thing for the Neocons agenda.

The words "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event" mean that an event that was catastrophic and catalyzing would bring the funding and allow the transformation to go faster.  This is specifically where the Neocons express the "need" for the event.  This is specifically the language they wrote that makes your statement incorrect Albury.  If the catastrophic event is not absent then the funding will appear and the transformation will go faster.  Transformation faster equals good for Neocons.  In simpler terms you can just think of what would have happened if there was NO 911 event.  How much extra funding would the Pentagon have received?  None!  It is blatantly clear that they see a catastrophic and catalyzing event as a means to getting the funding they desire, therefore, they express a "need" for such an event.  Your problem here Albury is that you cannot change the words they have written in the document and when read in context the words and what they mean are crystal clear.

What is the magnitude of the catastrophic and catalyzing event that needs to occur?  The Neocons provide us with a scale.  A Pearl Harbor sized event is what the Neocon's believe would be large enough to achieve the Pentagon funding needed to do the "transformation".  So an event much smaller like the bombing of the towers in the 1990s would not be sufficient.  There needed to be a Pearl Harbor magnitude event and this is the reason the entire world trade center was destroyed.  If at the end of the day there were two towers damaged and smoldering but still standing then the event would not have been of a Pearl Harbor magnitude and would not suffice.  The entire trade center needed to be laid to waste and it was to include WTC7.

I propose that anyone who takes the time to read Rebuilding America's Defenses will clearly be able to see that what I have written above for content and context is correct.  Taking into account that this Neocon think tank included Cheney and Rumsfeld  provides all three aspects of a crime MOTIVE, MEANS AND OPPORTUNITY.  Add to this the access these two individuals had with the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and agencies like the CIA and clearly they had everything necessary to pull this off.  We know in the past through declassification of documents like Operation Northwoods that the MIC will plot terrorist acts against its own citizenry (False Flags) to futher their own agenda.

Now Albury if you want to dispute what these words mean please be specific.  I have clearly laid out what the words written by the Neocons meant in their context.  Anyone reading the same document (even a lazy fake journalist like Anna) with basic reading comprehension skills would come to the same conclusion.  Now if you'd still like to dispute it then please do not do so by just saying I am wrong.  If you disagree then say SPECIFICALLY what the words mean.  Use the actual Neocon words and say what they mean if it is something different than what I have outline above.  It is crystal clear that the Neocons expressed a "need" for a New Pearl Harbor sized event to achieve the Pentagon funding levels required to complete the transformation they desired.  THE END.

Filmon
Filmon

Appreciate the Voice's response, but Anna hasn't done her research. It's as simple as that.

Why she would assume the editors of Popular Mechanics, who are clearly just parroting the NIST report (each time, even when they've been wrong) have it right over the objections of over 2,000 architects and engineers tells us a lot about how silly Plummeting Highrises theories are perpetuated.

cyrilpenn
cyrilpenn

Thank you Anna for your coverage. The evidence that 911 was an inside job is completely overwhelming, This isn't about "theories." There's a mountain of evidence -  it goes on and on and on - the obvious facts about Building 7 gong down at free-fall speed included. Please take more time to look into this just for your own edification. You will be surprised. Best Regards.

alburyt
alburyt

If we need a 9/11 "truth movement" to keep reminding us that a third hi-rise collapsed on 9/11, then what was the motive for this alleged secret (impossible) C/D in the first place? US troops were already as good as in Afghanistan at ~5:21 PM, the owner lost his tenants and cash flow for years, ConEd had an expensive substation destroyed, ICI lost $868 million on the insurance claim, and the money just went to rebuilding it. Did the NYC building trades do it to provide work for their members?

