Recent 9/11 Press Conference

[creativedreams]

Watch this press conference that happened a little over a week ago...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhPlV99AVQE"]YouTube- AE911 Truth Press Conference - San Francisco (1of6)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMpmMJbN4o4"]YouTube- AE911 Truth Press Conference - San Francisco (2of6)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrzyFXC1PsQ"]YouTube- PRESS CONFERENCE - San Francisco 3/6[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko8nPR_CEsA"]YouTube- AE911 Truth Press Conference - San Francisco (4of6)[/ame]

Cont...

 

[creativedreams]

Cont...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChGxlq_cBkw"]YouTube- AE911 Truth Press Conference - San Francisco (5of6)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZFDsAH-CLA"]YouTube- PRESS CONFERENCE - San Francisco 6/6[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka_4Fzld7ek"]YouTube- AE 9/11 Truth Press Conference Q & A Session PT 1-2[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQFQgfosRbY"]YouTube- AE 9/11 Truth Press Conference Q & A Session PT 2-2[/ame]

 

[mike2810]

I just watched part of the AE for truth news conferance. When I have time I will most likely watch the rest. The first part talks about the how similar the trade center buildings came down when compared to controlled demolition. They then made the connection it had to be controlled demolition. What I have not seen nor presented on these types of sites is how much explosives it would take, where the charges would have to be placed to get controlled fall.

I have seen on debunking sites estimates of how much thermite, etc. The estimates of the amount made me wonder how in the heck could someone plant that much explosives. I have seen sites (National Geographic, etc, that have modeled and explained in detail how the buildings came down.

One issue I have with many "truther" sites is they make statements, (ex. controlled demolition), yet do not explain what it would take and how to bring the building down.

If you want to be critical of official reports for lack of detail, should we not expect the same from opposing views?

 

[BmanMcfly]

I just watched part of the AE for truth news conferance. When I have time I will most likely watch the rest. The first part talks about the how similar the trade center buildings came down when compared to controlled demolition. They then made the connection it had to be controlled demolition. What I have not seen nor presented on these types of sites is how much explosives it would take, where the charges would have to be placed to get controlled fall.

That's a good question... I don't have a concrete answer, but I expect that it would be enough explosives to cause the top of the building to 'drop' down onto the rest of the building... and then enough to destroy the inner core of the building to keep the resistance factor low.

I have seen on debunking sites estimates of how much thermite, etc. The estimates of the amount made me wonder how in the heck could someone plant that much explosives. I have seen sites (National Geographic, etc, that have modeled and explained in detail how the buildings came down.

Here's the problem with those : They are using 'macro-thermite' to make their estimates, when what was found was a 'nano-thermite' which is far more explosive (twice as much energy per volume of TNT)

One issue I have with many "truther" sites is they make statements, (ex. controlled demolition), yet do not explain what it would take and how to bring the building down.

Enough to cause the 1-3 story drop as NIST talks about in their reports, would be adequate.

If you want to be critical of official reports for lack of detail, should we not expect the same from opposing views?

That's a reasonable expectation... and I will concede that many of these groups spend so much time 'debunking' what NIST says happened, that they forget to put some energy to show what REALLY DID happen.

 

[creativedreams]

I just watched part of the AE for truth news conferance. When I have time I will most likely watch the rest. The first part talks about the how similar the trade center buildings came down when compared to controlled demolition. They then made the connection it had to be controlled demolition. What I have not seen nor presented on these types of sites is how much explosives it would take, where the charges would have to be placed to get controlled fall.

I have seen on debunking sites estimates of how much thermite, etc. The estimates of the amount made me wonder how in the heck could someone plant that much explosives. I have seen sites (National Geographic, etc, that have modeled and explained in detail how the buildings came down.

One issue I have with many "truther" sites is they make statements, (ex. controlled demolition), yet do not explain what it would take and how to bring the building down.

If you want to be critical of official reports for lack of detail, should we not expect the same from opposing views?

The debunking propaganda you watched does not explain or even address the 47 VERTICAL core columns that run from bedrock to the top floor in each building.

The debunking propaganda misleads by focusing on the horizontal trusses that do nothing to hold any vertical loads of the main structure.

The 47 VERTICAL core columns are basically 47 tree trunks that run from bedrock to the top floor.

The horizontal trusses in the debunking propaganda are basically the tree branches.

The physics involved in the press conference refers to how the top floor in each building hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it....even though the top floor had to work its way down through the many vertical support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor.

As far as how much of some type of new and exotic explosives it would take? I have no clue?

There are many types of nano-thermites that all have different reaction speeds and explosive capabilities. The many types are obtained by simply changing the composition and partical sizes. The smaller the nano size particals are made increases the reaction speeds and then increases its explosive power making it so much less material is needed.

 

[mike2810]

The debunking propaganda you watched does not explain or even address the 47 VERTICAL core columns that run from bedrock to the top floor in each building.

The debunking propaganda misleads by focusing on the horizontal trusses that do nothing to hold any vertical loads of the main structure.

