You seriously think that debris and fire braught down a 47 story skyscrapper? And debating 6 seconds versus 14 seconds is worthless. It would have never crumbled to the degree it did from "ancillary damage" as was claimed.
@drmrzrul12 Yup, and so did most of the guys from FDNY who were looking at it that day. They saw it burning, heard it creaking and stuff falling off it, they expected it might collapse.
And the full investigation said the same thing.
The debate is not worthless, you're just trying to avoid the debate....:/
You claim it would never have crumbled that way? Who the hell RU to say? Were you there? Did you get a PhD in SE and do a 2 year analysis?
Comments may be held for up-loader approval... well I'm waiting... I wonder why my comments weren't approved? Is it because I might have raised some serious questions and stated some interesting facts? Typical...
@ResuEmanA You can complain to youtube for failing to send me notices in my inbox until today.
Happens all the time, and guess what - truthers go off on paranoid conspiracy theories about that too..... typical.
You guys prove, once again, that you're just plain wrong most of the time. And you really don't give a shit either, since you need to protect your fragile egos - the truth? You're not interested in the truth, in fact you're hostile to it.
Don't worry about the like/dislike ratio. I've noticed that none of that proves a point to be truth or false. But the fact of the matter is, is that the people who like to accuse people of lying don't like to be called liars themselves. Great video.
This video is useless in defending the commission report. It shows a regular demolition where bomb after bomb the building still stands until the final blast sends it down, explaining the "14" seconds it took for B7 to finally collapse, which once on it's way, did fall at the speed of a demo'd building. It's common sense that these building wouldn't just fall like a house of cards, don't kid yourself people. Buildings 3 through 6 were skeletons after 1 and 2 fell on them... they didn't collapse.
The Commission report was not an engineering report, so has nothing to do with the mechanism of collapse nor the study of it.
You reveal a deep ignorance and disrespect for the subject.
The engineering study was done by teams of PhD engineers contracted by National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST.
Your 'common sense' is not meaningful. i would imagine you don't understand nuclear fusion, spacetime or many other complex things. Big deal - you're another ignoramus.
@AlienEntity1 Emotionally prepared? For what? To accept that our government isn't corrupt? That would be wonderful. To bad it is corrupt and that's a FACT. Who and how corrupt is where the argument may lie. As I said, no one will pry ever know the truth about what happened that day, but to look at all the evidence and believe that all is as was said, You my fellow American are the one not emotionally prepared to accept that all governments have corrupt people/groups aka the mob within its walls.
Another thing is how come the damage to the pentagon is minimal compared to that of the damage done to the towers, they wont even show the video mind you. And it is quite obvious that these were demolitions of some sort whether those "DAMN RAG HEADS" did it, or in fact our own government did.
I of course might not ever know the truth, but... the "what happened to the passengers" question is pretty irrelevant considering if our government were to commit such a crime, why would a few more people matter. Kidnap the people and swap out the planes for some bomb filled ones.
I haven't made my mind up at all on the issue -- but first of all, a sincere thanks for including footage of how the left side of wtc 7 (the penthouse as you call it) started to break off. Something I've not ever seen in any documentary, at least not highlighted.
How do truthers explain the fact that the firefighters said WTC 7 was unstable and likely to collapse?
Some truthers say the firefighters were part of the plot and intentionally lied about the condition of the building. Sure bet.. Some say the firefighters were told the building was unstable but they didn't really have any evidence of that themselves. Yeah, sure. That makes perfect sense.
Basically, the firefighters' comments about WTC 7 instability undermine the demo theory.
I too did not understand physics and structures and design and engineering. It was easy just to accept the "Official Story" of how those buildings collapsed. BUT after spending 4 years in architecture school at Georgia Tech, I couldn't ignore the evidence any more. It's a deep, deep rabbit hole to jump down, but I believe it is imperative to educate our selves and eventually others about what Actually Occurred in Reality vs the STORY that was told to us by a government infused media.Thanks!
I think the most compelling aspect about the A&E for 911 Truth documentaries and resources is the Noted Credentials of the Professionals who are interviewed and who sign their petition online. These are highly established professionals willing to put their reputations and sometimes careers on the line in the hope that they may better educate others or at least shed light on the scientific method being applied to examine the collapse of those structures on 9/11...
Okay, Show me ONE other example of a NONCONTROLLED building collapse where the building comes down like this (straight into it's footprint). Just one. So, we are talking about a few seconds discrepency. You better give me more than that, because this is the most suspicious looking "building collapse" that has ever been recorded.
@Lookitsbread Sure thing - but a warning and prediction: you will avoid this evidence and disqualify it on some obscure grounds (ie move the goalpost). All truthers do this until they give up their delusions.
The building - CTV building in New Zealand collapsed completely into it's footprint, killing dozens, in Feb 2011.
There you go. And there are many other examples, which truthers also ignore. It's not hard to see why... :)
@Lookitsbread btw, a word about 'falling into its footprint' - if this actually happened with WTC 7, how come it fell across 2 streets and did over $1.5 billion damage to the Verizon bldg and Fiterman Hall CUNY?
Unless you're arguing that the footprint included the streets and those buildings.... :jawdrop:
@Lookitsbread HEY! WE PAY TAXES.....AND WE WANT A REAL INVESTIGATION...WHY WAS BUILDING 7 NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE REPORT? FISHY...WHY DID BUSH REFUSE TO GO UNDER OATH.....AND WHY DID HE NEED CHENEY HOLING HIS HAND......THIS VIDEO STINKS OF PROPAGANDA . AND HOW DO YOU EXPLAINE THE MOLTEN STEEL AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WTC WHAT CAUSED THAT.....WHERE DID THE THERMITE COME FROM ??????? THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING THAT THE PANCAKE STORY IS BULLSHIT.......
@Licalattapuss Dude, calm down and give the allcaps a rest ok?
1) WTC 7 was investigated in the largest investigation of its type ever done in history. It was published in 2006 by NIST. So please correct yourself there to start...
2) There is NO empirical evidence of molten steel. All there are are some anecdotal reports. However, exactly the same things can be found at other fires in history. And I can prove it to you.
truth is simple,.... all of a sudden everyone's a controlled demolition expert and studies behaviors of collapsing buildings, but probably only getting half truths out of there studies because there studies are one sided,..... mankind makes shit complicated
@osyris1988 I kinda agree, but the physics of collapse are pretty complicated, not simple. So I'd say that to really understand the mechanics is difficult, esp for laymen like us.
@theawecabinet Isn't it funny how you take a small part of NIST's "observation" and use it to explain your theory, but completely ignore the rest (including NIST's conclusion that fire is what caused the collapse).
The comparison to Peter Mitchell 40 years ago is apt. Mitchell was accused of malice toward Albert Lehninger, the then-leader of the field. Actually, Mitchell was merely CURIOUS and, yes, impatient. He wanted to KNOW why no one could find Lehninger's "missing intermediate." Mitchell was right; it wasn't there! The mitochondrial membrane is the "battery". Some very smart people are incurious and very good at certain jobs, even in science. Curious people can be annoying, I agree!
@Skeptic121 I suppose everyone who works on contract for NIST is an incurious zombie who does not think for themselves as well.
Anybody who agrees with the government's findings is incurious. There are no creative thinkers working in government jobs, so they couldn't determine the truth if it was handed to them.
Have I got your amazingly extreme bias pegged yet?
Hey Alien are they paying you per anti-truth comment you put on the internet? Are you sitting at your desk at the NSA right now? Any one with two eyes and half a brain can tell that what happened on 9/11 was bullshit. I appreciate your righteous attempts to show how everyone is wrong...... but 9/11 was an Inside Job planned and executed by a criminal rogue element of our government to push an agenda of war and police state control. You will not be on the winning team
@isolatedfire It gets very tiresome when every other truther accuses you of being a paid shill just because you don't go along with the truther sheep.
You guys are so brainwashed into thinking that you're right no matter what, regardless of the facts, that you've lost your way completely. You should be thanking the skeptics for keeping some sanity on the internet.
The list of truther Urban Legends is long & growing - but that doesn't make them true.
@isolatedfire I've heard all your rhetoric b4. Pick an issue, and discuss it like a man. Anybody can make vague attacks and generalizations, it doesn't prove a thing.
@Gaz00ks Wrong. They did answer the question on p. 606 of NCSTAR 1-9 as well as elsewhere. Truthers reject the answer, but that's the fault of truthers, not NIST.
Truthers refuse to understand the physics of collapse, or the engineering explanations offered by the teams who studied it and modeled it. But the answer is there.....
Further, the Truther hypothesis that simultaneous explosions around the exterior broke the entire structure fails because there is no observed event to match it.
@Gaz00ks Continued - in other words, for this to have occurred the way truthers insist it did, there would HAVE to be a ring of explosions on the exterior just at the moment of collapse.
But that DID NOT HAPPEN. Thus the theory is falsified because it does not match the evidence. And it cannot.
Most real CD's do not fall at freefall speed anyway, and certainly not halfway thru a global collapse. That just doesn't happen in CD's. Check the historical evidence, you'll see.
@AlienEntity1 Two things about this, 1- there were explosions documented in that people reported hearing explosions and there were explosions recorded in news video that day.
2 - The entire cutting job could have been aided by energetic materials ( thermite ), that is the cutting work would be getting done, without an explosive event.
also your explanation that WTC7 did not look exactly like other controlled demolitions, the event doesn't have to duplicate precisely the exact behavior.....
@Gaz00ks 2) Complete fantasy. Absolutely zero scientific basis for that belief, there is simply no precedent, no research, ziltch.
But then religious views are not based on reality, but belief alone. That is what your view is, put very simply - a faith-based idea without basis in reality.
You believe whatever you want. It's your dark fantasy...
@AlienEntity1 "Absolutely zero scientific basis for that belief, " I'm sorry that you choose not to see the fact that there has been a considerable amount of research on this subject. The laws of physics either apply to the events of 9/11/2001 or somebody is in command of some seriously heavy magic.
In fact, in ten years, not a single truther has published a peer-reviewed paper in an engineering journal to offer a testable hypothesis to the scientific community. No one.
You recite your Urban Legends and myths about 'the Laws of Physics' yet you don't understand what it means and how it applies. You simply recite what you're told like a parrot. This is not knowledge, dude, it's basically religion - a fantasy narrative you have bought into.
@AlienEntity1 No peer reviewed paper could POSSIBLY be published that did not support the official story. I have worked in government-supported science. Money is given out by so-called "study sections"; t is a common lament that even ONE enemy on a study section can ruin a promising career. Indeed, my boss made an enemy in the study section and MY career ended. I got out and went into business. ANY questioning of the official story is considered anti-Semitic, the kiss of death.
@Skeptic121 Hmm, then the 'Active Thermitic Materials' paper wasn't published by Bentham Open Chemistry?
I see. Better tell 9/11 Truth that it didn't happen. You just said it so it MUST be true 'No peer reviewed paper could POSSIBLY be published that did not support the official story'
LOL, you're comment is debunked by 9/11 Truthers. Too funny
@AlienEntity1 Your side CONTINUALLY complains that paper was NOT properly peer reviewed. "Complains" isn't really the right word. "Hissy-fit shrieks" is more like it
@AlienEntity1 "You simply recite what you're told like a parrot."
on the very day it happened, I saw the Evan Fairbanks video & said "B" movie special effects & when WTC7 "collapsed" I knew for certain that 9/11/2001 was a FALSE FLAG ATTACK. I have no idea what sort of black-magic & witchcraft has been invoked to short-circuit the LOGIC & REASON that people have, but its a bad thing, there are a few people who have proven to immune to the black-magic, but all too few...
