http://debunking911.com/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/debunk_9-11.html

http://jod911.com/

IF you even look at those, and you want more, let me know... there are plenty more out there...

mostly, there is a lot of truth to it
you know it wasn't a small fire, but yes, it was a fire and structural damage the made it fall.

yes
not sure, but it was muslim terrorists that flew the planes

Thanks for the links. Now let me ask you a question.

Have you read the NIST report?
Have you read the Debunking by Popular Mechanics?
Have you read the Official 9-11 report?
and have you also read the Debunking 911 Debunking by David Ray Griffin?

yes, yes, yes and yes...anything else?

Q:Do you believe a small fire in Building 7 caused it to fall without explosives?

A:you know it wasn't a small fire, but yes, it was a fire and structural damage the made it fall.

Okay start there.

Building #7 fell into its footprint and there was not much rubble left. It had supposedly been hit by some debris from WTC1 and had some small fires. These fires could not really be seen to have engulfed the building. Most buildings have to burn for hours and hours before the structure falls.

#2 Building #6 had tons of damage from falling debris. Much more than building 7. Yet that building did not collapse, and it left a lot of rubble behind.

I don't believe you have really read too much of the details of these buildings. I don't think you will either. If you do, you will change your mind.

Sorry, I don't believe you. But you can prove it.

Willing to answer a question about David Ray Griffins book?

JB, I have given you the real information repeatedly and you ignore it to chase some garbage truther website. The "government" story, to which you keep referring did not come from the government or the "committee heads" you seem to think meaningful. The engineers and scientists who have continually refined the analysis of the twin towers/ 9/11 event have constantly produced peer reviewed analysis which is beyond your understanding. They are not controlled by the govenment and are numerous beyond your imagination.

The fact that you refer to yourself as an investigator is the real joke in this matter.

A summery.

Journal of Structural Engineering / Volume 137 / Issue 9 / SPECIAL ISSUE: Commemorating 10 Years of Research since 9/11 / SPECIAL ISSUE EDITORS: Andrea Surovek and Maria E. Moreyra Garlock / Back to Abstract
Next Article
Special Issue: Commemorating 10 Years of Research since 9/11
Maria E. Moreyra Garlock1
and Andrea Surovek2

1 Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ 08544 (corresponding author). E-mail: mgarlock@princeton.edu
2 Associate Professor, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 501 E. St. Joseph St., Rapid City, SD 57701.

