News Alert
Yucaipa Spanish Teacher, 44, Accused of Sexual…

Did Explosives Bring the Twin Towers Down?

Loma Linda/Redlands residents will be presented with evidence controlled explosions brought the buildings down at a presentation moderated by a Redlands engineer.

The Sept. 11 attacks are such a delicate topic, that a small Loma Linda Patch brief announcing the screening of a film charging a report on the collapse of the towers is full of falsehoods has stirred passions.

Stephen Kemp, BSME, a local engineer and educator, who will moderate the presentation, said he expected skeptics.

“I think it’s important for the public to really understand that we’ve never really had anything like an (independent) investigation into 9/11,”  Kemp said. “So what goes as an official story is really fairytale.”

The presentation, titled 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, The Architecture of Destruction Re-examining the Destruction of the Three World Trade Center High-Rises will be held at 7 p.m. Jan. 10 at A.K. Smiley Public Library, 125 W. Vine St.

The film centers around the theory that New York’s Twin Towers and a third World Trade Center Seven Building - that was a block away from the towers - were not brought down by the large jets that were flown into them.

Instead the film and its creator Richard Gage, AIA, suggest a controlled explosion similar to the ones seen in demolitions brought them down. Gage and a group of about 1,600 supporters are demanding there be a new independent investigation into the collapse.

Several people who were were associated with the official investigation's  final report have since disowned it, Kemp said.

“We need to revisit this,” he said. “We need a new investigation.”

The film questions a lot of the evidence presented by the report and claims many things were omitted including the existence of molten steel. Rescuers and architects at Ground Zero reported seeing it, Gage said. The liquafied steele is a classic effect of a controlled demolition, he said.

“For me the key condition is that they never called key witnesses,” Kemp said of the investigators. “Much of the evidence that was presented to them was repressed in the final report.”

But the film has many shaking their heads.

“I doubt whether any voices of reason will even attend, since these dreary events are usually 90 percent self-professed ‘truthers,’ and the other 10 percent only claim to be skeptics - who see the light after the "presentation.’ ” Patch commenter Albury Smith responded in frustration in a comment stream. “I'd suggest reviewing the to see how interested the 9/11 ‘truth movement’ is in honest debate. The ‘engineer and educator’ who's running the Redlands, CA dog-and-pony show addressed none of my comments or questions and then skipped, and getting anything substantive out of the other true believer here is like nailing Jello to a tree.”

