9/11 American Scholars Symposium aired on C-SPAN

Lick, it was a 35 page article which didn't provide references. What's more, it repeated things like the hijackers were still alive.

The evidence of this, is that there are people in Saudi Arabia with the same names. I also believe one of the hijackers father said he was alive a few months later. You're article also didn't mention an alternative theory like I asked for, and you it had given me.

Is this evidence? No, it's hearsay. Why would his father blow his sons cover if he were trying to hide? Why didn't the father mention that later.

I've already mentioned how wrong that is. (even though your article brings it up)

If you want to hear if from a MIT engineering professor.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

He also brings up your smoke problems, saying "the temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire."

Apparently your deep research into this consisted reading a few articles which don't provide references and maybe a couple books over the past 5 years.

I don't see why else you would repeat such unsubstantial information unless you had some psychological reason for needing to hang on too such ideas.

The article makes many references to Alex Jones. Claiming that as deep thoughtful research is a joke.

The reason the media is mostly ignoring this isn't because of a coverup. It's because its soft.

 

Again showing us your penchant for non-objective and indeed clearly willful disregard of countless compiled evidentiary elements, not heresay as you would so derisively claim. This is but a small portion of the extensively compiled elements which I have indeed spent sufficient time analysing to recognise as sound, unlike yourself (however much you wish to convince yourself otherwise).

Moreover, what do you turn to for alleged support (and once again demonstrating your desperate need to defer to any apparent "authority" figure despite the fact that it is the very Thomas Eager repeatedly debunked for his politically motivated junk science "zipper" and "pancake" THEORIES derived from nothing more than the equally whitewashed and largely falsified NIST and FEMA reports. "Soft" doesn't come close to characterising such galringly inconsistent and technically bogus drivel.

Eager is a shill who pandered to and received his due political benefits from this criminal administration and is as trustworthy a source as an Anne Coulter publication.

Sorry son, persist in your mainstream lies like shaggie, but do not pretend in these forums that you display any credibile intellectual honesty or reasoned factual understanding of that day's events or the agendas and actors behind it.

Do also be sure to keep watch regualrly for those shadowy Al Qaeda boogeymen too, they may be lurking under your bed this very moment!

Im finished with this exercise in futility. The 911Truth research remains the only plausible and substantive body of evidence available and is not remotely diminished by your or shaggie's delusional dismissals.

 

Extensive verbiage for an ad hominem attack against Thomas Eager, rather then trying to contest his work. Do you evidence of benifits that Thomas Eager got for his work, or does it just sound like a good argument to your desperate ears?

So did your extensive research consist of taking engineering classes and visiting engineering seminars? Or just more hubris?

Your arguments have no substance. Only attacks aginst any source which conflicts your fragile world view.

 

LOL. Obviously looking into a mirror whilst typing that Lodui, for that is precisely all you and your sidekick head in the sander shaggie have done throughout this entire ongoing discussion.

Oh and by the way, you should be aware that an MIT degree (my own father having one for that matter) is no credential in this matter unless that involves structural engineering, which Thomas Eagar does not hold. His area of expertise is in exotic welding alloys and metallurgy, hardly a valid source to be citing (especially as his cited report was exposed as junk science 3 years ago).

Back to the drawing board for more excuses to avoid opening your eyes to the visibly observable demolition of the towers.

 

http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/TWE_CV.htm

1972, Metallurgy and Materials Science.

http://dmse.mit.edu/

At MIT materials science is in the deparment of engineering.

How you claim a engineering professor (he teaches engineering) with degrees in metallurgy isn't competent to talk about a steel rise (a very stong but malleable material) building warping under stress of fire, and causing a collapse, while your extensive knowledge of how fires smoulder is a joke.

I have yet to hear any of his colleagues in the engineering community offer a rebuttal of this paper, and it's also been looked into by the The American Society of Civil Engineers.

Where are the many engineers flocking to discredit Eagar's? You say it's been thoroughly discredited. Wouldn't that involve a people with "credential in this matter"?

 

There are many depts in the Engineering division dear Lodui, that is a feeble argument to suggest Eagar is qualified as a structural engineer. Moreover if you actually bothered to examine his claims youll see he essentially regrgitates the NIST/FEMA positions to a "t". His claims on the physics of toppling and his claim that the WTC towers were mostly comrpised of air (absurd non-arguments each in its own right) further indicate his intent to simply rest upon his title for the political return it would and did indeed bring him from the Bush administration.