matosin2
matosin2

An important thing to mention is the fact that dozens of witnesses gave recorded testimony as to the presence of tons of flowing, molten iron and/or steel in the rubble of the twin towers. This is crucial because ordinary open-air building fires, including those involving jet fuel, do not even approach the temperatures necessary to melt iron or steel. This is indisputable hard science and shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that factors other than those cited in the official conspiracy theory were involved in the destruction of these buildings. In addition to this, pieces of structural steel with large holes in them were found in the rubble of WTC 7. Experts concluded that the steel was melted and even evaporated which again requires enormously high temperatures. Scientists including Steven Jones and Niels Harrit have identified still-unreacted nano-engineered, thermitc explosives in the WTC dust. This explains both the presence of molten iron and the extremely high temperatures.

t99813
t99813

Dear Anna,

There is a reason for so much criticism of journalism by the public and by the few remaining investigative journalist in the world.  It's pieces like the one you have written here.  Your problem is your trust in statements made by "authorities" and accepting them as true.  For example, you said "What the video conspicuously does not mention is an exhaustive 2008 report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which concluded that a combination of intense fire and widespread structural damage".  You utterance of this statement is laughable given the depth to which Architects and Engineers have actually studied the NIST WTC7 report and clearly demonstrated it to be not only false but unscientific.

1.  you watch the video of the WTC7 collapse and with your own eyes witness a sudden, total, global, symmetrical collapse.

2.  You read in the NIST report that AFTER the tower collapses WTC7 had 52 perimeter and 24 interior columns in tact.  

3.  You read in NCSTAR 1A Section 3.6 Pages 44, 45, 46 that the initial descent of WTC7's roofline occurred at FREEFALL acceleration.  Not almost freefall but actual freefall.

Question:  How can 1,2,and 3 above be true from fire alone?  It can't..

To add to this comedic article you start bringing up silly things like Popular Mechanics debunking it all.  Again you take their word on it because they're an "authority" for you.  Popular mechanics states that the damage from the tower collapses and fires caused WTC7 collapse while NIST says on Page 48 of NCSTAR 1A "Even without the initial structural damage caused by the debris impact from the collapse of WTC1, WTC7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.".  So which is it Anna?

This popular mechanics group said the reason there was not a quicker response to the attacks was the terrorists turned off the planes transponders and air traffic control could not track them.  This statement is ridiculous on its face.  The blips were still on the screen and could easily be tracked.  They even stood out from the other radar signatures because they no longer had transponders activated.

 The problem with pretend journalists like you is that you are lazy.  You do not do your homework and parrot what others state as fact when it is not fact.  We see this every single day on the news when one new place says a story and the same words are spoken on every different networks news programs.  You are a bunch of parrots...  you are a disgrace!  What I have pointed out here are just a few of the many things demonstrating the government narrative represented by their WTC7 report is false.  However, lets not forget it is also clearly unscientific.  Why?  because it relies on its "authority" (the government) to derive its validity.  Typically science is validated through a process known as full disclosure.  This allows scientists to review the information and test it to validate.  NIST did not do this...  Their report you call "exhaustive" has many of its conclusions and statements based on their computer model.  This computer model has its data hidden, secret, withheld.  On July 9, 2009 the director of NIST withheld this data.  What data?

"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."

A report full of statements supported by a computer model, where that models data is made secret is not scientific.  Once the model data is made secret the model loses all scientific credibility as does the report itself.

Lastly, you try to claim that journalists are not prevented from doing in depth investigations into 9/11 but how do you explain the fact that no one anywhere in journalism is doing an in depth investigation.  Of all the journalists in the world what are the statistical chances that ZERO would find 9/11 worthy of in depth investigation.  Of all the issues in the world journalists and others fight over daily it just so happens this one issue they all agree on... everywhere?  Yeah right!

 However why would any of us be surprised?!  It is journalists like you that have already gotten very comfortable with the fact the US government is recording the content of all our phone calls, emails etc...  they are doing this with no probable cause or court order.  I am not saying my phone calls ... I'm saying yours, mine and everyone we know.  I am not saying Meta Data either as they have 5 ZETA bytes of data storage in Co alone.  A single Zeta Byte stores 250billion DVDs worth of information + we have whistle blowers like Binney, Tice and Snowden telling us they are doing so.  