m January 07, 2012 at 04:30 AM
What’s another way a reasonable person know a complete investigation was not done? It is really pretty simple, and if you want to test it, all you have to do is ask; who are the people in the military or civilian authority who were held accountable for our lack of defenses on 9/11? Does no one held accountable seem like the military way? The military is not the type of organization to forego the assignment of blame. In the military when someone makes a very big mistake they are held accountable. A direct example would be the attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. Following this attack the Roberts Commission assigned the blame to Major General Walter Short and Admiral Husband Kimmel for being unprepared and they were charged with dereliction of duty. This was a surprise attack of a military base in the early morning hours of a Sunday. The fact that no one in the US military was charged with dereliction of duty is another clear indicator that 9/11 was not completely investigated (there was no accountability)! Wake Up!
m January 07, 2012 at 04:38 AM
For discussion purposes lets drastically lower our expectations for national defense and see if there is reason to believe heads should have rolled for our lack of defenses on 9/11. First, we’ll ignore the fact that more than a dozen government agencies including our entire military did not prevent the attacks. This despite the fact we pay a number that exceeds 500,000,000,000 dollars PER YEAR for these agencies and defense systems. Second we’ll ignore the fact that when the planes began to go off course no military interceptors were scrambled. Third we’ll ignore the fact the Tower 1 (North Tower) was struck about 30 minutes after flight 11 originally deviated from its course and there was no military in the vicinity to attempt a defense. Fourth we’ll ignore the fact that Tower 2 (South Tower) was struck more than 15 minutes later at 9:03AM again without any military even in the vicinity to attempt a defense. This is where we will choose our starting point; determining if the military response was adequate after we knew we were under attack at 9:03AM. There is no way a reasonable person can understand how another jetliner struck the Pentagon at 9:37AM! That is 34 minutes later! So more than a half hour AFTER the second tower was struck, a jet liner flew into the most secure airspace in the world and struck the most secure building in the world (the Pentagon) and there was no military in the vicinity to even attempt a defense. Wake Up!
m January 07, 2012 at 04:39 AM
Oh yeah... and you do not get to see a film of the plane hitting one of the most secure buildings in the world. LOL... wake up!
Albury Smith January 07, 2012 at 02:38 PM
By your logic(?), "m," one major at Ft. Hood outsmarted the entire US military with only a handgun, and only a civilian cop was up to the task. 9/11's the first and only instance of a suicide hijacking and crashing of US planes, and NORAD was not set up to defend against threats originating within US borders. Typically, and on 9/11, 2 armed F-15s & 2 F-16s were on standby within range of NYC and DC, and they relied on ATC to report problems to their FAA superiors, who then alerted the military. There was not enough time to intercept 3 of the planes, and the 4th was crashed short of its target, as this timeline clearly shows: http://cleartheskies.com/timeline.html It was not entirely clear that AA 11 wasn't an accident until UA 175 hit the South Tower, and shoot-down orders of US airliners over populated areas aren't routine. They certainly aren't given every time an airliner goes off course. I don't know why you think ~1 frame/second security cameras show objects going ~800'/second, or why the Pentagon has "the most secure airspace in the world," when it's < 1 mile from Reagan National, which has a runway pointing right at its NE corner, but despite the claims of one of the most prolific liars in the 9/11 "truth movement," it was not defended against domestic airliners: http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pdf If you're uncertain what crashed there, read this: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
Albury Smith January 07, 2012 at 02:40 PM
Why only read a few pages of NCSTAR 1A, (and none of 1-9), and then misrepresent it, "m"? Timing a collapse to determine its cause is pure junk science, but WTC 7's initial descent was not at free-fall acceleration; the first ~1.75 seconds were considerably slower, as was the time after t=4 seconds. The 51 "in tact" exterior columns are simply a straw man, since the NIST hypothesis excludes damage to the others as a factor in the 5:21 PM collapse, but the NT collapse did play a major role, since its debris ignited the fires and severed the 20" sprinkler main to WTC 7. Only one interior column INITIALLY buckled, but it triggered the buckling of other columns inside. "Sudden symmetrical collapse[s]" happen when widely-spaced interior framing has collapsed, and the closely-spaced exterior is all moment connected, so given your thirst for knowledge, I'm sure you'll read all about the framing, looking carefully at the layout and connection details. It can and did happen solely from fires that burned for hours without water, and was fully expected: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc The NCST Act proscribes disclosure of some of the modeling input data NIST used, but I'm sure you'll be delighted to hear that more than enough is available from numerous sources, including NIST, so you can run your own models.
