Activists and Alternative Media vs. the 9/11 Truth Movement?

Rocker wrote:

 I've seen evidence the refutes the official story. I want a new investigation.

What evidence is that?

[quote=statica]

And more importantly! One of these guys just as I was first meeting him, jumped all over me as a representative of the alt. media community for actively undermining "the Truth" and for being complicit in the MSM's cover up of "the 9/11 truth" by also not covering "the 9/11 truth" which he claims amounts to un-solidarity censorship which should be punished.

[/quote]

That's pretty important all right if he's starting to talk about punishment.  My first question would probably be, "Punished HOW?"

Quote:

A common sense test:  You’re dispatched to a house fire in a 2 story with a basement. Upon arrival, all 3 floors are well involved. After extinguishment, the neighbor across the street tells you he saw flashes on all 3 floors within seconds of each other. It turns out the owner has arson convictions on his record. You smell gasoline. Now, should you test the debris for accelerants? No matter what the owner and his friends tell you, wouldn’t you still test it? It’s a “NO-Brainer”…isn’t it?

NOW, HOW WOULD YOU INVESTIGATE?

Look at the facts of the WTC, specifically Tower 7, collapses:
1) Terrorists used explosives on WTC 1 in 1993.
2) Over 118 first responders reported hearing explosions before all 3 collapses, many said it sounded like the “bang-bang-bang” you hear during a demolition.
3) We have video, photographic and audio evidence of explosions after the impact and before collapse.
4) Live news was reporting multiple explosions, and the possibility terrorists also planted explosives.
5) Barry Jennings, the Emergency Coordinator for the NY Housing Authority reported explosions in Tower 7. He also reported being knocked down by explosions prior to the collapse of the tower.
6) Molten steel AND concrete were found at Ground Zero “remember, hydrocarbon fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel or concrete.”N.F.P.A. 921- 19.2.4 Exotic Accelerants states that molten steel and concrete could indicate the use of exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.
7) WTC 7 was the first concrete and steel high rise to collapse during a fire that had not been struck by an aircraft. It was determined not to be significantly damaged by the falling debris, and diesel fuel tanks DID NOT contribute significantly to the fire (according to NIST final report 2008).

Quote:

The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to
have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A
downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net
force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the
weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling
block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of
the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper
block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to
crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could
not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper
block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the
disintegration of the lower section of the building.

....

Quote:

One might argue, in terms of the strength of the various elements, that the impact of the falling block might crush the lower section of the building (although this assertion has been challenged [13]), but it cannot crush the lower block while it maintains its downward acceleration. Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti have made a parallel observation, based on a similar measurement, in their paper, "The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST--Bazănt Collapse Hypothesis."[14] They point out that any increased force on the lower section of the building must be accompanied by a decrease in the momentum of the falling block. The transfer of momentum (which implies a loss of momentum for the upper block) is what gives rise to the impulse. The falling block can lose momentum only to the extent that it decelerates. It should therefore experience a "jolt" which we should be able to see in the video
analysis. But from the fact that the upper block continues to move downward without deceleration, it is clear that there was no jolt despite the significant deformation of the building in the first three seconds. 

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerat...

http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/Seffenrevpub.pdf

Quote:

Seen builds on Bazant and Zhou's 2002 paper (hereinafter called BZ), referring
to their work as establishing the virtually "free-falling" upper parts that initiated the
collapse, even though BZ provided no physical mechanism that can possibly allow such
free-fall. Seen states that then the subsequent gravitational "near free-fall" of the
upper parts over the height of just one story resulted in dynamical overloading of the
undamaged lower columns by 30 times their static load. But there is no evidence to

support this incredible inference that as a result of the claimed gravitational initiation

the upper parts were suddenly virtually free-falling, nor are there means by which grav-

itational collapse can produce such a "near free-falling" state. For "near free-falling"
to happen, the contiguous solid material making up the building below these sections
where the collapse initiates would suddenly massively lose its cohesion, an action the
fire above this solid material cannot possibly cause. That stationary momentum of
that lower contiguous material counters the momentum of falling parts from above,
and conservation of momentum keeps the free-fall state from being approached.
The only thing this author knows of that could create a virtual free-falling state
is massive explosions well below the res, which could eectively "liquefy" the lower
structure. Direct evidence for explosions, which were created by forces other than grav-
ity (such as the horizontal forces in the South Tower collapse initiation), was presented
in Grabbe (2007). Those forces are, of course, not present in Seen's model.
Seen completely ignores conservation of momentum in all his uses of the word
"free-fall". He has mathematically converted the problem from one of analyzing New-
ton's equations of motion to an instability analysis of the column as a whole, in order to
improve on the the story-coupling limitations of the BZ analysis. However, one cannot
ignore conservation of energy and momentum, and the implications of these conserva-
tion laws is that the free-fall cavalierly referred to cannot happen in the gravitational
collapse of the Towers analyzed in Seen's model.

