NASA Engineer to speak on Destruction of WTC Buildings

[JohnyCanuck]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Event information: Aaron Brown; Program content: Dwain Deets
Phone: Brown: 909-576-2800 Deets: 760-445-3242
Email: [e-mail]
Event Date: Wednesday, October 21, 12:00 p.m.

NASA Engineer to Speak on Destruction of WTC Buildings
Encinitas resident a leader among 900 architects and engineers

San Diego - On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, former NASA engineering executive Dwain Deets, will speak on behalf of more than 900 architects and engineers who cite evidence of explosive demolition at all three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11 and are calling for a new, independent investigation into their destruction.

Mr. Deets’ multimedia presentation will begin at 12:00 p.m. at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, on the campus of University of San Diego, 5998 Alcalá Park, San Diego, CA 92110. The event will conclude at 3:00 p.m.

An engineer with NASA Dryden Flight Research Center for more than 37 years, Mr. Deets is a board member and the writing team leader for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). Comprised of more than 900 architects and engineers listed on their website at AE911Truth.org, the organization contends that the official FEMA and NIST reports fail, for several reasons, to explain correctly the towers’ destruction. AE911Truth points in particular to the destruction of the third high-rise, World Trade Center 7, which was not hit by a plane but came down in less than seven seconds. These 900 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation.

Mr. Deets will include in his presentation an abridged version of 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, featuring Richard Gage, AIA, a San Francisco Bay area architect of 20 years, the founder and CEO of AE911Truth, and a member of the American Institute of Architects.

The organization’s conclusions are shared by hundreds of scientists; senior-level military, intelligence, and government officials; firefighters; pilots and aviation professionals; scholars and university professors; 9/11 survivors and family members; and media professionals around the world.

In 1986, Mr. Deets was awarded the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics by the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics. He became aware of the many problems with the official reports concerning 9/11, and began speaking publicly on this topic in 2007. He and his wife have been residents of Encinitas for the past six years.

This event is sponsored by the Toreros for Truth, a University of San Diego club with a purpose to promote, and in part to provide, the best in investigative reporting, scholarly research and public education regarding the suppressed realities of September 11th, its aftermath and exploitation for political ends.

Please forward this Press Release to any group or individual you think might be interested- this is a free event and open to the public.

Link to this press release: http://www.911blogger.com/node/21627

Link to event flyer: http://www.netrootz.com/images/groups/group_30/Dwain_Deets_at_Kroc_USD_halfpage%5B1%5D_flyer.pdf

[vincent_vega_lives]

1. I would love to attend this (n/t)

[HannibalCards]

2. How aerodynamic was WTC?

More to the point, why isn't Deets presenting his evidence to the scientific community?

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Mr. Deets is lying.

"World Trade Center 7, which was not hit by a plane but came down in less than seven seconds."

This is patently untrue. If Deets can't even get a simple fact like this right, there is no reason to support his fundraising efforts for AE911Truth.

[KDLarsen]

4. He's basically peddling the Richard Gage line

He's even into the nano-thermite shenanigans.. :eyes:

[whatchamacallit]

5. yeah dude, everyone is a liar but you

:eyes: :puke:

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Well, that's not remotely what I said at all.

Please stop misrepresenting my clear statements.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Who are you to call him a liar?

and on what grounds besides your bias?

[HannibalCards]

8. If he states

that WTC7 fell in 7 seconds (as stated in the OP) - then he is lying. Ergo, he is a liar.

[whatchamacallit]

9. Bullshit. CDs are sequences of timed detonations that unfold in stages

OCTers want to include the center/penthouse crimp (a structure weakening prelude) in the total time for the collapse. Presumably, they feel those extra seconds somehow obscure the fact that at a point the building was collapsing at free fall. It's a matter of interpretation. I won't call yours "a lie".

[HannibalCards]

10. It didn't just crimp

It fell into the building, indicating the structure was already collapsing on the inside.
Regardless of whether you believe in CD or not, the 'seven seconds' line is a falsehood. The building took longer than seven seconds to collapse. To repeatedly claim something after it has been shown false is to lie.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HannibalCards]

15. Neither.

[rollingrock]

11. Is NIST lying too?

when they state that both of the Twin Towers fell at freefall speeds?

[HannibalCards]

14. NIST didn't state that.

[rollingrock]

17. Thanks for proving beyond a doubt

that you

1. have no idea what you're talking about
2. are illiterate
3. and willfully ignorant.




From NIST official FAQs:


6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[HannibalCards]

18. The key words in your highlighted section are

'The building section above" - not the entire building. In addition, they are referring here to WTC2, not all three buildings as you stated above.

You can hurl insults all you wish, but that does not change the facts.

[rollingrock]

20. Uh, no

that's not what it says at all.

1. as clearly stated in the FAQ, 'the building section above' refers to the building above the impact point, which has the roofline. if the roofline came down in free fall, obviously that means the entire building came down in free fall. the only way the roofline could have came down before the rest of the building is if it toppled over and fell over the side of the building instead of going straight down but obviously that did not happen.

2. the questioner asserts that the buildings came down at the speed of a ball dropped in a vacuum, which is even faster then ordinary free fall. in their response, the NIST never denies that assertion to be true. if they disagreed with the premise of the question, they would have denied it, but they never did but instead they spend their time trying to explain the reason for it.

[HannibalCards]

24. That is incorrect

1) The report states that the building below offered 'little resistance' not 'no resistance'. The upper portion and its dynamic energy plowed down through the lower floors.
2) NIST states quite clearly that it was the first exterior panels that hit the ground at 9 and 11 seconds, thereby refuting the questioner's assertion. The rest of the building did not finish collapsing at the same time the first panels hit, so the collapse took longer than a free fall speed.

[rollingrock]

27. Wrong again

NIST states 'the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.'

they do not refute the question.

'the building section above' and the 'first panels' are essentially the same thing, because NIST states that BOTH were in free fall.

[HannibalCards]

29. They absoultely don't

state that both the exterior panels and the upper portion reached the ground at the same time, nor do they state that the upper section and the first exterior panels reach the ground at the same time. See the videos they refer to; the upper panels are falling much faster than the full collapse.