Well not true. How more accurate can you get than building a model (computer) based on the building blueprint like Purdue Univ. did and reported by National Geographic)? At least NG explained in detail how the jets impact and resulting fires brought down the building. Granted, its a computer model, but at least they explain their theory in detail Now how about some of the other sites provide details on how the "demolition" would have been done. There are other sites that explains in detail how the buildings failed.

As far a propaganda? What disguises your sites from the ones I post. Is not your refered to sites propoganda? I am critical to these sites, but don't think I've called them propoganda sites, but guess it fits.

 

[Skateguy]

I just watched part of the AE for truth news conferance. When I have time I will most likely watch the rest. The first part talks about the how similar the trade center buildings came down when compared to controlled demolition. They then made the connection it had to be controlled demolition. What I have not seen nor presented on these types of sites is how much explosives it would take, where the charges would have to be placed to get controlled fall.

I have seen on debunking sites estimates of how much thermite, etc. The estimates of the amount made me wonder how in the heck could someone plant that much explosives. I have seen sites (National Geographic, etc, that have modeled and explained in detail how the buildings came down.

One issue I have with many "truther" sites is they make statements, (ex. controlled demolition), yet do not explain what it would take and how to bring the building down.

If you want to be critical of official reports for lack of detail, should we not expect the same from opposing views?

At least they have an explanation, other than kerosene melted it like a big candle.

 

[Skateguy]

Well not true. How more accurate can you get than building a model (computer) based on the building blueprint like Purdue Univ. did and reported by National Geographic)? At least NG explained in detail how the jets impact and resulting fires brought down the building. Granted, its a computer model, but at least they explain their theory in detail Now how about some of the other sites provide details on how the "demolition" would have been done. There are other sites that explains in detail how the buildings failed.

As far a propaganda? What disguises your sites from the ones I post. Is not your refered to sites propoganda? I am critical to these sites, but don't think I've called them propoganda sites, but guess it fits.

to be exact, this is hog wash. Nothing personal y'all, but come on. fires did not melt all that steel, and if it did. it would bend, as steel does. not explode into fragments. Us you heads for something other than to keep yer ears from touchin.--I just had to add that last part, pretty cool huh?

 

[creativedreams]

Well not true. How more accurate can you get than building a model (computer) based on the building blueprint like Purdue Univ. did and reported by National Geographic)? At least NG explained in detail how the jets impact and resulting fires brought down the building. Granted, its a computer model, but at least they explain their theory in detail Now how about some of the other sites provide details on how the "demolition" would have been done. There are other sites that explains in detail how the buildings failed.

As far a propaganda? What disguises your sites from the ones I post. Is not your refered to sites propoganda? I am critical to these sites, but don't think I've called them propoganda sites, but guess it fits.

The computer models were proven false and altered. When the actual collapse times are plugged into the equation the models could NOT reproduce the collapses. It was proven that they manipulated the collapse times by at least 40%. The computer models came out years ago and have been called out by many physicists on their falsehoods. They keep re-manipulating the NIST Report too.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA"]YouTube- WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k"]YouTube- WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw"]YouTube- WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)[/ame]

As far a propaganda? What disguises your sites from the ones I post. Is not your refered to sites propoganda?

Yes it IS propaganda. One example is the "debunking" article that came out in Popular Mechanics was produced by the cousin of the appointed Director of Homeland Security.......the very organization formed from the events of 9/11.

It has direct government connections and is propaganda.

It is bought and paid for publications and articles with direct connections to the very department created from 9/11.

The very department created from Germans government staged attack on their own buildings was the SA Storm Troopers.

These organizations have completely seperate powers than FBI, Police, etc and take direct orders from within the government.

These organizations can arrest anyone and hold them forever just on someones command who claims they are a suspected terrorist.

The arrested person does NOT get due process of the law or even a phone call.

 

[505]

At least they have an explanation, other than kerosene melted it like a big candle.

The only person saying that ANY of the steel melted is you. Everyone else knows that the steel was WEAKENED by the fire... not melted.

 

[505]

...and if it did. it would bend, as steel does. not explode into fragments...

Got any proof of these "exploded fragments"?

 

[505]

The computer models were proven false and altered but I am not going to try and prove it. When the truth movements retarded BS collapse times are plugged into the equation the models could NOT reproduce the collapses. It was proven that they used the ACTUAL collapse times for their model. The computer models came out years ago and have been called out by many physicists on their falsehoods, but I won't name any names. They keep UPDATING the NIST Report too.

Fixed your post for you bud.

 

[creativedreams]

The only person saying that ANY of the steel melted is you. Everyone else knows that the steel was WEAKENED by the fire... not melted.

So the WEAKEND vertical support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor somehow allowed the top floor to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it?

The top floor worked its way down through all the vertical support columns and still managed to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if it was dropped right beside it.

 

[505]

So the WEAKEND vertical support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor somehow allowed the top floor to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it?

