Northeastern university clinical psychology Videos

+crazy casy Tin foil just isn't my color, sorry.

you have to discern for yourself , look at the evidence or lack of , just because one may be true doesn't mean they all are, Paul McCartney replaced with double , alex jones is bill hicks, the earth is flat are most likely dis-info or good ole paranoia, all the above you mentioned are suspicious and need to be looked into further..we have been living in a country/economy based on lies and propaganda, do you think any thing has changed?

+stau ffap"Hättest du den NIST-Report gelesen, dann würdest du nicht ständig Falschaussagen darüber machen"Welche? Behauptest Du nicht die ganze Zeit, ich würde überhaupt gar keine handfesten Aussagen tätigen?"Ich nehme mal an, du liesst nur Dinge, die dein Wunschdenken unterstützen."Du liegst falsch, das ist Deine Vorgehensweise."Das war die letzte Antwort von mir, da du ganz klar mein Format misachtet hast."Drei Worte: obsessive compulsive disorder."An einer realistischen und fairen Debatte mit Punktesystem bist du natürlich nicht interessiert."Du ignorierst offensichtliche Tatsachen.Das hier interessiert Dich zB überhaupt nicht:"FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATIONPursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that thedisclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standardsand Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of thecollapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the followinginformation:1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailedconnection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads,break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executableANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to developfloor connection failure modes and capacities.2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failuresleading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used todevelop floor connection failure modes and capacities.Patrick GallagherDirectorNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyDated: JUL 09 2009 "...weil egal ist, wie das Ergebnis zustande kam."Du hattest deine Chance, alles Gute."Wow. Welch Pathos. Adieu!

+schmui"Ich verstehe ihn(den NIST-Report), komplett und im Original.Schüttel Deinen Kopf so lange Du willst, mein arroganter, kleiner Schnuckipups."Schon klar. Deshalb warst du auch so überrascht als ich den Unsinn von Kevin Ryan mit direkten Zitaten aus dem NIST-Report widerlegt habe. Hättest du den NIST-Report gelesen, dann würdest du nicht ständig Falschaussagen darüber machen. Offensichtlich hast du den NIST-Report nicht gelesen. Das alleine zeigt schon, dass du dich nur einseitig informiert hast. Ich nehme mal an, du liesst nur Dinge, die dein Wunschdenken unterstützen.Das war die letzte Antwort von mir, da du ganz klar mein Format misachtet hast. Aber das wolltest du wohl auch erreichen. An einer realistischen und fairen Debatte mit Punktesystem bist du natürlich nicht interessiert. Zudem bist du zu faul Dinge nachzuschlagen, die ich schon widerlegt habe und kommst somit mit einem Strohmann nach dem anderen, weil du meine tatsächliche Position vergessen hast oder dein Verschwörungsgehirn meine Aussagen zurechtbiegt bevor du sie auch nur niederschreiben konntest. Du hattest deine Chance, alles Gute.