m January 08, 2012 at 02:05 AM
I think there is a bit more complexity to the hijacking of 4 flights on September 11 then a guy in uniform with a gun. You obviously have no or very low standards for the level of preparedness that should be expected of the military. I see you are completely satisfied that there is no footage for us to see, and apparently do not believe the symbol of military power was secure. Who said anything about what crashed there…? What I did was clearly establish why there was dereliction of duty on 9/11 and even provided a precedent of what should have occurred. You on the other hand feel the need to send me links. What for? Are these links supposed to over-ride my common sense. The second tower was hit at 9:03AM everyone in the military would have realized we were under attack. The attack occurred in the middle of the military’s work day on a Tuesday. Hell, troops wouldn’t even been at chow during this time period. 34 minutes later a plane crashes into the Pentagon and you can’t see dereliction of duty? Give it up, heads should have rolled!
m January 08, 2012 at 02:11 AM
Look you can try to make crap up but you lost already right after they submitted their reports (Commission, Towers, WTC7) and people had time to read them. You can go on and on but I outlined it at the top for you. I stated the proper location of freefall at STAGE2. This stage IS the descent of the roofline. We all can look at the video and see it is symmetrical and that it is sudden… as a matter of fact it looks just like a controlled demolition. Funny how they did not test for explosives! Give me a break, you are talking nonsense. To conclude your piece with a defense for NIST hiding their model data completely reinforces that your standards are very low as I noted above when discussing why the military was derelict in their duties. You’re a little sensitive about the model data thing eh? Must feel pretty crummy trying to stand up for a global collapse model when the makers of the model hide the data. You work for these guys or something? You got nothing and some day there will be an actual real investigation where people are held accountable.
Albury Smith January 08, 2012 at 03:26 PM
You complained that "you do not get to see a film of the plane hitting one of the most secure buildings in the world," so what are you alleging, since I've explained to you why there isn't any, and why the Pentagon wasn't defended against hijacked airliners? I didn't expect to "over-ride [your] common sense," but the timeline link I posted is to a 9000+ character document, and the limit here's 1500. It's from the author of "Touching History," written by someone who actually bothered with facts. Where "troops" were on the morning of 9/11 is pretty irrelevant; there were still only the usual 2 armed NORAD fighters on standby at Otis in MA, and 2 more at Langley in VA, and 3000 to 4000 airborne civilian passenger planes to sort through, some transmitting only primary radar blips. The first 2 attacks were in NYC, so the Langley fighters were initially sent north for combat air patrol over it. The 9/11 plot was only stopped with a totally unprecedented nationwide ATC Zero order that was issued by the FAA ~8 minutes after the 4th crash, not with a totally unprecedented airliner shoot-down order that was not enforceable because of time restraints and difficulty identifying legitimate targets, so whose "heads should have rolled"? NORAD didn't monitor civilian air traffic inside the US prior to 9/11, so what "level of preparedness" do you think(?) they had on previous occasions when multiple airliners were hijacked and crashed into buildings? Do you even think?
Albury Smith January 08, 2012 at 03:37 PM
What "crap" did I make up, "m"? Provisions of the NCST Act prevent full disclosure of modeling input data, but any competent engineer familiar with LS-DYNA and ANSYS programs can easily get it from numerous sources, including NIST, and run his own models, so what's been stopping you and your "truth movement" for the last decade? You still won't have any evidence for controlled demolition, but go for it. "We all can look at the video[s]," time collapses, and "go on and on," but no self-respecting forensic SE uses appearance and collapse times to determine what caused one. ~150,000 tons of upper stories had no measurable resistance from t=1.75 to t=4 seconds in the NIST collapse sequence, as you could easily see if you bothered to look at it in NCSTAR 1A, and the exterior column-to-beam connections and tight spacing guaranteed symmetry. Real controlled demolitions free fall with only a fraction of the columns cut, so the entire premise is just plain stupid. WTC 7 "looked just like a controlled demolition" because that's how gravity works: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM so how would you expect it to look? You're "talking nonsense" if you think(?) even one of the 24 W14 X 730 [730#/lineal foot, 4.9" flanges] interior columns, or 57 W14 X 500 exterior ones was secretly cut with explosives, and then left no evidence on the cut ends in the debris, and you can't even dream up a plausible perpetrator and motive for this completely absurd impossibility.
m January 09, 2012 at 03:52 AM