So please do not try to pretend like you know anything about 9/11.  It is the biggest event in your lifetime, it changed world and US history, it has brought an escalating police state in America and you know nothing about it.  

Shame on you,

SB


alburyt
alburyt

@editorsvoice

Not one of the three did, and trying to divine the cause of a building collapse by timing it is just plain stupid. The towers took 15+ and 22+ seconds vs ~9.22 seconds for free fall from 1368':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

and WTC 7's EXTERIOR collapsed in ~8.5 seconds vs ~6.15 seconds for free fall from 610'. The reason for One-Trick Chandler's precious ~2.25 seconds at g is easily explained by the collapse sequence and framing connection details, i.e. there was no MEASURABLE resistance immediately after all of the exterior columns buckled and snapped in unison. They were 100% moment connected to spandrel beams, so that's the only way they could've collapsed.

alburyt
alburyt

@t99813 @alburyt @ANETA911 Why is your ae911"truth" hiding its own models? The input data's spoon-fed to you in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, 1-9A, etc., and the NIST WTC 7 reports were released MORE THAN FIVE YEARS AGO. If you ever bothered to read NCSTAR 1A 3.5.2 Aspects following the Global Collapse Initiation, you'd know that the OBVIOUS mismatch between collapse videos and their computer animation was fully explained. 

alburyt
alburyt

@ANETA911

When are troofers going to realize that your fumbling assaults on the real experts from NIST do nothing whatsoever to substantiate your C/D "theory"?

Ask Box Boy* and his so-called "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
If they ever HAD TO do it, this "debate" would be OVER.

*Box Boy's ONLY 9/11 "research":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw

alburyt
alburyt

@johndoe090 A 9/11 truther nut shows once again what a class act his 9/11 "truth movement" is...

alburyt
alburyt

@t99813 You just contradicted yourself with the July 9, 2009 NIST letter from Dr. Gallagher regarding the NCST Act. The DATA isn't even mentioned by him; he explained why the FILES weren't PUBLICLY released. The input data's spoon-fed to your "researchers" in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, and 1-9A, and it's been FIVE YEARS since those reports were released, so when are Box Boy and his "nearly 2000 experts" going to do their own modeling of WTC 7's column 79 area? Have any of these "experts" ever requested to see the files at a NIST facility? The NIST engineers and IT experts didn't need to see someone else's complete work product in advance, so why do Box Boy's? Think about it before presenting your straw man again.

Your fumbling assaults on real experts do nothing to substantiate the secret C/D "theory," so let's see it in action on even ONE of these very representative core columns used in all 3 collapsed WTC hi-rises:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png&imgrefurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/sustainability8.html&h=478&w=638&sz=404&tbnid=q-S41Ix2mT4HeM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=122&zoom=1&usg=__UlCatIoHNuaIBUbQaF2PuEchSxU=&docid=adi9gO1tvsGG9M&sa=X&ei=FIbgUaLxFOr54APlsYHABA&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAw&dur=135

alburyt
alburyt

@t99813 @alburyt READ the PNAC paper. Getting US troops bogged down in third-world countries fighting asymmetrical wars against insurgents was not even anticipated by the neocons who wrote it; they wanted very sophisticated weaponry that's useless in such a conflict, and hundreds of billions of dollars were diverted to the quagmires that resulted from the al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11.

"Rebuilding America's Defenses" was written in anticipation of a possible conventional war against another superpower, not in hopes of getting better defenses to protect US troops from IEDs. The Pentagon funding levels certainly went up, but not in the way they wanted.

After reaching (relative) safety in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden ADMITTED to his Planes Operation, gloated over it, praised "Allah" and his "martyrs," and threatened "more Manhattans" if US troops didn't leave all Muslim lands immediately. How many times since 2001 did he or any AQ operative, or any relative of one, ever DENY 9/11? Do you know how wealthy and influential the bin Ladens are in SA, and the Zawahiris and Azzams (Ayman's mother's family) are in Egypt? Are they too bashful to defend their own relatives from these charges, or don't they have access to the world's media?

alburyt
alburyt

@cyrilpenn Divining the cause of a building collapse from its acceleration is just plain stupid, but WTC 7's collapse took at least 16 seconds, and only the t=1.75 to t=4-seconds portion of the EXTERIOR collapse was at g. It's easily explained by the exterior column connection details and the collapse sequence, and is shown in NIST's modeling.