+stau ffap "Ach du meine Güte. Erstens habe ich einige deiner sogenannten "Beweise" bereits widerlegt."Welche? Sorry, unser Wortwechsel ist ziemlich lang und ich habe keinen Bock mehr in deinem Filibuster in Schriftform zu wühlen, davon abgesehen kann ich mich ehrlich gesagt nur daran erinnern, dass ich Dir die Arbeit eines Statikers gezeigt habe, die besagt, dass WTC7 definitiv nicht aufgrund von Feuerschäden eingestürzt ist. Widerlegt hast Du es nicht, nur dementiert. Komplett ohne Argumente, so weit ich mich erinnere. Dein einziger Kritikpunkt war meines Wissens, dass ich auch den Link hätte posten können. Das war's."Wir können gerne ein wenig Physik oder Mathematik machen, wenn du daran zweifelst. Wie wäre es mit ein wenig Integralrechnung, ein paar Differentialgleichungen oder ein wenig linearer Algebra?"Nö, wozu? Kann ich, brauche ich aber nicht, um zu verstehen, dass eine Simulation/Rekonstruktion des Einsturzes des WTC7 nicht nur irrelevant, sondern komplett kontraproduktiv ist, wenn das Computermodell nicht exakt mit dem tatsächlichen Gebäude übereinstimmt, sondern so modifiziert wurde, dass das gewünschte Ergebnis erzielt wird.Das war der Fall. Da kannst Du heulen und zetern und mir auf arrogante Art und Weise Arroganz unterstellen, es ändert nichts."Ich warte noch immer auf Beweise für deine Hypothese."Welche Hypothese? Ich habe keine Ahnung, was im Detail passiert ist, muss ich auch nicht, sicher ist jedoch, dass die Bürobrände im Falle des WTC7 nicht die Einsturzursache sind.Das sind zwei Paar Schuh, das weißt Du aber auch. Ich habe zB auch keine Ahnung, warum genau sich die amerikanische Regierung vor über 10 Jahren dazu entschlossen hat, den Irak anzugreifen bzw was denn wirklich der ausschlaggebende Punkt war, was aber nichts daran ändert, dass es keine verdammten Massenvernichtungswaffen gab.Hast Du das verstanden, oder soll ich Dir das noch einmal erklären?Ich weiß nicht, wie genau WTC7 zum Einsturz gebracht wurde und ich muss es auch gar nicht wissen, um zu widerlegen, dass es, so wie es dargestellt wurde, definitiv nicht passiert ist.Die offizielle Begründung wurde widerlegt, mehrfach; und das nicht von mir, sondern von Menschen die viel mehr Ahnung haben als ich und auch als Du. Du bist - nach eigener Aussage Mathe- und Physiklehrer. Die offizielle Begründung, warum WTC7 einstürzte, wurde von Statikern, Ingenieuren und Architekten widerlegt. Auf deren Erkenntnisse berufe ich mich, was Dich aber nicht daran hindert, die Arroganz zu besitzen, mich und alle, die im Groben meiner Meinung sind, implizit als Idioten zu bezeichnen."Aber dir ist anscheinend schon längst klar geworden, dass nicht in der Lage bist zu erkennen, wie stichhaltig deine Beweise sind, deshalb nennst du wohl auch keine weiteren."Wozu sollte ich? Du willst ganz offensichtlich auf gar keinen Fall die Möglichkeit in Betracht ziehen, dass WTC7 kontrolliert zum Einsturz gebracht wurde. Du willst es nicht, egal wie lächerlich bescheuert die Alternativen sind.Zur Erinnerung, das hier ist Deine Position:Ein Gebäude in dem Geheimdienste Büros unterhält, ist so schlecht konstruiert, dass es aufgrund von einigen wenigen, isolierten Bränden komplett symmetrisch in sich zusammenfällt. Weil ein einziger Träger schlapp macht, kollabiert dieses 47-stöckige Gebäude mit Stahlgerüst und um das zu beweisen, fertigen wir einfach ein Modell an, bei dem wir wichtige Details ändern, die sich negativ auf die Statik auswirken. Dass der rekonstruierte Einsturz überhaupt gar nicht mit dem tatsächlichen Einsturz übereinstimmt und dass wir ein paar Sekunden freien Fall nicht erklären können stört gar kein bisschen."In deiner Situation hätte ich schon lange zugegeben, dass ich zuwenig weiss."Nein, das hättest Du nicht."Das ist wohl überhaupt das Problem mit euch Verschwörungstheoretikern. Ihr erkennt überhaupt keine Authoritätt an."Welche? Deine oder die der Wissenschaftler, die dieses Thema nicht aus Angst vor Repressionen ignorieren? Letztere auf jeden Fall. Im Übrigen klingst Du mit diesem Satz ein bisschen nach Faschist."Ihr seit nicht nur Sprengstoffexperten, sondern wohl auch noch Statiker, Chemiker und Historiker. Was für eine Arroganz."Zum einen ist "seit" kein Verb, zum anderen: Ja. Ich nicht, aber die Statiker, Chemiker und Historiker sind Statiker, Chemiker und Historiker. Natürlich sind sie, da sie die offizielle Verschwörungstheorie anzweifeln, auch Verschwörungstheoretiker und somit unglaubwürdig und inkompetent. Schon kapiert. Verhält sich da ähnlich wie mit der Kritik an Israels Politik: Wer Israels Politik kritisiert ist ein Antisemit und Antisemiten dürfen Israels Politik nicht kritisieren. Ergo: Niemand darf Israels Politik kritisieren.Was lernen wir?Israels Regierung kann gar nichts falsch machen und Verschwörungen gibt es nicht. Nur Verschwörungstheoretiker."Als ob du auch nur annähernd das Verständniss hättest den NIST Report zu widerlegen bzw. auch nur zu verstehen. Trotzdem weisst du, dass er falsch sein muss. Über solche eine Arroganz kann ich nur den Kopf schütteln."Ich verstehe ihn, komplett und im Original.Schüttel Deinen Kopf so lange Du willst, mein arroganter, kleiner Schnuckipups.Hast Du noch irgendwas auf dem Herzen, oder war's das?