Since the limit of your claimed intellectual enqiry extends no further than your bedazzlement with and deference to an MIT degree, its clear you do not have an interest in any truth of the matter, so why do you continue to waste your time responding. Remain smugly deluded in your federally funded agencies/research institutes reinforced populist whitewash, you are in as widespread a company as were those who once believed the sun revoled around the earth.

Good day to you dupe.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08/06/sept11.theories.ap/index.html

Go to google images , and type in: " wtc tower 7 "

if the images alone don't convince you and everybody else that might still doubt the "shadow government's" inside involvement in 9-11, ask yourself one question...
what possessed FEMA to pick-up, ship-off, and recycle ALL of the STRUCTURAL evidence from all three towers in less than 6 months?

This fire,



did NOT blow the basement out of this building.



http://911review.org/Wget/wtc7.batcave.net/7.html


http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

oh, and don't forget that the "9-11 Commission" report also claims that Flight 93 "VAPORIZED" from the intense heat at the crash site... in this puff of smoke.



Go to google images , and type in : ( flight 93 crash)

vaporized cuz, "they" are telling us that the Mother Funker VAPORIZED.
oh, and don't feel bad if you believe all that BS. my own parents are convinced that Flight 93 crashed so hard that it sunk into the ground.

the truth is insane.

p.s.
it took FEMA longer to get food and water to the Superdome than it took them to set up their "rescue cranes" at Ground Zero.

 

my philosophy is...look at the pictures...that is the only evidence that remains.

"I have yet to hear any of his colleagues in the engineering community offer a rebuttal of this paper, and it's also been looked into by the The American Society of Civil Engineers. "

All of the evidence has been recycled from Ground Zero.
None of the images from the Pentagon contain evidence of a 757 on approach, inside or outside the building during the fire.
And there is nothing that even resembles an airplane at the crash site of Flight 93, so what do they or anybody else have to "look into" ?

if you want to see something really trippy, check out the Flight 93 crash site memorial.



And here is a typical Islamic crescent, taken directly from the Tunisian flag:



THAT puzzles me !

http://www.zombietime.com/flight_93_memorial_project/

The rest of it looks almost elementary at this point.

 

Yeah, they think we are stupid enough to believe that small fires brought down WTC-7 when fire had previously never brought down a steel-structure building.... EVER! It was unheard of. I am sorry, but anyone who looks at footage of WTC-7 coming down with sheer precision -- with visual demolition squibs and evidence of the main support collumn below the bulding's penthouse being blown -- and doesn't believe it was brought down with explosives is a friggin' IDIOT! Period.

 

There is also really no point in arguing with the naysayers who support the official story no matter how much evidence you provide them. You can't wake up the dead, and it's kind of a waste of time debating with people whose only objective is to make themselves look smart by regurgitating what all the government-funded studies have stated.

Anyone who believes anything FEMA says can hardly be taken seriously, let alone people who cut and paste information directly from their website.

There are some people who live in a world where they believe everything they see with their own two eyes is really as it is. There are no such thing as conspiracies, the government isn't corrupt, the media never lies to us, and anyone who thinks that there are a handful of super wealthy and powerful men working against the best interests of the common man is CRAZY.

These are the types that go to college, regurgitate everything that has been told to them by the establishment, receive success because of their willingness not to think for themselves, then live a bland, mundane life working in a lifeless cubicle before kealing over the steering wheel of their Hummer, dead from cardiac arrest at age 50.

 

did you hear that the chairman of the official "9-11 Commission" report is about to release his own book next month, and how it basically blows the other official version out of the water ?

it makes me sick to know that the second movie related to the 9-11 soap opera is being released tomorrow.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/

I wonder if Nicholas Cage has seen the "Loose Change" video, and if not, what his reaction will be once he allows his mind to open the door on all of the "conspiracy theories".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386

if you hear or see nothing else in this video, listen to exactly what the firemen, policemen, and ems personnel had to say. it sounds like this :
"explosions, explosions, explosions"

the advertisement for the movie is on right now, GOD I HATE HAVING TO TOLERATE THIS STUPID SHIT.

 

So according to Lick, no source other then demolition experts are capable of speaking in depth about a building collapse.

Seems fair, so for the technical details of this collapse, I e-mailed the nice demolition experts at implosion world for a synopsis of the the technical details of the fesability of a controlled demolition at the WTC.

If anyone of you 'truth seekers' would like to inform the 'idiots' at implosion world to their ignorance of the technical details of a demolition, please let me know how you word this. It might be entertaining.

Please note that I transfered this from PDF to HTML, and any problem with formatting is my fault. If you'd like me to e-mail the original PDF PM me your e-mail.