Sure I complained about not seeing a film of the plane hitting the building and your fine with it because you have no standards. To summarize for all of the rest of the excuses and drivel you wrote in this response all I have to say is “34 minutes! = dereliction of duty”. You have obviously placed your self as the incompetency defender if you are seriously going to try and defend 34 minutes from the second tower strike to the Pentagon strike and try to some how justify our lack of defense. Additionally you’ll be taking on the burden of defending NIST…LOL. Fact: There was no thorough investigation of 9/11 Proof: No one was held accountable for our lack of defenses Precedent: The Admiral and General I named from Pearl Harbor who were held accountable and charged with dereliction of duty. YOU: excuse making And yes I do think… for example I think you are someone with very low standards. You have not had the slightest effect on my position and I’m sure everyone here can clearly see through your very lame arguments aimed at justifying what? Why no one should be held accountable for our lack of defenses. Sell it somewhere else pal.
m January 09, 2012 at 03:54 AM
Once again you are defending a position with no defense. Science dictates that the data be available in full for it to be replicated and earn the right to be science. Once again you have no standards and therefore you try to defend with the nonsense you make up. Like when you just said “Provisions of the NIST act prevent”. In this statement the word “prevent” is your made up crap. In your final paragraph I infer you may be a little slow… So none of you scientists use observation. Funny in the science I do we use observation all the time. We form a hypothesis and then run tests which give results to support our hypothesis or not. Fact: WTC7 looks identical to a controlled demolition. This is based on the hundreds of videos available of controlled demolitions Fact: WTC7’s roofline starts to come down at Freefall Fact: WTC7’s descent is symmetrical and uniform I think hypothesis #1 given the terrorist activities occurring in the trade center that day would have been controlled demolition. Not only was this not hypothesis #1 it was never scientifically tested as a hypothesis.
m January 09, 2012 at 03:57 AM
Now a real scientist (not one of these NIST guys) would watch the video and see the symmetrical uniform collapse. Then a real scientist would determine through measurement that freefall was a metric. Oh that’s right the NIST guys didn’t figure out freefall that was some other regular citizen that had to tell them about the freefall during the public comment period. So lets see… the NIST guys could figure out freefall by 2008?! Yet I digress.. Give it up! I'm guessing though that your one of these types that just rambles on and on trying to justify what can not be justified. For those other people reading this who actually have a mind of their own I suggest you just use your common sense.
Albury Smith January 09, 2012 at 05:40 PM
If guys with doctorates from MIT and other top institutions aren't "real scientists," I don't know who you think is, "m," but time a real C/D and prove your own hypothesis. They free fall with entire levels undamaged by explosives, so timing building collapses to tell what caused them is like reading tea leaves. Your "regular citizen" is a one-trick pony who can do high school physics with a simple computer program, not an SE, and his "research" is ignored on the ASCE, RIBA, or other legitimate engineering and architectural web sites. Real evidence of demolition explosives would have been heard in Montauk, Atlantic City, Philadelphia, and Reading, and seen on the ends of the steel in the debris, so you don't have any. If you insist on attacking NIST, even though it does nothing at all for your absurd claim, you have no defense for not doing your own modeling, since their WTC 7 input info is readily available. You're big on running tests, so get LS-DYNA and ANSYS, gather up and enter the structural and fire spread data, and compare your results to theirs. If you need help, send RFIs to them and the other numerous sources of it. The NCST Act only prevents an easy, do-it-yourself building demolition primer; it's not intended to hide anything from honest inquiry. Personally, I'd rather see your 9/11 "truth movement" even try to cut one of these columns with explosives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY Put it on video so we can all observe it, huh?
Albury Smith January 09, 2012 at 05:44 PM
"Your" complaining because you don't understand that security cameras have standards too, "m." 1 frame/second's pretty typical for them, and it won't produce much of an image of something going ~800 feet in that time period, but what are you alleging? AA 77 obviously crashed there, and no one you're implicitly libeling had any motive for preventing you from seeing it happen. If they did, I'm sure they could have inserted a 757 into some Pentagon surveillance footage just to fool deep thinkers like you. Heads rolled after Pearl Harbor because too much of the Pacific Fleet was in one place, so should someone have moved the Pentagon, WTC towers, etc? I fully explained why NORAD was unable to stop the attacks in the short time they were given, and that the FAA ultimately wound up doing it by grounding every plane in US airspace for the first time in history. 4 armed fighters (14 total in the entire US) can't be everywhere at once, and our air defenses were not looking at domestic airliners as a threat. I'm not your "pal," but those are the facts, and the NORAD pilots weren't in on the al Qaeda 9/11 suicide plot, nor was NIST.
m January 10, 2012 at 04:37 AM