@Gaz00ks I take that back in that case - you're a genius savant that can instantly see things real experts take months or years to determine.
Wow, you've found a shortcut to infinite knowledge! No more university, slogging for years to learn about math, physics, engineering, medicine or what-have-you. Simply watch a youtube video and you KNOW everything instantly.
Got it. Genius a minute on youtube. Beautiful fantasy stuff.
@AlienEntity1 This is NOT about watching "youtube videos" its about seeing the event as presented by the mainstream media and deciding what takes precedent ... one's own understanding of physics, or the authority figure on TV telling you what to think.
My take on this is anybody can get it, all you have to do is get out of movie watching mode and into reality mode.
@Gaz00ks Strawman argument. It's not a choice between authority figures (like David Chandler or Richard Gage) and the MSM.
It's about the best science we have, teams of top engineers, trained specifically in the areas they're studying, publishing comprehensive analysis of the collapses. This analysis has almost unanimously been accepted by the world's engineering schools and the engineering community.
It has nothing to do with MSM. YOUR views come from youtube and conspiracy websites.
@Gaz00ks And you have admitted that you have some kind of gigantic ego which gives you the illusion that 'I knew for certain that 9/11/2001 was a FALSE FLAG ATTACK' just by looking at a video of a collapse.
ie, you read NO report, you studied NO physics, in order to form your viewpoint. You made your mind up before being properly informed, and are arrogant enough to ignore the actual engineering studies.
You probably don't even know about steel and fire issues. Nor do you care.
@AlienEntity1 So given that what was observed indeed was a well organized event, that is the building descended strait down and kept its shape. The the "collapse" of WTC7 was a coherent event. that is something that had to have been planned in advance to happen exactly as it did. having chaotic damage create such a result is illogical.
@Gaz00ks No, you don't get to do that - ie you don't get to pretend that speculation is fact. You do not know that there was ANY organization of the collapse of WTC 7, since your entire premise is that it can somehow be inferred from the way the collapse looked.
That is a logical fallacy - Assuming The Consequent. If your premise is wrong, then your conclusion is wrong. And there is no scientific basis for your premise, it is only a bare assertion.
@AlienEntity1 "you don't get to pretend that speculation is fact." I'm not pretending anything, the fact is, that the observation of WTC7 shows 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration, the ONLY way to achieve that is to have ALL of the structure under the falling mass simply go-away. how is that done with chaotic fires?
@Gaz00ks Dude, you're doing it again. YOu're making an unsupported claim, that there is only ONE way to achieve freefall.
Firstly, try to find a controlled demolition that occurs at freefall. Almost impossible to find. They just don't behave like that.
Second, Femr2 actually measured 1 second FASTER than freefall. Yes, that's right. Explosives can't do that. The only thing that can do that is a multilevel collapse where the centre of gravity moves b4 the facade.
@Gaz00ks Plus, your new premise is illogical in real life - even if explosives WERE used (there's no evidence of that, but for argument's sake) somehow you'd have to remove ALL the structure simultaneously, but in WTC 7's collapse there WERE NO EXPLOSIONS recorded on any video as it fell.
That means explosives are RULED OUT, and it was some other mechanism.
Your theories fail because they do not reflect reality.
@AlienEntity1 "Your theories fail because they do not reflect reality." The theory that 19 suicidal Arabs hijacked airplanes ... (etc...) also fails & for the same reason.
The fact is that it is much more logical & supportable by good science, that some OTHER mechanism other than chaotic fires, caused the complete & Total destruction of WTC7 ( not to mention the destruction of WTC 1, & 2 )
@Gaz00ks The hijackers and their actions are not a theory, they are a fact. Reality is something quite different from what you imagine. It is something that can be verified thru a variety of means, including tracing the histories of the hijackers, obtaining their DNA from wreckage, and so on.
And their airline tickets, eyewitness testimony from the planes.
Facts, not speculation. That is the difference. If you ignore facts, then anything is possible, in your mind.
@Gaz00ks "the ONLY way to achieve that is to have ALL of the structure under the falling mass simply go-away. how is that done with chaotic fires?"
A better question you might ask yourself, is if the building lost some of it's support during the course of the collapse, would the unsupported segment fall at free fall? In the case of WTC 7, that is what happened: a segment of the building collapsed ahead of other parts in a progression.
@Gaz00ks In addition to your logical fallacy (Assuming the Consequent) you are ignorant of many facts. Maybe you choose to ignore them, maybe you simply don't know..
1) WTC 7 did not fall neatly into its footprint, in fact it fell across two streets and did almost $2 billion damage to surrounding buildings. This is not like any controlled demolition in history.
2)Neither of the towers fell straight down neatly, they were very chaotic. Yet truthers still believe they were CD'd!!!
@Gaz00ks In other words, despite the fact that the towers were chaotic, truthers argue that this proves they were CD'd. Yet that contradicts the logic you are using.
Either:
a) They're wrong, and the towers were not CD'd
b) You're wrong, and your premise is incorrect
c) You're all wrong for different reasons
You can't have it both ways. Your criteria contradict each other.
@Gaz00ks NIST has acknowledged 2.25 seconds of free fall. THAT alone is an unexpected phenomenon that anyone with curiosity and creativity will be drawn to investigate. Many if not MOST scientists are notoriously incurious and uncreative. Indeed, curious and creative scientists like Peter Mitchell are not often appreciated by their peers. Peter Mitchell was unusual in going from "kook" to Nobel Prize winner in ten years. Is "shut up" an explanation? To many, but not to Peter Mitchell.
@AlienEntity1 GCW TIY G/Wes Have you WATCHED the video of Prof. Barnett bitterly complaining about NOT being allowed to inspect the debris of WTC7 ? Aren't you even a bit curious why only ONE piece of WTC7 debris was studied? Aren't you a bit curious about how high temperature sulfur melted it? Really, it is CURIOSITY that motivates many of us, not malice. During the Clinton administration I was CURIOUS about Vince Foster and Ron Brown. I didn't even want to impeach; I just wanted to know.
@Skeptic121 This is a complete strawman, based on a quotemine. You really think only ONE piece of WTC 7 debris was studied??? OMG that's hilarious.
Dude, most of the steel was inspected at Freshkills. There was no evidence of explosive cutter charges on any of it. The failure modes were observed and samples were kept for later evaluation.
The eutectic erosion was looked at in depth. It has nothing to do with explosives or thermite. Get a grip.
@Skeptic121 The eutectic erosion does not occur in controlled demolitions, ever. You cannot find any historical examples, otherwise you would have already. There are none.
It is a corrosive process, most likely occurring in the rubble piles, and it occurs at temperatures well within the range of normal fires. There is nothing suspicious about it, even though it is unusual.
You think you're the only curious one? LOL, must b nice living in that fantasy.
@AlienEntity1 Well, at least I got you to admit it was "unusual" ...I was known for curiosity and creativity when I worked in a lab many years ago. Many very bright people utterly lack curiosity and creativity and were actually quite offended by mine. I am certainly not the only one with those qualities, nor have I ever claimed to be. I do suggest that you are a bright man who is not particularly curious or creative. There are different, but equally honorable roles for the two of us.
@Skeptic121 I do suggest that you are not particularly perceptive or correct. Obviously I'm curious enough to have researched the topic of eutectics, and I happen to know that it doesn't indicate anything sinister.
I just don't happen to jump to conspiracy-based assumptions at every turn like truthers do, is all.Lots of things are unusual, like jets flying into tall buildings, and rubble piles which burned for weeks.
Molten metal was seen under WTC 6 as well, unusual, not suspicious
@AlienEntity1 I am willing to agree to disagree. I have worked with Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Evangelicals, atheists, and many others. I understand that we will never agree on how the world GOT here, let alone on history and politics. I meant what I said about creative and curious people being unsuitable for many important roles in society. I find Prof. Barnett's work a reason to investigate EVERY piece of WTC7 debris in DEPTH, not ship it to China. BUT, if we were going to war anyway...NOT.
@Skeptic121 You are not the head of forensic investigations, so it doesn't matter what you believe they should have done. You are not in a position to declare what a correct method is or isn't with any authority.
The steel was inspected, but nothing suspicious was found, although the eutectic corrosion samples were noted, collected and analyzed. They did their jobs, and people like you do not even begin to appreciate this. You crap on it instead.
@Skeptic121 Here's what Barnett's team found about the corrosion 'This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC'
There is absolutely NOTHING about this that suggests controlled demolition. It's a scientific curiosity, Barnett is concerned because of building safety, not for any other reason.
He doesn't suggest anywhere that this is anything but a fire safety issue. Truthers read far too much into these things.
@AlienEntity1 No, Barnett's work does NOT suggest controlled demolition. It suggests ARSON. No way should sulfur, the yellow stuff, be stored in an office building. WTC7 was not a gunpowder factory. You cannot get sulfur, the yellow stuff, from calcium sulfate in drywall in building fire. Thanks for acknowledging it is a curiosity. It is, and that's why I care about it. I have no malice toward GWB or Israel. As I say repeatedly, curiosity and creativity can be a disability in much of life...
@AlienEntity1 Ask any chemistry teacher on the planet if you can get sulfur, the yellow stuff, also known as "ground state sulfur" from calcium sulfate in a building fire. Better yet, DO it and post the video! You are getting into my field and a feel ashamed to take advantage of you this way.
@Skeptic121 Hmm, no need, since it's been studied and written about. From the paper 'Sulfur and the World Trade Center Disaster' by Dr Frank Greening ' the reduction of CaSO4 to CaO and SO2 by reaction with solid carbon or gaseous
carbon monoxide was found to be possible at temperatures well below 1000 -C /8/. In these cases CaSO4 was decomposed by two novel reactions:
T.D. Wheelock et al. “Reductive Decomposition of Gypsum by Carbon Monoxide.” Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry 52(3), 215, (1960).
So the likely source for such sulfidation would be from SO2. Ironic you'd argue against Gypsum Wallboard when it's about 19% sulfur by weight, and that fires produce ample CO gas.
Above 800 C 'this reaction propagates rapidly' when 'CO concentrations are at least 1 Vol %'
@AlienEntity1 The reaction you cite must be run WITHOUT oxygen. It is a common process in Asia to recycle drywall. If there is any oxygen, the CO will react with it to yield CO2. If you DID get any sulfur, the yellow stuff, it would react with oxygen to SO2. No iron sulfide from SO2; iron SULFITE. Different sulfur oxidation states. This is BASIC chemistry, except on 9/11/2001. See
watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw for the reaction in the PRESENCE of oxygen. Ask any chemistry professor.
@Skeptic121 ' in 10 - 20 % CO/ N2, calcium sulfide, CaS, and carbon dioxide
are formed at temperatures in the range 780 - 850 C, while at CO concentrations below 10 %, calcium oxide, CaO, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide are formed above 900 C. Kuusik et al. also note that the presence of impurities such as SiO2 in the calcium sulfate lower the decomposition temperatures by up to 100 C.'
Not according to the industry papers. 'maintained at 900 C in an atmosphere containing 1 % CO'
@Skeptic121 The industry literature just indicates that the decomposition temperature can be lowered by the presence of certain gases, as I've quoted from the Greening paper.
If you can find anything in the papers which shows this to be incorrect, go ahead.
@Noahshollow Yes, concrete buildings also collapse from fire, not as often as steel though. 2008 Delft University, one of the towers almost completely collapsed from fire, even though it was being fought.
@AlienEntity1 So do you really wanna say that the collapsing of the North wing of the delft university looks the same as the collapsing ot the 3 wtc buildings?
