b]Copied and pasted from this site :  http://www.ae911truth.org/evidence.html > architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. There are a mass of these people who are signing a petition for  truly independent investigation ,including among them 1,501 architectural and engineering professionals[/b].



I know all about this, you of course ignore what I copied + pasted from wiki.Here it is again and don't ignore it this time.This is what the experts say and who am I to disagree.


Investigations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have concluded that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impacts of the planes and of the fires that resulted from them.[36][37] The mainstream of the scientific and engineering community has rejected the position taken by the group. In 2005, a report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. A 2008 NIST report described a similar progressive collapse as the cause of the destruction of the third tallest building located at the World Trade Center site, 7 WTC. Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility
In 2008, Zdeněk P. Bažant, Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science at Northwestern University, published with three coauthors a paper to examine whether allegations of controlled demolition might be scientifically justifiable. They found that the available video records are not consistent with the free fall hypothesis, that the size of the concrete particles is consistent with comminution caused by impact, and that the high velocity of compressed air explains why material from the towers were ejected to a distance of several hundred meters from the tower. The authors conclude that the allegations of controlled demolition do not have any scientific merit.[49] A spokesman for NIST said that any sightings of molten metal, including metal seen pouring from the South tower, were likely molten aluminum from the airplane, an explanation disputed by Richard Gage who stated that the colour of the molten metal rules out aluminum.[50] "Basically, gravity and the utter force of the upper floors forced the towers down," said NIST spokesperson Michael Newman

The community of experts in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally supports the explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings provided by the investigation conducted by NIST.[57] The appearance of a controlled demolition can be explained by an interior failure of the building, which is suggested by the sequence of the collapse of 7 WTC that shows roof elements sinking into the building while the façade remained intact.[58]

After the publication of the results of NIST's inquiry into the collapse of 7 WTC, Richard Gage called a news conference,[59] and leaders of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth dismissed NIST's investigation as flawed. When told of the claims, Shyam Sunder, lead investigator from NIST, responded: "I am really not a psychologist. Our job was to come up with the best science."[37] A spokesperson for NIST said the agency's computer models were highly reliable in assessing the amount of fireproofing dislodged, a factor that would not be present in other steel buildings cited by Gage


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1)Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2)Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3)Extremely rapid onset of destruction

Debunked, see above.


4)Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

Like I keep  saying, this is the building  falling apart.Explosions or loud bangs have been heard before when other buildings have collapsed,Sampoong Department Store for example.

Five hours before the collapse, the first of several loud bangs was heard emanating from the top floors, as the vibration of the air conditioning caused the cracks in the slabs to widen further. Amid customer reports of vibration, the air conditioning was turned off, but the cracks in the floors had already widened to 10 cm.

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


Also don't forget that this building was not hit with a jumbo jet and had no fire,but still collapsed with witnesses saying they heard loud bangs(explosions).it fell in 20seconds,free fall speed.





5)Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6)Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7)Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8)1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found


Same as I say it peeled like a banana.They  didn't fall into their own footprint like in a demolition.


9)Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
10)Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11)Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises


How do you know it was molten steel, it was never tested.

12)Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples


This has never been independently tested.

13)Evidence of explosives found in dust samples



What evidence was this? there was no evidence of charges found and no fire men ever saw any one setting charges or any wires or charges in the rubble.
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
1)Slow onset with large visible deformations


What is this supposed to mean?

2)Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)


Like I keep saying part of WT7 did fall firstthe part that was most damaged by the twin towers..Stop ignoring my points and the evidence.


3)Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel



What evidence would you expect?

4)High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.



Like I keep saying the twin towers were hit by jumbo jets travelling at hundreds of miles an hour. Lots of kinetic energy,is it going in yet.WT7 was damaged by the twin towers collapse and the fires were not tackled because of lack of water. Comparing it to other building fires is like comparing apples+oranges.

Very interesting short video discussing how 4 ton steel girders could be found as much as 600ft from the base of the North tower after its collapse. What forces were at work to give such massive structures high horizontal velocities? If anything besides gravity was at work, pandora's box is opened up.