Watch any video of the VISIBLE part of the collapse and tell me how Box Boy and other 9/11 "researchers" got 6.5 or 6.6 seconds for the entire 610'. It took ~8.5 seconds, and is impossible to time to the nearest 1/10 second because buildings and dust block the view of the lower floors in all of them.

t99813
t99813

@alburyt  

You comments are silly...

The world trade center was bombed in the past and the US did not goto War in the middle east.  Obviously this time around those planning the event wanted the World Trade Center (including Building 7) completely destroyed.  

Why?  What is the motive?  It is actually written down in the Neocon Document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (September 2000) where on Page 51 it says “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”.

So to answer you question WTC7 and the entire world trade center was destroyed to bring the New Pearl Harbor.  I think we all know that 9/11 has been called the New Pearl Harbor about a gazillion times.

 Who was a part of the Neocon think tank that wrote those words?  Cheney and Rumsfeld.  So those words were not written by some obscure figures working at a university, or some guy blogging in Ohio...  they were written by a group that was actually in key positions of power at the time of the attacks.  Those words represent "MOTIVE" and were written by folks who actually had "MEANS" and "OPPORTUNITY".  Not that a journalist like Anna would be able to deduce that unless it was written out in small words using crayon.

 Interestingly those Neocon's got the Pentagon funding they were complaining about after they stated a New Pearl Harbor would produce it for them.  Not sure why this is never taken into consideration as it is so freaking obvious.

t99813
t99813

Thanks for confirming that NIST did not publicly release the files.  However, what you are trying to provide after this admission is an excuse.  The NCST does not suffice as an excuse and neither does a note from mom. Stop trying to change the subject regarding the model data being withheld, made secret, hidden to talking about the report that the model is used to support conclusions in.

Making a second model as you suggest is a fools errand.  There is a model submitted by NIST that needs validation to be scientific.  Lets not go make another one, lets take the one that exists, that is submitted by the US Gov to support the narrative in the their report.

Lastly, the freefall acceleration of WTC7 is not some fact in isolation.  

Fact after the collapse of the two towers this building

Fact after the collapse of the two towers this building had 52 perimeter and 24 interior columns still in tact

Fact this plan was not struck by a jetliner

Observation = on the video is a 47-story, steel, fire-proofed, high-rise exhibiting a sudden, total, symmetrical collapse.

Data = The descent of the roof line is measured to be 9.81 m/s2, or as NIST states in NCSTAR1A Page 45 "equivalent to the acceleration of gravity, g."

Stop trying to cover up their dishonest report with its hidden data.

 


 


alburyt
alburyt

@t99813 You're confusing DATA with FILES. Because of the NCST Act, the complete ANSYS & LS-DYNA files weren't PUBLICLY released by NIST, but the data's spoon-fed to your "researchers" in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, 1-9A, etc. It's been FIVE YEARS, so when are Box Boy and his "nearly 2000 experts" going to run competing models of WTC 7's column 79 area? They could also see the complete files at a NIST facility, so why haven't they requested it? Do real SEs just sit around whining about the law? The ones who try to divine the causes of building collapses by their acceleration apparently do.

t99813
t99813

@alburyt @t99813 @ANETA911  

There is only one model with hidden data and that belongs to NIST.  I understand the difficult position they have left you in, but denial/diversion is not going to help.  NIST submitted their report and model as representing the official government narrative, and it is only their model that needs to be scrutinized.  We do not need a second model because the first model has not been addressed.

Also thanks for confirming that there is a mismatch between NIST's computer animation and collapse video, Albury.  I know.


t99813
t99813

@alburyt  

I do not endorse the words but have been called much worse by supporters of the US government's narrative.  