(Accepted 8 June 2011; published online 15 August 2011)
This special issue of the Journal of Structural Engineering commemorates 10 years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, by focusing on research that was motivated by the impacts of events of that day. Primarily, in response to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, the damage and collapse of neighboring structures and the damage to the Pentagon, national organizations and structural engineers have performed substantial amounts research in the area of progressive collapse with an emphasis on the response of structures to extreme loads. The ultimate objective of this research is to provide the means to design more robust and redundant structures that can resist progressive collapse under extreme loads, such as blast, impact, and fire, by considering both member and system response to extreme events and increasing the database of experimental results. This special issue focuses on some recent research in these areas. The papers and their list of references combined are a rich source of information and a state-of-the-art representation of structural engineering for extreme loads.
The first seven papers in this issue focus on the topic of resiliency and robustness. Although the Department of Defense (DoD) has been focused on collapse prevention since before 9/11, they have done significant research since that event. The first paper, by Stevens et al., highlights the work that lead to development of the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-023-03, Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse.
Both experimental and analytical investigations of progressive collapse are considered in the next three papers. Sadek et al. focus on steel and concrete moment frames with a focus on beam column subassemblages in the event of a column removal. Sasani et al. present results of an experimental and analytical investigation of an 11-story concrete structure with initial damage. Williams and Williamson look experimentally and analytically at the topic of concrete bridges subjected to blast.
The next three papers look more at the analytical and probabilistic side of progressive collapse. El-Tawil investigates the impact of modeling decisions on the analytical response of a 10-story steel structure and highlights the importance of the floor system in the analysis. Xu and Ellingwood look specifically at whether pre-Northridge steel moment frames meet UFC requirements for structural integrity using probabilistic modeling of the connections. Kanno and Ben-Haim consider structural redundancy and its effects on robustness of the structure by considering concepts of strong and weak redundancy.
The events of 9/11 pointed to large knowledge gaps in the response of structures to fire; and since then, the number of researchers and publications in this field have grown. One example is a paper by Braxtan and Pessiki, who developed the first set of experiments that examine the structural effects of removed fire protection in a fire following an earthquake. In addition to describing the experiments, finite-element analyses show how spray fire protection damage on the steel beams adjacent to the steel column causes an increase in temperatures in the column.
Columns are integral to stability in a building; and in the case of fire, the columns can develop unanticipated moments and thus respond as beam-columns, which are subject to both axial loads and moments. Varma et al. tested several steel wide-flange columns under combined axial load and moment conditions to determine their fundamental moment-curvature responses at elevated temperatures and different axial load levels. Other steel wide-flange columns were tested to determine their inelastic buckling behavior and axial load-displacement responses at elevated temperatures.
Columns on a building perimeter respond as beam-columns in a fire because of the thermal gradient that induces moment in the rotationally restrained column. Quiel et al. present a two-pronged procedure to predict the behavior of the perimeter column, considering both the individual member response (including thermal gradients) and the global response (including the interactions of adjacent members). This closed-form procedure predicts the perimeter column response (demand) and capacity.
Steel beams acting compositely with concrete slabs contribute significantly to the load-carrying capability of floor systems under fire. But how much does the slab contribute to the load-carrying capacity, what are the failure mechanisms, and under what conditions is the slab most beneficial? To begin to address some of these questions, Varma et al. experimentally investigated the structural behavior of thin composite floor systems subjected to combined gravity loads and fire loading. They studied parameters such as shear connection types, fire scenarios, and fire protection scenarios to evaluate the effects of each on fire performance.
The companion papers by Cashell et al. study the ultimate behavior of lightly reinforced concrete floor slabs under extreme loading conditions. Particular emphasis is given to examining the failure conditions of idealized composite slabs which become lightly reinforced in a fire situation because of the early loss of the steel deck. The first paper focuses on experiments that were conducted at ambient temperature and represent an essential step toward quantifying the behavior under elevated temperature conditions. The second paper describes numerical simulation of the tests and suitable analytical models for predicting various failure conditions in slabs, including the condition of elevated temperature.
This special issue is a joint effort of the Fire Protection and Structural Members Committees of the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) Technical Activities Division. These two committees; and the Committees on Blast, Progressive Collapse, Composite Construction and Connections; were instrumental in developing the pool of authors and reviewers for this issue. We are most thankful to the reviewers, who under tight time constraints, made careful evaluations of the submitted manuscripts and provided valuable feedback. We would also like to thank Dr. Sherif El-Tawil, chief editor, for his support and efforts, as well as the ASCE production offices for their extra attention to this issue as we approached deadlines.

References

This article does not have any references.
© 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers

lol... you believe what you want, doesn't make it true...ask what you want, my answer will not make any difference in your mind....

That's very interesting I wish them the best of luck.

I would think the ultimate objective would be to investigate the greatest crime of the century and how it happened down to the tiniest detail including how 1400 cars rusted and burned up. And why windows across the street from the tower were blown out. And why there was only 2% of the mass of a 110 floor building (with a million tons of material) left in the bathtub of the building and how it was turned into very fine dust which hung out in the upper atmosphere for weeks and covered the ground inches thick.

Stuff like that.

Okay go get the book (By David Ray Griffin Debunking 9-11 debunking) and turn to page 264 and go down to the fourth paragraph that begins with "Now, however," and name the four eye witnesses mentioned in that paragraph.