Are you serious!?
please upload a video comparing those collapses!!!
But don´t blame me if you shoot in your own foot.
@Noahshollow You wrote 'Ever seen a concrete building collapsing because of fire?
I Guess not!!!'
I showed you that I have seen one. Now you're attempting (unsuccessfully btw) to move the goalposts.
Collapses are not identical, not even controlled demolitions are identical. That is not a valid criterion for determining whether something can collapse due to fire or not. Has nothing to do with it.
@Noahshollow And of course the proverbial elephant in the room is that the Delft collapse demonstrates that EVEN reinforced concrete buildings CAN collapse due to fire alone, even if the fire is fought.
It's kind of like the Titanic - it was engineered to be unsinkable, according to popular myth. That myth also proved incorrect, as so many myths (like 9/11 myths) are proved wrong.
Steel buildings are even more vulnerable to fire since steel weakens in heat.
@AlienEntity1 So you saw a steelframe building or concrete building collapse by fire.
And yes it showed that it´s possible that fire can cause a collapse.
But you can´t say that the wtc7 collapse that looked like a controlled demolotion has any similarities with the Delft University.
If there are any, name one!
That´s the point here!!! people like you try to explain the WTC1,2,7 collapse with their own theory that is nothing better than some conspiracy nut theory.
@Noahshollow So you have now been proven wrong, and still you are on the attack. Now would be a good time to STFU and stop pretending you know anything about the subject......
Similarities? LOL
Fires, large and mostly uncontrolled - both buildings √
Fire-resistant concrete destroyed by fire - not in WTC 7, but in Delft. WTC 7 was even more vulnerable as it was mainly steel.
SFRM protected beams - not in WTC 7, it was knocked off by debris impacts.
@Zooney1 Harrit and Jones refuse to release the WTC samples for independent testing. The paper has not been duplicated anywhere in the world.
As such, it doesn't meet the minimum requirements for scientific precedents to be accepted. No corroboration.
Spending $800 to get Bentham Open to perform its nonexistent peer-review is not going to help. In 2009 Phil Davis submitted a nonsense paper which was 'accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ.'
@Zooney1 Funny how gullible you truthers are, that you don't know or care about the fact that Bentham's was exposed already 2 years ago for its shoddy peer-review.
Phil Davis wrote 'Would a publisher accept a completely nonsensical manuscript if the authors were willing to pay Open Access publication charges?' Answer: YES!!
'This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ.'
@Zooney1 Google Tillotson Gash nanostructured energetic materials. That's your peer-reviewed rebuttal.
A succinct explanation:
'As you decrease particle size the surface area that is non-reactive Al2O3 relative to the volume of Al increases. This means that there is in effect less Al per gram to react as you decrease particle size. Tillitson et al showed this and their energy out put for their thermite was 1.5J/Kg'
So Harrit's chips CANNOT be NT chemically. It can't produce those levels.
@Zooney1 Continued: One of Harrit's chips produced almost 8 KJ/KG!! That's way above the chemical limit for ordinary thermite (FeO2+Al) at 3.5, and about 5X MORE THAN REAL NANOTHERMITE has produced in empirical tests.
So the best science says loud and clear that the chips ARE NOT THERMITIC at all.
But since you don't care about reality you apparently prefer the fantasy put forward by Jones and Harrit. Your loss. It doesn't fool real experts.
@cc92873 You are so biased in your thinking that you claim it is 'imploded' as if by some outside force (apart from the fires and gravity) yet nobody, not you, not anybody else has posited a rational, fact and evidence-based mechanism for explosives.
I mean specifically HOW they were used and WHERE, and how this could be achieved without detection before or after and not captured on any audio taken as the building fell.
Freefall? Only truthers think freefall = CD. Real Cd's R <freefall in fact
@cc92873 Just to clarify, ACTUAL controlled demolitions do NOT fall at freefall, but slower.
So the truther meme is not based on any kind of established science, but pure conjecture based on a misunderstanding of physics, actually.
Just, for a moment ask yourself how ALL the exterior columns could be cut by charges - without any squibs being seen on video or photographs on those columns.... How? It is illogical if the evidence is not there.
This video is bull shit. NO STEEL building of concrete has ever just collapsed for a century before and 10 years since. And Even though Demolition charges did NOT do all the damage, blasts were heard by the fireFighters, IT WAS IN FACT, "Dustifyied" see ; "Dr.JudyWood.com ... she has an excellent book better than this, and loud music at the end does NOT make your video more True.
@williamwagener ahhh the pussy williamwagner is back. ahahaha you fucking pussy have to block people that prove you bullshit incorrect. ahahahha "See Judy Wood" ahahah just referencing her proves how fucking stupid you are. and NO STEEL building of concrete ahahahah what the fuck is that mean you are claiming the building was steel but state is made of concrete??? ahahahaha you are a fucking moron.
@williamwagener "and no steel building has collpased" ahahah what a bullshit argument. First just because something did not occur does not mean that it cannot occur. Second steel framed structures can and have collapsed due to fire you stupid pile of shit. The "blasts" you refer to have been explained there are many items that could have caused loud noises or explosions. Loud noises or explosions does not mean charges. You fucking dumb fuck ahahahah you retard.
1: You dont have to use "loud" explosives to destroy steel, thermite is not loud like the explosives they used in that demo. And that video was ALOT closer and not BEHIND BUILDINGS
2: 14 or 18 seconds? Which is it??
3: You can freely comment on 99.9% of all 911 truther videos WITHOUT SCREENING
@gurper707 IN the history of building demolitions, neither thermite, thermate or nanthermite has EVER been used. Period. Not once. Look it up before you speak.
There isn't a shred of evidence, quite the contrary - you're specifically claiming that something which has never happened before, and for which there is not evidence, MUST have happened. That's a very, very tall order to prove. You just can't do it, no matter how hard you try.
@gurper707 Unfortunately Gurper707 responded to my last reply with some extremely vulgar and vicious personal attacks, which I'm not going to allow.
Ironically he's now blocked me after calling me a paid shill. So, yes, I allow civil comments on my videos, and yes, truthers block skeptics if they don't agree with truther doctrine or dare to hold a view which supports mainstream thinking.
the penthouse did go first- thats what they blew up first
media cameras like the ones used in that interview are specifically designed not to pick up background noise, only noise in close proximity.
it fell at FREEFALL speed = control demolition, you cannot argue with this fact, it doesnt matter how long the explosions took to create the necessary structural failure to induce FREEFALL of a building.
i agree with the architects and engineers who have qualifications other than on youtube!!!
@DJUNIT001 LOL - 'they' blew it up? Because you say so, and you're an anonymous youtube expert, right? OK, we should believe you, sure!
media cameras don't pick up background noise? Uhmm, baloney! I suppose you pulled that one out of your butt, because I can't see where else you got that info - you didn't get it from a manufacturer of mics, or an audio technician - come to think of it, you're not an audio expert, RU? I didn't think so - you just THINK UR an expert in everything.
@DJUNIT001 Actually, the correct equation is: FREEFALL speed ≠ controlled demolition!
FACT: when actual CD's have been studied, they DON'T fall at freefall!! That's right - you've been fooled by another lie/propaganda talking point, and you don't do any research b4 believing what you're told.
So you're a gullible sucker, that makes you wrong. Oh well, luckily your opinion is not important. Wise up dude, stop believing in these urban legends.
It's also worth noting that AE911Truth's own petition does NOT CLAIM that there was controlled demolition!!! Unlike Richard Gage's shrill, hysterical and emphatic insistence that it WAS, the petition is watered down:
'The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.'
Hmm, it seems AE911Truth is working further deceptions - they claim over 1600 'verified' engineers and architects, yet they are not a licensing body and have no business pretending to vett members.
It seems only 500 or so are actually licensed to begin with. Only a handful are trained in structural engineering, and almost none in demolitions.
This is very misleading, basically a conflated argument from authority.
@Kill0Your0TV FALSE. You are being fooled by propaganda. You do not fact check - do not believe authorities blindly, learn to think critically.
There are NOT 1600 architects and engineers in AE911Truth - they are misleading you there and on many other issues.
Don't forget NOT A SINGLE ENGINEERING SCHOOL IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD disagrees with the overall conclusions of the NIST report. Do you realize how many 10's of thousands of engineers AGREE with NIST????
@AlienEntity1 Um, YES, there are over 1600 verified architects and engineers on AE911Truth,org. Anyone can go there and look at all the names. Who are you trying to kid?
The NIST report is basically toilet paper. Never checked for explosive residue, never explained the gravitational collapses after they started, claim Building 7 fell straight down in 6.5 seconds due to fire. NIST is a government agency that does what it's told. That's why we need an independent investigation.
@Kill0Your0TV Uhmm, NO!! You are dead wrong. There are definitely NOT 1600 licensed architects and engineers in the membership. Not even close.
Do some fact checking b4 you swallow every lie that comes your way.
To call the NIST report 'basically toilet paper' is an incredibly ignorant and silly thing to say. But then I don't expect much from truthers - facts are not strong suits with you guys! LOL
Peer-reviewed engineering papers from AE911Truth? ZERO after all these years. FAIL!
@Kill0Your0TV So far, disregarding the fact that AE911Truth is basically trying to mount an argument from authority, hoping truthers won't scratch the surface to see whether the members have any relevant expertise, we have:
254 Architects (degreed and licensed, USA)
310 Professional Engineers (degreed and licensed, USA)
Moving onto the relevant qualifications, there is no support for the idea that an architect would know structural engineering, or demolitions. They receive no training in those
@Kill0Your0TV So out of the licensed and professional members of AE911Truth, how many have relevant training and experience in either
a) structural engineering
b) demolition
Now the number dwindles down to a truly insignificant one.
According to one researcher, AE911Truth petition signers amount to about '0.02% of all active, licensed professional engineers' in most US States. This is a tiny, tiny fringe compared with the general population of engineers.
@Kill0Your0TV No, there are not 1600 licensed architects or engineers. I gave you the current number, it's around
560 in truth.
The term 'verified' is meaningless. The only verification that counts in the real world is a license from a valid licesning authority. AE911Truth is not a licensing authority, so their imprimatur has no merit. YOU may drink their koolaid, most of us know better.
Here's an example
James L. Hayhurst, Parachute Designer & Test Jumper; Writer
@Kill0Your0TV You're welcome. To SE's I say address your concerns to other engineers, via peer-reviewed papers in engineering journals. That's the only way you're going to get any respect in the community - you have to validate your ideas thru proper peer-review (the filter of experience and knowledge).
IMO, I think Richard Gage is committed to controlled demolition no matter what, he's not going to listen to anybody who disagrees - they're doing anything they can to 'stick it' to the man.
@Kill0Your0TV Seriously, I think they've created a giant scapegoat and they can't let go of it, so they're going to shout and use a political, not a scientific, apparatus - misguided at best, and downright dishonest at worst. I don't know which it is, maybe a blend of those things.
When Gage claims that iron-rich microspheres can ONLY be created by thermitic processes, he's either lying or ignorant. But either way he's dead wrong.
He makes about $75K per annum from AE911Truth (tax records)
@AlienEntity1 I haven't seen any debunking videos of the Chandler videos. If you have please let me know so I can see them. Also, the "physicsandreason" youtube site... I haven't seen anyone debunk those videos either. Lack of a "jolt" in a gravity collapse is a big problem with the official theory, no?
@Kill0Your0TV Look on my channel I've done at least 4 videos on Chandler. Also check my favorites.