+schmuiAch du meine Güte. Erstens habe ich einige deiner sogenannten "Beweise" bereits widerlegt. Zweitens habe ich dir bereits erklärt weshalb ich deine andere Antwort nicht widerlegt habe. Kleiner Tipp - es hatte nichts damit zu tun, dass ich es schon widerlegt gesehen hatte."Vielleicht hätte ich mich auch als Mathe- und Physiklehrer ausgeben sollen, dann hättest Du jetzt nicht die absolute Deutungshoheit"Wir können gerne ein wenig Physik oder Mathematik machen, wenn du daran zweifelst. Wie wäre es mit ein wenig Integralrechnung, ein paar Differentialgleichungen oder ein wenig linearer Algebra?Mehr werde ich nicht schreiben. Ich warte noch immer auf Beweise für deine Hypothese. Aber dir ist anscheinend schon längst klar geworden, dass nicht in der Lage bist zu erkennen, wie stichhaltig deine Beweise sind, deshalb nennst du wohl auch keine weiteren. Schliesslich möchtest du dich nicht blamieren. In deiner Situation hätte ich schon lange zugegeben, dass ich zuwenig weiss. Das ist wohl überhaupt das Problem mit euch Verschwörungstheoretikern. Ihr erkennt überhaupt keine Authoritätt an. Ihr seit nicht nur Sprengstoffexperten, sondern wohl auch noch Statiker, Chemiker und Historiker. Was für eine Arroganz. Als ob du auch nur annähernd das Verständniss hättest den NIST Report zu widerlegen bzw. auch nur zu verstehen. Trotzdem weisst du, dass er falsch sein muss. Über solche eine Arroganz kann ich nur den Kopf schütteln.

+stau ffap"Was du als Beweise für deine Position akzeptierst ist das, was dich naiv macht. Hinterfragen alleine ist keine Leistung. Zweifeln kann jeder. Das heisst noch lange nicht, dass die Zweifel berechtigt sind. In deinem Fall sind sie es nicht."Alright, ganz langsam. Ich könnte falsch liegen, klar, aber warum sind meine Zweifel nicht berechtigt?"Du hast mir keine ernsthaften Antworten gegeben."Auf derart bescheuerte Fragen gebe ich keine ernsthaften Antworten."Desweiteren hast du nichts gefragt, was ich nicht bereits beantwortet habe."Stimmt nicht.Schon verstanden, Du bist der geniale Akademiker von uns beiden, komischerweise war alles, was Dir einfiel, als ich Dich - so wie Du es unbedingt wolltest - mit Fakten beworfen habe, dass Du das alles schon "widerlegt gesehen" hättest.Vielleicht hätte ich mich auch als Mathe- und Physiklehrer ausgeben sollen, dann hättest Du jetzt nicht die absolute Deutungshoheit, was dieses und wahrscheinlich jedes andere Thema angeht.Soll bedeuten: Dein Diskussionsformat ist für'n Arsch. Du Heuchler."Mit Fakten kommst du wohl nicht weiter,"weil Du die "alle schon widerlegt gesehen" hast."deshalb hast du wohl vor meine Persönlichkeit in Frage zu stellen."Aus gutem Grund."Das Problem wäre dabei bloss, dass selbst wenn meine Persönlichkeit Fragwürdig wäre, dieser Umstand nicht bedeuten würde, dass meine Argumentation nicht richtig ist."Du bist genauso falsch wie Deine Argumente.Apropos, hau mal welche raus.

