Its really sad that you have no clue.

Now that I know where your thinking is, I realize that this conversation is a waste.

I am talking about a terrible crime where a government agency is a likely suspect, where thousands of people were killed.

The most likely scientific hypothesis is explosives were what caused the towers to fall, and ASCE admits that they did not even look for explosives. (They should loose their licences.) Instead, NIST ran dozens of computer simulations until they could find a convincing story whereby a building could fall from a fire alone.

There are holes in their story. I don't know why you can't see that. You claim to be so smart. All you can say is how "sad" it is that I don't "understand the basics."

I do understand the basics.

and your defense is that they (ASCE) would not have been in involved in the cover-up or taken orders from their superiors "because it is against State and Federal law to tell certain types of engineers how to do their jobs or what the outcome will be." DUH of course it is against the law!! It is fraudulent. And yet it happens all the time.

... its against the law. OMG!

..and so according to you all those engineers are all to be trusted and believed because they have to go to one hour of ethics training a year. How gruesome! One hour! (-Don't they already know right from wrong?-)

Maybe we should make our politicians and known terrorists go to that ethics training for an hour every year. Think that would work?

you still need to provide Objective proof that those Buildings were taken down with Explosives,Not Derision,Not a Feeling that all who contradict you are somehow involved in a Criminal Conspiracy,and therefore their Physics can't be trusted!
No,Objective Proof arrived at by rational thinking according to physical Facts,NOT Feelings,Facts,if you can!

I have been providing facts in this thread, which you, like NIST, simply choose to ignore.

They have committed a fraud against the American People and against science. The scientific community has no balls or they would have exposed this fraud by now.

No balls.

One of the purposes of the ethics classes is to make sure the engineers know when to turn down a job, which we do often.

Once again, you make dozens of statements about topics of which you know absolutely nothing. You always claim to know more than the people in the business (Whatever the business is). When some positive proof comes along (unless you can prove he really wasn't the head of the Albany Truther chapter) instead of learning, you just claim to the ultimate "knower of everything".

Considering almost everything you just posted about engineers is a lie, that makes the Albany guy look pretty knowing in the ways of the typical "truther".

It is amazing how much of that guy from Albany's comments were directed exactly at people like you.

NIST'S IGNORING OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR EXPLOSIVES.

The evidence for explosives that NIST ignored consists of two general types, testimonial and physical.

There were seven features of the collapse of WTC7 that are also common features of controlled implosions, namely that the collapse began at the bottom, started suddenly, was total, was vertical, occured in virtual free fall, involved the pulverization of much of the concrete, and resulted in a relatively small pile of debris.

These features, which can all be seen in videos of WTC7's collapse, are acknowledged by NIST. But there are two other features, which can also be seen on videos that NIST does not acknowledge: apparent demolition squibs and windows that were blown out at the onset of the collapse.

Defenders of the official account typically try to claim that these high-velocity ejections of debris were simply caused by compression after the floors began to collapse. NIST gave this explanation as to why the "puffs of smoke" as it called them, did not provide evidence of controlled demolition:

"The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it - much like the action of a piston - forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially."

However this explanation for the apparent demolition squibs from the Twin Towers does not fit the descriptions given by several witnesses. For example, firefighter James Curran said: "I looked back and I heard like every floor went chu-chu-chu...Everything was getting blown out of the floor before it actually collapsed."

If material was being blown out from floors before the floors collapsed, then the ejections cannot be explained as resulting from compressed air caused by the collapse.

Videos of the collapses of the Twin Towers show that bursts of debris ejected from point-like sources sometimes occurred on floor LONG before the collapse front reached them. Some of the bursts occurred "at levels twenty to thirty floors below a "collapse" front.

This same problem exists with regard to the bursts of debris ejected during the collapse of WTC7. "The bursts coming from the upper floors of WTC7 occurred at a time when the upper floors have evidently not moved relative to one another."

The official reports lack an explanation for these squibs. This remains true today. NIST, in fact, did not even try to explain the apparent squibs coming out of WTC7. There is not a single instance in their 729 page reportof the word "squib." or "puff."

This question is also not addressed in its "Questions and Answers" about the NIST WTC7 Investigation.

So having given an inadequate explanation of the squibs that appeared during the collapses of the Twin Towers, NIST simply ignored the squibs that are visible in videos of the collapse of WTC7.

I am not interested in some idiots changes of heart or the reasons for it. You can get all blubbery over him if you want but he does not impress me in the slightest. His dribble is just more meaningless propaganda and misdirection.

It Looks Like A Controlled Demolition

What else is a large building collapse going to look like?

Until 9-11, our only experience in bringing down very large buildings was controlled demolition. The highest buildings (apart from broadcast towers) brought down were in the 30 story range. Once the building starts to fall, the physics is going to be the same regardless of the initial cause. So alleged similarities between 9-11 and controlled demolitions prove nothing. You might as well argue that the collapse of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was set off by explosives because it looked just like a landslide caused by explosives.

One thing radically different about 9-11 is that controlled demolitions always set off charges low in the structure and let the weight of the building do the rest. Nobody ever set off charges high in a building to pancake the stories beneath. So why resort to a radical and unproven method if you want to bring down the World Trade Center?

Probably the most revealing commentary on the controlled demolition theory is Bringing Down The House by Michael Satchell in US News and World Report (June 30, 2003). This article describes the work of Controlled Demolition Inc., far and away the world leaders in controlled demolition, and Mark and Doug Loizeaux, who run it.

Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck. But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark.

Horrified, the Loizeaux brothers watched first responders streaming into the doomed towers and tried frantically, and unsuccessfully, to phone in warnings. In the following days, CDI was called to ground zero to consult on safety and develop plans for demolition and debris removal. What if the twin towers, though badly damaged, had somehow remained standing? Without doubt, the Loizeaux family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply," says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know how we would have done it."

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm

Well this is probably one of those times where those engineers should have turned down a job. Of course I'm sure FEMA, with their new godly powers of making people's lives miserable would have convinced them otherwise, or would have found someone else to do it.

I suggest that the planes were merely a distraction. They were for the purpose of blaming the attack on terrorists. The buildings were blown. They would have fallen with or without the planes.

If all that had happened was the demolition, there would have been a massive investigation to discover how the setting up of such a massive demolition could have occurred and they would have discovered that the security company for the WTC was connected to the Bush family. (Marvin Bush)

Given that in 1993 the Twin Towers were attacked with the intention of bringing them both down and explosives were used, and they had been driven into the underground parking garage, you would think that in 2001, there would have been better security.

But nope, there wasn't. In 2001, you could still drive a truck load of explosives into the underground parking garage and nobody would pay any attention.

And given that EXPLOSIVES were used then, why would they change their M.O. to ... "OH let's just crash a plane into them this time. Maybe that will work better...."

Go figure.

It did work better.

Only because they had 8 years to plant the explosives.

But think of it this way.

If the original goal was to actually take down and demolish the twin towers, as was the attempt in 1993, and the alleged terrorists were not qualified engineers or physicists, they would have no way of knowing what kind of damage they might do and they would be just been shooting in the dark and crossing their fingers that they might succeed.

I don't believe any of it. I don't believe the named terrorists were on those planes at all.

Of course you don't believe any of it. You don't understand any of it. If you could you would have already read the following list of peer reviewed papers.

http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

Seriously? Is that the only website you have to offer?

Words like "could be" and "probable" and "may have" are not conclusive.

My question is why would the official story go to such great lengths to ignore the possibility of explosives particularly since the first attempt to bring down the towers did use explosives?

Why refuse to even consider the possibility? Why fail to even look for evidence of explosives or controlled demolition when so many features pointed to that as the most likely hypothesis?

Why?

The answer to that is because that would have opened a big can of worms about the security company for the WTC as they investigated how it would be possible to plant explosives in the key places needed. They would have then found that Marvin Bush was connected.

Paranoid? Nope. Just routine investigation.

This is a statement from your debunking website:




No official government report has been published to date proving the collapse was caused by a fire in the case of WTC7. The theory is only speculation arrived at via computer simulations.

NIST's report was not properly peer reviewed. It made statements that are clearly either fabricated or falsified. To date, NIST has not acknowledge critical review.

The more I read that debunking website the more I see a desperate attempt to defend the official government story. It is slightly sarcastic, unprofessional, and unscientific. It generalizes all people who seek the truth, in the same group and labels them "conspiracy theorists" and "truthers."

I could spend the rest of the week picking it completely apart but I don't think I care to. I have more important things to do.

The truth is the truth and it will always be the truth.

Because of the lack of a reason to suspect explosives. You just keep ignoring these facts. Its not hard to comprehend. To get to the supports they would have to ship down walls and use tons of explosives and wires. There is no way that would go unnoticed and would take tons of time. There would also be cascading explosions heard for miles around. When i was in Korea they were blowing some stuff up in the mountain near my gfs parents house and it woke me up every morning. That was just a little tnt and not nearly equal to what would be used to take down a building.

Not to mention no one has ever demolished a building that large or that any building has ever been demolished from the top down..

It was not demolished "from the top down." Even the NIST report acknowledges that. I guess you didn't even read that. I have repeated several times why there was textbook reasons to investigate for and suspect explosives and you guys continue to just ignore my posts and the evidence. Also, you are assuming certain types of explosives would have to have been used, and that they had to be installed a certain way and that had to be very loud-- as if this was your normal run of the mill controlled demolition. It was not. This attack was pulled off not by Muslim fanatics but by a very high tech organization of world terrorists who could have access to technology you would not suspect.

Explosions were heard and felt on the bottom lower floors by witnesses BEFORE THE PLANES HIT THE TOWER -- and they were reported. Testimony was just completely ignored. That is not a proper investigation. That is cover-up. Just because the planes hit the towers at the higher floors does not mean that is what caused the collapse. (That was more like a distraction.)

Another good reason for investigating and looking for explosives other than the fact that the manual requires it, is that the first attack on the towers used explosives. (It's called M.O.)

But as I said, they didn't even look. They didn't examine the real evidence, they came to their conclusions via computer simulation. That is not scientific and that can easily be compromise according to what kind information they program into it. They admitted that they did not even know much about the building being up to code.

Anyway it is clear that none of the so-called scientists want to challenge the status quo even though the Bush administration has compromised the whole scientific community. If this is not corrected, scientists will have no clout whatsoever in the future and no one will listen to them when they are under the control of the administration.