9/11 Theorists Are Either Silly Or Shrewd

9/11 theorists are either silly or shrewd

http://www.denverpost.com/lifestyles/ci_4543650

By Cindy RodrÃ^guez
Denver Post Staff Columnist
Article Last Updated:10/29/2006 08:22:46 AM MST

They have been meeting in the basement of Hooked on Colfax bookstore for a year, piecing together facts they have learned about what they consider to be the biggest cover-up in American history.

They believe the federal government had a hand in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

You think they're crazy? Some of their friends think so too.

"This is hard for people. They don't want to believe our government could do this," said Dorothy, one of the regulars. "They call you crazy and nuts, and it gets to you."

But here in the basement, a capacity crowd of 30 people, sitting on oversized couches and wooden chairs, they find solace among other believers.

Members of Colorado911Visibility.org include psychologists, lawyers, civil engineers, electrical engineers, an aerospace engineer, physicists and lots of people with doctorates and master's degrees in the sciences.

They're well-read people, and they understand why people want to dismiss them.

They say people want to attack them as messengers because it's too disturbing to believe the government that is supposed to protect us would orchestrate the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans.

Tim Boyle, one of the organizers, invited three scholars to speak yesterday in Denver and today in Boulder to "take this out of the realm of conspiracy theory." (Get details at denverpostbloghouse.com/rodriguez.)

The year-old group has an e-mail list of about 350 people. Among them is Earl Staelin, a 66-year-old civil litigator who lives in Littleton.

He started attending the meetings, held at 7 p.m. the third Friday of every month, after watching a film about 9/11 at his church, First Universalist Church of Denver.

He said the movie made convincing arguments why researchers believe the World Trade Center towers fell by controlled demolition. About an hour after the planes hit the towers, a series of explosions was seen and heard in floors below the crash areas, and then both towers came down, each in less than 10 seconds and in a free-fall manner consistent with planned demolitions.

"It's the kind of thing that is very disturbing if it's true," Staelin told me. "The responsible thing for us to do is ask questions, but it takes a long time to get familiar with all the information to understand what happened."

He said many of his friends who are engineers didn't believe the official story, that the towers fell because burning fuel from the planes caused the steel beams of the buildings to buckle. After he showed films, such as "9-11 Mysteries: Demolitions," they came to the same conclusion: demolition experts must have planned this in advance.

Why would the government do it? The explanations are plentiful, as is the evidence that groups such as this one, which exist throughout the nation, pore over and share on such websites as 911truth.org.

And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think again: According to a poll by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University taken this August, 36 percent of Americans believe the government was either complicit in the 9/11 attacks or knew about it and didn't try to stop it. And 16 percent believe explosives were used to bring down the towers.

To Fran Shure, another organizer of the group, the poll is proof that a growing number of people are seeing the inconsistencies of the official story. Still, she said people want to dismiss them as conspiracy theorists.

"The term 'conspiracy theory' is derogatory. It labels us as people who are not worth being listened to," said Shure, a 63-year-old psychotherapist. "It's a strategy of attack the messenger so you don't have to listen to it. It's a way of psychologically protecting one's world view."

Nice, fair coverage.

Backers hail 9/11 theorist's speech

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4572518

By Michael Riley
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated:10/29/2006 11:46:00 PM MST

The standing ovation has finally died down, and Steven E. Jones, a soft-spoken physics professor, finds himself pinned against the stage by some of the enthusiastic fans who packed a University of Denver auditorium over the weekend to see him.

A man with a "Got truth?" T-shirt offers Jones a careful explanation for why the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center were operated by remote control. Another quizzes him about the size of the footprint of the Pentagon crash - too small, he says, for the Boeing 757 that "officially" smashed into it on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Can I just shake your hand?" a woman in a baggy red sweater asks Jones. "You're doing such important work."

If anything, Jones appears embarrassed by all the attention. Quiet and self-effacing, he's an unlikely hero for 9/11 conspiracy theorists of every stripe, but that's exactly what he's become.