+schmuiWas du als Beweise für deine Position akzeptierst ist das, was dich naiv macht. Hinterfragen alleine ist keine Leistung. Zweifeln kann jeder. Das heisst noch lange nicht, dass die Zweifel berechtigt sind. In deinem Fall sind sie es nicht.Du hast mir keine ernsthaften Antworten gegeben. Desweiteren hast du nichts gefragt, was ich nicht bereits beantwortet habe.Falls du diese Diskussion weiterführen möchtest, dann nur mit dem von mir vorgeschlagenen Diskussionsformat. Mit Fakten kommst du wohl nicht weiter, deshalb hast du wohl vor meine Persönlichkeit in Frage zu stellen. Das Problem wäre dabei bloss, dass selbst wenn meine Persönlichkeit Fragwürdig wäre, dieser Umstand nicht bedeuten würde, dass meine Argumentation nicht richtig ist.

+stau ffap Den Wahrheitsgehalt löchriger, inkonsistenter, sich widersprechender Medienberichte anzweifeln = NaivitätOk, gut. Hab' das Wort anscheinend nie wirklich verstanden :)So, kurz Q&A abhaken:Q: "Mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit glaubst du wohl auch nicht an die globale Erwärmung oder liege ich da falsch?"A: Nein, ist absoluter Schwachsinn. Jeder weiß, dass es eher kälter wird und nicht wärmer. Desweiteren davon bin ich davon überzeugt, dass Vitamin C Krebs heilt. Immer.Q: "Wie stehst du zur EU?"A: Im rechten Winkel. Neben Ken Jebsen.Q: "Was hälst du vom politischen System in Deutschland?"A: Gut, wieso?Q: "Ist dir das aktuelle Massensterben ein Begriff?"A: Wie seine Heiligkeit Guru Ludolf bereits sagte: "Irgendwann Massen alle sterben."Du toller Mensch! :DPS: Da ich nun Deine Fragen beantwortet habe, würdest Du liebenswürdigerweise vielleicht meine Fragen beantworten?

+schmui Du scheinst übrigens davon auszugehen, dass deine Naivität niemandem schadet. Dem widerspreche ich vehement. Ich glaube, dass deine Naivität sehr schädlich ist, denn es hält euch davon ab die tatsächlichen Probleme zu erkennen und etwas dagegen zu tun. Die 9/11 Verschwörung lenkt bloss von den wahren Problemen auf dieser Erde ab. Mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit glaubst du wohl auch nicht an die globale Erwärmung oder liege ich da falsch? Wie stehst du zur EU? Was hälst du vom politischen System in Deutschland? Ist dir das aktuelle Massensterben ein Begriff?

