Now on Youtube: Full Version "Experts Speak Out on 9/11 Truth"

Psalm 91 said:

Forcing air out of the building below??? Kind of like an accordion???? Perhaps this will help:

Click to expand...

The "piece" you see shooting out isn't even remotely the size of the top floors of the building. It is more than likely a piece of the outer aluminum frame of the WTC falling, as the floors have already pancaked and pulled away from this frame, allowing it to fall outwards, away from the building, as you see in the video.

Lollerskates said:

How many people that swear by the "official" story are scientists? How many are engineers? Civil enginners? Applied physicists? Stochastic modelers? Operations research scientists? Seriously, how many people know how to interpret the "data" put out by "scientists"?

When you can do your own laboratory analysis, "expert" analysis is trite. An aluminum tube filled with air (mostly) crashes into a steel-reinforced concrete skycraper. Aluminum wins? The density of aluminum vs steel reinforced concrete says the concrete should have won. Look at the stress, strain, and normals of steel-reinforced concrete vs. aluminum. Even aluminum going at 500 mph; do the math. It is no match for steel-reinforced concrete.

Click to expand...

The problem with this is that only core of the building contained concrete. The outer shell of the WTC was Aluminum itself, and the floors were horizontal, much of the aircraft would have passed along open space, colliding with the trusses (just steel, no concrete) and then the core columns.

Also, the aircraft hit the buildings with enough force to register on seismometers miles away. The total potential kinetic energy of the aircraft was equivalent to over 200 tons of TNT on impact.

Additionally, you may read the report HERE which includes all the mathematical data points to verify the potential acceleration, velocity, impact force, and other variables which backup the evidence.

Bjornke said:

The problem with this is that only core of the building contained concrete. The outer shell of the WTC was Aluminum itself, and the floors were horizontal, much of the aircraft would have passed along open space, colliding with the trusses (just steel, no concrete) and then the core columns.

Also, the aircraft hit the buildings with enough force to register on seismometers miles away. The total potential kinetic energy of the aircraft was equivalent to over 200 tons of TNT on impact.

Additionally, you may read the report HERE which includes all the mathematical data points to verify the potential acceleration, velocity, impact force, and other variables which backup the evidence.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

The plane did lose, initially, but it came in with such speed, the damage it caused from the collision and the fire is well understood.

PyGame said:

People still obsess over this?

I suppose people still believe in the 'New World Order' and illuminati as well.

Click to expand...

Off-topic. Why wouldn't people "obsess" over the cold-blooded murder of 3000 of their fellow citizens, which changed the course of the country, was the justification for 2 murderous wars in which millions of civilians have been killed not to mention thousands of US soldiers, and justifies the shredding of our rights which is still in the news every day, such as NSA? Also emboldening police and TSA to militarize and act as if we are a police state, in the name of fighting "terrorism?" This is not old news. This is affecting you RIGHT NOW.

Back on- topic, the original question, brought up by the film at time-stamp about 15:50, was why didn't NIST test for explosives in an unprecedented engineering failure at the least, when hundreds of witnesses and forensic evidence indicated they were used?

So we can establish as fact that NIST did not test for explosives, even if just to rule them out in the greatest crime of the century. You do not dispute this, so this fact stands. Then they destroy 99.5% of the steel evidence so there can NEVER be tests. The question at this point is not were explosives used.

The question is why would they not perform routine tests for them, before destroying the evidence?

At :16 seconds:
[youtube]zoAD8HlrLZg[/youtube]

Still frame:




[youtube]uxB7R-z6E1I[/youtube]

Bjornke said:

The problem with this is that only core of the building contained concrete. The outer shell of the WTC was Aluminum itself, and the floors were horizontal, much of the aircraft would have passed along open space, colliding with the trusses (just steel, no concrete) and then the core columns.

Also, the aircraft hit the buildings with enough force to register on seismometers miles away. The total potential kinetic energy of the aircraft was equivalent to over 200 tons of TNT on impact.

Additionally, you may read the report HERE which includes all the mathematical data points to verify the potential acceleration, velocity, impact force, and other variables which backup the evidence.

Click to expand...

Point of information, this is incorrect, the "outer shell" of the WTCs were 14-inch-wide steel beam perimeter columns, not "aluminum," which was just decoration. No engineer would ever make exterior support columns out of aluminum. The interior core was not "concrete" but 47, 5-footwide, interconnected steel columns, with extensive cross-bracing.

It is clear that the hollow aluminum tubes of the planes' fuselages got the short end of the stick, and were mostly shredded on impact. On the second hit the plane barely even touch the core columns, coming at a diagonal and just taking out one corner. So how did that core fail as well?


Twin Tower core backbone under construction

Illustration of main support columns






Shredded plane

South tower corner hit

bhsmte said:

Exactly.

The plane did lose, initially, but it came in with such speed, the damage it caused from the collision and the fire is well understood.

Click to expand...

The planes were shredded on impact by the steel frame the way an empty beer can would disintegrate if you fired it at an anvil.

ManFromUncle said:

The planes were shredded on impact by the steel frame the way an empty beer can would disintegrate if you fired it at an anvil.

Click to expand...

No, an anvil is solid all the way through, a building is not.

Bjornke said:

The problem with this is that only core of the building contained concrete. The outer shell of the WTC was Aluminum itself, and the floors were horizontal, much of the aircraft would have passed along open space, colliding with the trusses (just steel, no concrete) and then the core columns.

Click to expand...

Then why didn't the outside frame crumble into dust only, instead of the entire 110 story building by means of an aluminum tube fulled with air and water (humans)? Even the narrative my friend told me when it happened would have made more sense: she said WTC1 fell over on its side at the height the plane hit, into WTC2. If there was no magical physics (or lies,) that would be a very likely scenario. And, at that time that was outrageous, because I know aluminum tubes shread when hiting concrete - and even if they pierce concrete, they do not pulvarize them into dust and cause them to fall on their own footprint at the speed of free fall.

Also, the aircraft hit the buildings with enough force to register on seismometers miles away. The total potential kinetic energy of the aircraft was equivalent to over 200 tons of TNT on impact.

Click to expand...

They do? So you have accounted for density of materials, moments of inertia, center of mass, chemical energy, explositivity of fuels, velocity, atmospheric fluxuations, sheer, stress, strain, angle of impact, etc. yourself to be able to tell me that it hit with enough force to measure on seismometers? Or, the potential kinetic energy (I will assume you don't know, and are saying "possible/potential" kinetic energy) was over 200 tons of TNT?

Or, are you parroting what someone else has said, and have never even done the calculations to confirm yourself? Ask me; I will provide you with the math to why an aluminum tube wouldn't pulverize a steel-reinforced 110 story building (in the middle of skyscrapers over 50 stories.) As a bonus, I will even converse about why a 40 story building several hundred yards away would not fall at the speed of gravity on its own footprint from embers in the building, and no plane impact (WTC7.) I will even show you the BBC segment with WTC7 still in tact, but they report it as being collapsed completely. It's the BBC - "reputable," so there should be no qualms about trusting what you see, right?

Additionally, you may read the report HERE which includes all the mathematical data points to verify the potential acceleration, velocity, impact force, and other variables which backup the evidence.

Click to expand...

No, I am my own capable scientists (literally, physics.) I have seen the mathematical "data" and stories, especially plagued/insulted with "Popular Mechanics" and "Wired" articles my colleagues and professors have written. In the alternative world it is called "yellow science," but it is common in academia. There is plenty of independent scientific study that debunks the debunkers on 9/11. Ask me for that too (I compel you to ask me, since no matter if you agree or if it is right, you are responsible for whatever you receive, and whatever you do with it.)

Or, you can do your own research and forget about me. Start with integrating the mass of a 110 building with different densities (according to your assumption.) You can get the length, width and height, densities, and conversion factors online in this age of google. You may even be able to derive, or find online the integral formula for finding the total mass of an object with varying density. Honestly, I just don't care for ignorance and parroting. Just be totally complete about your arguments and "evidence." As I said, that article is an example of a debunker that has been debunked.

After looking at that pdf in greater detail, I realize you have to be kidding. The math is AP Physics/High School math. No integration/accounting for different densities (your claim on the outside,) no accounting for any type of peturbations, no stress, strain or shear factors, etc. It looks like a great (but highly lacking) freshman physics project on 9/11. Not impressive at all.

PsychoSarah said:

No, an anvil is solid all the way through, a building is not.

Click to expand...