Should also be noted, that welcome anybody with credible evidence of a controlled demolition at ground zero a chance to bring it to their attention, although I doubt copy and pasted questions from info wars already addresed will get a more technical response then the one posted below.

As too why an airplane memorial looked like the Tunisian flag, yall going to have to figure some things out for yourselves.

 

Continued...

 

continued...

Since this last one seems to be one of Rat's favorites, and that thesis having already been debunked by the experts at ImplosionWorld here, I thought I'd post a few other progressive collapses, which have a variety of causes but all have at least some degree of parallel with the WTC.

Although as this article has pointed out, drawing parallels to seperate collapses when these are due to very extreme and unusual cirumstanaces, is a bit of an exercise in futility.

http://www.djc.com/news/co/11155170.html

http://www.scoss.org.uk/publications/rtf/07Report.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20040719180205/http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse+presentations/Scott's+revised+paper.pdf

If you'd like something more in depth, you'll need permission for this article on fire induced progressive collapses.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?0510522

 

I await for some 9/11 truther here to call the credetials of the Authors here, say their working for the NSA, or mention they don't know what their talking about.

I'd like to do my part to help you though, so I'll present you with a little gift.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

 

Did you watch the "Loose Change" video ?

If so, do you think ALL of those fireman are lying?

They say "controlled demolition,sequence of explosions, boom boom boom as the building was FALLING down."

Look at this website and let's discuss the IMAGES instead of that moose load of words.

http://911review.org/Wget/wtc7.batcave.net/7.html

What caused the penthouse to disappear as the entire structure began to FALL DOWN?

 

If that's too technical for you, why are you asking technical questions?

As for what people heard, that is very subjective, and not agreed on by the vast majority of witnesses. Arguing about who heard what 5 years ago is not going to lead to any evidence of a controlled demolition.

The engineers from Impolsion World stated there would have been many loud sounds on that day which could have sounded like explosions to people standing around. Read the article, it's already been adressed.

As for LooseChange, I have watched it, and it's much softer then some of the books that have been published regarding conspiracy theories.

For a rebuttal:
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

For a much more arduous but deeper rebutal.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102

As for why you won't read a technical rebuttal of your claims, I assume you don't want your theories reviewed. Certainly not be people with the tehcnical experience to do so.

As for your pictures, I'll assume they weren't doctored and they proove that debris fell out of the building. If a missile hit it and ejected from the building, wouldn't it have stopped somewhere?

A missile would have also left much more physical evidence of impact and structure, and chemical residue. The evidence of Controlled Demolition is soft. The evidence of a missile is non existant.

It would have also been noticed by the thousands of people cleaning up.

As for photo evidence, heres evidence of a plane crash from a conspiracy
website.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/hullpiece.html

 

You see this picture ?
http://www.antiprotester.com/ground%20zero.jpg


You see the road leading to the "foundation" or the stopping point where the building supposedly quit collapsing from the intense heat ?

If you took the top half of WTC 1 2 or 7, lifted it 200 ft in the air and dropped it on top of the remaining portion of the tower, it STILL wouldn't blow the god damn basement out of the structure.

Would it now?

No! it absolutely positively wouldn't.
And you can get the president, the pope, and pappa smurf to write an article saying that it would, but if you had any common sense or an idea how SUPERSTRUCTURES are constructed... you would agree with me.

The basement dude, the basement was blown out of all three buildings.

Tell me this, what is your biggest fear if you ARE wrong ?
Mine is that we have no reason, evidence, or excuse for murdering the approx 200,000 RELIGIOUS people that our "justice" has served since the 9-11 soap opera began.

That's OUR tax dollars hard at work.

 

see the "hollow point" ?

http://www.1ofthefew.com/nyc/ground%20zero%202.jpg


You do agree that there was a foundation underneath these superstructures before the airplaines hit don't you?

How many floors below the lobby did they recover debris from ?
http://www.photohome.com/pictures/new-york-pictures/new-york-city/ground-zero-1a.jpg

Rise surprise ! OPEN YOUR EYES !

http://courses.washington.edu/hypertxt/nypix/gndzero.jpg

 

You should review some of the properties of steel at high temperature. Hydrocarbon fires will reduce its strength from 50 to 90 percent depending on the temperature and duration. No miracles. That's mainly a result of the way steels are strengthened with a fine dispersion of particles. The particles coarsen at high temperature and the strength decreases significantly.

Once the global collapse begins, the rest of the stories don't need to be weakened by fire. The energy from gravity is sufficient to propagate the collapse. A single intact floor is unable to stop the fall of the mass of 15 or more stories falling as a unit.



.