A physicist whose background includes work on nuclear fusion, Jones was put on leave by Brigham Young University in September after publishing a paper saying that the twin towers couldn't have collapsed solely as a result of the planes that rammed the upper floors on Sept. 11. The paper theorizes that explosives planted inside the building must have been involved and that the buildings' collapse was essentially a controlled demolition.

Though Jones doesn't specify who he believes planted the charges, he concedes it would have had to be "an inside job" and likely would have included either very powerful figures on the American scene or entities inside the government.

"It's a thought that I admit has made me lose some sleep," Jones said.

Neither the 9/11 commission nor other extensive government reports have found any evidence of a secondary cause of the towers' collapse.

But Jones and his work reflect the mainstreaming of a movement that has defied the Bush administration's efforts to put it to rest and mystified people who have studied the events of that day closely: A startlingly large percentage of the population simply doesn't believe the official explanation for the towers' fall.

A national poll by the Scripps Survey Center at Ohio University conducted in the summer found that more than a third of people questioned believed the government either planned the attacks or could have stopped them but didn't.

That has worried government officials enough that the State Department recently published a report titled "The Top Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theories," an effort to debunk many of them. Separately, the National Institute of Standards and Technology - the government arm that investigated why the towers collapsed - published a seven-page document in September that attempted to answer some of the skeptics.

"We've watched it gain momentum," said Brent Blanchard, director of field operations for New Jersey-based Protec Documentation Services, which studies and monitors building demolitions.

"It's really been fascinating in a way," he said. "We've been able to watch the birth of the completely out-of-control allegations that could not be true for so many reasons."

Among the most basic of those, Blanchard said, is that there's a consensus that the collapse of the towers began at or near the point where the planes entered the buildings, rather than at the base, where traditional demolition occurs. That means that the explosives would have had to survive the initial crash and superheated fires until they were detonated - for nearly an hour in the case of one tower, 102 minutes in the case of the other.

"That's absolutely impossible," Blanchard said.

Beyond that, he said, planting the explosives in secret would have been an incredible logistical undertaking.

But to the growing Sept. 11 conspiracy movement, Jones provides what even advocates concede they had been lacking: a scientific approach backed up with meticulous data analysis and carefully devised experimental testing.

Jones - who has agreed to retire from BYU at the end of 2006 - said in an interview that his first doubts emerged when he saw a video of the collapse of^World Trade Center 7, the 47- story office building that collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.

The collapse took just 6.5 seconds, only a half-second more than the free-fall time a ball bearing would take when dropped from that height. That simply couldn't take account of the normal resistance of steel columns and concrete that should have slowed the collapse by at least a few seconds, he said, but it did fit the model of a controlled demolition.

The physicist said that in more than a year of investigation, he found thermite residue in samples of dust found near ground zero and on one of the steel beams used in a Sept. 11 memorial. Thermite is a compound that, when ignited, produces incredibly high temperatures and is used by the military in incendiary grenades and to cut through steel.

Some government reports have also identified a significant presence of odd substances - including sulfur and zinc - and have noted that there is no obvious explanation for their presence. Jones said sulfur and zinc are part of a typical thermite fingerprint.

"I'm not willing to say yet that this is conclusive, but it does deserve explanation. What we're asking for is more study and a major investigation," said Jones, who has helped organize a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

For many observers, Jones' work says less about a hidden conspiracy behind Sept. 11 than it does an unease with the event and what has followed.

"First of all, there is the event itself," said Christopher Farrell of the conservative think tank Judicial Watch. "It shocked, upset and offended people. Then after the fact, there were a number of contradictions or holes in the information available."

Blanchard is more blunt: "The government's done a lot of things in the last couple of years that has caused people to doubt their integrity about anything, including this stuff about WMD and other problems."

After Jones' lecture Saturday, a distinguished man with graying hair said he came because he had heard the physicist on the radio and thought it was remarkable that a scientist from so conservative a state as Utah would be a doubter.

"As you study this whole thing more, it seems to me there are a lot of valid questions," he said.

The man said he was a businessman and didn't want his name in the paper.