+stau ffap Gottogott. Deine Position ist einfach extrem merkwürdig. Ich fasse Deine Story noch einmal kurz zusammen: Du gibst vor, anfänglich ein "Truther" gewesen zu sein (so wie ich das verstanden habe), hast aber aufgrund erdrückender Beweislage das Lager gewechselt und bist nun der Überzeugung, dass der offizielle Bericht korrekt ist. Das Gebäude 7 wurde Deiner Meinung nach nicht gesprengt, der 11. September war "lediglich" eine Tragödie, eine Verschwörung gibt es nicht; das, obwohl Dir - Mathematik- und Physiklehrer - direkt nach besagten Ereignissen schnell der Verdacht kam, dass an der ganzen Sache etwas faul ist.Genau da will ich nachhaken: Was genau hat Dich zu der Überzeugung gebracht, die Du nun so vehement vertrittst? Anscheinend hast Du ja gar nicht so intensiv geforscht, wenn Dir der Begriff "nano thermite" erst seit Kurzem bekannt ist. Das wiederum lässt den Schluss zu, dass Du nicht einmal ansatzweise ins "rabbit hole" 9/11 gekrochen bist und das wiederum würde bedeuten, dass Dir die meisten Ungereimtheiten, Widersprüche, Erklärungslücken gar nicht bekannt sein dürften. Heisst: Du hast weder in Deiner Zeit als "Truther", noch jetzt wirklich recherchiert. Was also hat Dich von der offiziellen Geschichte überzeugt?Welches Zitat, welcher Fakt/welche Fakten? Wer oder was?Zum anderen Punkt:Wieso diskutierst Du mit mir?Die Terroranschläge vom 11. September waren und wären so oder so ein traumatisches Erlebnis für sehr viele Menschen, direkt betroffen oder nicht, jedoch deuten einige Tatsachen darauf hin, dass der von der von offiziellen Stellen und den Massenmedien proklamierte Tathergang entweder so nicht richtig oder zumindest unvollständig ist.Dieser Umstand erschwert das Verarbeiten dieses Ereignisses ungemein, zumal die bekannten(!) Fakten - wenn man sich denn mit ihnen beschäftigt - zwar mehr und mehr die "official story" (ich kürze ab jetzt mit OS ab) widerlegen, jedoch auch (noch) keine schlüssige Erklärung liefern.Was bleibt, ist generelles Misstrauen und viele offene Fragen.Zurück zu Dir. Du behauptest, bestimmte Dinge - was genau weiß ich immernoch nicht - hätten Deine Zweifel beseitigt und Dich dazu bewogen, die OS als schlüssig zu betrachten. In Anbetracht der Grausamkeit sowohl der OS, als auch der vielen Verschwörungstheorien ist es doch ein Glücksfall, zumindest auf rationaler Ebene mit diesem Thema Frieden schließen zu können.Fragen geklärt, Schublade zu. Erst danach bzw im Zuge dessen können die emotionalen/ethischen Dissonanzen erfolgreich behandelt werden.Für Idioten:1. Was ist GENAU passiert?2. Wie fühle ich mich deswegen?Du meinst, Du hättest den 11. September intellektuell verarbeitet und bist zu dem Schluss gekommen, dass die OS korrekt ist, jedoch interessieren Dich weiterhin die Details sowie die Argumente derer, die anderer Meinung sind. Das führt mich zu eben dieser Frage:Warum?Stellen wir uns vor, der Anschlag damals auf den Radiosender in Gleiwitz, wäre wirklich von Polen verübt worden. Das dazugehörige Alternativuniversum auszuformulieren, ist mir an dieser Stelle zu aufwändig, nehmen wir daher einfach an, dass der restliche Teil der Geschichte im Groben mit unserer übereinstimmt. Wir spinnen den Faden weiter und betrachten eine bestimmte Gruppe der Bevölkerung - eine Minderheit -, nämlich die, die OS anzweifelt. Dir, als gebildeter Person, ist, nach anfänglichem Misstrauen, bald klar, dass es sich alles wirklich so zugetragen hat, wie es dargestellt wurde. Der Krieg war daher "gerechtfertigt", der Holocaust aber natürlich nicht, somit war die Niederlage verdient und die OS in diesem Fall eine runde Sache. Eine schlüssige Geschichte und - bis auf das schnauzbärtige Monster - inhaltlich und emotional nachvollziehbar.Nicht jedoch für die Gruppe der Verschwörungstheoretiker. Diese haben zusammengefasst entweder nicht alle (Fakten) beisammen, oder brauchen einfach ein Feindbild und das sind, dank pubertären Autoritätsproblems, erst die Eltern (egal wie nett sie sind, sie haben "die Macht" und sind im Zweifelsfall schuld an allem) und dann konsequenterweise die ultimative Autoritätsinstanz, der Staat. Beide Vertreter des Lagers der Verschwörungstheoretiker dürften intellektuell nur von geringem Nutzen für Dich sein. Daher bleibt im Endeffekt eigentlich nur eine emotionale Motivation, z.B. Steigerung des Selbstwertes durch Zelebrierung der geistigen Überlegenheit gegenüber anderen.Was auch immer Dein Antrieb sein mag, offensichtlich ist, dass Du den 11. September als Denksportaufgabe missbrauchst. Helfen tust Du niemandem, da Dein Wissen nicht ausreicht um die Argumente der Zweifler zu entkräften, was Dir mittlerweile auch aufgefallen sein dürfte. Also bitte, warum widmest Du Dich nicht der Beal-Vermutung, sondern streitest lieber mit - Deiner Auffassung nach - fehlgeleiteten Individuen, über ein Thema, das Du nicht richtig recherchierst?Das ist weder wissenschaftliche Arbeit, noch menschlich wirklich super, sondern entspricht einem Laien, der denkt, er könne die Rückenschmerzen wildfremder Menschen dank seiner autodidaktisch erworbenen "Fähigkeiten" als Physiotherapeut beheben. Beweis für Deine Kompetenz: Die nicht nur potentiell schädlichen Übungen, die Du in Deiner Freizeit ausführst, täten Dir nicht weh.Also, warum?Warum bist Du so überzeugt von Deiner Meinung, trotz eklatanter Wissenslücken und warum willst Du unbedingt diskutieren?Zu Deiner Frage:"Worüber solllte ein Mensch sonst defniert werden?"Ich sagte:"Genau das meine ich.Deswegen bist Du auch nicht so ein toller Mensch, wie Du denkst."Dein Handeln IST mein Kriterium.Dein Handeln in diesem Kontext.

+schmuiIch habe nie gesagt, dass ich ein toller Mensch bin. Was ist eigentlich mit dir los? Weshalb versuchst du so krampfhaft mir irgendwelche Probleme anzuhängen? Kannst du etwa nicht mit der Möglichkeit leben, dass ich ein ganz normaler Mensch bin? Frisst dich das auf?Auch die Frage nach meiner Motivation verstehe ich nicht, da ich dies schon mehrfach beantwortet habe. Ich werde es dir nochmals anders erklären. Wenn ich mit einem Menschen diskutiere, der über das Diskussionsthema keine Ahnung hat, dann führt das oft dazu, dass ich trotzdem gewisse Dinge recherchiere. Die Dinge, die ich recherchiert habe, habe ich dann neu gelernt. Auch wenn ich mit einem "Truther" diskutiere. Zum Beispiel hatte ich bis zur Diskussion mit dir keine Ahnung, dass es Nano-Thermit gibt. Bisher kannte ich bloss normales Thermit.Deine Frage ist dann wohl weshalb mich die Dikussion mit "Idioten" dazu anregt Dinge zu recherchieren. Keine Ahnung. Deiner Meinung nach stärkt das vielleicht mein Selbstwertgefühl oder ich finde es einfach nur spannend zu debattieren/meine Gehirn zu benutzen. Warum löst ein Mensch Rätsel? Warum mache ich gerne Mathematik und Physik? Auch das Konzept des "Flows" aus der Psychologie könnte eine Erklärung sein.Von Charakterstärkung habe ich noch nicht einmal ansatzweise geschrieben.Weshalb interessiert dich das überhaupt so? Ausserdem verstehe ich nicht wie du nach der letzten Antwort noch nicht zufrieden sein kannst. Auch deine Feindseeligkeit mir gegenüber ist mir ein Rätsel.Was du von der momentanen Diskussion hast ist mir ebenfalls schleierhaft. Immerhin geht es nicht mehr um 9/11 also greift deine vorherige Erklärung nicht mehr.Auch folgendes musst du mir genauer erklären:""Ich definiere mich deshalb über meine Handlungen."Genau das meine ich.Deswegen bist Du auch nicht so ein toller Mensch, wie Du denkst."Worüber solllte ein Mensch sonst defniert werden?