The lack of a jolt is not a problem because the 'jolt' idea came from a limiting case paper by Dr. Znedek Bazant, and is not meant to be a literal representation of the forces. It is meant to examine whether a drop of an upper block of 1 story would be arrested by the structure below - Bazant showed it WOULD NOT be arrested.
@Kill0Your0TV Jolt continued - both towers tilted at collapse onset, meaning that the forces applied below were NOT symmetrical - the failures were progressive, with floor systems sagging (under heat), pulling in exterior columns by several feet until buckling occurred. Since a buckled column does not land square on top of the column fragment below (it is offset automatically) you do not get axial collisions. Instead it might impact part of the floor system, where little resistance would be.
@Kill0Your0TV Both Bazant and Chief Structural Engineer Leslie Robertson agree that once the process was underway for a couple of seconds, it was game over - there was no way the structure below was designed to handle the forces - there would be no proper load paths to carry the upper block mass and rubble layer as it accelerated down.
In fact since a lot of material fell inside the columns it splayed them out, so there wasn't much structure resisting.
@Kill0Your0TV Turning the argument around, There are literally 10's of thousands of US engineers who DISAGREE with 9/11 Truth controlled demolition theories, who accept the mainstream consensus, and, thus, if numbers mean anything, completely overwhelm the claims of a fringe of silly people.
If numbers mean nothing, that's fine, then 1600 also means nothing. Take your pick. Either way you lose. This movement is irrelevant to the truth of the WTC collapses.
@Kill0Your0TV First computer, mechanical, marine, sanitation engineers and architects are not structural engineers. Second many of the morons in your shitty little group are students that have never done anything relating to structural engineer. And third your tiny little group of morons represents less than 1% of 1% of the more than 1.7 million engineers that work in the US alone. More than 99.9% of real experts do not support your shittly little groups statements. You are a sad deluded fool
@Kill0Your0TV FALSE!! You fail right there - there are NOT 1600 licensed architects or engineers in the organization. That number is very inflated.
2) If you haven't seen any evidence which supports the fire/plane impacts failure hypothesis, you simply have you eyes close to this evidence. Suggest you open your eyes to include such evidence.
You might want to consider reading some of the many peer-reviewed papers published in established scientific journals (ie not fake truther publications).
Which is more likely to be a lie if not an outright fabrication?
1) The "official" explanation for 9/11 from the Federal government and AE1's effort to rebut any doubts about that explanation
or
2) That many professionals in the fields of science and demolition would put their name and face out in opposition to the government just because Richard Gage said to? Do you really believe none of those in Gages expose looked into the explanation before saying that sounds like BS?
Official 9/11 Points That Fail The Smell Test, can AlienEntity1 counter them?
#4 Flight 77 Pilot And His Incredible Skills
-The terrorist pilot on flight 77, Hani Hanhjour, executed a 330 degree downward spiral thru 7000 feet in around 3 minutes. Several former airliner pilots have testified that Hanjour could NOT possibly have maneuvered a large airliner thru the path that Flight77 took and hit the Pentagon.
Official 9/11 Points That Fail The Smell Test, can AlienEntity1 counter them?
#3 Hijacked jets but no "squawk" from the pilots
-Pilots are trained to "squawk" the universal highjack code on a transponder if they believe an attempted highjacking is evident.It takes 2 to 3 seconds to enter this code and yet no pilot on any 9/11 highjacked plane did so and CNN did report that it took more then 30 seconds to break into the cabin of flight 93. What about the other planes? No pilot squawked!
@NeverForget1776 This proves absolutely squat. There is plenty of other evidence for the hijackings, not least the MANY phone calls made by passengers, and flight attendants.
Sorry, but your 'test' is garbage. Show us examples of real hijackings and give us the % of 'squawks' to back up your claim. In fact the pilots of at least one aircraft reported a mayday that they were under attack.
Official 9/11 Points That Fail The Smell Test, can AlienEntity1 counter them?
#2 NIST Claimed that the WTC Dust contained NO Thermitic Materials
- NIST did not perform any tests to determine whether there were incendiaries or explosive in the WTC dust it simply claimed there were none. Unreacted nanothermitic material was found in 4 independent samples of WTC dust and was published in The Open Chemicals Physics Journal, and peer reviewed. AE1 believes only peer reviewed writings mean anything
@TheSlavicHeart Oh Boo Fricking Hoo, you don't like a challenge to Richard Gage's nonsense? Poor little child, go run along and play with the other girls.
Have some milk and cookies while you're at it. LOL
@AlientEntity1, are you still claiming that the contents of this video are proof that A&E for 911 are lying?
Do you really believe that you as an unidentified YouTube user know better about what happened to these buildings on 9/11 than a group of over 10 thousand professionals in the fields of engineering and related sciences?
You're correct about debate being the legitimate truth but after having wathed the A&E 911 video I don't see how even you can believe your own video any more.
@NeverForget1776 Yes, absolutely - Richard Gage, the head of AE911Truth makes a number of false claims. Among those false claims is the canard that the building collapsed 'in the exact manner of a controlled demolition'.
This is a blatant lie. The building burned for 7 hrs, and FDNY did evaluations which showed it was in danger of collapse due to these fires. They evacuated the area starting at 2pm.
No controlled demolition burns for hours first. Never, ever in history. A lie from Gage.
The 'building' fell in 6.5 seconds. No, it didn't. PART of the building (the remainder of the structure which had not already collapsed) fell roughly in that time, but the collapse began internally roughly 8 seconds earlier and traveled East to West.
Richard Gage ignores this reality, and pretends the collapse started later. Fiction, and lying.
If the B7 took as long to fall as you state then you would agree that it did NOT fall at free fall or near free fall speed. To not agree would be countering your own claim so I will assume in advance that you agree.
Problem: How do you reconcile your stance that the bldg took too long to fall to be at or near free fall speed with NIST's own admission that the building fell at near free fall speed?
@NeverForget1776 Richard Gage's main claim is that WTC 7 fell at freefall speed. What he neglects to mention is that this 2.25s interval was less than 15% of the duration of the collapse.
Therefore, MOSTLY, it DID NOT FALL at freefall speed.
If Gage's stance is acceptable to you (15% freefall means FREEFALL), then my stance (85% NOT FREEFALL means NOT FREEFALL) should be equally acceptable.
You probably don't see the irony.
btw, NIST didn't say the building fell at freefall speed.
@NeverForget1776 NIST said the facade, specifically, the North Wall, a portion of the building, not the entire building (remember, building 7 had 4 vertical sides), fell briefly at freefall.
Richard Gage, and you, ignore the fact that:
NIST outlined 3 stages in this phase, only ONE of which occurred at freefall. The first is consistent with columns buckling.
So it is absurd to claim a building fell at freefall when it took 15 seconds....... clearly it didn't.
You seriously think that debris and fire braught down a 47 story skyscrapper? And debating 6 seconds versus 14 seconds is worthless. It would have never crumbled to the degree it did from "ancillary damage" as was claimed.
drmrzrul12 8 hours ago
@drmrzrul12 Yup, and so did most of the guys from FDNY who were looking at it that day. They saw it burning, heard it creaking and stuff falling off it, they expected it might collapse.
And the full investigation said the same thing.
The debate is not worthless, you're just trying to avoid the debate....:/
You claim it would never have crumbled that way? Who the hell RU to say? Were you there? Did you get a PhD in SE and do a 2 year analysis?
Anyone can have an opinion, so what?
AlienEntity1 7 hours ago
Comments may be held for up-loader approval... well I'm waiting... I wonder why my comments weren't approved? Is it because I might have raised some serious questions and stated some interesting facts? Typical...
ResuEmanA 1 day ago
@ResuEmanA You can complain to youtube for failing to send me notices in my inbox until today.
Happens all the time, and guess what - truthers go off on paranoid conspiracy theories about that too..... typical.
You guys prove, once again, that you're just plain wrong most of the time. And you really don't give a shit either, since you need to protect your fragile egos - the truth? You're not interested in the truth, in fact you're hostile to it.
AlienEntity1 1 day ago
Don't worry about the like/dislike ratio. I've noticed that none of that proves a point to be truth or false. But the fact of the matter is, is that the people who like to accuse people of lying don't like to be called liars themselves. Great video.
Optimusprimemc1 6 days ago
This video is useless in defending the commission report. It shows a regular demolition where bomb after bomb the building still stands until the final blast sends it down, explaining the "14" seconds it took for B7 to finally collapse, which once on it's way, did fall at the speed of a demo'd building. It's common sense that these building wouldn't just fall like a house of cards, don't kid yourself people. Buildings 3 through 6 were skeletons after 1 and 2 fell on them... they didn't collapse.
ResuEmanA 1 week ago
The Commission report was not an engineering report, so has nothing to do with the mechanism of collapse nor the study of it.
You reveal a deep ignorance and disrespect for the subject.
The engineering study was done by teams of PhD engineers contracted by National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST.
Your 'common sense' is not meaningful. i would imagine you don't understand nuclear fusion, spacetime or many other complex things. Big deal - you're another ignoramus.
AlienEntity1 1 day ago
@AlienEntity1 Emotionally prepared? For what? To accept that our government isn't corrupt? That would be wonderful. To bad it is corrupt and that's a FACT. Who and how corrupt is where the argument may lie. As I said, no one will pry ever know the truth about what happened that day, but to look at all the evidence and believe that all is as was said, You my fellow American are the one not emotionally prepared to accept that all governments have corrupt people/groups aka the mob within its walls.
ResuEmanA 1 week ago
@ResuEmanA Once again your assumptions have proved wrong - I'm not American. I'm not your fellow American.
But you see what you want to see, don't you?
AlienEntity1 1 day ago
You presented no scientific evidence. Just took statments out of context.
medicalbhyuuhhh 1 week ago
@medicalbhyuuhhh Uhmm, that's exactly what AE911Truth and Richard Gage are doing.
No science, just shrill and inflammatory talking points.
WTF does freefall have to do with Controlled Demolition anyways? Apparently (I guess Gage didn't check the facts) real CD's don't fall at freefall.
Is it scientific to make the claims Gage does? Not at all, but he does it anyways. And perhaps you believe him anyway......that's my whole point.
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
Another thing is how come the damage to the pentagon is minimal compared to that of the damage done to the towers, they wont even show the video mind you. And it is quite obvious that these were demolitions of some sort whether those "DAMN RAG HEADS" did it, or in fact our own government did.
ResuEmanA 1 week ago
@ResuEmanA You ask questions but are you prepared, emotionally and intellectually, to accept straight answers?
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
@ResuEmanA The Pentagon was heavily reinforced steel and concrete, the towers were remarkably light in construction. That's the main difference.
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
@ResuEmanA Video? There's really only one video of the WTC 1 attack, the Naudet film.
Pentagon and gas station cameras are no good with 500mph planes. Slow frame rate.
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
I of course might not ever know the truth, but... the "what happened to the passengers" question is pretty irrelevant considering if our government were to commit such a crime, why would a few more people matter. Kidnap the people and swap out the planes for some bomb filled ones.
ResuEmanA 1 week ago
@ResuEmanA You can imagine all sorts of things, that doesn't mean it happened that way.
Fiction is nothing new... Hollywood movies have fantastical plots, but r they real?
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
I haven't made my mind up at all on the issue -- but first of all, a sincere thanks for including footage of how the left side of wtc 7 (the penthouse as you call it) started to break off. Something I've not ever seen in any documentary, at least not highlighted.
Yue2305 1 week ago
@Yue2305 You're welcome, much appreciated. The official name for the structures is 'mechanical penthouse', just FYI.
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
How do truthers explain the fact that the firefighters said WTC 7 was unstable and likely to collapse?