As the first part of your reply mentions a “regular citizen” I do believe your referring to the guy who measured the freefall acceleration. Once again a little sensitive I see..:-) If I was a NIST engineer who was supposed to be working on the WTC7 collapse and I took my report to public comment forum 7 years after the event only to have someone knowledgeable in HS physics school me that there was measured freefall acceleration in the completely observable symmetrical fall of the building. If that freefall collapse in the video occurred at the initial descent of the roofline and I was NIST and I did not take that measurement then I would feel like an idiot just like you do now. However, that does not change the sequence of events nor does it change the fact that these MIT doctorates from the top institutions did not catch it. What a joke! Nice try with the “demolition explosives would have been heard in Montauk” as that is right in line with the amount of investigating NIST did on the subject. Something like… if it were demolition it would have been RDX and if it were RDX then it would have produced this much noise… I know lets save the public money and not actually test for explosives. What a joke!
m January 10, 2012 at 04:39 AM
34 minutes between second tower strike and Pentagon strike = dereliction of duty. Sad by true!
m January 10, 2012 at 04:43 AM
I’m gonna address this NIST hiding the data thing separately as it deserves its own number of characters to address. How dare you come on line anywhere and try to defend the people who are HIDING THEIR DATA with this drivel. Shame on you! It is absolutely not the burden of anyone to make their own model to challenge a model WITH SECRET DATA. It is the responsibility of the scientific community to come forth and cast out NIST’s model because they are HIDING THEIR DATA. For you to come on to this site or any site and try to act in this pompous manner talking about people making their own computer collapse model is outrageous. I have altered my perception of you and not for the better. Science does not get its strength from authority figures it derives it from REPLICATION and PEER REVIEW. You can not hide data on a model you use in your science report like NIST did. TO ALL THOSE OTHERS READING THESE POSTS: Please look at what this guy is saying about the NIST models and them hiding the data THEN JUST THINK ABOUT WHAT HE’S SAYING. Just take a minute and think about it! You know that what he is saying about the hidden data is NOT REASONABLE. It is a clear example of how he attempts to make things that are unreasonable sound reasonable because he is very educated or there are PhDs or MIT guys involved. Now that you have captured this lie you can easily go back to his previous posts and see how he twists the rest of the story too.
Albury Smith January 10, 2012 at 02:16 PM
I've already given you the great news that there's more than sufficient data readily available for running your own ANSYS and LS-DYNA models, "m," and you've had a decade, so when are you going to start? Once again, finding anything wrong in NCSTAR 1A or 1-9 (which you aren't even remotely qualified to do anyway) still provides no evidence of explosives, but aside from incompetence, what's your excuse for not running computer models if you disagree with NIST's? Their WTC findings have resulted in more than 3 dozen of the quickest code revisions in history, so where's the "truth movement's" peer review? Have you ever even done a fire test on a steel structure, or do your "researchers" just drop empty cardboard boxes on each other to impress folks like you? No real scientist would ever sit around complaining about what he DOESN'T have; he'd run independent tests with all available data and then publish them for comparison to others. You obviously aren't one, have no interest in the truth, and haven't even read and understood the NIST reports. These people have smarter and better-educated office boys: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/team_members.cfm
Albury Smith January 10, 2012 at 02:19 PM
Yes, "what a joke!" Forensic SEs don't time collapses to determine what caused them; high school physics teachers who don't know any better do, and people with no understanding of science are clueless enough to believe them. Demolition explosives make deafening bangs and leave explosively-cut ends on steel. There weren't any. Your "theory" is absurd, secretly blowing up occupied hi-rises in busy cities is literally impossible, there was no evidence for it, and you don't even have a plausible motive or perpetrator. Pure lunacy...
Albury Smith January 10, 2012 at 02:20 PM
You write "34 minutes between second tower strike and Pentagon strike = dereliction of duty. Sad by true!" What I find "sad but true" is that I posted the entire timeline here, plus relevant information: http://cleartheskies.com/timeline.html and you still apparently don't get it. ATC and NORAD weren't mind readers, and had 3000 to 4000 airborne planes at any given time to deal with, some not transmitting secondary radar information because their transponders were switched off by the hijackers. The US doesn't shoot down civilian US airliners just for going off course, nor does the FAA issue nationwide ATC Zero orders every day. 4 armed fighters on standby in MA and VA could not be everywhere at once, and the 2 from Langley were initially sent to NYC, since 2 attacks had already occurred there. A little reading outside of 9/11 "truth movement" web sites is in order.
m January 11, 2012 at 05:32 AM
