Who bought the put options? We’re they investigated and interrogated?
Please refer to
post #13 - Sep 12, 7:38 AM
The article is suspect. The study is suspect and it’s not hard to find sources pointing that out. Why don’t you become familiar with the above information?
The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T) has formally filed a Request for Correction with the NIST following a new and detailed four-year analysis by a team at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).
UAF civil engineering professor Leroy Hulsey, principal investigator, his research assistants, Feng Xiao, now an associate professor at Nanjing University of Science and Technology and Zhili Quan, now a bridge engineer for the South Carolina Department of Transportation,
Youve missed the mark again. Post 13 gives no names
Try reading the articles.
If you’re up to reading - here’s another interesting couple articles that offer a bit more background, if you want to learn anything.
The Seismology of 9/11
September 9, 2016 - Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
By Kevin Krajick
The first collapse, of the south tower, generated seismic waves comparable to a magnitude 2.1 earthquake. The fall of the north tower, a half-hour later, generated the most powerful wave—corresponding to a magnitude 2.3 earthquake. This was recorded by 13 seismic stations in five states, including one at Lisbon, N.H., 266 miles away.
Again, Kim calculated that most of the energy did not reach the ground as seismic waves; it was mainly used up converting steel, concrete—and human beings—to dust. He said the event greatly resembled the energy released by a pyroclastic flow, a lethal explosion of hot gases and debris running down the slopes of an exploding volcano.The nearby 7 World Trade Center came down at 5:20:33 pm, and the seismographs picked that up, too. “It was more gradual than the big towers,” Kim said. There was some speculation that this building and others nearby were fatally damaged by the earlier strong ground shaking, but the seismic analyses suggested otherwise.
Modern New York structures are built to withstand much stronger natural quakes, up to magnitude 4 or 4.5.
The seismologists said the weakening of adjacent structures was more likely caused by the sudden air pressure of the volcano-like debris flow, not ground shaking. These findings helped engineers more confidently judge which other still-standing buildings were weakened, and which were not . . .
Here’s an interesting one looking at structural issues along with some preexisting weakness, that is in light of the way the structure is damaged.
Structural engineer describes what went wrong inside the World Trade Center on Sept. 11
December 3, 2001
Vulnerabilities in the design of New York’s World Trade Center (WTC) are likely to have contributed to the collapse of its two main towers and adjacent buildings, according to Ronald O. Hamburger, a structural engineer currently investigating the Sept. 11 disaster.“These buildings were incredibly strong, especially with respect to resisting dead loads and wind loads, but they also had a number of vulnerabilities,”
Hamburger told a packed auditorium on Nov. 29 when he delivered the second John A. Blume Distinguished Lecture an annual event sponsored by Stanford’s Blume Earthquake Engineering Center.
“What New York City experienced on Sept. 11 was very much like an earthquake,” he told the Stanford audience. …
No brother. Those links are within a week or two of 9/11 and no names mentioned. Careful.
On the seismology, what modelling did they use to show this would have resulted in a free fall collapse within its own footprint?
I gave you the report that shows modelling eliminates structural damage for this type of collapse
Really they were two months late in holding the greatest Muslim extremist victory ever held in the history of the world. Imagine this, the victory over the evil white man on the date of…7/11. We’d be devastated. The days of the Slurpee would come to an end.
[quote=“djtexas, post:25, topic:8311”]
I gave you the report that shows modelling eliminates structural damage for this type of collapse
Ok, and what then is your conclusion, based on these facts?
The implications are that It was pulled.
Lots and lots of questions to challenge the mainstream and govt narrative of what happened. Here is the great Robert Fisk touching on this very subject
Robert Fisk: Even I question the ‘truth’ about 9/11
July 04 2008 12:16 AM
But – here we go. I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It’s not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93’s debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I’m not talking about the crazed “research” of David Icke’s Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.
[image]
I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the “raver” bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be “fraudulent or deceptive”.
Journalistically, there were many odd things about 9/11. Initial reports of reporters that they heard “explosions” in the towers – which could well have been the beams cracking – are easy to dismiss. Less so the report that the body of a female air crew member was found in a Manhattan street with her hands bound. OK, so let’s claim that was just hearsay reporting at the time, just as the CIA’s list of Arab suicide-hijackers, which included three men who were – and still are – very much alive and living in the Middle East, was an initial intelligence error.
But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose “Islamic” advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA – mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comrades-in-murder to say the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it. But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the text of the “Fajr” prayer to be included in Atta’s letter.
Oh please, right there a random peak reveals a snow job.
What about heat stress and fatigue? Okay what do I know about it? Read what some experts have to say:
I just did some reading on Fisk.
I’m not knocking the guy, but sounds like he was pretty passionately partisan,
plus his charges weren’t accurate, but I certainly don’t have more time to dig into more specifics of this circle jerk. Just say’n.
It’s another right wing wacky-a-mole game.
Why would it NOT fall into it’s own footprint (more or less) - Any of 1, 2 or 7?
Would you expect it to fall over like a tree? - Think about it.
What would have to occur for a building to “Fall Over”.
Is that what the conspiracy theorists are expecting? Something that looks like a Roland Emmrich flick?
7 was not hit by a plane
I didn’t say it was.
Then why are you lumping 1 2 and 7 together?
I could include the Florida condo, too.
Dang, that must bring us back to the direction of Gravity.
https://math.etsu.edu/multicalc/prealpha/Chap1/Chap1-1/part4.htm
You simply need to spend some time learning about those three buildings.
On the two towers pay particular attention to the exterior framing which acted as a huge girdle, holding everything together until its interior (floors and such) turned into collapsing jelly.
Learn about the floor details, trusses, connections, load requirements and such.
Then consider the damage that structure was subjected to.
As for WTC #7, after initial damage sustained during collapse of the two towers, both seismic, and air blast, and flying debris - then the slow burn, I doubt there wasn’t any engineer not expecting it not to collapse at some point. Here again floor trusses and connections appear to be key to appreciating what happened.
I gave you the latest research on this and criticisms of the NIST assessment. You ignored this.
You talking about this?
criticisms of the NIST assessment
Please be specific, what new evidence was brought to the fore?
Scroll up the thread one trick pony
Oh so you don’t even know it well enough to summarize.
You mean ignorant nonsense such as:
I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C
No one ever claimed the beams and trusses melted!!!