Some truthers say the firefighters were part of the plot and intentionally lied about the condition of the building. Sure bet.. Some say the firefighters were told the building was unstable but they didn't really have any evidence of that themselves. Yeah, sure. That makes perfect sense.
Basically, the firefighters' comments about WTC 7 instability undermine the demo theory.
PoetryHound 4 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
I too did not understand physics and structures and design and engineering. It was easy just to accept the "Official Story" of how those buildings collapsed. BUT after spending 4 years in architecture school at Georgia Tech, I couldn't ignore the evidence any more. It's a deep, deep rabbit hole to jump down, but I believe it is imperative to educate our selves and eventually others about what Actually Occurred in Reality vs the STORY that was told to us by a government infused media.Thanks!
zhale4 1 month ago
I think the most compelling aspect about the A&E for 911 Truth documentaries and resources is the Noted Credentials of the Professionals who are interviewed and who sign their petition online. These are highly established professionals willing to put their reputations and sometimes careers on the line in the hope that they may better educate others or at least shed light on the scientific method being applied to examine the collapse of those structures on 9/11...
zhale4 1 month ago
@zhale4 Sorry, your post did not get into my inbox, so I didn't see it until today.
Youtube isn't great that way...
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
Okay, Show me ONE other example of a NONCONTROLLED building collapse where the building comes down like this (straight into it's footprint). Just one. So, we are talking about a few seconds discrepency. You better give me more than that, because this is the most suspicious looking "building collapse" that has ever been recorded.
Lookitsbread 1 month ago
@Lookitsbread Sure thing - but a warning and prediction: you will avoid this evidence and disqualify it on some obscure grounds (ie move the goalpost). All truthers do this until they give up their delusions.
The building - CTV building in New Zealand collapsed completely into it's footprint, killing dozens, in Feb 2011.
There you go. And there are many other examples, which truthers also ignore. It's not hard to see why... :)
AlienEntity1 1 month ago 5
@Lookitsbread btw, a word about 'falling into its footprint' - if this actually happened with WTC 7, how come it fell across 2 streets and did over $1.5 billion damage to the Verizon bldg and Fiterman Hall CUNY?
Unless you're arguing that the footprint included the streets and those buildings.... :jawdrop:
AlienEntity1 1 month ago 9
@Lookitsbread HEY! WE PAY TAXES.....AND WE WANT A REAL INVESTIGATION...WHY WAS BUILDING 7 NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE REPORT? FISHY...WHY DID BUSH REFUSE TO GO UNDER OATH.....AND WHY DID HE NEED CHENEY HOLING HIS HAND......THIS VIDEO STINKS OF PROPAGANDA . AND HOW DO YOU EXPLAINE THE MOLTEN STEEL AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WTC WHAT CAUSED THAT.....WHERE DID THE THERMITE COME FROM ??????? THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING THAT THE PANCAKE STORY IS BULLSHIT.......
Licalattapuss 1 week ago
@Licalattapuss Dude, calm down and give the allcaps a rest ok?
1) WTC 7 was investigated in the largest investigation of its type ever done in history. It was published in 2006 by NIST. So please correct yourself there to start...
2) There is NO empirical evidence of molten steel. All there are are some anecdotal reports. However, exactly the same things can be found at other fires in history. And I can prove it to you.
3) There is no real evidence for thermite.
4) NIST agrees
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
@Licalattapuss
4) NIST agrees w/U. There was no pancake collapse. You're out of date by at least 6 years in your info, btw.
If you'd like more info on any of those points, please just ask.
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
@Licalattapuss It's sad that I can tell from your rhetoric that you are a WRH(*)com reader.
soulinite 1 week ago
@soulinite What is that?
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
@AlienEntity1 A really terrible conspiracy blog called Whatreallyhappened*com
soulinite 1 week ago
truth is simple,.... all of a sudden everyone's a controlled demolition expert and studies behaviors of collapsing buildings, but probably only getting half truths out of there studies because there studies are one sided,..... mankind makes shit complicated
osyris1988 2 months ago
@osyris1988 I kinda agree, but the physics of collapse are pretty complicated, not simple. So I'd say that to really understand the mechanics is difficult, esp for laymen like us.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@theawecabinet Isn't it funny how you take a small part of NIST's "observation" and use it to explain your theory, but completely ignore the rest (including NIST's conclusion that fire is what caused the collapse).
tommyboy31885 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Good video.
Jcm9991 2 months ago
The comparison to Peter Mitchell 40 years ago is apt. Mitchell was accused of malice toward Albert Lehninger, the then-leader of the field. Actually, Mitchell was merely CURIOUS and, yes, impatient. He wanted to KNOW why no one could find Lehninger's "missing intermediate." Mitchell was right; it wasn't there! The mitochondrial membrane is the "battery". Some very smart people are incurious and very good at certain jobs, even in science. Curious people can be annoying, I agree!
Skeptic121 3 months ago
@Skeptic121 I suppose everyone who works on contract for NIST is an incurious zombie who does not think for themselves as well.
Anybody who agrees with the government's findings is incurious. There are no creative thinkers working in government jobs, so they couldn't determine the truth if it was handed to them.
Have I got your amazingly extreme bias pegged yet?
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
Hey Alien are they paying you per anti-truth comment you put on the internet? Are you sitting at your desk at the NSA right now? Any one with two eyes and half a brain can tell that what happened on 9/11 was bullshit. I appreciate your righteous attempts to show how everyone is wrong...... but 9/11 was an Inside Job planned and executed by a criminal rogue element of our government to push an agenda of war and police state control. You will not be on the winning team
isolatedfire 1 month ago
@isolatedfire It gets very tiresome when every other truther accuses you of being a paid shill just because you don't go along with the truther sheep.
You guys are so brainwashed into thinking that you're right no matter what, regardless of the facts, that you've lost your way completely. You should be thanking the skeptics for keeping some sanity on the internet.
The list of truther Urban Legends is long & growing - but that doesn't make them true.
Pick a topic and challenge me
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@isolatedfire I've heard all your rhetoric b4. Pick an issue, and discuss it like a man. Anybody can make vague attacks and generalizations, it doesn't prove a thing.
What have you got?
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane, what happened to the passengers and crew?
How many times did William Rodriguez change his 911 testimony?
If flight 77 was a missile and not a plane, what knocked down the pole lights outside the Pentagon?
ctcole77 3 weeks ago
Note that there was 2.25 sec of FREE FALL ACCELERATION
documented about the "collapse" of WTC7... just exactly
how do you get FIRE to REMOVE all of the structure from under
the falling mass? The NIST has NOT answered this question at all!
There are all sorts of anomalies about the events of 9/11/2001.
Gaz00ks 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks Wrong. They did answer the question on p. 606 of NCSTAR 1-9 as well as elsewhere. Truthers reject the answer, but that's the fault of truthers, not NIST.
Truthers refuse to understand the physics of collapse, or the engineering explanations offered by the teams who studied it and modeled it. But the answer is there.....
Further, the Truther hypothesis that simultaneous explosions around the exterior broke the entire structure fails because there is no observed event to match it.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks Continued - in other words, for this to have occurred the way truthers insist it did, there would HAVE to be a ring of explosions on the exterior just at the moment of collapse.
But that DID NOT HAPPEN. Thus the theory is falsified because it does not match the evidence. And it cannot.
Most real CD's do not fall at freefall speed anyway, and certainly not halfway thru a global collapse. That just doesn't happen in CD's. Check the historical evidence, you'll see.
But you won't....
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Two things about this, 1- there were explosions documented in that people reported hearing explosions and there were explosions recorded in news video that day.
2 - The entire cutting job could have been aided by energetic materials ( thermite ), that is the cutting work would be getting done, without an explosive event.
also your explanation that WTC7 did not look exactly like other controlled demolitions, the event doesn't have to duplicate precisely the exact behavior.....
Gaz00ks 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks 2) Complete fantasy. Absolutely zero scientific basis for that belief, there is simply no precedent, no research, ziltch.
But then religious views are not based on reality, but belief alone. That is what your view is, put very simply - a faith-based idea without basis in reality.
You believe whatever you want. It's your dark fantasy...
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 "Absolutely zero scientific basis for that belief, " I'm sorry that you choose not to see the fact that there has been a considerable amount of research on this subject. The laws of physics either apply to the events of 9/11/2001 or somebody is in command of some seriously heavy magic.
Gaz00ks 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks REsearch, sure. Scientific basis, NO.
In fact, in ten years, not a single truther has published a peer-reviewed paper in an engineering journal to offer a testable hypothesis to the scientific community. No one.
You recite your Urban Legends and myths about 'the Laws of Physics' yet you don't understand what it means and how it applies. You simply recite what you're told like a parrot. This is not knowledge, dude, it's basically religion - a fantasy narrative you have bought into.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 No peer reviewed paper could POSSIBLY be published that did not support the official story. I have worked in government-supported science. Money is given out by so-called "study sections"; t is a common lament that even ONE enemy on a study section can ruin a promising career. Indeed, my boss made an enemy in the study section and MY career ended. I got out and went into business. ANY questioning of the official story is considered anti-Semitic, the kiss of death.
Skeptic121 3 months ago
@Skeptic121 Hmm, then the 'Active Thermitic Materials' paper wasn't published by Bentham Open Chemistry?
I see. Better tell 9/11 Truth that it didn't happen. You just said it so it MUST be true 'No peer reviewed paper could POSSIBLY be published that did not support the official story'
LOL, you're comment is debunked by 9/11 Truthers. Too funny
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Your side CONTINUALLY complains that paper was NOT properly peer reviewed. "Complains" isn't really the right word. "Hissy-fit shrieks" is more like it
Skeptic121 3 months ago
@Skeptic121 I know! Isn't it deliciously ironic? Truthers shriek about how it was peer reviewed, and you deny it. Marvelous.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 "You simply recite what you're told like a parrot."
on the very day it happened, I saw the Evan Fairbanks video & said "B" movie special effects & when WTC7 "collapsed" I knew for certain that 9/11/2001 was a FALSE FLAG ATTACK. I have no idea what sort of black-magic & witchcraft has been invoked to short-circuit the LOGIC & REASON that people have, but its a bad thing, there are a few people who have proven to immune to the black-magic, but all too few...
Gaz00ks 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks I take that back in that case - you're a genius savant that can instantly see things real experts take months or years to determine.
Wow, you've found a shortcut to infinite knowledge! No more university, slogging for years to learn about math, physics, engineering, medicine or what-have-you. Simply watch a youtube video and you KNOW everything instantly.
Got it. Genius a minute on youtube. Beautiful fantasy stuff.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 This is NOT about watching "youtube videos" its about seeing the event as presented by the mainstream media and deciding what takes precedent ... one's own understanding of physics, or the authority figure on TV telling you what to think.
My take on this is anybody can get it, all you have to do is get out of movie watching mode and into reality mode.
Gaz00ks 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks Strawman argument. It's not a choice between authority figures (like David Chandler or Richard Gage) and the MSM.
It's about the best science we have, teams of top engineers, trained specifically in the areas they're studying, publishing comprehensive analysis of the collapses. This analysis has almost unanimously been accepted by the world's engineering schools and the engineering community.
It has nothing to do with MSM. YOUR views come from youtube and conspiracy websites.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks And you have admitted that you have some kind of gigantic ego which gives you the illusion that 'I knew for certain that 9/11/2001 was a FALSE FLAG ATTACK' just by looking at a video of a collapse.
ie, you read NO report, you studied NO physics, in order to form your viewpoint. You made your mind up before being properly informed, and are arrogant enough to ignore the actual engineering studies.