[rollingrock]

30. 'Little resistance'

once again, you could say the same thing for ANY building demolition, before or after 9/11.
there is a negligible amount of resistance in any building demolition.

[HannibalCards]

31. That's true, but

with any other controlled demolition before or since you get loud explosions at the moment of collapse, physical evidence of explosives and seismic events indicating CD.
None of these things was in evidence at WTC.

[rollingrock]

185. Wrong again

There is overwhelming evidence of explosions, that you choose to completely ignore.

[HannibalCards]

190. No explosions were heard

at the time of collapse. Especially not the sharp, definitive explosions of a controlled demolition.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. I'm someone that knows the facts.

That's the only requirement necessary.

WTC 7 fell in at least 16 seconds.

[whatchamacallit]

52. Right...

Engineer/physicist/architect Bolo knows the facts, and this pretender guy from NASA is a liar! :rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

53. All it takes to know the facts is to know the facts.

You obviously can have a degree and not know the facts, just like Mr. Deets has demonstrated.

[whatchamacallit]

57. And you can not have a degree

and prove it daily by playing way out of your league. You guys are so fucking hypocritical; all the time with you it's "PHD this" and "Peer reviewed that"... Until it comes to yourselves or your preferred armchair debunkers, then it's "Degrees aren't everything..." J.O.K.E.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Facts remain facts.

WTC 7 took much longer than 7 seconds to fall.

[whatchamacallit]

61. Well that settles that

Bolo, the final arbiter of facts and evidence has spoken. :eyes: BTW, how do you account for the several seconds where there was virtually no resistance? Lengthening the total collapse time doesn't change that rather difficult FACT.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Facts should always settle the matter.

And I find the section of the collapse predicted by the NIST model where eight floors had buckled all at once provides the exact amount of time needed for the 2.25 seconds found by David Chandler.

[whatchamacallit]

69. You and I both know Bolo

The NIST model is not factual. It's a model. And trust me cuz I know this; models can be constructed to simulate practically ANYTHING. Including, the seemingly impossible triple collapses of the wtc. Before you accuse a NASA scientist of being a liar, because his views don't comport with yours, maybe you should learn the difference between fact and supposition.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. WTC 7 falling in more than 16 seconds isn't reliant on the NIST model

It's right there on the video.

Deets is lying.

Deets is lying, lying, lying.

Deets is a LYING LIAR.

[whatchamacallit]

72. The amazing 8 floor simultaneous collapse is though

yet to you it's fact. You know man, ultimately you are going to end up with a very, very, long list of respected career professionals that you had to label as liars to keep your fantasy alive.

[Bolo Boffin]

76. "ultimately you are going to end up with a very, very, long list of respected career professionals"

:rofl:

The thought of you typing that with a straight face, unaware of the irony, astonishes me.

[whatchamacallit]

79. Wow Bolo, that's cheap...

See dude, this is where your shit falls apart and you lose what little credibility you may still possess. You instantly auto-denigrate the reputation of any professional who doubts the official story. It's a pathetic course, for your own sake please abandon it.

[HannibalCards]

80. If your premise

starts off with a falsehood (ie: "WTC7 collapsed in seven seconds), then everything that follows the premise is unreliable. The NASA engineer starts off with this flawed premise. He is either ignorant or lying. I believe he is to intelligent to be ignorant of the facts:
he must be lying.
People lie for a reason; I wonder what his reason for lying is?

[whatchamacallit]

81. I recently watched a CD

a vegas casino I think... This particular demo was a pretty long affair. There were many charges that went off before the building actually collapsed in ernest. (BTW, when it did it pretty much looked just like wtc 7). Anyway, while the earlier charges detonated there were some perceptible changes to the building, but it didn't fall until the last sequence removed support, floor by floor. In the CD I just described, my question to you is, where do you start the beginning of the collapse? Way back at the first charges, or when it starts dropping like a ton of bricks? This is the issue you and Bolo have erroneously labeled a lie.

[HannibalCards]

84. Having not seen the video you reference

I can only speculate. The building began collapse when it perceptibly changed. In that fashion, it confirms the FDNY's observation of WTC7; noticing perceptible changes in the building, they knew it was in danger of immanent collapse hours before it actually did. Which is why they pulled their people out.

[whatchamacallit]

85. Eh... the slight changes to the structure I'm referring too

happened over a matter of seconds or tens of seconds, and are consistent with some demos. What you are talking about - hours before - is something no one could base the prediction of a total collapse on, except in 9/11 lore.

[HannibalCards]

88. Like the collapse of the penthouse

into the roof of WTC7? As I said, I haven't seen the video you reference. What about sound? How loud were the explosives in the demo video you saw? How long did it take to rig that building?

The FDNY based their prediction of the collapse of WTC7 on the status of the building as they observed it.

[whatchamacallit]

97. Interesting call... Has the FDNY ever made a prediction like that before?

I imagine not, as no buildings ever collapsed like that (without CD) before 9/11. A day of magic firsts... The sound issue is another matter. I have yet to see a video of 7 where I could determine the actual distance from the source to the recording device. This is critical as unobstructed sound falls off (attenuates) rather quickly with distance depending on frequency. Add to this the inevitable scatter and absorption as the sound propagates through a skyscraper forest like lower manhattan, and the "missing sound" question is far from being conclusively answered.

[HannibalCards]

99. No Magic

Just science. The FDNY know what buildings in distress look like, I imagine. At any rate, it's what they claim - their words, their prediction, not mine. If a firefighter were to tell me that the building I was standing near was in danger of collapse, I believe I would take his word for it.

No one near WTC7 reported loud explosions at the time of collapse. No recording equipment (including seismic, which would have, had there been any) picked up the sound of explosions at the time of collapse.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. I'm counting from when the building started falling apart and falling down.

Well over 16 seconds. Deets is LYING, LYING, OH, what a liar Deets is.

[whatchamacallit]

98. Enjoy your petulance

it won't serve you forever.

[vincent_vega_lives]

119. Its true

A degree ain't worth anything if you're fucking crazy.