I know how your US gov narrative supporters like to lump us all together in a very Jonathanesque way in an effort to disparage.  The people who believe in the variations of 911 truth, moon landing deniers, aliens walking among us etc.. its all the same nut job crowd, is the message you like to put forth.  Oh and in your particular case Albury you like to say that OBL and Al Qaeda are our heroes because we do not believe the US govs narrative.  Apparently that makes us traitors...  lol

 However, that does not change the exchanges we've had at this site where in every case you have been unable to rise to the challenge.  No need to go back through it all as it is written plainly below for anyone to see.  Just let us know when you actually want to explain the Neocon words “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." using the actual words in your explanation...  LOL

t99813
t99813

@alburyt @t99813  

Thanks again for confirming that NIST withheld the model data although I did make that pretty clear by pasting the quote of the data withheld from his statement.  You saying he did not mention #1 and #2 in his finding statement and again you are incorrect.  Here is the full text from the July 9, 2009 notification from Gallagher:


“Finding Regarding Public Safety Information

Pursuant to Section 7(d0 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.Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information:

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.

 Signed by Patrick Gallagher"

So I have no idea why you're saying he did not reference it, but given you posts so far I'm starting to think you were for the same place as Anna where no one does any homework.

  

There you are again with your silly... "why don't they make their own models" argument.  Why?  So there will be two disputed models?

The US government agency NIST made a model using US tax payer money.  They used this model to support statements and conclusions in their report on WTC7.  It is that model and ONLY that model that must be validated through "Full Disclosure".   The END. 

 

t99813
t99813

@alburyt @t99813 

LOL  

I clearly showed how the Neocons expressed a "need" for a new Pearl Harbor and did so using the language and context of their document and this is your comeback.  Weak.. non-responsive.. pathetic.. why even bother stroking the keyboard...

You want to say those words do not mean what they mean, but you can't come up with a different narrative for those words... it's really quite sad.

alburyt
alburyt

@t99813 @alburyt Read the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" instead of David Ray Griffin's dishonest spin on it. No NEED or DESIRE for a "new Pearl Harbor" is ever expressed, and the al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11 drew hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars away from the high-tech weaponry the neocons were drooling over.

The motive for the 9/11 Planes Operation is very obvious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68fExbnok4o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW8_Zbsirdw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiKyWJRRjnU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qloshSGAJ1s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHe7Q2oWLB0 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...]"

alburyt
alburyt

@t99813 Thanks for confirming that you haven't read Dr. Gallagher's letter or don't understand it. You also haven't read NCSTAR 1A or watched any of One-Trick Chandler's goofy videos if you think WTC 7's entire 610' exterior collapsed at g. I've already explained why his precious ~2.25 seconds occurred, as does the NIST collapse sequence and modeling.

You haven't explained why Box Boy and "nearly 2000 experts" haven't modeled WTC 7's col. 79 area using the reams of input data spoon-fed to them in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, and 1-9A. FIVE YEARS isn't enough time for them, or they just like whining about the NCST Act? 

matosin2
matosin2

@alburyt @t99813 It is the contention of AE911 that fires and limited damage could not have caused the destruction scenario that took place with WTC 7. On the other hand, controlled demolition most certainly could have produced the destruction scenario. This is beyond dispute. Why therefore should AE911 spend time creating a computer model to duplicate something that everyone already knows IS possible?

alburyt
alburyt

@t99813 @alburyt @ANETA911 So do the NIST investigators, and it's fully explained in NCSTAR 1A 3.5.2 Aspects following the Global Collapse Initiation. It's unfortunate that you don't think scientific method applies to Box Boy and his "experts," but since they're stupid enough to believe that bashing NIST provides C/D evidence, running new and independent models of WTC 7's column 79 area using the reams of input data spoon-fed to them in the NIST WTC 7 reports should've been done by them years ago. The FILES could also be examined by them at a NIST facility, so when are they going to request to see them?

alburyt
alburyt

@t99813 @alburyt How many shiny new F22s did the PNAC neocons get out of the al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11? How was the U.S. Navy's "position of unchallenged supremacy on the high seas" enhanced by the costly asymmetrical warfare and nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq?