You probably don't even know about steel and fire issues. Nor do you care.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Simple question 4 U
in the case of WTC7 does chaotic damage = coherent "collapse"?
Gaz00ks 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks No.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 So given that what was observed indeed was a well organized event, that is the building descended strait down and kept its shape. The the "collapse" of WTC7 was a coherent event. that is something that had to have been planned in advance to happen exactly as it did. having chaotic damage create such a result is illogical.
Gaz00ks 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks No, you don't get to do that - ie you don't get to pretend that speculation is fact. You do not know that there was ANY organization of the collapse of WTC 7, since your entire premise is that it can somehow be inferred from the way the collapse looked.
That is a logical fallacy - Assuming The Consequent. If your premise is wrong, then your conclusion is wrong. And there is no scientific basis for your premise, it is only a bare assertion.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 "you don't get to pretend that speculation is fact." I'm not pretending anything, the fact is, that the observation of WTC7 shows 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration, the ONLY way to achieve that is to have ALL of the structure under the falling mass simply go-away. how is that done with chaotic fires?
Gaz00ks 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks Dude, you're doing it again. YOu're making an unsupported claim, that there is only ONE way to achieve freefall.
Firstly, try to find a controlled demolition that occurs at freefall. Almost impossible to find. They just don't behave like that.
Second, Femr2 actually measured 1 second FASTER than freefall. Yes, that's right. Explosives can't do that. The only thing that can do that is a multilevel collapse where the centre of gravity moves b4 the facade.
That's what happened
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks Plus, your new premise is illogical in real life - even if explosives WERE used (there's no evidence of that, but for argument's sake) somehow you'd have to remove ALL the structure simultaneously, but in WTC 7's collapse there WERE NO EXPLOSIONS recorded on any video as it fell.
That means explosives are RULED OUT, and it was some other mechanism.
Your theories fail because they do not reflect reality.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 "Your theories fail because they do not reflect reality." The theory that 19 suicidal Arabs hijacked airplanes ... (etc...) also fails & for the same reason.
The fact is that it is much more logical & supportable by good science, that some OTHER mechanism other than chaotic fires, caused the complete & Total destruction of WTC7 ( not to mention the destruction of WTC 1, & 2 )
Gaz00ks 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks The hijackers and their actions are not a theory, they are a fact. Reality is something quite different from what you imagine. It is something that can be verified thru a variety of means, including tracing the histories of the hijackers, obtaining their DNA from wreckage, and so on.
And their airline tickets, eyewitness testimony from the planes.
Facts, not speculation. That is the difference. If you ignore facts, then anything is possible, in your mind.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
MrSkunkwork100 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks "the ONLY way to achieve that is to have ALL of the structure under the falling mass simply go-away. how is that done with chaotic fires?"
A better question you might ask yourself, is if the building lost some of it's support during the course of the collapse, would the unsupported segment fall at free fall? In the case of WTC 7, that is what happened: a segment of the building collapsed ahead of other parts in a progression.
MrSkunkwork100 2 months ago
@Gaz00ks In addition to your logical fallacy (Assuming the Consequent) you are ignorant of many facts. Maybe you choose to ignore them, maybe you simply don't know..
1) WTC 7 did not fall neatly into its footprint, in fact it fell across two streets and did almost $2 billion damage to surrounding buildings. This is not like any controlled demolition in history.
2)Neither of the towers fell straight down neatly, they were very chaotic. Yet truthers still believe they were CD'd!!!
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks In other words, despite the fact that the towers were chaotic, truthers argue that this proves they were CD'd. Yet that contradicts the logic you are using.
Either:
a) They're wrong, and the towers were not CD'd
b) You're wrong, and your premise is incorrect
c) You're all wrong for different reasons
You can't have it both ways. Your criteria contradict each other.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Gaz00ks NIST has acknowledged 2.25 seconds of free fall. THAT alone is an unexpected phenomenon that anyone with curiosity and creativity will be drawn to investigate. Many if not MOST scientists are notoriously incurious and uncreative. Indeed, curious and creative scientists like Peter Mitchell are not often appreciated by their peers. Peter Mitchell was unusual in going from "kook" to Nobel Prize winner in ten years. Is "shut up" an explanation? To many, but not to Peter Mitchell.
Skeptic121 3 months ago
@Skeptic121 Hmm, but it WAS investigated by the most comprehensive engineering analysis in history of a building collapse.
But that doesn't count, does it? It's not in your fantasy, therefore it doesn't exist.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 GCW TIY G/Wes Have you WATCHED the video of Prof. Barnett bitterly complaining about NOT being allowed to inspect the debris of WTC7 ? Aren't you even a bit curious why only ONE piece of WTC7 debris was studied? Aren't you a bit curious about how high temperature sulfur melted it? Really, it is CURIOSITY that motivates many of us, not malice. During the Clinton administration I was CURIOUS about Vince Foster and Ron Brown. I didn't even want to impeach; I just wanted to know.
Skeptic121 3 months ago
@Skeptic121 This is a complete strawman, based on a quotemine. You really think only ONE piece of WTC 7 debris was studied??? OMG that's hilarious.
Dude, most of the steel was inspected at Freshkills. There was no evidence of explosive cutter charges on any of it. The failure modes were observed and samples were kept for later evaluation.
The eutectic erosion was looked at in depth. It has nothing to do with explosives or thermite. Get a grip.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Skeptic121 The eutectic erosion does not occur in controlled demolitions, ever. You cannot find any historical examples, otherwise you would have already. There are none.
It is a corrosive process, most likely occurring in the rubble piles, and it occurs at temperatures well within the range of normal fires. There is nothing suspicious about it, even though it is unusual.
You think you're the only curious one? LOL, must b nice living in that fantasy.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Well, at least I got you to admit it was "unusual" ...I was known for curiosity and creativity when I worked in a lab many years ago. Many very bright people utterly lack curiosity and creativity and were actually quite offended by mine. I am certainly not the only one with those qualities, nor have I ever claimed to be. I do suggest that you are a bright man who is not particularly curious or creative. There are different, but equally honorable roles for the two of us.
Skeptic121 3 months ago
@Skeptic121 I do suggest that you are not particularly perceptive or correct. Obviously I'm curious enough to have researched the topic of eutectics, and I happen to know that it doesn't indicate anything sinister.
I just don't happen to jump to conspiracy-based assumptions at every turn like truthers do, is all.Lots of things are unusual, like jets flying into tall buildings, and rubble piles which burned for weeks.
Molten metal was seen under WTC 6 as well, unusual, not suspicious
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 I am willing to agree to disagree. I have worked with Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Evangelicals, atheists, and many others. I understand that we will never agree on how the world GOT here, let alone on history and politics. I meant what I said about creative and curious people being unsuitable for many important roles in society. I find Prof. Barnett's work a reason to investigate EVERY piece of WTC7 debris in DEPTH, not ship it to China. BUT, if we were going to war anyway...NOT.
Skeptic121 3 months ago
@Skeptic121 You are not the head of forensic investigations, so it doesn't matter what you believe they should have done. You are not in a position to declare what a correct method is or isn't with any authority.
The steel was inspected, but nothing suspicious was found, although the eutectic corrosion samples were noted, collected and analyzed. They did their jobs, and people like you do not even begin to appreciate this. You crap on it instead.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Skeptic121 Here's what Barnett's team found about the corrosion 'This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC'
There is absolutely NOTHING about this that suggests controlled demolition. It's a scientific curiosity, Barnett is concerned because of building safety, not for any other reason.
He doesn't suggest anywhere that this is anything but a fire safety issue. Truthers read far too much into these things.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 No, Barnett's work does NOT suggest controlled demolition. It suggests ARSON. No way should sulfur, the yellow stuff, be stored in an office building. WTC7 was not a gunpowder factory. You cannot get sulfur, the yellow stuff, from calcium sulfate in drywall in building fire. Thanks for acknowledging it is a curiosity. It is, and that's why I care about it. I have no malice toward GWB or Israel. As I say repeatedly, curiosity and creativity can be a disability in much of life...
Skeptic121 3 months ago
@Skeptic121 'You cannot get sulfur, the yellow stuff, from calcium sulfate in drywall in building fire'
Incorrect, but explains why you're struggling to identify relevant facts and consequences. You do not understand. Quite simple, really.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago 2
@AlienEntity1 Ask any chemistry teacher on the planet if you can get sulfur, the yellow stuff, also known as "ground state sulfur" from calcium sulfate in a building fire. Better yet, DO it and post the video! You are getting into my field and a feel ashamed to take advantage of you this way.
Skeptic121 2 months ago
@Skeptic121 Hmm, no need, since it's been studied and written about. From the paper 'Sulfur and the World Trade Center Disaster' by Dr Frank Greening ' the reduction of CaSO4 to CaO and SO2 by reaction with solid carbon or gaseous
carbon monoxide was found to be possible at temperatures well below 1000 -C /8/. In these cases CaSO4 was decomposed by two novel reactions:
2CaSO4 + C -2CaO + CO2 + 2SO2
&
CaSO4 + CO -CaO + CO2 + SO2
Reference to follow in next post.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@Skeptic121
T.D. Wheelock et al. “Reductive Decomposition of Gypsum by Carbon Monoxide.” Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry 52(3), 215, (1960).
So the likely source for such sulfidation would be from SO2. Ironic you'd argue against Gypsum Wallboard when it's about 19% sulfur by weight, and that fires produce ample CO gas.
Above 800 C 'this reaction propagates rapidly' when 'CO concentrations are at least 1 Vol %'
Sounds about right. Damn!
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@AlienEntity1 The reaction you cite must be run WITHOUT oxygen. It is a common process in Asia to recycle drywall. If there is any oxygen, the CO will react with it to yield CO2. If you DID get any sulfur, the yellow stuff, it would react with oxygen to SO2. No iron sulfide from SO2; iron SULFITE. Different sulfur oxidation states. This is BASIC chemistry, except on 9/11/2001. See
watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw for the reaction in the PRESENCE of oxygen. Ask any chemistry professor.
Skeptic121 2 months ago
@Skeptic121 ' in 10 - 20 % CO/ N2, calcium sulfide, CaS, and carbon dioxide
are formed at temperatures in the range 780 - 850 C, while at CO concentrations below 10 %, calcium oxide, CaO, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide are formed above 900 C. Kuusik et al. also note that the presence of impurities such as SiO2 in the calcium sulfate lower the decomposition temperatures by up to 100 C.'
Not according to the industry papers. 'maintained at 900 C in an atmosphere containing 1 % CO'
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@Skeptic121 The industry literature just indicates that the decomposition temperature can be lowered by the presence of certain gases, as I've quoted from the Greening paper.
If you can find anything in the papers which shows this to be incorrect, go ahead.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
Ever seen a concrete building collapsing because of fire?
I Guess not!!!
Take for example the Mandarin Hotel from Bejing that burned for 3 hours.
Also the fire extended across all floors but there was large portion of the structure collapsing.
Noahshollow 3 months ago
@Noahshollow Yes, concrete buildings also collapse from fire, not as often as steel though. 2008 Delft University, one of the towers almost completely collapsed from fire, even though it was being fought.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 So do you really wanna say that the collapsing of the North wing of the delft university looks the same as the collapsing ot the 3 wtc buildings?
Are you serious!?
please upload a video comparing those collapses!!!
But don´t blame me if you shoot in your own foot.
Those collapses are nothing the same!!!
Noahshollow 3 months ago
@Noahshollow You wrote 'Ever seen a concrete building collapsing because of fire?
I Guess not!!!'