"I'm still in the business world," he said, "and I'd be ridiculed just for being here."

Panelists raise doubts over 9/11
Speakers at CU say government deceiving citizens

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2006...ubts-over-911/

By John Aguilar (Contact)
Monday, October 30, 2006

The idea was to turn the concept of a conspiracy theory on its head.

A panel of scientists and scholars, gathered in a classroom Sunday afternoon at the University of Colorado at Boulder, suggested to several hundred vocal supporters that the true conspiratorial types when it comes to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are the federal government and the mainstream media.

"They pounded a script into our heads that we now know is backed by zero evidence," said Kevin Barrett, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Barrett was one of a trio of speakers who came to CU to lay out their case that the World Trade Center towers didn't collapse as a result of jet fuel melting and softening of the buildings' steel structure, but rather from a deliberate demolition effort perpetrated by the United States government to justify its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and assert its power around the world.

"Three thousand lives were lost at the World Trade Center as a means to global domination," Barrett said.

He characterized the 9/11 attacks as a "false flag operation" carried out by the United States with the intention of stirring up the passions and buying the allegiance of its people.

"A false flag operation is a contrived event — shocking and spectacular — used to achieve political ends, start wars and justify suppression," he said.

The two other speakers focused on the structural and chemical analysis of the buildings' ruins and enumerated the inconsistencies or errors that came out of the government's 9/11 investigations.

Kevin Ryan, a chemist who said he was fired from Underwriters Laboratories after he challenged the lab's analysis of the performance of the World Trade Center's steel, took to task the National Institutes of Standards and Technology for its investigation of the collapse.

NIST has offices in Boulder.

He said the temperatures of the fires in the buildings were never high enough to cause the collapse of the towers, as NIST contends.

"Neither jet fuel nor office furnishings can cause that kind of fire," he said.

Steven Jones, a retiring physics professor at Brigham Young University in Utah, questioned NIST's conclusion that the molten metal seen pouring out of a window on the 80th floor of one of the towers shortly before its collapse was the melted remnants of the aircraft's aluminum shell.

Instead, he said, his own tests at BYU indicated that the liquid metal bore the signs of a high-powered, sulphur-laced explosive meant to "cut through steel like it was butter."

The speakers, presented by the group Colorado 9/11 Visibility, didn't have many detractors in the audience.

"I happen to be an engineer and the facts just don't add up," said Steven Dunbar, a Lafayette resident who is dubious of the government's innocence in the 9/11 attacks. "The scientific evidence is not adding up."

Physicist bolsters 9/11 conspiracy views

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.ph...0-053100-4113r

BOULDER, Colo., Oct. 30 (UPI) -- A Utah physics professor has become a hero to those who believe the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were somehow orchestrated by the United States.

Steven Jones, who has been on leave from Brigham University since he published a paper that suggests explosives must have helped bring down New York's World Trade Center, was one of three speakers on a panel at the University of Colorado, the Denver Post reported Monday.

Jones believes the collapse of the twin towers resembles what happens in a controlled demolition. He said that World Trade Center 7, which collapsed hours after the towers, came down in 6.5 seconds -- only slightly longer than a steel ball bearing dropped from the top of the building would have taken to reach the ground.

On the other side, experts point out planting large quantities of explosives would have been an enormous operation and that explosives would have started detonating soon after the planes hit. The twin towers stood for about an hour.

Jones acknowledges that his scenario would require government involvement.

"It's a thought that I admit has made me lose some sleep," Jones said.

This is the NIST report on the World Trade Center collapse.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

I have done searches and listed all of the pages with the words steel, concrete, C (celsius), F (fahrenheit), tons, degrees, kip and ksi. I have already found things I consider oddly interesting.

On PDF page 117 they say the towers had "roughly 200,000 tons of steel" and mention this again on page 137. That doesn't seem a very precise specification to me. That could mean anywhere from 175,000 to 225,000. I would have thought they would want to be much more precise than that. In addition to that I can't find any mention of the weight of steel and/or concrete on the floors where the planes hit. How can you analyze the overall effect of the impact without having some idea of the distribution of mass in the building? There should be a table specifying the tons of steel and concrete on every floor. The mass and distribution of mass within the building is going to influence the effects of the impact.