The words are self-explanatory - they wanted the US to upgrade its military for a possible conventional war against another superpower, and 9/11 actually hindered the achievement of that goal. The Pearl Harbor reference simply meant that these changes would come eventually, but would happen more quickly if the US were attacked by a nation with sophisticated weaponry, as it was on December 7, 1941.

t99813
t99813

@alburyt @t99813  

 Uh... If I am lying then why don't you try to explain what the words mean to all of us using the actual words themselves.  Just telling me I lie but not telling us what the words mean is disingenuous.  You can't just sit back and tell me I lie or I'm wrong as if you know that the words do not mean what I stated (although anyone reading them in their context would clearly see that is the truth) without YOU using the actual words in telling us what they do mean.  

t99813
t99813

@alburyt @t99813  

LOL...

There has not been a single time you have even tried to explain those Neocon words using the actual language of the statement.  The words mean what they mean, you can't change that you can only say I'm wrong about what they mean without actually telling the rest of us what they do mean.  It's funny and sad.

alburyt
alburyt

@t99813 @alburyt Square peg? Meet round hole. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

t99813
t99813

@alburyt @t99813  

Albury, everytime you try to reference  “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." without actually referencing the words themselves, you make me lol.  

This strategy of yours that those words do not mean that, but I cannot say what those words mean myself is just not working for you.  

I understand that you cannot take the words in their context and make them mean anything else than what I have put forth, but that's life.

Sometimes you just have to admit certain things to be true because they are true.


alburyt
alburyt

@t99813 @alburyt  No; YOUR position is "very week" [sic]. As I explained to you several times before, NIST's ANSYS & LS-DYNA FILES were not PUBLICLY released, but the DATA is spoon-fed to your "experts" in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, 1-9A, etc. It's diversion and a fool's errand to do nothing but whine about the NCST Act and NOT run new and independent models.

t99813
t99813

@alburyt @t99813  

There you are still deflecting and trying to send people off on the fools errand.  A competing model is a ridiculous idea.  It is even more ridiculous for an unvalidated model like NISTs.  As it stands right now you are not referring to a validated model because NIST hid their data.

You next comment about "data" just proves what you are for all reading this thread.  Apparently, you are speaking about the word "data" and are unwilling to conceded that what is written in #s 1 and 2 (example: "input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model") represent the word "data".  This moves you deeply into the category of "shill".

I do not need to get back with you for anything.  At every turn you are shown to be all about diversion, disinformation, dodging and flat out lies.  No one anywhere needs your approval for anything especially when it comes to the events of 911.  For every single topic we have engaged on at this site your positions have been very very week. 

alburyt
alburyt

@t99813 @alburyt A common and very effective way for real scientists & engineers to invalidate a model is by running a competing one, or doesn't scientific method apply to Box Boy and his "experts"? I've obviously read Dr. Gallagher's letter or I wouldn't have known the exact date on it, and I'm still wondering where you saw DATA mentioned in it.

Get back to me when they demonstarte their secret explosives or incendiaries "theory" on the 4.91" flanges and 3.07" webs of one of these:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png&imgrefurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/sustainability8.html&h=478&w=638&sz=404&tbnid=q-S41Ix2mT4HeM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=122&zoom=1&usg=__UlCatIoHNuaIBUbQaF2PuEchSxU=&docid=adi9gO1tvsGG9M&sa=X&ei=FIbgUaLxFOr54APlsYHABA&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAw&dur=135

alburyt
alburyt

@t99813 @alburyt You copied and pasted their reference to a "new Pearl Harbor" and then put your own spin on it, ignoring the sentences immediately following it:

"Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come."

What does US carrier production or # of F-22s in service have to do with fighting insurgents in third-world countries? Read the paper, not David Ray Griffin's lies about it. The motive for 9/11 is right here, no spin needed:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military/july-dec96/fatwa_1996.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military/jan-june98/fatwa_1998.html

t99813
t99813

@alburyt @t99813  

Our exchange is clear to anyone reading this exchange.  I completely answered "how" the statement  “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” in its language and its' context {in the section V "Creating Tomorrows Dominant Force" in "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Sept 2000)} clearly demonstrated motive, means and opportunity.  