Quote:

Sineed wrote:

 

For those who haven't seen it yet, here's the Popular Mechanics article of March 2005.  Five years on, it's still a salient read:

... http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

 

Thanks Sineed. I think PM is a good magazine for reviewing consumer products, like ATVs, electronics and other stuff, and published by Hearst family enterprises no less.

When I debunk popular alt med remedies like homeopathy, I read the articles and examine the evidence, using my knowledge in the field to determine the validity (or lack therof) of the science.

So if there's any validity to the truthers, they must have debunked that Popular Mechanics article by now.  It was written five years ago, in consultation with various experts in engineering, the military, and whoever else was pertinent.  Surely five years is plenty of time to determine that its premises were wrong - right?

After all, if there's all these credible engineers and architects who are truthers, they should be able to debunk the debunkers - not using ad hominem attacks; not using vague accusations of collusion with the bad guys, but actual hard science.

Has this happened?  All I've been able to find (and I admit I haven't spent much time looking), is the usual paranoid ranting masquerading as science.

jas wrote:

Actually, all you've been able to find is a Popular Mechanics article. Yes, it's been debunked. Not that that will make any difference to you.

Actually it would.  Where has it been debunked?

I only have that Popular Mechanics article?  Okay; I'll bite - here's some more stuff:"Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: A Simple Analysis," by an engineering professor at Cambridge:

http://winterpatriot.pbworks.com/f/seffen_simple_analysis.pdf

Here's another article, written in plainer english, by a professor at MIT and one of his graduate students:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html

Another plainly written article, discussing some of the theories and why they are wrong:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Quote:

The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel

There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.

The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

(etc)

"Why did the World Trade Center Collapse?"

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

Sineed, my references above already deal with Bezant. You would know that if you had bothered to read them.

Sineed wrote:

When I debunk popular alt med remedies like homeopathy, I read the articles and examine the evidence, using my knowledge in the field to determine the validity (or lack therof) of the science.

So if there's any validity to the truthers, they must have debunked that Popular Mechanics article by now.

I believe it's up to the government to produce the evidence, and most of the physical evidence was cleaned up and disposed of in a real big hurry after 9/11. There are some independent scientists saying they've found nano-thermite in dust samples taken from neighborhoods from around ground zero. They say it's evidence of military grade explosives and may have been used as cutter charges to bring down the trade centre buildings, which were fully insured. All of them including WTC 7 which fell down without anything having collided with it, an architectural first according to A&Es for Truth. The 9/11 Report didn't mention a lot of things, like WTC7, or very much at all about the US Military, FBI and CIA's relationships with Ali Mohammed, an alleged Al-Qa'eda hijacking specialist who they arrested, ordered released from Canadian custody in the nineties, released again and whose wife Linda Sanchez can not say anything of his whereabouts today. Do you find that odd that one of Osama bin Laden's people would have such a close working relationship with US intel agencies and military people who claimed  they severed all ties with their cold war Islamic gladios by 1992? The  lies have been fast and furious. There are lots of questions, Sineed. Plenty more than I have on my own, and I have to agree with the many Americans and Canadians who say there needs to be a real investigation this time. WMD in Iraq was a big lie, like Gulf of Tonkin was a big lie and telling US troops they were there in VietNam to liberate people who were being attacked by communists. Tonkin was a big lie, and 50000 US troops were led to their deaths in SE Asia for the sake of warfiteering and cold war baloney. And I think they've been lying about a lot more than the public is aware of for the sake of warfiteering and resource grabs in the Middle East and Afghanistan and phony war on terror flowing into other sovereign countries today as well.

Sineed wrote:

Quote:

All of them including WTC 7 which fell down without anything having collided with it, an architectural first according to A&Es for Truth.

In January, thousands of buildings collapsed in Haiti without anything having collided with them.

How many of those corrugated tin shantys and block buildings were designed to withstand hurricane winds and passenger jets flying into them?

Sineed, I'm pretty sure you're aware that there was an earthquake in Haiti.

As a scientist, how do you respond to the argument that a near free-fall speed of collapse is not possible in the column-failure scenario (revised pancake theory) that NIST provides?

You don't need to understand the math to understand the concept of resistance in free fall.

I noticed that in my pasting of excerpts a number of errors resulted, so that might explain any errors you might see.

Buildings in earthquakes don't descend into themselves in a near free-fall collapse, unless they're made of brick or mud perhaps.

jas wrote:

Sineed, I'm pretty sure you're aware that there was an earthquake in Haiti.

See my previous post.

jas wrote:

As a scientist, how do you respond to the argument that a near free-fall speed of collapse is not possible in the column-failure scenario (revised pancake theory) that NIST provides?

I'm not a scientist; don't mind being called one, though.  I'll quote a scientist here:

Dr. Keith Seffen, Dept of Engineering, University of Cambridge wrote:

In the case of the WTC towers, it is clear that the initial loads imposed by both parts falling onto the undamaged buildings beneath were exceptionally high due to the unforeseen preceding events, and that damage was bound to propagate into the floors below: this is the initiation phase. It is also clear that both collapse modes were progressive, as indicated by film footage: there was the sound of each successive impact of floor upon floor and a matching sequence of lateral ejection of debris.

<snip>

Progressive collapse and its features are concomitant to the full, up-down-up deformation response of the structural unit, and ... its properties are finely balanced — that collapse can be total or not at all, and that, in the former case, the rate of collapse tends to a uniform acceleration not dependent on the residual capacity of the building. These comments attest to the similarities between the collapse sequences of both WTC towers despite their quite different initial conditions. And it is noted that progressive collapse, when wrought, is quite ordinary and regular and not due to extraordinary, possibly conspiratorial, influences. 

Sineed wrote:

I'm not a scientist; don't mind being called one, though.  I'll quote a scientist here:

Dr. Keith Seffen, Dept of Engineering, University of Cambridge wrote:

In the case of the WTC towers, it is clear that the initial loads imposed by both parts falling onto the undamaged buildings beneath were exceptionally high due to the unforeseen preceding events, and that damage was bound to propagate into the floors below: this is the initiation phase. It is also clear that both collapse modes were progressive, as indicated by film footage: there was the sound of each successive impact of floor upon floor and a matching sequence of lateral ejection of debris.

Already debunked.

http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/Seffenrevpub.pdf

And that was in fact the question I was asking you, Sineed. The arguments I posted above are that that kind of collapse is not possible within the scenario they seek to explain.

[url=http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=37496]Mainstream Media Questions Inaccuracies in 9/11 Story[/url]

Quote:

Half of Americans still don't realize that a third building also came down that day, and it wasn't hit by an airplane. There is a long list of federal investigators who say they were not allowed to do their jobs or complete the investigation, says Tim King...

As The Washington Times reports today, "A lingering technical question about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks still haunts some, and it has political implications: How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds? A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center."

The problems with the official federal stories are endless and according to some of the world's top minds, the suggested account is impossible[1].

[url=http://salem-news.com/articles/march242006/757_byTim2_32306.php]Huge Contradictions in Official Theories on 9/11 Crash at Pentagon[/url]

More on the Popular Mechanics story. An unseen plane longer than a football field that turns to liquid as it crashesinto the Pentagon? And yet there were pieces of uniforms and body parts? No film footage showing anything that size slamming into the Pentagon. At least not yet.

an interesting short film about the Boeing 757 which allegedly hit the Pentagon... at 500 mph and flying combat maneuvers two feet off the ground? O-kay?

freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

How could I claim to know anything about this.  And, how could you?

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

Were there planes that were hijacked and crashed at all?

I don't understand this question.

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

If not, where are the passengers from the planes, especially the people in the plane that hit the pentagon, since it supposedly didn't happen?

I assume that the people that were most likely aboard the planes are dead.  And, conveniently the supposed hijackers "the attackers" are dead too.  And, don't forget Beverly Eckert, she's dead too.

Why have authorities withheld videos of the plane supposedly crashing into the pentagon?

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

Are they not dead or were they all in on it and are hiding somewhere?

I would assume that very few people were "in on it."  Maybe the owner, you know that guy who said "pull it" meaning pull the team from WTC7 because WTC7 was about to collapse.  That guy, the one that received the US$8000000000 insurance payout on the collapsed asbestos-lined WTC towers.  But, maybe that guy didn't know anything either.  I would say that lots of people have been duped.  I was.  And, it's difficult to admit that we're wrong.  I was wrong.  And, I am most likely still wrong because I don't really know what happened.

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

What about all the demolition crews who supposedly rigged those huge buildings with explosive charges, with no one noticing?  Where did they all go and why didn't anyone notice them

Crews were supposedly seen installing network infrastructure in the unlocked towers prior to 9/11.  Ask George W. Bush's cousin, Wirt Walker principal at Securacom, US-Kuwaiti joint- venture that managed security for WTC.

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

 

, unless ... 

unless Everyone, the office workers, janitors, police, firemen, port authority workers, the airlines, the media(obviously)  the parents and friends of the supposed hi-jackers, CIA,MI5, Mossad, 007 and lots of other people are all in on the conspiracy

Why does it have to be "every" one?  Why not a just a few key people in positions of authority?  Dick Cheney did a good job (sic) of getting fighter planes to stand down on 9/11. The janitors were asked not to come to work on 9/11.  Why were office workers in the towers told to go back to work?  Obviously, many firemen died that day trying to do their job.

I think that 9/11 was a self-inflicted staged event that really happened.  I don't know how it was pulled off, but I do know that there was motive.  Follow the money.  "Further, 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..."

Thanks Fidel.

Closing.