For someone who is barking about being better educated your reply is dumb and does not address the following key facts from the past couple posts. I’m sure anyone reading can clearly see right through you. Your very weak response: 1. Did not address NIST hiding their data. 2. Tried to put the ownership of their hidden data on others when it is NIST’s cross to bare by claiming others should go make their own model. 3. Did not address how those computer models should be thrown out because the data is withheld. 4. If that computer model data is used to support statements within the WTC7 report those statements should be seen as baseless “if” the computer models were the sole support for those statements. Your reply was so without merit I will end here.
m January 11, 2012 at 05:32 AM
“Mind readers”…. really? What are you a robot? LOL… This response was actually weaker than what was posted above which was pretty weak… it is so weak in fact I see no need to reply.
Albury Smith January 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM
1. I addressed the reason for NIST's not including an entire modeling data input package in their report as soon as you whined about it, and have done so several times since. They didn't write the NCST Act. 2. Proving NIST wrong by modeling WTC 7's collapse yourself is your cross to "bare," and they didn't use any data that you can't also obtain. Hell; they even presented most of it in their reports and cited their sources. Your whole argument's stupid anyway, since that's not a method for finding evidence of explosives. 3. "How" should they be thrown out when you won't even do any? The NIST findings are accepted by real structural engineering professionals worldwide: http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/about.cfm Get back to me when your 9/11 "truth movement" is behind even one building code revision, let alone 40 of the most quickly adopted in US history. 4. "If"? You just admitted that you've never read NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, sport, and it was already obvious that you aren't an engineer. Please find another hobby; you aren't ready for this discussion.
m January 12, 2012 at 06:28 AM
Oh the tone... you can always tell when someone is getting desperate lol Now from way up there on your high horse standing on-top-of the NIST pedestal I'm not sure you'll be able to read the text of my reply, but I’ll post it anyway assuming you'll use your rose colored binoculars to see it. 1. I understand that you would like to make it ok that as you put it NIST is "not including an entire modeling data input package" or as I put it are "hiding their data". However, why exactly are we supposed to care that you think it is ok? It is not ok and your opinion to the contrary is irrelevant to me. 2. Once again I do not see how your opinion on others making new models is supposed to be convincing in anyway. Who cares if you think others should make a new model? I certainly do not and the idea is ridiculous on its face. There is a model paid for this tax dollars lets get some scientific scrutiny of that existing model. 3. Of course you do not see why statements within a report solely supported by an unscientific model should not be thrown out. Based on all the other drivel you’ve posted here why would anyone think you’d be in favor of any reasonable thing. We have already clearly established how low your standards are over these many posts. Luckily for me you do not get to determine who is ready for the discussion. You can continue with your pompous attitude, but I still do not find your arguments persuasive.
Albury Smith January 13, 2012 at 03:30 PM
Forget about the 200+ NIST SEs with doctorates and PE certification (who wrote reports you've never read and wouldn't understand anyway), and just find some evidence for your own "theory" that ultra-quiet explosives brought down the WTC hi-rises, planted for no plausible reason and leaving no explosively-cut columns in the debris. Whether you think the NCST Act is "ok" or not, they had to comply with it, but all of the input data they used is readily available; mostly in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, and you can also easily get it and whatever else is necessary the same way they did, i.e. from multiple sources listed by them in their reports. What's "ridiculous" is asking for the data when you don't even know what to do with it, and you'd have to run ANSYS and LS-DYNA models for "scientific scrutiny" of their findings regardless, so nothing is stopping you from doing it except ignorance. Jeezus, you've had 10+ years and haven't even tried. If you don't understand something this simple, you really aren't ready for this discussion.
m January 14, 2012 at 04:24 AM
200+ NIST Engineers… I just looked up that AE911Truther group and they have over 1600 architects and engrs. Doesn’t that mean your losing by ~1400 engineers? You said ultra quiet explosives set off for “no plausible reason”. I hope everyone reading this chain catches that one… So you cannot think of a plausible reason? You remind me of the mainstream media who also cannot seem to piece anything together. So lets see, can anyone think of a reason that someone might have planted explosives in a building to be triggered on September 11, 2001? Hmmm… gee I seem to remember there was some sort of attack that day in that same trade center wasn’t there? I do not agree with the secrecy in the NSTCA and I want transparency from my government for this investigation. Your assurances are worthless to me and your support of this secrecy is disturbing if your supposed to be a scientist as you imply. People making their own new models is stupid idea on its face, and I see you took the opportunity to distort the facts again. You say the Truthers have had 10 years to make their own models. However, you know that the “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7” did not come out til 2008. The notification from NIST for withholding the data was not released until 7-9-2009. That’s two years ago you pompous, exaggerating, unreasonable, deceptive supporter of the government’s whacky, unsupported theory which provided zero accountability.