I showed you that I have seen one. Now you're attempting (unsuccessfully btw) to move the goalposts.
Collapses are not identical, not even controlled demolitions are identical. That is not a valid criterion for determining whether something can collapse due to fire or not. Has nothing to do with it.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Noahshollow And of course the proverbial elephant in the room is that the Delft collapse demonstrates that EVEN reinforced concrete buildings CAN collapse due to fire alone, even if the fire is fought.
It's kind of like the Titanic - it was engineered to be unsinkable, according to popular myth. That myth also proved incorrect, as so many myths (like 9/11 myths) are proved wrong.
Steel buildings are even more vulnerable to fire since steel weakens in heat.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 So you saw a steelframe building or concrete building collapse by fire.
And yes it showed that it´s possible that fire can cause a collapse.
But you can´t say that the wtc7 collapse that looked like a controlled demolotion has any similarities with the Delft University.
If there are any, name one!
That´s the point here!!! people like you try to explain the WTC1,2,7 collapse with their own theory that is nothing better than some conspiracy nut theory.
Noahshollow 3 months ago
@Noahshollow So you have now been proven wrong, and still you are on the attack. Now would be a good time to STFU and stop pretending you know anything about the subject......
Similarities? LOL
Fires, large and mostly uncontrolled - both buildings √
Fire-resistant concrete destroyed by fire - not in WTC 7, but in Delft. WTC 7 was even more vulnerable as it was mainly steel.
SFRM protected beams - not in WTC 7, it was knocked off by debris impacts.
So WTC 7 had many weaknesses to fires.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Noahshollow Sorry, deleted your last post because it is not civil enough to be approved. Try cleaning up your language.
Also, you are DEAD WRONG about the fires in WTC buildings. They were extensively documented in both NIST reports, and by FDNY in many cases.
For example, FDNY personnel described WTC 7 as 'fully involved', esp when viewed from the South.
watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
This video shows the huge amounts of smoke pouring from the South side. And this was a much bigger building than Delft.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1
Please give the reference to your best rebuttal of the Harrit paper. I presume it is a peer reviewed paper you quote?
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Harrit and Jones refuse to release the WTC samples for independent testing. The paper has not been duplicated anywhere in the world.
As such, it doesn't meet the minimum requirements for scientific precedents to be accepted. No corroboration.
Spending $800 to get Bentham Open to perform its nonexistent peer-review is not going to help. In 2009 Phil Davis submitted a nonsense paper which was 'accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ.'
It contained gibberish.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Funny how gullible you truthers are, that you don't know or care about the fact that Bentham's was exposed already 2 years ago for its shoddy peer-review.
Phil Davis wrote 'Would a publisher accept a completely nonsensical manuscript if the authors were willing to pay Open Access publication charges?' Answer: YES!!
'This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ.'
Scholarly Kitchen exposed Bentham's fraud.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Google Tillotson Gash nanostructured energetic materials. That's your peer-reviewed rebuttal.
A succinct explanation:
'As you decrease particle size the surface area that is non-reactive Al2O3 relative to the volume of Al increases. This means that there is in effect less Al per gram to react as you decrease particle size. Tillitson et al showed this and their energy out put for their thermite was 1.5J/Kg'
So Harrit's chips CANNOT be NT chemically. It can't produce those levels.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Zooney1 Continued: One of Harrit's chips produced almost 8 KJ/KG!! That's way above the chemical limit for ordinary thermite (FeO2+Al) at 3.5, and about 5X MORE THAN REAL NANOTHERMITE has produced in empirical tests.
So the best science says loud and clear that the chips ARE NOT THERMITIC at all.
But since you don't care about reality you apparently prefer the fantasy put forward by Jones and Harrit. Your loss. It doesn't fool real experts.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
Okay this dose not deny or prove that the US government where involved?
Also do you know what was in building 7?
killuminati91112 3 months ago
@killuminati91112 Correct. This goes to the argument whether or not there were controlled demolitions on WTC.
There is no evidence that the US government was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
WTC 7 main tenant was Salomon Smith Barney (28-45)
A few insurance companies; IRS/CIA/DOD on floor 25; SEC 11-13; AMEX 7-8 and US Secret Service 9-10
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
That is how a building is imploded, the center first (just a couple seconds before), then the rest follows. And didn't nist admit to freefall?
cc92873 3 months ago
@cc92873 You are so biased in your thinking that you claim it is 'imploded' as if by some outside force (apart from the fires and gravity) yet nobody, not you, not anybody else has posited a rational, fact and evidence-based mechanism for explosives.
I mean specifically HOW they were used and WHERE, and how this could be achieved without detection before or after and not captured on any audio taken as the building fell.
Freefall? Only truthers think freefall = CD. Real Cd's R <freefall in fact
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@cc92873 Just to clarify, ACTUAL controlled demolitions do NOT fall at freefall, but slower.
So the truther meme is not based on any kind of established science, but pure conjecture based on a misunderstanding of physics, actually.
Just, for a moment ask yourself how ALL the exterior columns could be cut by charges - without any squibs being seen on video or photographs on those columns.... How? It is illogical if the evidence is not there.
Very simple.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
This video is bull shit. NO STEEL building of concrete has ever just collapsed for a century before and 10 years since. And Even though Demolition charges did NOT do all the damage, blasts were heard by the fireFighters, IT WAS IN FACT, "Dustifyied" see ; "Dr.JudyWood.com ... she has an excellent book better than this, and loud music at the end does NOT make your video more True.
williamwagener 3 months ago
@williamwagener No, your comment is bullshit. FACT: Steelframe AND reinforced concrete buildings have completely and partially collapsed due to fire.
That's just a fact, nothing you say is going to change it.
Don't fight reality, chump, you'll end up losing and making yourself a fool.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@williamwagener Unfortunately the youtube user williamwagener replied using more foul language and making personal attacks against me.
For that reason his comment is not approved. If he can make a point without resorting to vicious personal attacks it will be approved.
I doubt he can do it, but you never know. I'm sick and tired of these horrible people that call themselves 'truthers'. Yuk!
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@williamwagener ahhh the pussy williamwagner is back. ahahaha you fucking pussy have to block people that prove you bullshit incorrect. ahahahha "See Judy Wood" ahahah just referencing her proves how fucking stupid you are. and NO STEEL building of concrete ahahahah what the fuck is that mean you are claiming the building was steel but state is made of concrete??? ahahahaha you are a fucking moron.
12weasel100 3 months ago
@williamwagener "and no steel building has collpased" ahahah what a bullshit argument. First just because something did not occur does not mean that it cannot occur. Second steel framed structures can and have collapsed due to fire you stupid pile of shit. The "blasts" you refer to have been explained there are many items that could have caused loud noises or explosions. Loud noises or explosions does not mean charges. You fucking dumb fuck ahahahah you retard.
12weasel100 3 months ago
1: You dont have to use "loud" explosives to destroy steel, thermite is not loud like the explosives they used in that demo. And that video was ALOT closer and not BEHIND BUILDINGS
2: 14 or 18 seconds? Which is it??
3: You can freely comment on 99.9% of all 911 truther videos WITHOUT SCREENING
4: Wake up
gurper707 4 months ago
@gurper707 IN the history of building demolitions, neither thermite, thermate or nanthermite has EVER been used. Period. Not once. Look it up before you speak.
There isn't a shred of evidence, quite the contrary - you're specifically claiming that something which has never happened before, and for which there is not evidence, MUST have happened. That's a very, very tall order to prove. You just can't do it, no matter how hard you try.
ps I have been blocked quckly on truther channels
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@gurper707 continued: because my views are 'heretical' for truthers, just posting a comment usually results in blocking.
This happened recently on AE911Truth's latest video release - and a bunch of other skeptics were blocked as soon as they asked questions, politely.
And you can't post anything on David Chandler's videos, nor most AE911Truth videos.
Wake up.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@gurper707 Unfortunately Gurper707 responded to my last reply with some extremely vulgar and vicious personal attacks, which I'm not going to allow.
Ironically he's now blocked me after calling me a paid shill. So, yes, I allow civil comments on my videos, and yes, truthers block skeptics if they don't agree with truther doctrine or dare to hold a view which supports mainstream thinking.
Oh well. Same old, same old. ;)
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
the penthouse did go first- thats what they blew up first
media cameras like the ones used in that interview are specifically designed not to pick up background noise, only noise in close proximity.
it fell at FREEFALL speed = control demolition, you cannot argue with this fact, it doesnt matter how long the explosions took to create the necessary structural failure to induce FREEFALL of a building.
i agree with the architects and engineers who have qualifications other than on youtube!!!
DJUNIT001 4 months ago
@DJUNIT001 LOL - 'they' blew it up? Because you say so, and you're an anonymous youtube expert, right? OK, we should believe you, sure!
media cameras don't pick up background noise? Uhmm, baloney! I suppose you pulled that one out of your butt, because I can't see where else you got that info - you didn't get it from a manufacturer of mics, or an audio technician - come to think of it, you're not an audio expert, RU? I didn't think so - you just THINK UR an expert in everything.
LMAO.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@DJUNIT001 Actually, the correct equation is: FREEFALL speed ≠ controlled demolition!
FACT: when actual CD's have been studied, they DON'T fall at freefall!! That's right - you've been fooled by another lie/propaganda talking point, and you don't do any research b4 believing what you're told.
So you're a gullible sucker, that makes you wrong. Oh well, luckily your opinion is not important. Wise up dude, stop believing in these urban legends.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
It's also worth noting that AE911Truth's own petition does NOT CLAIM that there was controlled demolition!!! Unlike Richard Gage's shrill, hysterical and emphatic insistence that it WAS, the petition is watered down:
'The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.'
'possible use' 'might have been'
What a joke.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
Hmm, it seems AE911Truth is working further deceptions - they claim over 1600 'verified' engineers and architects, yet they are not a licensing body and have no business pretending to vett members.
It seems only 500 or so are actually licensed to begin with. Only a handful are trained in structural engineering, and almost none in demolitions.
This is very misleading, basically a conflated argument from authority.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
AE911Truth has over 1600 architects and engineers behind them.
What are your qualifications?
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago 6
@Kill0Your0TV FALSE. You are being fooled by propaganda. You do not fact check - do not believe authorities blindly, learn to think critically.
There are NOT 1600 architects and engineers in AE911Truth - they are misleading you there and on many other issues.
Don't forget NOT A SINGLE ENGINEERING SCHOOL IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD disagrees with the overall conclusions of the NIST report. Do you realize how many 10's of thousands of engineers AGREE with NIST????
Think, man, think. Question things.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Um, YES, there are over 1600 verified architects and engineers on AE911Truth,org. Anyone can go there and look at all the names. Who are you trying to kid?
The NIST report is basically toilet paper. Never checked for explosive residue, never explained the gravitational collapses after they started, claim Building 7 fell straight down in 6.5 seconds due to fire. NIST is a government agency that does what it's told. That's why we need an independent investigation.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Uhmm, NO!! You are dead wrong. There are definitely NOT 1600 licensed architects and engineers in the membership. Not even close.
Do some fact checking b4 you swallow every lie that comes your way.
To call the NIST report 'basically toilet paper' is an incredibly ignorant and silly thing to say. But then I don't expect much from truthers - facts are not strong suits with you guys! LOL
Peer-reviewed engineering papers from AE911Truth? ZERO after all these years. FAIL!
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV There is not ONE SINGLE ENGINEERING PAPER IN AN ENGINEERING JOURNAL PUBLISHED BY AE911Truth.
NOT ONE. If you dare, link us to one, or name it and the engineering journal.