But when you search on the word degree you find lots of details about orientation of the building and angles of the plane and it being banked at 25 +/- 2 degrees. And yet the word tons only appears in the report 8 times and nowhere is there a specification of the tons of concrete. They use the word concrete a great deal. See if you can find a specification of the quantity of concrete in each or both towers.

How do you accurately analyze and talk about the the effect of an airliner colliding with a steel and concrete structure without being exact about the amount and distribution of steel and concrete?

psikeyhackr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

This is the NIST report on the World Trade Center collapse.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

I have done searches and listed all of the pages with the words steel, concrete, C (celsius), F (fahrenheit), tons, degrees, kip and ksi. I have already found things I consider oddly interesting.

On PDF page 117 they say the towers had "roughly 200,000 tons of steel" and mention this again on page 137. That doesn't seem a very precise specification to me. That could mean anywhere from 175,000 to 225,000. I would have thought they would want to be much more precise than that. In addition to that I can't find any mention of the weight of steel and/or concrete on the floors where the planes hit. How can you analyze the overall effect of the impact without having some idea of the distribution of mass in the building? There should be a table specifying the tons of steel and concrete on every floor. The mass and distribution of mass within the building is going to influence the effects of the impact.

But when you search on the word degree you find lots of details about orientation of the building and angles of the plane and it being banked at 25 +/- 2 degrees. And yet the word tons only appears in the report 8 times and nowhere is there a specification of the tons of concrete. They use the word concrete a great deal. See if you can find a specification of the quantity of concrete in each or both towers.

How do you accurately analyze and talk about the the effect of an airliner colliding with a steel and concrete structure without being exact about the amount and distribution of steel and concrete?

psikeyhackr

---

Good question.

I have updated my Adobe Acrobat from 5 to 7 which does better searches. I don't normally mess with PDF files much. I still haven't found a specification for the concrete in all of these files.

NIST - Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
(ton/tons, 8) (steel, 242) (concrete, 61) NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

reports_october05.htm

NIST NCSTAR 1-1: oct05NCSTAR1-1index.htm
NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems
(ton/tons, 3#) (steel, 268) (concrete, 150) NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-1A: Design and Construction of Structural Systems
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 206) (concrete, 69) NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf
o 1-1A appendixes A & B
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 6) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-1A_AppendixesA&B.pdf
o 1-1A appendixes C-G
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 6) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-1A_AppendixesC-G.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-1B: Comparison of Building Code Structural Requirements
(ton/tons, 17) (steel, 183) (concrete, 273) NISTNCSTAR1-1B.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-1C: Maintenance and Modifications to Structural Systems
(ton/tons, 3#) (steel, 171) (concrete, 147) NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf
o 1-1C appendixes
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 0) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-1C_Appendixes.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-1D: Fire Protection and Life Safety Provisions Applied to the Design and Construction of WTC 1, 2, and 7 and Post-Construction Provisions Applied after Occupancy
(ton/tons, 3#) (steel, 24) (concrete, 3) NISTNCSTAR1-1D.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-1E: Comparison of Codes, Standards, and Practices in Use at the Time of the Design and Construction of WTC 1, 2, and 7
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 12) (concrete, 1) NISTNCSTAR1-1E.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-1F: Comparison of the 1968 and Current (2003) New York City Building Code Provisions
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 13) (concrete, 2) NISTNCSTAR1-1F.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-1G: Amendments to the Fire Protection and Life Safety Provisions of the New York City Building Code by Local Laws Adopted while WTC 1, 2, and 7 Were in Use
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 11) (concrete, 1) NISTNCSTAR1-1G.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-1H: Post-Construction Modification to Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems of the WTC Towers
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 14) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-1H.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-1I: Post-Construction Modifications to Fire Protection, Life Safety, and Structural Systems of WTC 7
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 13) (concrete, 1) NISTNCSTAR1-1I.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-1J: Design, Installation, and Operation of Fuel Systems for Emergency Power in WTC 7
(ton/tons, 3#) (steel, 22) (concrete, 13) NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf

NIST NCSTAR 1-2: oct05NCSTAR1-2index.htm
NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the WTC Towers
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 54) (concrete, 110) NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-2A: Reference Structural Models and Baseline Performance Analysis of the WTC Towers
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 99) (concrete, 307) NISTNCSTAR1-2A.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-2B: Analysis of Aircraft Impacts into the WTC Towers (Chapters 1-8)
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 77) (concrete, 125) NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-2B: Analysis of Aircraft Impacts into the WTC Towers (Chapters 9-11)
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 7) (concrete, 26) NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps9-11.pdf
o 1-2B appendix
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 0) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-2B_AppendixA.pdf


NIST NCSTAR 1-3: oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm

NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
(ton/tons, 25) (steel, 588) (concrete, 11) NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-3A: Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
(ton/tons, 39) (steel, 466) (concrete, 7) NISTNCSTAR1-3A.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-3B: Steel Inventory and Identification
(ton/tons, 3) (steel, 111) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-3B.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-3C: Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components
(ton/tons, 4) (steel, 147) (concrete, 10) NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf
o 1-3C appendi
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 180) (concrete, 8) NISTNCSTAR1-3CAppxs.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-3D: Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels
(ton/tons, 5) (steel, 466) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-3D.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-3E: Physical Properties of Structural Steels
(ton/tons, 1) (steel, 202) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-3E.pdf


NIST NCSTAR 1-4: oct05NCSTAR1-4index.htm

NIST NCSTAR 1-4: Active Fire Protection Systems
(ton/tons, 3#) (steel, 14) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-4.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-4A: Post-Construction Fires prior to September 11, 2001
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 11) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-4A.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-4B: Fire Suppression Systems
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 24) (concrete, 5) NISTNCSTAR1-4B.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-4C: Fire Alarm Systems
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 12) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-4C.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-4D: Smoke Management Systems
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 15) (concrete, 5) NISTNCSTAR1-4D.pdf

NIST NCSTAR 1-5: oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm

NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the WTC Towers
(ton/tons, 3#) (steel, 144) (concrete, 10) NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis (Chapters 1-8)
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 83) (concrete, 23) NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis (Chapters 9-Appendix C)
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 4) (concrete, 3) NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
o 1-5A appendixes D-G
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 0) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-5A_AppxD-G.pdf
o 1-5A appendixes H-M
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 0) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-5A_AppxH-M.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-5B: Experiments and Modeling of Structural Steel Elements Exposed to Fire
(ton/tons, 3#) (steel, 623) (concrete, 1) NISTNCSTAR1-5B.pdf
o 1-5B appendixes D-G
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 72) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-5B_AppxD-G.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-5C: Fire Tests of Single Office Workstations
(ton/tons, 3#) (steel, 31) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-5C.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-5D: Reaction of Ceiling Tile Systems to Shocks
(ton/tons, 2#) (steel, 17) (concrete, 7) NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-5E: Experiments and Modeling of Multiple Workstations Burning in a Compartment
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 42) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-5E.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-5F: Computer Simulation of the Fires in the WTC Towers
(ton/tons, 1#) (steel, 32) (concrete, 9) NISTNCSTAR1-5F.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-5G: Fire Structure Interface and Thermal Response of the WTC Towers
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 312) (concrete, 156) NISTNCSTAR1-5G.pdf

NIST NCSTAR 1-6: oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm

NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the WTC Towers
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 265) (concrete, 270) NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-6A: Passive Fire Protection
(ton/tons, 1) (steel, 243) (concrete, 16) NISTNCSTAR1-6A.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-6B: Fire Resistance Tests of the Floor Truss Systems
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 243) (concrete, 107) NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-6C: Component, Connection, and Subsystem Structural Analysis
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 157) (concrete, 245) NISTNCSTAR1-6C.pdf
* NIST NCSTAR 1-6D: Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the WTC Towers to Impact Damage and Fire
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 49) (concrete, 33) NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf


NIST NCSTAR 1-7: oct05NCSTAR1-7index.htm

* NIST NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication
(ton/tons, 3#) (steel, 20) (concrete, 3) NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf
o NIST NCSTAR 1-7A: Analysis of Published Accounts of the WTC Evacuation
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 11) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-7A.pdf
o NIST NCSTAR 1-7B: Technical Documntation for Survey Administration: Questionnaires, Interviews, and Focus Groups
(ton/tons, 0) (steel, 11) (concrete, 0) NISTNCSTAR1-7B.pdf


NIST NCSTAR 1-8: oct05NCSTAR1-8index.htm

* NIST NCSTAR 1-8: The Emergency Response Operations
(ton/tons, 3#) (steel, 21) (concrete, 10) NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf
o NIST NCSTAR 1-8: Appendixes A-L
(ton/tons, 1) (steel, 3) (concrete, 4) NISTNCSTAR1-8_AppendixesA-LFinal.pdf
(ton/tons, 128 Total)

N# is the number of times the word "ton" appears but only in the Metric Conversion Table, it doesn't specify info about the towers.

Someone claims 1-2A pdf pages 103-106 has the info I want but if so it is specified in engineering jargon that I will have to work to decifer.


psik

Does it really matter exactly what happened? Or is it more important to find out why and who? I think the picture is clearer to see once you stop flogging the dead horse named "What Happened"....and focus on the motive and those who benifited from it.

I've seen everything from halograms to "no planes at all" theories and it just makes the whole effort look "crazy". Does it really matter if the puzzle you are solving is missing one very small piece when you can clearly see 99% of the picture?

You are correct. Trying to figure out what happened is impossible because we don't have the proper access to the people, documentation, etc... It's like trying to put a puzzle together with half of the pieces missing. Every "answer" we have as to what happened is just a "theory." Some are better than others, and some would probably be found to be true with a proper investigation, however, spending all of our time trying to figure out what happened is wrong.

It's time for us to stop trying to answer the questions, and instead, it's time for us to start asking them. As a movement. With a loud, clear voice.

Amen....preach it brother Gold.

It still amazes me how devoid of reality some of these theories have become.
btw.....WATCH "WHO KILLED JOHN O'NEILL"...google it

Quote:

---

Trying to figure out what happened is impossible because we don't have the proper access to the people, documentation, etc... It's like trying to put a puzzle together with half of the pieces missing. Every "answer" we have as to what happened is just a "theory." Some are better than others,

---

That is the kind of statement that makes me want to ask, "Did you ever take a course in physics?" About two weeks after 9/11 after my brain started running again and I kept asking myself, "How could those buildings fall straight down?" A demolition really hadn't penetrated my thinking so I was trying to simulate in my head how a plane could do that. All I could imagine was the impact doing enough damage to cause the section above the impact to fall toward the impact zone and to the ground as a solid chunk.

Once it is irrefutable what happened that should narrow down who could have done it. Trying to go by motivation would be too speculative.

30 years before the moon landing engineers without computers could design machines that flew thru the air at 400+ mph. It is now 37 years after the moon landing. We have computers coming out of our ears. Why can't everybody figure out that the automobile is just making useless variations in machines that roll along the ground at less than 130 mph? Is it surprising that these people can't see an airliner can't knowck down a skyscraper in less than 2 hours?

psik

Just to add more gory details to my new hobby.

The NIST reports consist of 54 PDF files containing 11,305 PDF pages.

The word steel is mentioned 6,047 times.

The word concrete is mentioned 2,232 times

The words ton and tons are mentioned 136 times.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/sho...44&postcount=8

I have read every sentence containing any mention of tons. One plane contained 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9 tons. They talk about how many tons of steel came from what companies. They talk about how many tons of steel were delivered to the building on a monthly basis during constrction. They mention 200,000 tons of steel used in both towers 8 times though mostly this is in reference to the miniscule number of samples they have in relation to the amount of steel. They talk about 60 tons of live load per floor in the building. They talk about New York and Chicago building codes for ground settlement per ton. They do not talk about how many tons of concrete were in the buildings.