'
which book?

(By David Ray Griffin "Debunking 9-11 debunking.")

I haven't read this entire thread, and if I did, I might disagree with the point Jeannibean is putting forth. I probably would disagree with Kleisto's interpretation too.

However...

I do know that the U.S. Air Force has researched a number of weapons which most U.S. citizens are unaware of. This is a natural thing for a military organization to do. Catapults, rams, ballistae, trebuchets, greek fire, chariots, bows, armor, shields, cannons, pistols, mines, grenades, tanks....you can trace a long history of military technology. In their day, chariots and catapults were regarded as devastating weapons of war. However, fire has always been regarded as one of the most devastating, and that goes back to the days of the caveman. It has been incorporated into many forms of weapons technology throughout history as a result.

Now, as far as modern technology...

Most of us have heard of the Neutron Bomb. Most of us probably also know it was heralded as being "cleaner" than conventional nuclear weapons while still having great destructive power.

The USAF has indeed looked in anti-matter weapons, just as it has looked into laser weapons, sonic weapons, and microwave weapons. Some of this information and research data is actually available to the public on military websites. I personally read about experiments involving microwave technology for use as a weapon, for communications, and for power transmission on a USAF website. I didn't need any special clearance to read this. I didn't have to hack into anything. It was available to anyone who had the web address, which just happened to show up while running a web search when I wanted to learn more about microwaves.

Now, as a person who has studied history, there have been many times when nations failed to keep pace with military technology, and they suffered a great loss of life for it.

The Russians were outmatched by the Germans early in WWII. Weather, manpower, and a certain amount of fear allowed the Russians to throw back the Germans, and buy time for the Russians to close the gap in technology.

The atomic bomb, jets, and rockets were researched and developed in the U.S. in response to German research in those areas, beginning prior to WWII. Given the Germans already had an edge in military tech, the race was on to not only close the gap, but to also develop these new technologies to prevent the Germans from having the advantage. Imagine a world where only the Germans had access to such technology and what it would be like.

The Japanese also had an edge in technology early in WWII, but it was primarily in aircraft which were faster and/or more maneuverable than those they were fighting. That spurred the development of better aircraft by the U.S., which in turn aided Allies in both theaters of the war. However, the Japanese did not pursue atomic weapons. Like the Russians, they were still modernizing, but Japan had begun doing so earlier than the Russians. They also focused on different areas than the Russians due to their respective geographies.

Japanese occupation throughout Asia tended to be as brutal as any other in the war. Chinese industry was virtually destroyed just so the Japanese could maintain control over a much larger population, many of whom practiced kung fu....including weapons styles. Guerrilla warfare in China was something Japan wanted to avoid as much as possible by any means necessary. If not for the Japanese occupation of China, Mao Tse Tung might never have gained the momentum to establish a Communist regime. Was it wrong to develop weapons to thwart the Japanese?

Because of the shift in weapons technology, both Germany and Japan were defeated, but with heavy losses, both military and civilian, by many of the countries involved. My father was stationed in Japan just after WWII when he was in the U.S. Army. Because that, I have always had an interest in virtually all things Japanese - culture, language, history, art, cuisine, etc. I've dabbled in a few, and actively studied others. Based on what I know of Japan from my own personal knowledge, I have no doubt in my mind that massive casualties would have resulted from a full scale invasion of Japan. Perhaps more than were lost by using atomic weapons. If there was a better way of achieving the same result without an invasion, I also believe Harry Truman would have used it instead. So, is it wrong to research new weapon technology which theoretically can be used to avoid what happened in Japan?

We are never going to halt the development of better weapons. Somebody is always going to be looking to build something bigger and better. That's just what humans do. In the end, it is how those weapons are used which matters, not that they are researching them in the first place.