You are trying to say the words do not mean that without addressing the words themselves or their context.  You are trying to move the view to such a high level as to obscure this factual statement that not only represents motive, means and opportunity, but also actually describes the magnitude of the event that occurred and leading to the accomplishment of the desired and needed outcome a year after it was made.  That's a year later when members of that group were in key positions within our government.

Despite your not addressing the statement being an obvious dodge of the issue you further your deception by trying to say that the Neocons did not accomplish the majority of what was in "Rebuilding America's Defenses".  That is also not true.

First they needed to get the funding then they could implement their plan.  You want to try and focus on what exactly they used "the 911 Pentagon funding event" to actually change after receiving the funding.  What a dodge!  I think I could say ,for example, that in our new "Drone" mode and other major technological military advances that the "transformation" of the US force "to exploit the revolution in military affairs;" was achieved.  So what?  You imply we need to go do some sort of count on how many high end weapons they acquired versus what they asked for in the document.  That is irrelevant to this discussion.  A year had passed so your meaningless distraction is just a futile attempt to avoid the pertinent incriminating statement.

 This Neocon think tank in September of 2000 put forth a strong case for why they desperately needed Pentagon funding to achieve objectives aimed at securing the US super power status in the next century.  They needed and desired this funding.  They listed a means of getting the funding as a catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.  Members of this think tank were in key positions of power within the US government giving them access to everything required to execute a false flag attack.  They had resources like the Military Industrial Complex and agencies like the CIA both of which would be in favor of more funding to the Pentagon.  They could get access to everything necessary for both 911 and the Anthrax attacks. 

There is no way around this.  It is just the facts.  I understand that these facts are not evaluated or examined by anyone to include journalists like Anna.  I understand that they are obvious.  Now let's watch you provide another response that does not address the words ...
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

I'll be waiting for your next round of.... those words don't mean that.... but I (Albury) can't tell you specifically what they do mean.....  LOL

t99813
t99813

@alburyt @t99813  

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” 

Using the language in the statement the Neocon's desire and need for the new Pearl Harbor was clearly explained.  Again your response avoids the actual statement and is non-responsive, therefore, shall be considered a dodge and ignored.

alburyt
alburyt

@t99813 @alburyt No; actually you didn't, nor have you explained the connection between the neocons' desire for high-tech weaponry to fight superpowers and the much more prosaic and mundane arming of Humvees to withstand IEDs, and the huge expenditures on infrastructure and government in Afghanistan and Iraq that were prompted by 9/11.

Please feel free to explain the difference in the US government's foreign policy goals if no WTC building had collapsed as a result of the al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11 too. We need a "truth movement" to remind us that WTC 7 also collapsed that day, so there goes any plausible and coherent motive for that one...

alburyt
alburyt

@t99813 @alburyt @matosin2 Stevie Wonder would've seen C/D evidence on the steel long before any "physical testing" was done. Were the ~40,000 different people at GZ at one time or another for nearly 8 months all blind and stupid, or were they all "in on it" too? Few to no FDNY are 9/11 troofers, and Box Boy has wisely chosen not to address them personally, or visit any of the Local 40 & 361 Ironworkers' meetings either.

Despite its title, the latest ae911"truth" dog-and-pony show has no EXPLOSIVE[S], EVIDENCE, or EXPERTS, so let's address at least the first two:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png&imgrefurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/sustainability8.html&h=478&w=638&sz=404&tbnid=q-S41Ix2mT4HeM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=122&zoom=1&usg=__UlCatIoHNuaIBUbQaF2PuEchSxU=&docid=adi9gO1tvsGG9M&sa=X&ei=FIbgUaLxFOr54APlsYHABA&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAw&dur=135

Go for it - on video, with audio.

t99813
t99813

@alburyt @matosin2 @t99813

1.  Your first paragraph is a copout aimed at misdirecting everyone to believe that there is some modeling that needs to be done by those AE911 Truth guys.  Wrong!  A model exists, created by NIST with taxpayer money.  This model is the one submitted by NIST as supporting their claims in the "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" , therefore, it is specifically this computer model that must undergo the scrutiny of "Full disclosure" to be validated.  Its data is hidden, secret, off limits and until it is not their computer model is "Faith" based and not science, end of discussion.