Sometimes I wonder if you've actually ever even watched any of the collapse footage. Had you, you would clearly see the FACT that most of the debris is falling AWAY from the core. So yes of course, some material that fell off to the sides hit the ground at free fall speed, because it literally fell to the ground. The actual core of the building is obscured from view in most of the collapse footage because there is so much debris.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJbGm7GE1tA"]YouTube- South Tower Falls, shot front of Trinity Church.[/ame]

Collapse starts at 7 seconds, and you can hear it collapsing all the way up to 29 seconds. 22 seconds bub... not 9 seconds (free fall).

The top floor worked its way down through all the vertical support columns and still managed to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if it was dropped right beside it.

No, the top floor did not go THROUGH the columns and hit the ground. The columns failed under the tremendous load just like everything else. Why do you think that these vertical columns could withstand the collapse forces? What makes them indestructible?

Also, you DO know that something like 30-40 stories of each building remained standing for a little bit after the collapses, right?

edit- fixed broken embed link

 

[505]

To further illustrate for you CD, this picture shows very clearly how the perimeter columns were falling outward, and outpacing the collapse:

 

[creativedreams]

Sometimes I wonder if you've actually ever even watched any of the collapse footage. Had you, you would clearly see the FACT that most of the debris is falling AWAY from the core. So yes of course, some material that fell off to the sides hit the ground at free fall speed, because it literally fell to the ground. The actual core of the building is obscured from view in most of the collapse footage because there is so much debris.

YouTube- South Tower Falls, shot front of Trinity Church.

Collapse starts at 7 seconds, and you can hear it collapsing all the way up to 29 seconds. 22 seconds bub... not 9 seconds (free fall).




No, the top floor did not go THROUGH the columns and hit the ground. The columns failed under the tremendous load just like everything else. Why do you think that these vertical columns could withstand the collapse forces? What makes them indestructible?

Also, you DO know that something like 30-40 stories of each building remained standing for a little bit after the collapses, right?

edit- fixed broken embed link

What was hitting the camera lens toward the end long after the "collapse"?

Was debris blown vertically up too, and then came down long after to hit the lens like that?

 

[505]

What was hitting the camera lens toward the end long after the "collapse"?

Was debris blown vertically up too, and then came down long after to hit the lens like that?

Will you ever actually debate something? I asked you very clear questions that you completely ignored.

 

[creativedreams]

To further illustrate for you CD, this picture shows very clearly how the perimeter columns were falling outward, and outpacing the collapse:

It looks more like explosions cutting the vertical core columns were also blowing the exterior panels horizontally out......which also would account for the attained collapse speeds.

 

[505]

It looks more like explosions cutting the vertical core columns were also blowing the exterior panels horizontally out......which also would account for the attained collapse speeds.

So now the explosions are BLOWING those several ton chunks of perimeter column outwards? lol. Go take a physics class.

 

[creativedreams]

So now the explosions are BLOWING those several ton chunks of perimeter column outwards? lol. Go take a physics class.

Watch the press conference in Post #1.

 

[505]

Watch the press conference in Post #1.

I did. Is there something that you would like to cite specifically from the conference that explains explosive forces projecting humongous sections of steel outward? I must have missed it.

 

[505]

Didn't you say awhile back that you wanted to marry this slob?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4"]YouTube- 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed[/ame]

lol. Funny that I have always hated that witch in every movie I have ever seen with her in it. Then she turns out to be one of the most brainless truthers of them all. Always trust your instincts folks.

 

[creativedreams]

Collapse starts at 7 seconds, and you can hear it collapsing all the way up to 29 seconds. 22 seconds bub... not 9 seconds (free fall).

Different videos show that the top floor hit the ground in 11 seconds while working its way down through the vertical support columns. After the top floor was on the ground already there was a small sliver of a column or two that then fell.

Which reminds me on how the collapse time was manipulated in the equations by avoiding when the actual top floor hit the ground and using the time the sliver of a column fell later...

That sliver of a column that still stood after the top floor hit the ground was used to manipulate the reports and collapse speeds by using words like "complete" collapse.....

 

[505]

Different videos show that the top floor hit the ground in 11 seconds while working its way down through the vertical support columns. After the top floor was on the ground already there was a small sliver of a column or two that then fell.

Which reminds me on how the collapse time was manipulated in the equations by avoiding when the actual top floor hit the ground and using the time the sliver of a column fell later...

Awesome that I show you a vid and make a point using it. You, on the other hand, just say "different videos show that the top floor hit the ground in 11 seconds". There are no truly "different videos". They all recorded the same event. The only difference is the angle, and some angles are more obscured than others.

If you want to stop the timer as soon as the outer debris hits the ground, then of course you will get something close to free fall. Doing this, when you just saw a clear image that shows those outer columns way below the collapse wave, is a display of complete ignorance.

 

[creativedreams]

If you want to stop the timer as soon as the outer debris hits the ground, then of course you will get something close to free fall. .

No not just the outer debris like you claim. Everything hit the ground in 11 seconds but a couple of slivers of vertical columns that stood and fell a few seconds later which they use to manipulate the collapse speeds.

Does it really matter anyway the exact second it collapsed?

It shouldn't take a mental giant to see that everything but the steel was exploded into fine dust before it even hits the ground.