[travis80]

12. How many seconds did the main structure of WTC 7 to fall then?

How many seconds Bolo?

[rollingrock]

16. All you get is crickets

when you ask them to show some evidence to back up their vapid claims.

[HannibalCards]

19. The collapse time of the entire building

took more than 13 seconds. From the time of initiated collapse as witnessed by the penthouse disappearing into the structure, until full collapse. Far more than freefall.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg

Download and watch at full screen.

[rollingrock]

21. I ask for evidence

and you give me a video of Dan Rather? lol. He doesn't even say anything about the collapse time.




2. The NIST states the towers themselves fell 9 and 11 seconds, respectively. the 9/11 commission report states that the South tower fell in 10 seconds. So you are claiming that a building that is < half the height of the South tower takes several seconds longer to collapse? by what feat of magic does that occur?

[HannibalCards]

22. That was not video of Dan Rather

The video was of the full collapse of the tower.

2. NIST does not state that the towers fell at 9 and 11 seconds. They state (as witnessed by your quote above) that the time it took for the first panels to hit the ground was 9 and 11 seconds, not the full collapse.

[rollingrock]

26. The NIST says

'the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.'

there is no difference between the 'first panels' and 'the building section above' because the first panels and the building section hit the ground at the same time. they are essentially the same thing. 'the first panels to hit the ground first' could be said of ANY building demolition, before or after 9/11.

[HannibalCards]

28. The upper portion

did not hit the ground at the same time the first exterior panels did. NIST does not make the claim that it did. They state that the upper portion came down onto the lower portion at 'essentially free fall speed' and the lower portion offered 'little resistance'. This is not the same as the whole of the structure falling at free fall speed.
They refer back to the videos. In the videos, it is quite clear that the external panels are falling much faster than the collapsing building itself.

[rollingrock]

32. In their words

'the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.'

'the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.'

(the NIST agrees with the premise of the question, 9 and 11 seconds is free fall).


they are the SAME THING, according to NIST. where do you think the FIRST EXTERIOR PANELS come from?? that's right, they are the exterior panels that came from 'the building section above.' the upper portion was the first to be blown apart, so naturally and logically, they are the first to hit the ground. like I said, the 'upper section' and the 'first exterior panels to hit the ground' are the SAME THING.

[HannibalCards]

34. You are misrepresenting what NIST states

They deal with they question in two parts. First they deal with the 9 and 11 seconds premise. This was the cladding, the exterior panels. The exterior panels fell without any resistance, other than wind. In the video referred to, it is plain that they fall much faster than the rest of the building. The upper section referred to here is not comprised of exterior panels.
The second part deals with the upper section of the buildings; those parts above the impact zone. (Both buildings' collapse began at the point of plane impact.) the upper section came down onto the lower section in 'essentially freefall'. Because of the mass and energy of the upper section, the lower section offered little resistance. As collapse progressed, the mass and energy increased, so resistance became less and less.

[rollingrock]

37. One question

NIST states in plain English 'the building section above is essentially in freefall'

it also states in plain English, the first exterior panels also came down in freefall.
(9 and 11 seconds is free fall).

Do you agree or disagree? Because they say it right there in plain English.

If you disagree, then you do NOT agree with the NIST report.
I suggest you write them a letter about it.

[HannibalCards]

40. Once again

the exterior panels came down in freefall to the ground.
The upper portion of the building (the portion above the impact zone) came down in essential freefall onto the lower portion of the building (the portion below the impact zone).

I agree with NIST. The video evidence backs up their statement.

[rollingrock]

45. You are putting in words that are not there

'The upper portion of the building (the portion above the impact zone) came down in essential freefall onto the lower portion of the building (the portion below the impact zone).'

Where does it say that in the FAQ? Quote the exact phrase where it says that please.

[HannibalCards]

78. You have to read for comprehension

It is a fact that the upper portion of the building fell on the lower portion. It is also a fact that the exterior cladding hit the ground. With these facts in mind, and the video NIST refers to, the language of the response is quite plain.

[rollingrock]

83. You can't even answer a simple question

because you made it up, got caught and came up with a bullshit non-response. how sad.

tell me then, if the towers did not collapse in 9 and 11 seconds, then when did they collapse??
surely if NIST disagreed with the premise of the question then they would have corrected the questioner and given their own (longer) times in response. so why don't they??

[HannibalCards]

87. They do

Your insults aside, I have answered your question several times now.
NIST was asked about the 9 and 11 second collapse times. Their response made clear their position. If you look at the complete answer (especially the part of which you edited out) you will see that NIST did address the collapse times.

Here is the paragraph you clipped from the link in your post (#17);

"From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."

[rollingrock]

90. No, they do not

they do not refute the collapse period of the roofline, or upper section. in almost any controlled demolition, you will find pieces of the building still standing after the roofline hit the ground.

that is not a refutation of the question.

and you still have not provided a valid response to my previous question, a quote from the FAQ to back your baseless assertion that the upper block is at free fall only until it impacts the lower block.


you are 0 and 2 so far, since the last two questions.

[HannibalCards]

93. Ah, but look who's keeping score

I have answered your previous question several times now, and provided evidence. NIST answer FAQ #6 quite clearly. You must be able to understand the difference between the ground and the lower part of the building. Just because you change the question's structure does not make the answer any different.

Video evidence shows that the collapse of WTC7 was greater than seven seconds. To state otherwise, in the face of all the evidence, is to lie.

[rollingrock]

95. You fabricate things in the NIST that are simply not there.

some would call that an outright lie. I would have to agree.

[HannibalCards]

96. Then please

prove me wrong. Write to NIST and ask that they clarify their answer to FAQ #6.

I'm satisfied with their answer, based on the video evidence and my own research. If you are not, you need to take it up with them.

[rollingrock]

123. Again, where does it say that in the FAQ?

give me the quote please.

Like I said, if you can't back up your claims then they are worthless. Less than worthless.

[HannibalCards]

183. Read

the whole answer, not just what you edited. Read for comprehension.

[rollingrock]

184. You have a vivid imagination

where did you attend school? L. Ron Hubbard university?

[Bolo Boffin]

25. It took over 16 seconds for the main structure of the building to fall. n/t

[travis80]

33. i counted over 16 for the entire structure, only 7 sec for the main

please count again how many seconds it took the MAIN structure to fall. i think you are HORRIBLY wrong in your counting.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. WTF are you talking about, MAIN?

How exactly do you define the MAIN structure? Just that part that you want to look at?

It took over 16 seconds for WTC 7 to fall. Your MAIN line is just cherrypicking.

[travis80]

38. no, the part you DON'T want us to look at

yes Bolo, i'm cherrypicking the big rectangle part that consists of 98% of the building. what a cherrypicker i am.

the penthouse structure started falling, then 9 sec later, the rest of the building fell (the MAIN structure) in 7 sec.

Deets didn't lie, you are either too in denial, or being too deceptive to know what he was referring to.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. No, look at it as long as you look at it all - please stop misrepresenting my position

It is not 98% of the building at all. The eastern third of the interior is collapsing underneath the penthouse. Then all the core columns are failing horizontally. What you're pointing to is the exterior of the building -- less than half of the actual structure.

Deets is either lying or has not properly researched his topic. Either way, he's not to be trusted.

[travis80]

46. fine, how many sec did the exterior part fall in?

is it 7 sec like Deets says? that's what I count. so i see no reason not to trust him at this point.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Deets said the entire building fell in less than 7 seconds. Can you not read? n/t

[travis80]

51. i must not have. please post his exact quote. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

54. It's up there in the freaking OP. Why do I have to repost something that's already posted?

Please go up there and try reading the OP again, por favor.

[travis80]

55. i must not be able to read it very well, please...

post the exact quote Mr. Deets made about the WTC 7 collapsing in 7 seconds that you say he's must be lying about.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Maybe you can read my post #3 more easily, in which I already quoted Deets verbatim.

You can tell that by the quotation marks I used.

Of course, you did already respond directly to my post #3, so somehow you missed my direct quotation of the OP.

[travis80]

59. yes, i read that part, but don't see where you claim Deets said

the entire building fell in less than 7 seconds.

to me, whoever wrote the article states that the 7 came down in less than 7 seconds, but didn't say the entire building as you claim they did.

"AE911Truth points in particular to the destruction of the third high-rise, World Trade Center 7, which was not hit by a plane but came down in less than seven seconds."


technically, we don't know what Deets claims.


so from what i see, the only one who is lying is YOU Bolo.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. LOL!!!!!!!!!

Jesus Fucking Christ, do you need a glass of water to get that hair down? Oh, my fucking God, are you seriously trying to make that point????

:rofl:

[travis80]

63. you said Deets said the entire building

i don't see anywhere in that press release where Deets says anything. the press release just mentions Deets. please post the exact quote Deets makes, or retract and apologize to Mr. Deets for calling him a liar.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. Deets is the WRITING TEAM LEADER for AE911Truth. He's doing the presentation on their behalf.

You are seriously trying to claim that Deets didn't say this!!!

Come on, you're just having me on here, aren't you? You aren't seriously trying to argue this point, right?

[rollingrock]

73. Fine

then please present some information that refutes the 7 second period collapse time to support your accusation that Deets is a liar. we can start from there. substituting civil discussion with name-calling, hurling personal insults, accusing a NASA engineer of being a liar does not help your argument, especially if you yourself have no engineering or technical background.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. 1. The count given by AE911Truth is only the descent of the part of the building visible

above the roofline.

[rollingrock]

82. Not sure what you mean by that

we can get back to that later, but in the meantime let me ask you this. what do you think the collapse time should be for a 47-story steel skyscraper if it WAS a CD? you should know the answer to that. otherwise, you don't know if 13 seconds could fall in the time of a CD for a 47-story steel building.

Personally, looking at the video I can't imagine how a 47-story building could have collapsed any faster then it did on 9/11. That was pretty damn fast. One second the building is there, a few seconds later it is completely gone. But obviously, OCTers such as yourself are claiming that Building 7 should have fallen significantly faster, if there was a CD involved. So my question is, how much faster?

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Not sure what I mean by that? I'm using English.

The count of AE911Truth is only of the building as it appears above the roofline of other buildings.

You may not be aware of this, but there are lots of really tall buildings in New York.

AE911Truth's count is only of the building that you can see above the other buildings, but that's only about a third of the actual building.

So if it's just under 7 seconds for that section of the building to fall one-third of the way down, do you think the building just instantaneously transports to the ground the rest of the distance?

[rollingrock]

91. Still have no clue what you're talking about

what are you using as a reference or starting point of measurement?

the roofline? the penthouse? something else?

[HannibalCards]

94. perhaps

the building in the foreground of the referenced video that obscures the bottom 2/3rds of WTC7?

[rollingrock]

100. Bottom 2/3s? lol

that could mean anything, so its a meaningless phrase.

a building in the foreground obscures part of Building 7, but it obscures only the left hand side. the right side is still visible, and that side shows no indication of deceleration:

www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg




collapse from another camera angle, footage released in 2008.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvUiMwCXf08

[HannibalCards]

101. In the first video

You can see the initiation of the collapse, as the penthouse drops through the roof. In the most popular of the TM videos, the building is 2/3rds obscured.

It is clear from the first video you link to (especially in full screen) that the collapse took longer than seven seconds. This belies the claim made in the OP.

[rollingrock]

102. But you contradict yourself. Do you have X-ray vision?

first you state the building in the foreground obscures the collapse, but somehow that proves it took much longer than 7 seconds? say what? how could you know that, if the building in the foreground is obscuring YOUR view?? are you Superman? do you have X-Ray vision?



Pretzelman?

[HannibalCards]

103. No, I'm not Superman

Superman is a fictional character.

There are several different videos of WTC7's collapse. I stated that the one that most TM sites show has the building 2/3rds obscured by another building.

Of the ones linked to above, the first clearly shows the penthouse collapsing down through the roof (especially in the full screen). This belies the statement in the OP that the collapse took seven seconds.

[rollingrock]

105. Deets doesn't use the penthouse as a reference point

for calculating collapse period, because it is not a valid reference point. the penthouse is not a part of the main structure of the building, the penthouse does not reflect the nature of the collapse of the main building in any way shape or form. the only valid reference point is the roofline, as it is the standard reference in any building collapse because it accurately reflects what is taking place.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. The only way that the penthouse falls the way it does is that the structure underneath it

is falling out from under it.

The penthouse visibly swings down into the building. It doesn't fall flat on the top. It swings down and falls off into the building below -- and it could only do that if the structure below was gone.

[rollingrock]

107. True

but so what? its normal activity. in any standard high-rise demolition, the first blast goes off and takes out some of the middle columns, which explains why the penthouse collapses first in the case of Bldg 7. but the building itself is still standing, as is the case in any standard CD. the second blast goes off and takes out the perimeter columns, then the third blast. but only after the third blast do you see the roofline begin to move and the whole building falls at once. that's when the calculation or reference point begins, with movement of the roofline.

does anyone say the reference point starts with the first blast!? of course not! because the collapse of the building proper only begins after the 3rd blast. the reference starts when you see the roofline move downward. the few seconds in between the first blast and roofline movement is never counted for obvious reasons.







Note how the 1st blast takes out the middle columns in a standard demolition.




www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

108. There are no blasts identifiable in the WTC 7 collapse.

No audio, no video, nothing.

No explosive devices.

So all of that you're talking about is unsupported until you produce some evidence of an explosive device.

[rollingrock]

109. Now that I have demolished your penthouse nonsense,

you throw up more false assertions to distract from the fact.

ah, the smell of desperation is in the air.

[Bolo Boffin]

111. You've done no such thing. n/t

[rollingrock]

113. You have not provided any credible rebuttal

instead, you try to change the subject.

that smells like desperation.

[rollingrock]

110. So now you that you see how the penthouse is not a valid reference point

the only thing left for you to do: quick! change the subject. lol

[Bolo Boffin]

112. Wow, better let me speak for myself. n/t

[HannibalCards]

115. Deets should

the penthouse was a part of the building. The top floor, if you will. At the point the penthouse falls into the floors below it, the integrity of the building was failing. Deets can try and change the timelime - but to do so is a lie.

[vincent_vega_lives]

122. The Penthouse is the Key

What do you think was happening inside that building to make the Penthouse dissapear into it? It was pretty massive, you think it fell just one floor? Why would that happen? The Penthouse collapse was the second stage of a four part collapse cascade. Starting with the failure of a single key column that resulted in the Penthouse collapsing all the way thru the building, which then took out the transfer truss system, which then translated the local collapse of the Penthouse into a global collapse initiated between floors 5-7.

[vincent_vega_lives]

121. pretty damn fast.

Yup. It did. I'm still confused as to why WTC7 falling as it did had to be done with explosives as some claim. when if one would just look in to why WTC7 might have fallen as it did, makes perfect sense without CD.

[rollingrock]

125. A steel high-rise collapses from limited fires?

and you think that is a completely normal event??

So how come these steel buildings didn't collapse? even though their fires were much more severe
and burned for a much longer period of time?? The fire collapse theory is a joke.






Windsor Hotel


Mandarin Oriental

[Bolo Boffin]

129. "burned for a much longer period of time" -- Factually inaccurate in case of Mandarin Oriental

Hey, did you know that ARUP built the Mandarin Oriental after conducting a thorough study into why the WTC buildings fell? I guess you didn't, because otherwise you wouldn't be presenting it as a comparison to WTC 7.

And did you know that the portions of the Windsor Hotel that weren't reinforced with concrete did indeed collapse? I guess you didn't, because otherwise you wouldn't be presenting it as a comparison to WTC 7.

[rollingrock]

130. Collapse?

they look like they're still standing to me.






A few sections of some upper floors, not even the whole floors, may have collapsed in the Windsor fire, but to compare that to the total collapse of WTC 7, is pretty laughable.


Can you name even one high-rise since or before 9/11 that has ever collapsed due to fire?
If it is such a normal event for building fires? by collapse I mean they are no longer standing, as was the case of WTC 7.


I'm sure you have a whole list of them, so let's see it.

[Bolo Boffin]

132. The portions of the structure unreinforced by concrete collapsed in the Windsor.

How much of the steel structure in 7 was reinforced by concrete, rollingrock? Hmm, none of it was. Hmm.

And you're still showing a picture of the Mandarin. Amazing. WTC 7 falls down. ARUP does an extensive study of it falling down. Then they take the lessons learned and build the Mandarin Oriental. Then the Oriental catches on fire and it doesn't fall down.

And you think the Mandarin fire shows that WTC 7 shouldn't have fallen down. Amazing.

[rollingrock]

134. The notion that steel-framed buildings

readily collapse from fire but concrete-steel reinforced buildings do not, is patently absurd.

If that is the case, then please provide an example.
What other steel-framed high-rises, before or since 9/11, has ever collapsed due to fire?

[Bolo Boffin]

135. So what does this have to do with showing that Deets didn't lie about the collapse time? n/t

[rollingrock]

137. Why don't you ask your buddy vincent_vega?

you know, the one who brought it up.

[vincent_vega_lives]

199. Nice try

at reading comprehension...but FAIL. I didn't bring up any of what you are claiming.

[AZCat]

138. It is?

I'd love to see your calculations (or the output from your coupled fire and structure simulator) proving this assertion, because it would be absurd to make such a blanket statment without them.

[vincent_vega_lives]

198. Not Normal. Understandable....for most.

and that response is so tired. It only demostrates your lack of understanding of the factors involved.

[vincent_vega_lives]

120. By Deets claiming that WTC7 came down in less than seven seconds

it is clear to anyone who has read the NIST collapse theory, which is based on factual evidence, that Deets is either intellectually lazy, and relying on a very limited source for his information, or he is lying.

[rollingrock]

36. You could sit there all day

and tell us the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the moon,
Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, Iraq had WMDs etc.

It doesn't make it true unless you have proof to back it up.

[HannibalCards]

39. I don't believe anyone here

made such claims.
The proof of WTC7s collapse time is in the video I posted. The penthouse is part of WTC7, and therefore part of the main building. Read the full NIST report on the collapse of building 7. Read the reports of the condition of the building (made by firefighters on the scene) throughout the day.
Look at the full evidence. If you can refute what NIST and the FDNY actually says, then make your case.

[travis80]

41. "The penthouse is part of ... the main building"

then what part of the WTC 7 constitutes as not being part of the main building according to your logic?

[HannibalCards]

44. It's all the main building

The penthouse, the roof and all the floors below it constitute the main building. Internal collapse initiated before the external. That is why the penthouse drops through the roof and into the floors below. The building was no longer supporting its penthouse, the uppermost portion. This shows us that the building took much longer than 7 seconds to fully collapse.

[travis80]

48. then what's NOT the main building?

if it's all the main building, that means you would never have to use the word "main."

should i refer it to the part of the building you skeptics are in denial about?

[OnTheOtherHand]

62. that's what people get for trying to use YOUR language, I guess

You introduced "main" back in post #12. Bolo made a game attempt to guess your meaning, then asked, "WTF are you talking about, MAIN?" Now you're demanding that people tell you what it means. :shrug:

[travis80]

68. you skeptics seem to think the entire building is the main building

if that's the case, you would not have to use the word main next to the word building.

if you skeptics think there is a non-main part of the WTC 7, i would like to know which part you think that is.


it really weird, every non-skeptic i ask knows what i mean when i say the main part of WTC 7. only skeptics, the people i think are in denial, don't seem to know what i mean. strange.

[HannibalCards]

74. No, look again

You used the term 'main building'. It has been my assertion from the beginning that WTC7 (the whole building) took longer than seven seconds to collapse.

[OnTheOtherHand]

117. what makes you think we "have to use the word main"?

As I pointed out, it was your choice of words. When I watch the collapse of WTC 7, I see a building that takes more than 7 seconds to collapse, period. You're the one who, apparently, sees the "main building" collapsing in only 7 seconds. So I assume you're the one who thinks there is a non-main part of the building.

I mean, really, you're making this a lot harder than it has to be. Hannibal writes in #44, "It's all the main building," and you "ask" in your reply, "then what's NOT the main building?" :shrug: SRSLY?

[Bolo Boffin]

43. What silly propositions. I wouldn't defend or assert any of them. n/t

[rollingrock]

47. You don't back up any of your own assertions either /nt

[Bolo Boffin]

50. That is a factual inaccuracy.

http://ae911truth.info

I wrote that. I do need to finish it, but everything there is something I wrote or attributed.

[rollingrock]

65. So you back up your assertions....with more of your own asertions

lol!

[Bolo Boffin]

67. No, much more than my assertions at the link. Please stop being factually inaccurate. n/t

[rollingrock]

71. We're talking about something specific

the collapse time of building 7.

and you give me a personal web page, which appears to be your own web page with a general discussion of 9/11, but no specific mention of the topic at hand. I'm impressed. Keep up the good work lol.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. I spoke about this there. Look closer. n/t

Let me narrow it down for you:

http://www.youtube.com/boloboffin

[rollingrock]

92. Larry Silverstein?

what the heck does that video have to do with collapse time of Building 7?? God Almighty.

[Bolo Boffin]

104. I've uploaded five videos. One is about the silly Silverstein argument.

And one is about the time of the collapse.

[rollingrock]

126. Sure you did

so why do you give me a link to the Larry Silverstein video!?

you still have yet to back up any of your worthless claims.

[Bolo Boffin]

127. I gave you a link to my channel. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

114. Deets is a birther.

http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=11136

Why not produce birth certificate?

I don’t understand why there aren’t demands from all ends of the political spectrum to have this matter resolved once and for all. Either the Hawaii health department officials should put forth their documents so that all can see their process was valid and carried out properly in this instance, or Obama should produce the original certificate of live birth. Anything less is undermining the U.S. Constitution.

by Dwain Deets (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 7 comments <8 recommended, 0 rejected>) on Friday, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:02:01 AM

The issue had been resolved for all rational people (and even a few irrational ones) long before Friday, Dec 12, 2008. Deets' continued insistence on needing to see more, more, more is a clear sign of woo.

[HannibalCards]

116. Wow

This is who the 'truth movement' holds up as an expert? Why don't they put forward a structural engineer? Someone who really knows the subject?

[AZCat]

118. it doesn't really matter.

Most of the arguments made by the "truth movement" aren't sophisticated enough to require professional analyses. Also, they've never respected professional opinions regarding the collapses (see their treatment of Shyam Sunder, for example).

[rollingrock]

124. Nonsense

That was back in December 2008.

back then many democrats were suggesting that Obama could silence the critics by simply providing his birth certificate. It was not an unreasonable suggestion to make back then, as many democrats were suggesting the same thing.

[Bolo Boffin]

128. "many democrats were suggesting that Obama could silence the critics by simply providing his birth..

"many democrats were suggesting that Obama could silence the critics by simply providing his birth certificate"

No, they were not. Not in December 2008, and not ever.

"It was not an unreasonable suggestion to make back then..."

Yes, it was. And your assertion otherwise makes me wonder... Did you have questions about Obama's citizenship? Care to clear that up?

[rollingrock]

131. If you want to talk about Obama's citizenship

start a new thread. this is not the place or time.

Quit trying to hijack the thread with your off-topic ramblings.

[Bolo Boffin]

133. LMFAO! Deets is a birther, which speaks directly to his ability to reason.

And you won't say whether you were or are a birther or not.

:rofl:

[whatchamacallit]

136. Not so fast Bolo

I admit I know very little about Deets, and he may indeed be a birther (which would suck), but you seem to have missed (intentionally?) rollingrock's point. It is entirely possible for someone who doesn't doubt Obama's citizenship to make the statement you produced. I can easily imagine many people watching the birther spectacle with growing dismay and saying "don't let this circus continue, release the birth certificate and shut these fucking idiots up". That is not an unreasonable thought. Like I said before, I don't know where Deet's sits on the spectrum, but on the face of it, what you produced is not conclusive.

Edit: I still believe a plea to Obama to release his BC to silence the noise would have been reasonable. However, after rereading Mr. Deet's statement it, unfortunately, seems a little more pointed than that.

[OnTheOtherHand]

139. "Anything less is undermining the U.S. Constitution"?

Sorry, but I think that is an unreasonable thought, at least by December 2008.

[whatchamacallit]

140. reread the edit I made before your post. (n/t)

[OnTheOtherHand]

192. well...

Strictly speaking, since the edit time stamp on your post is after I posted, I have no way of knowing what edit you made before my post. But it looks like we were stating similar conclusions at about the same time. I didn't mean to bounce the rubble.

I really don't understand what more Obama could meaningfully have done to "release" his birth certificate -- but that's a side issue.

[whatchamacallit]

197. Yeah, right after I posted the first bit

I thought I better reread the Deet's statement just make sure what I wrote holds up. You posted your response while I was amending mine... Anyway, what difference does it make? At least I owned-up that my explanation was a bit of a stretch.

[OnTheOtherHand]

200. I was just clarifying "reread"

I had no clue that you had changed your post until you pointed it out. It's kinda too bad that edited posts don't show up with an asterisk in the tree view, to make this sort of situation easier to spot. But, no worries.

[whatchamacallit]

201. Is cool :) n/t

[Pharaoh]

141. NASA Engineer to speak on Destruction of WTC Buildings

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Event information: Aaron Brown; Program content: Dwain Deets
Phone: Brown: 909-576-2800 Deets: 760-445-3242
Email: [e-mail]
Event Date: Wednesday, October 21, 12:00 p.m.

NASA Engineer to Speak on Destruction of WTC Buildings
Encinitas resident a leader among 900 architects and engineers

San Diego - On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, former NASA engineering executive Dwain Deets, will speak on behalf of more than 900 architects and engineers who cite evidence of explosive demolition at all three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11 and are calling for a new, independent investigation into their destruction.

Mr. Deets’ multimedia presentation will begin at 12:00 p.m. at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, on the campus of University of San Diego, 5998 Alcalá Park, San Diego, CA 92110. The event will conclude at 3:00 p.m.

An engineer with NASA Dryden Flight Research Center for more than 37 years, Mr. Deets is a board member and the writing team leader for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). Comprised of more than 900 architects and engineers listed on their website at AE911Truth.org, the organization contends that the official FEMA and NIST reports fail, for several reasons, to explain correctly the towers’ destruction. AE911Truth points in particular to the destruction of the third high-rise, World Trade Center 7, which was not hit by a plane but came down in less than seven seconds. These 900 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation.

Mr. Deets will include in his presentation an abridged version of 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, featuring Richard Gage, AIA, a San Francisco Bay area architect of 20 years, the founder and CEO of AE911Truth, and a member of the American Institute of Architects.

The organization’s conclusions are shared by hundreds of scientists; senior-level military, intelligence, and government officials; firefighters; pilots and aviation professionals; scholars and university professors; 9/11 survivors and family members; and media professionals around the world.

In 1986, Mr. Deets was awarded the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics by the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics. He became aware of the many problems with the official reports concerning 9/11, and began speaking publicly on this topic in 2007. He and his wife have been residents of Encinitas for the past six years.

This event is sponsored by the Toreros for Truth, a University of San Diego club with a purpose to promote, and in part to provide, the best in investigative reporting, scholarly research and public education regarding the suppressed realities of September 11th, its aftermath and exploitation for political ends.

Please forward this Press Release to any group or individual you think might be interested- this is a free event and open to the public.

Link to this press release: http://www.911blogger.com/node/21627

Link to event flyer: http://www.netrootz.com/images/groups/group_30/Dwain_De...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

142. Ah, now I understand.

The LCROSS probe, which failed to crash into the moon, fell into the time hole that the LHC created to sabotage itself, and crashed into the WTC back in 2001.

Brilliant.

[sailor65]

153. I just hope

they find my other sock in there while they're at it.

[liberal N proud]

143. Interesting!

[SidDithers]

144. What a fucking surprise...nt

Sid

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

156. Bully for you...

too bad you've got no respect for DU's Administrators.

Sid

[cherokeeprogressive]

157. Threads in the 911 forum CANNOT be rec'd or unrecc'd.

[Pharaoh]

163. yeah but this thread

got fourteen recs and that is on top of all the unrecs sid and his ilk did before the dungeon.

There is great interest in this subject.

So why this is happening is very curious eh?

[armyowalgreens]

165. Because there are a lot of uneducated people that flock to the shocking nature...

of this story.

[SidDithers]

166. So, the question, asked again, is...

why don't you respect the Administrators of Democratic Underground? They've made it abundantly clear that 9/11 posts go in the September 11 forum, and yet you repeatedly ignore their rules.

Sid

[Swamp Rat]

145. Here come the 911 Dungeon Zombies

[Bolo Boffin]

178. Funny

I started using that term to describe several people who kept making socks after being tombstoned for incivilly arguing for 9/11 CTs.

And now here you have turned the phrase around like a good little propagandist, to describe people that have never ever been tombstoned.

[slackmaster]

147. IBMTS11F

:nuke:

[MineralMan]

148. Well, I can't say you don't keep trying...

[intheflow]

149. Oh, everyone knows NASA engineers are not qualified for anything

but rocket science. He couldn't possible know anything about structural integrity, design, or the processes that distinguish an detonation from a building collapsing on its own even though it wasn't hit by any debris.

:sarcasm: - Sad I have to even add this, but waiting for the nay-sayers to appear in this post in 3, 2, 1... because that's what they'll be saying. NASA employs unqualified CT-loving engineers.

[armyowalgreens]

158. Hey...I've got a little secret I want to let you in on...

Building 7 was hit by debris from the second tower collapse. There is photo evidence...

















Us "naysayers" are actually just people who care about the facts. It's unfortunate that you do not.

[Ghost in the Machine]

167. hey, guess what!?!?

Buildings 5 and 6 were hit by even more debris and burned completely out, but they *didn't* collapse...

How's that for facts?

[armyowalgreens]

169. Did the support structure of building 5 or 6 receive damage like 7?

[Ghost in the Machine]

170. yes, even worse damage...

Buildings 5 and 6 of the WTC complex stood between the North tower and Building 7. When WTC 1 (the North tower) collapsed, the debris cut Building 6 in half and severely damaged Building 5. The resulting fires burned for nearly 9 hours.

Yet, strangle enough, neither of these two buildings collapsed into their own foot-prints.





Building 5 burned out of control for nearly 9 hours; Building 6 was almost as bad. Yet…









… there they are, Buildings 5 and 6 still standing. In fact, they had to be demoed in order to remove them.



http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/nist-says-a-fire-caused-it-nist-is-lying/

[armyowalgreens]

171. Those buildings were destroyed from above.

Debris landed on top of those two buildings crushed the tops. Building 7 was struck in the side and at the base scooping out portions of the central support structure.

[Pharaoh]

172. Really?

:eyes:

[Ghost in the Machine]

173. **SNORT**!!

:rofl:

Thanks for the laugh, kid...

:hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

174. So all they needed was a little drywall and 5 and 6 were good to go, right? n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

175. What part of "they were damaged worse than WTC 7" was a foreign language to you?

Maybe you meant that reply for someone else? I can't see how you'd get anything remotely like that from my posts..

:hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

177. So the fires and the debris did cause severe damage?

I see.

Tell me something, Ghost. Do you think a building built low along the ground is going to respond to a fire in exactly the same way that a building 47 stories high is going to respond to a fire?

ETA: Also, can you tell me whether this building is still standing or has it fallen down, or what?

[Ghost in the Machine]

180. Structural failure is structural failure... no matter if it's 10 feet tall or 1000 feet tall

"ETA: Also, can you tell me whether this building is still standing or has it fallen down, or what?"

It was torn in half, just like what I posted. What, you think those are matchbox trucks sitting next to it? Part of it is still standing. With all that structural damage, why didn't it globally collapse like the other buildings?

[Bolo Boffin]

181. Dance, dance, dance.

Do you expect a building where the bulk of the 47-floor building is concentrated over a small area to respond the same way to one 8 floors high where the bulk of the building is spread out?

[armyowalgreens]

188. Yes he does.

Don't you know? He's been erecting steel buildings since before I was shitting in diapers.

[lovepg]

189. i would expect a building with a damaged corner to fall over to that side not straight down.nt

[HannibalCards]

191. Guess what

WTC 7 did not fall straight down.

[SDuderstadt]

193. It's posts like this...

that explain why no one here takes you seriously, dude.

[armyowalgreens]

187. Less weight bearing down on the structure provides for greater damage...

Without guaranteeing "global collapse".

In other words, the structure can sustain more damage if it has less weight on top of the support structure. As you have already pointed out, the building sustained catastrophic damage to the upper levels, reducing weight on the lower floors.

[armyowalgreens]

179. It's sad that you laugh in the face of reality.

Very, very sad.

[Ghost in the Machine]

182. You don't have a clue about reality, kid...

I was erecting steel buildings when you were still playing with the shit in your diapers. If I ever need advice on waiting tables, I'll look you up, m'kay?

Here's a simple reality for you: Buildings 5 & 6 stood *between* the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The took much more massive hits from debris, burned completely out, and still stood. They didn't globally collapse like WTC 7 did, did they?

[armyowalgreens]

186. No, they did not fully collapse.

It seems logical that someone who was erecting steel buildings since before I was shitting in diapers would know that the two buildings were drastically different in size and design and suffered damage in different ways.

You should already know this, what with all your building experience and all, but building design differs greatly from one structure to the next. Each design will react differently to certain conditions. Especially when those conditions are extreme.

And as another posted has already pointed out, looking at some of the photos of 5 and 6 reveals that there wasn't much left standing.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me kid. Unless you'd like me to start calling you old man.

[HannibalCards]

176. Were WTC 5 and 6

Constructed the same as WTC 7, out of the same materials?
Were they the same height? The same proximity to WTC 1 and 2?

If the answer to these questions is no (and it is) then why would you expect 3 different structures to behave the same way?

[HannibalCards]

168. Well he certainly

can't operate a stopwatch.

[sharp_stick]

150. Too bad you cant add a poll on a reply

I wonder how long until this gets moved to it's new home?

[slay]

151. K&R - I do not believe the official story of 9/11

I'm shocked that so many people do. There are MANY unanswered questions about how that day went down. 9/11 was our modern day Operation Northwoods.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

[armyowalgreens]

152. More nonsense from an increasingly irrelevant group of people.

[EOTE]

155. Yeah, stupid scientists.

Maybe if NASA employed smart people, I'd be more likely to pay attention. Now the people in the Bush backed 9/11 commission, those are some smart motherfuckers without any possible reason for bias.

[armyowalgreens]

160. So what do you find wrong with the physical nature of the attacks?

Also, simply because a NASA scientist supports a side does not make that side right. One person does not discredit an entire mountain of research and proof.

[librechik]

161. Word--the Bush Brain Trust got me back on Marlboros, too!

they're good for the lungs--like ground zero dust right after 9/11. Promise!

[SDuderstadt]

194. Could you please explain how the 9/11 Commission was...

the "Bush backed" 9/11 Commission, since he opposed it, the WH opposed the selection of Zelikow as ED and Bush, by law, only appointed one member of the Commission? It would also be nice if you cpuld explain the portions of the CR that took the Bush administration to task. That is, assuming you even read the report, which I somehow doubt.

[SDuderstadt]

195. Self-deleted...

Accidental dupe

[SDuderstadt]

196. Self-deleted

accidental dupe

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

154. 9/11 Loony Tunes.

Bunch of whackadoodles.

[slay]

159. Not surprised this ended up in the dungeon - kinda surprised so many on DU don't even question the

official story. Why anyone would take what the Bush admin said on face value is incomprehensible to me. It's not even a matter of IF the official story was true - it's not. It's a matter of LIHOP vs MIHOP in my opinion. Pfft whatever - people can be so blind to the truth and bow down to the will of authority figures wayyyyy too much. :(

[Pharaoh]

162. Yeah man

hard to believe but there are a lot of stupid people, even on DU

[Name removed]

164. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.