I have found no discussion of the distribution of mass within the building in terms of more steel being toward the bottom. So I still have no idea how much steel and concrete were on the floors where the planes struck.

psikeyhackr

How dumb can experts get?

http://booksliterature.com/showpost....82&postcount=5

Average intelligence must be bad for PhDs. ROFL

psik

Quote:

---

How dumb can experts get?

http://booksliterature.com/showpost...382&postcount=5

Average intelligence must be bad for PhDs. ROFL

psik

---

whoa! That is an awesome post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werther

whoa! That is an awesome post.

---

It certainly IS! (Five years ago). My opinion (again) is that it at this point no longer is viable to discuss the collapse of the buildings and the cause thereof. I mean, feel free by all means. That's what makes this country great! People can feel free to watse their time in as many interesting ways they can dream up. Some of us are too smart for our own good. Do you think all of that great information is going to convince anyone that 911 was an inside job? But hey, nice hobby man.

It certainly won't convince most. I hear ya. But to tell the truth it was the Controlled Demolition junk that really got me questioning the official story. Started with flight 93. But I originally just figured the government shot it down and for whatever reason did not want to fess up to it. Controlled Demolition was what brought me in.

I know it is not the only argument the movement has and that there are better ways to 'convince' people. I realize that C.D. just sounds crazy and that is probably why the media latches onto it so much. However, the argument for C.D. when thoroughly examined is pretty damn impressive. Though I do not use it as one of my main talking points (anymore), I do believe it has its merrits.

I agree with you completely about it bringing people in. With all the negatively spun media attention, I'm pretty sure they got the word out there. I think most who would dare to question know, and are already here.
It has been a contention of Jon Golds, and I kinda agree, that the 911 movement has been compromised by people using controlled demolition as their sole plattform to make all of us look nuts. Plants, moles, shills, whatever you call them.
Now, I'm not pointing any fingers, but there are several people on this board who have been pushing this agenda HARD. And to what end? I guess it's just a hooby and that is fine by me. Personally, I believe these fuckers got away with it. ANYONE pushing the CD agenda is automatically lumped into the 911 truth nutjob movement. And there is sooo much more to it than that. When you mention CD to someone, the have a preconceived notion about what you are pushing on them.

valid point.

Do you remember the history channel running that special about 911 conspiracies? What was the main platform of the guys on that show? Controlled demolition! And the interviewers RAN with it.

What sets me off about cerain people in here is that they specifically say they are NOT pushing the CD issue. ANd YET, that is ALL they EVER post about. That is all they come here for. Not as single post about anything OTHER than CD.

There is one in particular that comes to mind.

Heh... PM me your guess...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuGmENTor

It certainly IS! (Five years ago). My opinion (again) is that it at this point no longer is viable to discuss the collapse of the buildings and the cause thereof...... Do you think all of that great information is going to convince anyone that 911 was an inside job? But hey, nice hobby man.

---

Actually it is what is going on in our engineering schools that I am curious about. The techno-morons are a lost cause.

I consider the planned obsolescence of automobiles more important than 9/11.

With over 200,000,000 cars in the United States do you ever hear economists talk about how much Americans lose on depreciation of that under engineered junk each year? I estimate it is about the value of 10 WTCs EACH YEAR and that is allowing $2,500,000 per each person killed in addition to $14 Billion for the buildings.

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529

psik

What are you talking about? I have a 95 toyota 4X4 with 245,000 miles on it. A pontiac with 140,000 and a Dodge 175,000. It is not planned obsoletion as much as it is the instant gratification disposable society we live in today.
People are fucking morons and the bottom line is this: The medical industry has made it so people who SHOULD have choked to death on their own spit didn't. A kid that puts 40 marbles in his mouth is SUPPOSED to die. You get the idea. We are literally surrounded by idiots.