2.  Your second paragraph refers to NIST's thought experiments regarding controlled demolition.  They unscientifically predetermined that what had to be used was RDX and then stated what the decibel levels for RDX would be then abandoned any further work on CD.  Actual scientists that were unbiased would not take such an approach.  If one thinks about it with an open mind and just starts with "what if it was CD" then it follows that it would not be Al Qaeda getting access to these buildings.  It would follow that this would be more of an Operation Northwoods type event meaning the Military Industrial Complex and agencies like the CIA would be involved.  In the same way these groups are the only ones who had access to the high grade Anthrax used in the attacks that began the week after 9/11, they also have access to special demolition materials.  So using NIST's biased and unscientific approach of a thought experiment instead of PHYSICALLY TESTING FOR EXPLOSIVES was a great way for them to hide the evidence just like they hid their model's data.

3.  You last paragraph is just garbage that does not need to be addressed.

alburyt
alburyt

@matosin2

@alburyt

 @t99813

 That wasn't what I suggested, although what WTC computer modeling have Box Boy and his "experts" ever done? They seem to think their fumbling assaults on the NIST investigations somehow substantiate the secret C/D "theory," so why don't they run their own ANSYS & LS-DYNA models of WTC 7's col. 79 area for comparison to the NIST results, using the reams of input data spoon-fed to them in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, 1-9A, etc.?

If the possibility of secret controlled demolition is beyond dispute, then you haven't read Hypothetical Blast Scenarios in NCSTAR 1A. NIST claims 130 to 140 dB at a half mile for ONE explosive cut on ONE W14 X 730 core column, and disproving that's easy enough with a W14 X 730, some explosives, and some video recording equipment. Despite its title, Box Boy's latest dog-and-pony show has no EXPLOSIVE[S], EVIDENCE, or EXPERTS, but the first two could easily be addressed.

Let's take a look at the explosively-cut ends on the steel if they do manage to succeed (hopefully without loss of life or limb), and see whether they look like factory ends with connection plates, bolt holes, etc. Maybe the Local 40 & 361 ironworkers, the SEAoNY, PANYNJ, FEMA BPAT, NSF, and other SEs, and everyone else on site for the ~8 months of cleanup were all fooled, unless you think they were all "in on it" too.                                                                

t99813
t99813

@matosin2 @alburyt @t99813  

That is why I called it a fool's errand.

Here was my post in response to Albury:

Thanks for confirming that NIST did not publicly release the files.  However, what you are trying to provide after this admission is an excuse.  The NCST does not suffice as an excuse and neither does a note from mom. Stop trying to change the subject regarding the model data being withheld, made secret, hidden to talking about the report that the model is used to support conclusions in.

Making a second model as you suggest is a fools errand.  There is a model submitted by NIST that needs validation to be scientific.  Lets not go make another one, lets take the one that exists, that is submitted by the US Gov to support the narrative in the their report.

Lastly, the freefall acceleration of WTC7 is not some fact in isolation.  

Fact after the collapse of the two towers this building

Fact after the collapse of the two towers this building had 52 perimeter and 24 interior columns still in tact

Fact this plan was not struck by a jetliner

Observation = on the video is a 47-story, steel, fire-proofed, high-rise exhibiting a sudden, total, symmetrical collapse.

Data = The descent of the roof line is measured to be 9.81 m/s2, or as NIST states in NCSTAR1A Page 45 "equivalent to the acceleration of gravity, g."

Stop trying to cover up their dishonest report with its hidden data.

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...