I thought you people assert that they fell into their own footprint as they would have done if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.Talk about contradicting your self.the 4 ton girder evidence actually verifies my position that the twin towers peeled like a banana and damaged the WT7.This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

A further site : people with demolition expertise questioning 9/11
http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/

I encourage anyone to read these interviews by guys who are basically adamant the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. These are experts in their field.



And you ignore the other experts(the vast majority) that contradict them,you are being intellectually dishonest. You only listen to a small minority that you think support your case.



Sunset , I do not have an agenda.

yes, you do otherwise you wouldn't keep proselytizing your conpiracy theory.And ignoring my points that debunk what you are asserting, stop ignoring the evidence.

Buildings do not pancake at almost free-fall speeds.


yes they do, the Sampoong building for example.Including loud explosions, sound familiar?

And Nist do admit freefall in WTC7 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA >3 parts

So let's get this straight. I am supposed to believe the official conspiracy theory based on NIST reports and such that you keep posting.
It goes something like this :

On September 11th 2001, a criminal mastermind Bin Laden, whose family had/ has close ties with the Bush family et el, orchestrated hijacking of planes in American airspace.
The hijackers used box cutters and took over the planes. There was no passenger resistance except for the Shanksville crashed plane.
The passengers would have been told ''relax ,and all will be fine, we are returning to the airport, blah, blah''.
NORAD &FAA who had very well practised drills for this kind of thing could not on this day thwart the planes, mainly because they were actually carrying out almost identical exercises to what actually occurred and were confused.
Around about an hour after the planes crashed into the twin towers, the fires had weakened the steel sufficiently enough for them to completely fail,(including the 47 strong steel core),and the building pancake- collapsed at about free-fall speed, followed soon after by the other one.
The comminution (I read your link !)caused massive girders to be thrown up to 600 foot away as the building fell.
So although it fell at apparently free-fall speed, there was still sufficient comminution to eject the several tons in weight girders over 600 ft.
The building was ground to dust which indicates resistance taking place and yet managed to fall at about free-fall speed despite this.
Also in the destruction many of the girders were neatly severed diagonally as if a depth charge had been placed, but never mind that, it can all be explained away.
The Pentagon, which has loads of cameras around it, was flown into by a skimmer plane, the type which does not scorch the grass in doing so. No adequate footage was released although many angles were subsequently shown of the twin towers being flown into and their soon-after collapse.
Reports came in pretty quickly that it was felt to be AlQaida and this was quickly backed up because one of the hijackers passports flew out to the streets below and managed to evade the destruction of the initial impact/ explosion. This was found by intelligence services.
The official conspiracy theory in a kind of nutshell...no doubt I have missed parts of it. But that's it , yes ?
As for WTC7 ,the official conspiracy states that debris from the twin towers had struck it which caused damage and fires and this building also failed and fell later in the day.
How am I doing ?

kefir-man wrote I will take a little time out to digest these last few rounds we have had and review what we have both written and gone through.

probably best.


I do not think I will come round to the official view based on anything thrown up as yet, but I will try again to look at the whole thing again at some point from start to finish. I do not have a biased view, and I am only seeking the truth.


yes, so am I ,so we should come to the same conclusions.

The problem is there are experts on both sides of the issue no matter how  you slice it, nothing has really been debunked one way or another ..but that's my current view, and I accept I could be wrong..
But I don't think I am.

I would like the experts that  are on your side to debunk this video, then I will believe them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8yfNLSp_Pw

I'll take a look slarty, I always have an open mind.

Just to add to my post of May 25, the maker of the second film (Seeds of Deconstruction) is interviewed here:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql59RPRL4v0&feature=player_embedded

It's not a bad interview and it covers some of the problems and inconsistencies in the Government's narrative of what happened on 77. The sound quality is poor in places but it does improve.

I'm genuinely interested in others' views of these films, especally those who currently believe the official narrative but who may not have been aware of the various anomalies.   

For anyone who wants to reseach further this site is excellent:
.
www.julyseventh.co.uk