And stop lying that there are 1600 architects and engineers in the membership. That's just pure bull.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV So far, disregarding the fact that AE911Truth is basically trying to mount an argument from authority, hoping truthers won't scratch the surface to see whether the members have any relevant expertise, we have:
254 Architects (degreed and licensed, USA)
310 Professional Engineers (degreed and licensed, USA)
Moving onto the relevant qualifications, there is no support for the idea that an architect would know structural engineering, or demolitions. They receive no training in those
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV So out of the licensed and professional members of AE911Truth, how many have relevant training and experience in either
a) structural engineering
b) demolition
Now the number dwindles down to a truly insignificant one.
According to one researcher, AE911Truth petition signers amount to about '0.02% of all active, licensed professional engineers' in most US States. This is a tiny, tiny fringe compared with the general population of engineers.
We can turn the argument around!
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 So now you admit there are over 1600 verified architects and engineers on the AE911Truth webiste? Why the change of heart?
And who is this "one researcher" you're talking about? Does he have a name?
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV No, there are not 1600 licensed architects or engineers. I gave you the current number, it's around
560 in truth.
The term 'verified' is meaningless. The only verification that counts in the real world is a license from a valid licesning authority. AE911Truth is not a licensing authority, so their imprimatur has no merit. YOU may drink their koolaid, most of us know better.
Here's an example
James L. Hayhurst, Parachute Designer & Test Jumper; Writer
BS, US Air Force
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Hmmm. Thanks for the James L. Hayhurst example. I'm going to go through that list more carefully.
Still the structural engineers that don't buy the official theory. What do say to them?
And seriously, what is the motive of AE911Truth, in your opinion, if it isn't getting to the truth of the matter?
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV You're welcome. To SE's I say address your concerns to other engineers, via peer-reviewed papers in engineering journals. That's the only way you're going to get any respect in the community - you have to validate your ideas thru proper peer-review (the filter of experience and knowledge).
IMO, I think Richard Gage is committed to controlled demolition no matter what, he's not going to listen to anybody who disagrees - they're doing anything they can to 'stick it' to the man.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Seriously, I think they've created a giant scapegoat and they can't let go of it, so they're going to shout and use a political, not a scientific, apparatus - misguided at best, and downright dishonest at worst. I don't know which it is, maybe a blend of those things.
When Gage claims that iron-rich microspheres can ONLY be created by thermitic processes, he's either lying or ignorant. But either way he's dead wrong.
He makes about $75K per annum from AE911Truth (tax records)
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV LOL, sure, you go ahead and believe whatever propaganda your masters tell you to. What an obedient non-thinker!
Let's look at two of AE911Truth's poster boys, Mark Basile and David S Chandler.
Neither man has training in either:
1) structural engineering, mechanical engineering
2) demolition
3) nanothermitic compounds
Basile is a chemical engineer, Chandler is a physics highschool teacher. That's it.
They have no expertise in the relevant areas. It's a bad joke on you.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 I haven't seen any debunking videos of the Chandler videos. If you have please let me know so I can see them. Also, the "physicsandreason" youtube site... I haven't seen anyone debunk those videos either. Lack of a "jolt" in a gravity collapse is a big problem with the official theory, no?
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Look on my channel I've done at least 4 videos on Chandler. Also check my favorites.
The lack of a jolt is not a problem because the 'jolt' idea came from a limiting case paper by Dr. Znedek Bazant, and is not meant to be a literal representation of the forces. It is meant to examine whether a drop of an upper block of 1 story would be arrested by the structure below - Bazant showed it WOULD NOT be arrested.
I'll explain more.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Jolt continued - both towers tilted at collapse onset, meaning that the forces applied below were NOT symmetrical - the failures were progressive, with floor systems sagging (under heat), pulling in exterior columns by several feet until buckling occurred. Since a buckled column does not land square on top of the column fragment below (it is offset automatically) you do not get axial collisions. Instead it might impact part of the floor system, where little resistance would be.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Both Bazant and Chief Structural Engineer Leslie Robertson agree that once the process was underway for a couple of seconds, it was game over - there was no way the structure below was designed to handle the forces - there would be no proper load paths to carry the upper block mass and rubble layer as it accelerated down.
In fact since a lot of material fell inside the columns it splayed them out, so there wasn't much structure resisting.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Turning the argument around, There are literally 10's of thousands of US engineers who DISAGREE with 9/11 Truth controlled demolition theories, who accept the mainstream consensus, and, thus, if numbers mean anything, completely overwhelm the claims of a fringe of silly people.
If numbers mean nothing, that's fine, then 1600 also means nothing. Take your pick. Either way you lose. This movement is irrelevant to the truth of the WTC collapses.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV First computer, mechanical, marine, sanitation engineers and architects are not structural engineers. Second many of the morons in your shitty little group are students that have never done anything relating to structural engineer. And third your tiny little group of morons represents less than 1% of 1% of the more than 1.7 million engineers that work in the US alone. More than 99.9% of real experts do not support your shittly little groups statements. You are a sad deluded fool
12weasel100 3 months ago
AE911Truth,org
Over 1600 architects and engineers at AE911Truth say those were controlled demolitions, and I haven't seen one good argument against them yet.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago 4
@Kill0Your0TV FALSE!! You fail right there - there are NOT 1600 licensed architects or engineers in the organization. That number is very inflated.
2) If you haven't seen any evidence which supports the fire/plane impacts failure hypothesis, you simply have you eyes close to this evidence. Suggest you open your eyes to include such evidence.
You might want to consider reading some of the many peer-reviewed papers published in established scientific journals (ie not fake truther publications).
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
Which is more likely to be a lie if not an outright fabrication?
1) The "official" explanation for 9/11 from the Federal government and AE1's effort to rebut any doubts about that explanation
or
2) That many professionals in the fields of science and demolition would put their name and face out in opposition to the government just because Richard Gage said to? Do you really believe none of those in Gages expose looked into the explanation before saying that sounds like BS?
????
NeverForget1776 4 months ago
@NeverForget1776 The fabrication is your attempt to dumb-down complex events into rhetorical games, and pretend that these games amount to anything.
Your creation of strawmen and canards is not anything but sophistry. Pure sophistry and avoidance of science.
btw, isn't it ironic that none of your 'experts' have managed to produce A SINGLE PEER-REVIEWED ENGINEERING PAPER IN AN ENGINEERING JOURNAL?????
OMG that's a spectacular FAIL.
9/11 'Truth' is a FAILATHON for 10 years.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
Official 9/11 Points That Fail The Smell Test, can AlienEntity1 counter them?
#4 Flight 77 Pilot And His Incredible Skills
-The terrorist pilot on flight 77, Hani Hanhjour, executed a 330 degree downward spiral thru 7000 feet in around 3 minutes. Several former airliner pilots have testified that Hanjour could NOT possibly have maneuvered a large airliner thru the path that Flight77 took and hit the Pentagon.
NeverForget1776 4 months ago
@NeverForget1776 Pilots have flown simulators to show that IT COULD BE DONE.
Your other opinions do not invalidate this, nor the fact that the plane did fly that way.
You can argue against facts with opinion, but of course all you have is opinion, which is NOT FACT. Getting it yet?
You deny facts with opinion. See the problem??
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
Official 9/11 Points That Fail The Smell Test, can AlienEntity1 counter them?
#3 Hijacked jets but no "squawk" from the pilots
-Pilots are trained to "squawk" the universal highjack code on a transponder if they believe an attempted highjacking is evident.It takes 2 to 3 seconds to enter this code and yet no pilot on any 9/11 highjacked plane did so and CNN did report that it took more then 30 seconds to break into the cabin of flight 93. What about the other planes? No pilot squawked!
NeverForget1776 4 months ago
@NeverForget1776 This proves absolutely squat. There is plenty of other evidence for the hijackings, not least the MANY phone calls made by passengers, and flight attendants.
Sorry, but your 'test' is garbage. Show us examples of real hijackings and give us the % of 'squawks' to back up your claim. In fact the pilots of at least one aircraft reported a mayday that they were under attack.
Put that in your pipe of denial and smoke it.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
Official 9/11 Points That Fail The Smell Test, can AlienEntity1 counter them?
#2 NIST Claimed that the WTC Dust contained NO Thermitic Materials
- NIST did not perform any tests to determine whether there were incendiaries or explosive in the WTC dust it simply claimed there were none. Unreacted nanothermitic material was found in 4 independent samples of WTC dust and was published in The Open Chemicals Physics Journal, and peer reviewed. AE1 believes only peer reviewed writings mean anything
NeverForget1776 4 months ago
@NeverForget1776 Bullshit. The red chips contain, BY WEIGHT, according to harrit et al., only:
1.6% Aluminum
2.6% Iron
over 70% is an organic binder. By definition, this stuff CANNOT BE THERMITIC, because there's not enough reactant (FE and Al).
You idiots are too ignorant to realize this, and you repeat the mistakes like obedient lemmings.
It's sad to see you brainwash yourselves with this crap. It's like voluntary brain damage.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@TheSlavicHeart Oh Boo Fricking Hoo, you don't like a challenge to Richard Gage's nonsense? Poor little child, go run along and play with the other girls.
Have some milk and cookies while you're at it. LOL
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlientEntity1, are you still claiming that the contents of this video are proof that A&E for 911 are lying?
Do you really believe that you as an unidentified YouTube user know better about what happened to these buildings on 9/11 than a group of over 10 thousand professionals in the fields of engineering and related sciences?
You're correct about debate being the legitimate truth but after having wathed the A&E 911 video I don't see how even you can believe your own video any more.
NeverForget1776 4 months ago
@NeverForget1776 Yes, absolutely - Richard Gage, the head of AE911Truth makes a number of false claims. Among those false claims is the canard that the building collapsed 'in the exact manner of a controlled demolition'.
This is a blatant lie. The building burned for 7 hrs, and FDNY did evaluations which showed it was in danger of collapse due to these fires. They evacuated the area starting at 2pm.
No controlled demolition burns for hours first. Never, ever in history. A lie from Gage.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@NeverForget1776
Lie #2
The 'building' fell in 6.5 seconds. No, it didn't. PART of the building (the remainder of the structure which had not already collapsed) fell roughly in that time, but the collapse began internally roughly 8 seconds earlier and traveled East to West.
Richard Gage ignores this reality, and pretends the collapse started later. Fiction, and lying.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1
If the B7 took as long to fall as you state then you would agree that it did NOT fall at free fall or near free fall speed. To not agree would be countering your own claim so I will assume in advance that you agree.
Problem: How do you reconcile your stance that the bldg took too long to fall to be at or near free fall speed with NIST's own admission that the building fell at near free fall speed?
NeverForget1776 4 months ago
@NeverForget1776 Richard Gage's main claim is that WTC 7 fell at freefall speed. What he neglects to mention is that this 2.25s interval was less than 15% of the duration of the collapse.
Therefore, MOSTLY, it DID NOT FALL at freefall speed.
If Gage's stance is acceptable to you (15% freefall means FREEFALL), then my stance (85% NOT FREEFALL means NOT FREEFALL) should be equally acceptable.
You probably don't see the irony.
btw, NIST didn't say the building fell at freefall speed.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@NeverForget1776 NIST said the facade, specifically, the North Wall, a portion of the building, not the entire building (remember, building 7 had 4 vertical sides), fell briefly at freefall.
Richard Gage, and you, ignore the fact that:
NIST outlined 3 stages in this phase, only ONE of which occurred at freefall. The first is consistent with columns buckling.
So it is absurd to claim a building fell at freefall when it took 15 seconds....... clearly it didn't.
You probably still can't see this.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago