| 5/14/2008 9:56:20 PM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  justme86 Waco, TX age: 21
| http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/05/loose-marbles-i.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1
http://911myths.com/
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/9/11_coverup
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/lcg6.html
Where can I find engineering studies concerning the World Trade Center that refute the claims that it was demolished by bombs or "controlled demolition?"
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/4/30_APwtc.html
Where can I find engineering studies that offer evidence that structural steel from the World Trade Center was collected for analysis?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf
Where can I find evidence that refutes the claim that World Trade Center Building 7 was "pulled" down intentionally by some official order?
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
Where can I find engineering studies concerning the Pentagon that refute the claims that it was hit by a guided missile?
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/pentagon.php
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/
http://www.asce.org/responds/
More information:
http://architecture.about.com/library/weekly/aawtc-collapse.htm
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php#why
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/resources.html
More links to real engineers refuting conspiracy theorists:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/wtc_science_010919.html
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/phy03/sci/engin/systems/collapse/
http://mcleon.tripod.com/WTC1.htm
http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf
YET MORE:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-12/su-sed120301.php
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html
An article from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JENMDT000128000001000002000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
A collection of essays by researchers at MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
A bibliography of analyses of the collapse:
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html#Analysis%20of%20Collapse
Architecture Week on the engineering forensics of the collapse:
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-2.html
Oh, what the heck. Here's some more...
On WTC7:
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0515/news_1-1.html
http://southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/Final%20NCSTAC%202004%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP08/default.asp
This Web site provides a summary of seismic observations, including seismogram traces of the two impacts and three collapses at the WTC (including those of the twin towers as well as that of the adjacent building, WTC-7):
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html
This report presents results of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) remote sensing data and interpretations that mapped the distribution and intensity of thermal hot spots in the WTC area on September 16 and 23:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html
Non-U.S. Structural Engineers
http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
[Edited 5/14/2008 10:22:32 PM]
| | 5/14/2008 10:02:49 PM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  justme86 Waco, TX age: 21
| Apparently DH doesn't like html. I need to work on those links.
And I'm done.
These addresses provide real analysis using factual evidence as well as computer simulations. Some even go the distance to disprove conspiracies.

[Edited 5/14/2008 10:25:24 PM]
| | 5/14/2008 10:31:32 PM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  jewelz5 Monteagle, TN age: 53 online now!
| Those are ALL illuminati owned and controlled news sources and outlets and they cannot tell you the truth. They are ALL involved in the conspiracy against you from being able to tell you what is really going on, because they themselves don't know, because they are intentionally kept in the dark and are simply doing their jobs reporting to you what they are told to tell you, dissinformation and lies.
Your whole entire life is a lie because nobody is telling you the truth about your world. NIST is a complete joke and a total scam on the American people. I am not impressed with your phony dissinformation list of cover stories and made up lies designed to keep you in the dark. It's all mainstream bullshit to keep you confused and from figuring out the truth.
| | 5/14/2008 10:35:08 PM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  justme86 Waco, TX age: 21
| Alright Jewelz time to duke it out.
You bring your facts. I'll be waiting.
Your argument that engineers are liars isn't gonna help you.
Just the facts.
[Edited 5/14/2008 10:41:11 PM]
| | 5/14/2008 10:50:06 PM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  tedric Anchor Point, AK age: 67
| Jewelz ~
Why don't you just cut your losses and realize that the only people you'll convince with your idiot rhetoric are the ones you've already poisoned, and any others, like you, with less than half a brain?
| | 5/14/2008 10:52:31 PM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  justme86 Waco, TX age: 21
| My favorite part is where he doesn't look at any of the articles or facts to refute them.
He backs into his corner and screams illuminati.
| | 5/14/2008 11:02:47 PM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  jewelz5 Monteagle, TN age: 53 online now!
| Timeline
Operation Northwoods
March 13th, 1962. The Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up plans to stage terrorist attacks as a pretext for invading Cuba.
NASA Boeing 720 Crash
December 4th, 1984. NASA crash lands a Boeing 720 at Edwards Air Force Base, using remote control technology.
September, 2000. The Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank whose members include D*ck Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and Paul Wolfowitz, releases their report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses."
In it, they declare that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
October 24th, 2000. The Pentagon conducts the first of two training exercises called MASCAL, which simulates a Boeing 757 crashing into the building.
Lucky Larry
July 24th, 2001. Larry A. Silverstein, who already owned World Trade Center Building Seven, signs a $3.2 billion dollar, 99-year lease on the entire World Trade Center complex, six weeks before 9-11.
Included in the lease is a $3.5 billion dollar insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism.
Put Options
Between September 6th and September 10th, 2001, a series of suspicious put options are placed on American Airlines, United Airlines, and Boeing, three companies that would be deeply affected by the upcoming attacks.
United Airlines was shorted 3,150, four times above average. Boeing was shorted 27,294, five times above average. American Airlines was shorted 4,516, eleven times above average.
| | 5/14/2008 11:04:37 PM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  justme86 Waco, TX age: 21
| Sources? I'm sure this isn't common knowledge as well as you didn't see all of this happen.
| | 5/14/2008 11:19:52 PM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  jewelz5 Monteagle, TN age: 53 online now!
| The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says.
The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.
Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science."
• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks.
"And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."
| | 5/14/2008 11:36:32 PM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  justme86 Waco, TX age: 21
| Come on now Jewelz I asked for facts. Your "source" speculates and doesn't offer any evidence, not to mention his expertise is not on structural engineering or terrorism...
The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says.
The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.
Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science."
• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks.
"And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."
Now Jewelz maybe you can explain how physics and chemistry is ignored since Steven here doesn't explain.
The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says.
The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.
| | 5/14/2008 11:53:55 PM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  jewelz5 Monteagle, TN age: 53 online now!
| • No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.
• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?"
The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
| | 5/14/2008 11:55:08 PM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  jewelz5 Monteagle, TN age: 53 online now!
| • Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.
• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.
• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.
• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.
| | 5/15/2008 12:09:49 AM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  bocky1019 Newark, DE age: 50
| I am not going to cut and paste some propaganda lies and bullshit....why do people read bullshit and believe that but will not believe any thing else...people like you only want to stir up shit...and you should be taken out back and after a good ass whoopin and spankin deport your sorry ass over to Iraq.What the f*ck is the matter with you boy?..run out of weed or your XBox broken....get a real life and stop reading pessamistic bullshit...
| | 5/15/2008 12:25:30 AM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  jewelz5 Monteagle, TN age: 53 online now!
| another mind controlled sheeple bites the dust...poooff

| | 5/15/2008 12:30:09 AM | Real 9/11 by Real Engineers and Real Facts | |  jewelz5 Monteagle, TN age: 53 online now!
| There is slam dunk evidence of controlled demolition. Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site proves thermate, which proves the collapse of twin towers was an act of deliberate arson.
Thermate is a high temperature excellerant used in arson.. those buildings were rigged for demolition...between the time Flt. 175 hit WTC2 and the time the building collapsed only 56 minutes had elapsed.
56 minutes isn't enough time to develop a fire hot enough or large enough to even have a remote chance of getting enough steel hot enough to be a factor to bring down those buildings.
|
|