If a country were to use such weapons on their own people, the whole world would take notice. Sooner or later, other nations would react and intervene on the behalf of the victims. They would not remain idle forever. They would have to act eventually because their own populations would demand it. It sets a bad example for governments, and there are countries where the population just will not stand for such. There are many examples of this, and they take many forms, not always including military intervention. But nations DO react.

Just my 2 cents. Carry on.

One thing I want to point out is that I don't expect or want anyone to "agree with me" about what happened on 9-11 simply because I don't know what happened or what kind of weapon may have been used.

If the twin towers fell in the manner the official story said they did, I want some answers to some questions that have not been addressed.

If no one has convincing answers to these questions, which they have not, then I give myself permission to speculate on some possibilities.

A structural collapse is not likely to cause 1400 vehicles to rust and burn and loose there glass or melt their engine blocks. Some cars were found upside down. Some were not even near the twin towers. The excuse given was that they were taken there and stored. They were over a mile away.

An investigator does not overlook or ignore questions like this just because the answer does not fit their scenario of what they think happened.

All the people here who are so educated are no help either. They just change the subject and ignore the questions and make excuses for the lame story that the government's so-called "experts" have woven. These "experts" are NOT "independent" and they do not explain the evidence or what happened.

Scientific mumbo jumbo about how a structural failure might occur in a 10 to 20 story structure is not an investigation of the crime scene.

It was, after all, a crime scene. The FBI has admitted they could not connect Osama Bin Laden to the attack. And yet, they fail to investigate who may have been responsible. Someone was responsible.

We have all seen and heard many witnesses who heard and experienced explosions on the ground floors. And yet NIST decided that it was not necessary to even look for explosives. That is not "investigating."

Yes, I am an investigator. Not of 9-11 but I do know how to investigate crime scenes. You follow every lead. You don't ignore the evidence or the witnesses. Common sense.

mightymoe,

So I'm still waiting for your answer. I guess you don't have that book.

Did you even read this one? You linked to it and it supports my version rather than the official version.

EXPERTS FURTHER DEBUNK 9-11 FAIRY TALE

EXPERTS SAY FEDERAL LINE IMPOSSIBLE, TOWER COLLAPSES NEED INVESTIGATION



By Mark Anderson

San Francisco architect Richard Gage sees the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s current position on 9-11 as an absurd “smoke and mirrors” show that further reveals that NIST never inquired about how the World Trade Center’s twin towers were destroyed on 9/11/01, and that NIST admits to not having any answers on what actually caused the “global collapse.”

NIST’s latest position on the towers is spelled out in a recent letter sent by NIST to Gage, former Underwriter’s Laboratories scientist Kevin Ryan, 9-11 surviving family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, former Brigham Young University physicist Steven Jones, and the group Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice. The letter was in response to a request by Gage and the others for corrections to NIST’s infamous 10,000-page report on the towers.

NIST denied their requests for changes. The letter states: “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse. . . .”

NIST stated that it found “no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.” But in the next sentence the letter says: “NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue and as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.”

Gage, a leading member of the growing group Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, told AFP that NIST, in its response to requests for corrections: “Acknowledges that they don’t have a plausible explanation as to how the buildings could have collapsed at virtually free-fall speed, due to only gravitational forces, crushing tons of structural steel that was designed to resist that load.”

He added: “Those columns had to have been removed a fraction of a second prior to each floor coming down,” which could only be done with explosives in a coordinated demolition, as Gage recently explained in a detailed presentation at New York City’s Cooper Union and at nearby Webster Hall.

He added that it’s amazing that the towers came down “through the path of greatest resistance without tipping over,” and yet NIST spent 10,000 pages in its major report (2005) only covering the events leading up to the collapse.

“NIST stopped its entire 10,000-page analysis at the point of initiation of collapse,” exclaimed Gage, who pointed out that NIST did not calculate the weight of the buildings’ mass versus the resistance that the dozens of floors below the jet impacts would have provided against a potential collapse.

“And it’s a simple calculation,” Gage told AFP. Gage pointed out that NIST doesn’t even attempt to go beyond the point of collapse initiation because they cannot explain the varied evidence of explosives being used at the WTC, including the lateral ejection of massive steel beams that were blown up to 500 feet away from the towers.

Tremendous force would be needed to do that. And Prof. Jones announced in March 2007 that he found the chemical signature of the incendiary thermate in WTC building materials. Ryan, who was fired from his UL job after raising concerns over serious flaws in NIST’s inquiry, has noted in scientific papers and speeches that fireproofed structural steel easily withstands relatively brief jet-fuel fires and neither melts nor collapses in such an environment.

Gage said there are about 100 cases around the world of high-rise steel framed buildings burning much hotter for at least five hours, and indeed up to 18 hours, without collapsing.

Yet the WTC south tower, which was hit by something second, fell first in just 52 minutes. The north tower fell later after burning just 102 minutes. And the south tower was just nicked by the plane.

Gage has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel framed buildings. He became interested in the 9-11 WTC high-rise “collapses” after hearing the startling conclusions of 9-11 researcher David Ray Griffin. (See AFP’s insert this week, page B-4, for a new 9-11 video from Griffin.)

Gage told AFP an appeal is being filed regarding the IST response to the Request for Correction sent to NIST by Gage and other experts.

What became the World Trade Center was initiated in 1960 by a Lower Manhattan association created and chaired by David Rockefeller. The 110-story north and south towers were part of the WTC complex consisting of seven buildings on 16 acres. At 1,368 and 1,362 feet, the north and south towers were the world’s tallest buildings for a short time, snatching the title from the Empire State Building.

The other five WTC complex buildings were constructed throughout the 1970s and ’80s.WTC 7, being the last in 1985, was, of course, the one that fell into its own footprint in the exact manner of a controlled demolition on 9/11/01, but which was never even hit by a plane that day and only suffered relatively minor fires.

While the cataclysmic nature of the twin towers’ destruction and the precise collapse of WTC 7 all point to an organized inside attack on the complex, even more startling is the fact that an intense six-floor fire on the 11th story of the north tower erupted on Feb. 13, 1975 and burned for more than three hours, hot enough to prompt Capt. Harold Kull of NYFD Engine No. 6 to tell The New York Times, “It was like fighting a blowtorch.”

The fire, estimated to exceed 700 degrees Celsius, was hot enough to blow out windows on the 11th floor’s east side, from which flames were seen shooting out. None of the steel trusses was even replaced; at no time could the entire building have collapsed.

As Gage, Prof. Jones and many others interviewed by AFP have noted, Americans are supposed to believe that the heat from burning jet fuel was hot enough to not only weaken structural steel but bring about a “global collapse” of both towers. As noted, the north tower on 9-11 burned for less than two hours, and the other tower was destroyed after burning for less than an hour. There is no solid evidence that the fires exceeded 500 degrees Fahrenheit for any length of time.

So, hot fires not only have failed to bring down other steel-framed, high-rise buildings; fire specifically failed to bring down the north tower itself in 1975. And WTC designers built the towers to withstand the impact of jet airliners comparable in size to commercial jets used today.

The inclusion of this design characteristic was prompted in part by the events of July 28, 1945, when a B-25 bomber flew into the Empire State Building, igniting a high octane jet-fuel fire that killed 14 and caused considerable physical damage, but it didn’t even come close to bringing down the building.

AFP correspondent Mark Anderson can be reached at truthhound2@yahoo.com. Look for additional reports from Mark in upcoming AFP issues on domestic issues of vital import.

(Issue #47, November 19, 2007)

very good, you did look at them... i was wondering if you would

You still have not looked in the book by David Ray Griffin that you claimed you read for the answer to my question.

i claimed i read it, never said i owned it... i know that part is about the witnesses talking about the 757, saying it looked like a military plane, but it just some people talking stupid...

You didn't read it.