That is true. Given the construction of the core a better analogy is an empty beer can shot through a big steel cheese grater. If you have doubts you can look at the remains of plane below cut up like a sardine can. That means the steel frame won (steel is 3x denser than aluminum.)

Metals and Alloys - Densities


Twin Tower core backbone under construction

Illustration of main support columns




Shredded plane

If the video should stand on it's own, why are the videos supporters posting lots of additional pictures and information?

ManFromUncle said:

That is true. Given the construction of the core a better analogy is an empty beer can shot through a big steel cheese grater. If you have doubts you can look at the remains of plane below cut up like a sardine can. That means the steel frame won (steel is 3x denser than aluminum.)

Metals and Alloys - Densities


Twin Tower core backbone under construction

Illustration of main support columns




Shredded plane

Click to expand...

Yes, steel is far more dense and strong than aluminum, but with enough force, even that barrier can be breached. In tornadoes, it has been observed that strands of wheat spear through the trunks of trees intact.

By the same logic, waterjet cutters wouldn't work. But they do.


Btodd

ManFromUncle said:

Please use this thread only to discuss the documentary, state a time-mark for part you are referring to. No personal attacks or posts off-topic. Off-topic posts will be labeled as such.

Broadcast on PBS Colorado. Film sponsored by 9/11 families, produced by 2,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. 90 minutes.

[youtube]6xif0jIT_ZM[/youtube]

Click to expand...

With regard to the video, it's two years old and thus this thread is in the wrong forum.

If you have a current video, let's see it.

I love these videos, they're so bad. Always funny to watch a bunch of 'experts' (using the broadest possible definition of that word) use debunked myths to try and get others to believe that lizard alien Zionists were behind 9/11 rather than the simple and far more likely truth.

WalksWithChrist said:

With regard to the video, it's two years old and thus this thread is in the wrong forum.

If you have a current video, let's see it.

Click to expand...

He is concerned about the environment, so he recycles.

Lollerskates said:

Then why didn't the outside frame crumble into dust only, instead of the entire 110 story building by means of an aluminum tube fulled with air and water (humans)? Even the narrative my friend told me when it happened would have made more sense: she said WTC1 fell over on its side at the height the plane hit, into WTC2. If there was no magical physics (or lies,) that would be a very likely scenario. And, at that time that was outrageous, because I know aluminum tubes shread when hiting concrete - and even if they pierce concrete, they do not pulvarize them into dust and cause them to fall on their own footprint at the speed of free fall.



They do? So you have accounted for density of materials, moments of inertia, center of mass, chemical energy, explositivity of fuels, velocity, atmospheric fluxuations, sheer, stress, strain, angle of impact, etc. yourself to be able to tell me that it hit with enough force to measure on seismometers? Or, the potential kinetic energy (I will assume you don't know, and are saying "possible/potential" kinetic energy) was over 200 tons of TNT?

Or, are you parroting what someone else has said, and have never even done the calculations to confirm yourself? Ask me; I will provide you with the math to why an aluminum tube wouldn't pulverize a steel-reinforced 110 story building (in the middle of skyscrapers over 50 stories.) As a bonus, I will even converse about why a 40 story building several hundred yards away would not fall at the speed of gravity on its own footprint from embers in the building, and no plane impact (WTC7.) I will even show you the BBC segment with WTC7 still in tact, but they report it as being collapsed completely. It's the BBC - "reputable," so there should be no qualms about trusting what you see, right?



No, I am my own capable scientists (literally, physics.) I have seen the mathematical "data" and stories, especially plagued/insulted with "Popular Mechanics" and "Wired" articles my colleagues and professors have written. In the alternative world it is called "yellow science," but it is common in academia. There is plenty of independent scientific study that debunks the debunkers on 9/11. Ask me for that too (I compel you to ask me, since no matter if you agree or if it is right, you are responsible for whatever you receive, and whatever you do with it.)

Or, you can do your own research and forget about me. Start with integrating the mass of a 110 building with different densities (according to your assumption.) You can get the length, width and height, densities, and conversion factors online in this age of google. You may even be able to derive, or find online the integral formula for finding the total mass of an object with varying density. Honestly, I just don't care for ignorance and parroting. Just be totally complete about your arguments and "evidence." As I said, that article is an example of a debunker that has been debunked.

Click to expand...

Wow. Speechless. Some scientist you are. One scientist vs thousands that confirmed the NIST reports. Very impressive.

Remind me to never take your calculations seriously.

Bjornke said:

Wow. Speechless. Some scientist you are. One scientist vs thousands that confirmed the NIST reports. Very impressive.

Remind me to never take your calculations seriously.

Click to expand...

Some folks, will choose conspiracy over reality every single time.

Bjornke said:

Wow. Speechless. Some scientist you are. One scientist vs thousands that confirmed the NIST reports. Very impressive.

Remind me to never take your calculations seriously.

Click to expand...

Which thousands confirmed the report? Oh I see, keeping your mouth shut equals agreement. Do you know what happens to scientists who step out of line on 9/11? Read about physics professor Steven Jones at BYU:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

[Professor Steven E. Jones] called for further scientific investigation to test the controlled demolition theory and the release of all relevant data by the government.[19] Shortly after the seminar, Jones placed a research paper entitled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on his page in the Physics department website, noting that BYU had no responsibility for the paper.

Jones subsequently defended the WTC research in lectures at Idaho State University, Utah Valley State College, University of Colorado at Boulder and University of Denver, the Utah Academy of Science, Sonoma State University, University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas at Austin.

On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave.

Click to expand...

Bjornke said:

Wow. Speechless. Some scientist you are. One scientist vs thousands that confirmed the NIST reports. Very impressive.

Remind me to never take your calculations seriously.

Click to expand...

That is fine. It is a weak mind that trusts another human without trying vehemently to vindicate any argument with which one agrees, or disagrees. I have sophomorically believed everything "scientists" say without question - because of White Lab Coat syndrome. Once you are actually in Academia, or doing your own laboratory research, you should have the luxury of having a substantial voice on things in your field - whether right or wrong. Real students of academia do not dismiss on emotion, or because one's sphere of believability has been breached.


As I tell everyone, work to prove me wrong (or anyone else it helps both of us learn the truth. But, I will not respect people who dismiss because "1000s of other scientists say something else." I hope you remember that argument when you are [one of the] only people who fighting for something you believe in. As you said to remind you to never take me seriously, when that moment comes when you are the man alone defending what you believe in, just remember that you applied similar judgment on knowledge. So, we can most certainly agree to disagree; you haven't even told me whether or not you do your own laboratory research on stress, strain, physical forces, thermodynamics - anything. Are you a civil engineer? Do you do stochastic modeling? Have you modeled the event? Seriously, it is very unimpressive for someone to dismiss as a layperson, while at the same time this one has had no formal experience in either academia, or the laboratory.

Oh yea, and did you forget the prophets that were literally "1/1000" in what they believed. Remember what happened to the disciples that didn't agree with the 1000s of pharisees and cultural norms? They got martyred. But, I am sure they were wrong since thousands of people did not agree with them then, and obviously were more respected by the people than a lowly prophet of God. (No, I am not saying I am a prophet; I am using an analogy to show how erroneous it is to dismiss someone just because 1000s of "Chaldeans" disagree. It is flawed logic.)

bhsmte said:

Some folks, will choose conspiracy over reality every single time.

Click to expand...

I love how people use conspiracy as if it is some sort of tool to immediately dismiss something. I suppose your forget in most of the West, conspiracy is an actual crime, and people get charged with it very often. Conspiracy theories are just theories of possible cospiracy that has not be proven, or legally charged as an actual conspiracy in court - that is all. It isn't literally synonymous to "tin foil hat," but that won't stop this social media age of "plugged-in" lemming who follow whomever has on the "authority" badge, and what they say.

So, bhsmte you know I could care less about your scoffing (which is arguably much more marginal than most other scoffers.) But, still the ignorance of turning an actual crime into a cultural meme meaning "crazy person" is a reason why the entire world is in shambles. 10-20 years later, you will swear by everything conspiracy theorists have said in the past - just like it is happening right now. So, I don't worry. But, it is kind of insulting to have people scoff at me, then five years later tell me something as if it is news to me (the same things I have told the people.) It happens often, and when it does it is so bitter-sweet. A lot of time could be saved if scoffing was as intellectually demonized as "creationists, non-evolutionists, or believers in a god."

Victims of demagoguery and programming. The same thing happened in 1940s, in a Deutschland nation. And, if we aren't victims of not knowing our history so that it doesn't repeat, we should be above demagoguery masked as science to this day. Nope.