Yes thank you for proving to us that you were wrong. Bill Clinton took the Presidency on January 20th 1993. The bombing was in February when Clinton was president. No Bush in office. TY for your clarification.

Just waiting for the "spin".

It is one of those lawyer tricks where you give the person enough paint to leave them stuck in the corner where they can't get out..

Thank you.



The twin towers was not an ordinary controlled demolition. The people wanting it to come down did not care if it dropped "properly." Therefore they did not need to gut it. They tried to take down both towers in 1993 and failed. They succeeded in 2001. Their mission was simply to sacrifice those towers at any cost.

Many of the people that worked in that building did not show up for work that day. Many. They were told to stay away. They probably did not know why and they just considered themselves lucky.



And that is exactly what they did. That is what the explosions in the lower levels were doing just before the planes hit. That was what the explosions were about in WTC7 that started at 9:30 am.

So I don't know exactly what your point is. All the perpetrators wanted was for the building to COME DOWN. They did not need to "gut" it. They did not care if it damaged other buildings obviously.

In any case, as you have insisted, taking a building down totally requires a lot of work and planning. They had access to all the floors and they had eight years to put the plan together.

Most honest structural engineers and demolition experts KNOW that a plane did not and could not totally demolish the twin towers and they also know that a fire could not have taken down WTC7.

The attack on the twin towers in 1993 and in 2001 are clearly connected.
The apparent goal was to destroy the towers. Ha Ha they failed miserably in 1993. So they had to try again.

The Security for the towers, and for the airports where the planes departed were connected to the Bush's. (Marvin Bush) They had eight years to put the plan together and eight years to plant explosives. The security at the Twin Towers was non-existent. In 2001 anyone could have driven a truck full of explosives into the lower parking garage and taken it up the elevators to the "secret off limits floor" to be distributed throughout the entire structure of the building via freight elevators etc.

They did not want to fail again.

The Bush family are not the master minds of this terrorists act. They are the soldiers who do what they are told and they do it in exchange for money, power and position.

yep,inducing Fire as the one Unknown in the whole Equation!
Since when are Fire and Explosives Friends!
I can see you haven't got an Inkling what you're talking about!

You actually don't make any sense at all.

Your story just gets worse and worse and the things you make up get crazier and crazier. How on Earth would you know what "most honest structural engineers KNOW? You just seem to take whatever the truth is and argue the exact opposite.

I don't make stuff up. I do state my opinion though. Like it or not.


I take whatever truth is and argue the exact opposite? That's completely absurd. I base my statements on experts in the field of demolition that are not obliged to lie under the threat of being hounded by threats and intimidation from the people involved in this huge cover-up.

What you do is you take the official and absurd explanation prepared for the Bush-Cheney administration, under the direct control of FEMA and you call that "truth."

Sorry to burst your delusional bubble. It's not "truth."

The most likely hypothesis, according to the manual, and the evidence, is that explosives were involved. The most unlikely hypothesis is that a plane completely demolished the twin towers and that a fire and a little damage, took down WYC7.

I know they took dozens of computers and worked hard trying to find a way it could have happened without explosives that they think makes enough sense to convince a few government paid scientists, but none of their findings were very conclusive. They did not prove anything.

No other high rise building has ever been taken down by fire alone. Nist's final report stated that WTC 7 was. It has been called "impossible" by experts who are in the business of demolishing buildings who have little to loose by saying so.

Explosions were heard by credible witnesses....> before the plane crashed. This evidence was presented to and ignored by NIST. NIST sold out and worked completely under the direction and control of FEMA.

The very fact that NIST sold out to the government cover-up, and the 9-11 commission was completely controlled by a man closely involved with Bush and his administration and the sec of defense, places all official government "reports" or "conclusions" in jeopardy. They are moot and worthless as far as most "truthers" are concerned.

And so yes, the truthers ignore them. But that is not ignoring the truth. It is ignoring the lie.

And don't even mention Popular mechanics. The whole company was bought out and the old "respected" editors were "retired."

You are stating as fact things with are not true. That is lying.

If it is your opinion, you should state it as your opinion. Stating it as a fact is just you making up crap.


You stating what structural engineers think is absurd. You don't understand any of the engineering that has been posted here.

laugh:

There is no engineering posted here. I have directly addressed and even posted excerpts from the NIST report to discuss why it is false and flawed.

I have only stated facts here for the most part. My opinion (conclusions) is that the government reports are not to be believed. They are contaminated.

If they are written and controlled by agencies for the administration and the administration is the smallest bit involved in the attack (a suspect) then the official reports and stories must be questioned because they are moot.

If there is any hint of a cover-up (and there are thousands) then the administration's investigations are all to be questioned with scrutiny. You can't take their word for anything, and they have classified everything!! The NIST investigators were never allowed to actually investigate or see evidence except for what FEMA told them and showed to them. They were not allowed to even hear testimony if it was not approved by FEMA.

The facts that I have posted have been largely ignored by those responding. You can't imagine your own government being so corrupt.

All you guys ever post is your opinion that the official story is true and all you refer to is "the alleged engineering."

I have seen no evidence posted here that has any credibility at all. There are no "independent investigations" and there are no "independent engineering reports" that have any credibility because of how they were conducted.

NIST's investigation was totally controlled by FEMA, a government agency. They failed to consider explosives which according to the manual, was the most likely hypothesis.

Their testimony and report is fraudulent, deceptive and tainted.

Show me a credible independent investigative report that was not engineered and controlled by the Bush-Cheney administration.

You can't because it does exist. The NIST report is not credible. It is not even believable in the slightest. It does not prove anything.

My claims are that NIST's WTC7 report is not only unscientific, it is false.

The two claims are are distinct. Although in some cases the former question is more important, the latter question, the question of truth, is far more important in relation to NIST's WTC7 report. If this report was terribly unscientific and yet basically true, if WTC7 did, in fact, come down because of a fire-induced collapse, not much would follow, except that NIST should hire better scientists.

But if NIST's conclusion is false, because WTC7 was demolished with explosives of some sort, this fact is of overwhelming importance regardless of how good or bad NIST's scientific work was.

WHY THE REPORT IS FALSE:

Evidence of particles in the air, the rubble and the dust that cannot be explained apart from the use of explosives. It was because NIST's scientists knew this that they had to ignore all of this evidence.

Testimonial evidence reported by Barry Jennings. This would explain why NIST and then the BBC went to such lengths to distort the timeline of Jennings' testimony.

More reasons to call the NIST report false in the next post.

EVIDENCE THAT instead of all starting at 10:28, some fires in WTC7 started before, and others started after, that time.

EVIDENCE THAT neither fires nor steel beams became nearly as hot as NIST claims.

EVIDENCE for the falsity of both of NIST's claims about shear stud failure - that the shear studs connecting beams to the floor slabs failed because of differential thermal heating, and that the girder shear studs simply failed to exist.

The fact that a fire-based collapse, which if even possible, would necessarily be a "progressive collapse," could not possibly mimic the collapse of WTC7 as seen on videos, in which the building comes straight down with its roofline remaining essentially horizontal.

The fact that, even if otherwise possible, the collapse of a steel-framed building that was not produced by using explosives could not possibly enter free fall, even for a second or two.

The fact that even if otherwise possible, the collapse of a steal-framed high-rise building, assuming that it did not result from the use of explosives to cut the steel columns into relatively short segments, could not possibly result in a short, compact debris pile essentially within the building's footprints.

The fact that the demolition theory of WTC7's collapse, which NIST rejects, can explain all of the phenomena that NIST either ignored or inadequately explained.

In the case of NIST's WTC7 report, in other words, to show it to be unscientific is also to show it to be false.

Why the falsity of NIST'S REPORT IS IMPORTANT.

The fact that the NIST's report is false, implies in the first place, that Muslim terrorists were not responsible for the collapse of this building (by flying an airliner into the North Tower, the collapse of which started fires in WTC7). Instead, WTC7 must have been brought down by domestic terrorists with the ability to plant explosives in it and then to orchestrate a cover-up.

If WTC7 was demolished by such well-connected domestic terrorists, moreover, then the Twin Towers, which after the initial explosions at the top, also came straight down in virtual free fall, must have also been brought down by explosives planted by these same terrorists. Indeed, the evidence in the dust and rubble that WTC7 was demolished by explosives is equally evidence that the same is true of the Twin Towers.

Furthermore, once we see that the Twin Towers came down because of explosives, not because of the airplane impacts and the resulting fires, we can also see that the whole story about the airliners is irrelevant to the actual destruction of the World Trade Center. This destruction could have been carried out equally well without the airplane impacts. The only difference would be that it would have been more obvious that the buildings were victims of controlled demolition.

Finally, once people see that the Muslim hijackers played no essential role in the destruction of the World Trade Center, they are likely to become open to evidence that the entire official account of 9/11, according to which America was attacked by al-Qaeda terrorists, is false.

The ASCE is not affiliated with the government.

Really?

The FEMA-ASCE report

The first investigation into the destruction of the WTC mentioned in the Introduction, was headed by FEMA, the full name of which -- the FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY-- makes clear that it is an agency of the federal government.

This means that in 2001 and 2002, when the report was being prepared, FEMA was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. The FEMA's pathetically inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina made Americans painfully aware of the fact that the director of FEMA is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of the president.

The FEMA report was actually prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). But the ASCE's work was carried out on behalf of, and under the limits imposed by FEMA as well as other federal agencies. The seriousness of these limits was revealed with ASCE investigators told the House Committee on Science that they did not even have the authority "to impound pieces of steel for examinatin before they were recycled."

The magazine Fire Engineering wrote in 2002:
The "official investigation" blessed by FEMA... is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members -- described by one close source as a "tourist trip" -- no one's checking the evidence for anything.

... no one's checking the evidence for anything...."

As these statements illustrate, no real investigation was allowed.

Even if FEMA and ASCE personnel themselves, rejected the administrations claim, according to which the airplane impacts and resulting fires sufficed to bring down all three buildings -- they could not have published a FEMA-ASCE report challenging that claim.

TFEMA spent have engineers. They contracted them. The government doesn't control the ASCE they only hired them. If the ASCE report was changed they would complain about it.

Jenniebean obviously doesn't know how ASCE works and is just making up false scenarios that seem to fit her oddball conspiracies.

The government has no control over ASCE in any way. ASCE is the repository for public information (primarily for teaching proposes and peer research) and is comprised of the practicing consultants, engineering, professors, and college students in each branch. The government could hire consultants (the top tier of expertise) for a project and instruct them to keep the results secret for national security purposes, but they cannot instruct them to change the results meant for public consumption or "taint" the results. The actions of a peer reviewed group would be impossible to contain.

The government doesn't understand most of what scientific papers say anyway so a subtle editing program would be impossible.

ASCE is non-profit and the oldest peer reviewed scientific organization in the US.

Peer review means tainted data/results gets the publisher skewered and subjected to public/peer ridicule. This is why none of the goofy "truther" theories have any real engineers with any real qualifications backing them up.

The first thing out the mouth of the "truther structural engineer" Jenniebean presented as her evidence was that he was "Civil Structural" (not the same thing as structural, and that he had very limited experience in building failures. He was also a "star" of the website meaning that he had an axe to grind. I suspect he was just seeking publicity to make a buck. His "theory" was practically incoherent.