Albury Smith January 14, 2012 at 04:37 PM
WTC 7 collapsed more than 10 years ago, "m," and since you claim to have such a keen interest in learning why, that's how long you and Gage's "over 1600 architects and engrs." have had to investigate it yourselves, so why haven't you even STARTED? The fact that you haven't countered NIST (which actually has people with qualifications and experience-not just claims of them) with any scientific findings of your own in the ample time you've had since the reports were released speaks for itself. There was "some sort of attack" by al Qaeda suicide terrorists on 9/11, so once again, what plausible reason was there for the (totally impossible) secret planting and detonating of explosives, especially in WTC 7, on top of all of the other death and destruction that day, and who's your imaginary perpetrator? I don't know what "the NSTCA" is, nor do I care what you think of the NCST Act, but NIST was required by law to adhere to it and did. If you understood this topic-which you don't-you'd realize that 1600 real engineers, etc. wouldn't need to see all of someone else's input and results files in order to check their conclusions, which are clearly stated in NCSTAR 1A, and would simply model with the readily available data and LS-DYNA and ANSYS programs, just as NIST did. How do you suppose that "scientific scrutiny" works? The information is almost all in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, and RFIs to NIST would get the rest. By your tortured reasoning, a blind study "is stupid idea on its face" too.
m January 14, 2012 at 06:06 PM
The first question in your reply is dumb. I believed in our government and gave them the benefit of the doubt that they were going to investigate what happened on 9/11 is the short answer. I do not know all about the truthers like you do (your obsessing) but I’m pretty sure there was no AE911Truthers in 2001 and do not think they came around til a few years ago. I see you still cannot cope with the plausible reason and would only say your complete lack of imagination is no reason to not investigate. Generally investigations begin when there is a crime without knowing who did it or why they did it. Police do not show up to a crime scene where a murder has clearly taken place and then say “well we do not know who the perpetrators could be or why’d they’d do this so lets just not investigate”. For someone who speaks so much of the educated you sure do act stupid. I think there is a clear reason WTC7 was destroyed that day as the goal seemed to be the destruction of the World Trade Center it was apart of (although it was across the street). Strange how it’s the only building to collapse across the street! National Safety Team Construction Act passed by Congress authorizing NIST to investigate… I see your still straining to hold onto the government’s secrecy and at the same moment try to call the resulting model science. Obviously this conversation has run out of gas… I would say something nice in parting but I do not like you so I’ll pass.
Albury Smith January 14, 2012 at 09:26 PM
Your ignorance of the thorough investigations already conducted by extremely competent people is no reason for more of them, and you still have suggested no plausible motive or perps for your secret, imaginary explosives scenario, nor have you answered my "dumb" question about not doing your own modeling, despite having more than enough data for it. The crime was hijacking and crashing airliners, and the death and destruction without the NYC collapses was considerable, so who do you think(?) wanted more of it and why? Your pathetic whining about the NCST Act has "run out of gas," so please explain what input data you don't have, and why you haven't even begun your own ANSYS and LS-DYNA modeling of WTC 7's collapse by now, since you've had plenty of time. The entire 7-building WTC complex was destroyed, some on 9/11 and some later razed, along with the 40-story Deutsche Bank Building and 15-story Fiterman Hall, and the Verizon Building and One WFC were among other buildings with major damage, so which ones were part of this plot you've dreamed up? btw, two thumbs up for finally figuring out what the NCST Act is. Try reading NCSTAR 1A and 1-9 now, since you obviously haven't. You twoofers are priceless...
Albury Smith January 15, 2012 at 02:19 PM
note: The NCST Act is not the "National Safety Team Construction Act," but at least you have the right idea, "m," so that's refreshing. The "two thumbs up" was a bit premature. note also: 40 revisions to the 2009 and 2012 editions of the I-Codes were made because of NIST recommendations derived from their WTC collapse investigations: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/about.cfm so how many code revisions have your "over 1600 architects and engrs." gotten with their "research"? Are they even MENTIONED on the ASCE, RIBA, and AIA web sites, or do they just have huge fans like you who aren't engineers or scientists, have never even looked at the NIST reports, yet somehow "know" they're wrong anyway? btw, please find another hobby; structural engineering's definitely not your thing. If you're truly interested in building collapses, NIST might hire you to fetch coffee for their investigators, however.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »