It's really sad that you are unable to understand even the basics.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7" points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.

Much has been made of Jones' new paper. Some have suggested that I correct the statement that not one paper has been published by conspiracy theoriests to date proving the collapse was a controlled demolition.

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.

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.