+stau ffapWow, ruhig, ich wollte nichts von Dir wissen, außer warum Du es für lehrreich oder charakterstärkend erachtest, mit Menschen zu diskutieren, die Du für unzureichend gebildet hälst. Das ist ja anscheinend der Punkt. Du behauptest zwar, dass Du Dir alle möglichen Meinungen, Sichweisen und gedankliche Verirrungen anhörst, aber bisher sehe ich Dich nur, wie Du Dich selber feierst.Selbst wenn Du hauptsächlich mit ganz anderen Leuten reden solltest, der Schritt, sich mit "Truthern" direkt auseinanderzusetzen ist super merkwürdig. Was bringt es Dir? Du überzeugst wahrscheinlich niemanden bis sehr wenige und was zur Hölle lernst Du dazu? Nichts. Nur, dass Du ein ganz geiler Typ bist und die Sache durchschaut hast.Noch einmal: Meine Motivation dürfte geklärt sein. Was aber willst Du?"Ich definiere mich deshalb über meine Handlungen."Genau das meine ich.Deswegen bist Du auch nicht so ein toller Mensch, wie Du denkst.

+schmuiDas mit den Freundinnen stimmt tatsächlich. Gut gemacht! Der Rest könnte auch stimmen. Aber ganz ehrlich, dessen bin ich mir selbst nicht sicher. Mich selbst kennenzulernen habe ich seit langem aufgegeben. Ich bin so ehrlich einzusehen, dass ich nicht mit Sicherheit identifizieren kann, was micht antreibt. Natürlich habe ich meine Hypothesen und habe im meinem Leben eine Unmenge an psychologischer Fachliteratur gelesen, mir zahlreiche Meinungen angehört und doch musste ich feststellen, dass die diagnostische Psychologie eine zu grosse Unsicherheit besitzt. Man kommt schlicht nicht auf eine einheitliche Meinung. Du könntest also Recht haben, das ist für mich eine realistische Möglichkeit. Du könntest aber genausogut Unrecht haben. Ich definiere mich deshalb über meine Handlungen. Wenn ich sterbe werde ich auf die Summe meiner Taten und nicht auf die Summe psychologischer Diagnosen zurückblicken. Denn Taten sprechen eine klare Sprache, während das andere höchst spekulativ und dazu noch irrelevant ist. Wenn ich mir meine Taten anschaue, dann kann ich beim besten Willen keine destruktive Kraft feststellen. Um das zu überprüfen müsstest du mich natürlich kennen, aber das tust du nicht. Somit bleibt dir und eventuellen Lesern bloss die Spekulation und die damit verbundene Unsicherheit.Wie die meisten Menschen wirst du dich nun wahrscheinlich überlegen fühlen. Allerdings bezweifle ich, dass du dich je so hinterfragt hast, wie ich es getan habe. Ich hatte immer den Mut mich den Meinung andere Leute zu stellen. Du solltest dich fragen, ob das auf dich ebenfalls zutrifft. Denn was nützt dir die Illusion psychologisch "gesund" zu sein(was bei genauerer Betrachtung der psychologischen Tests ohnehin auf fast niemanden zutrifft), wenn deine Taten nachweislich der Gesellschaft schaden? Wobei ich nicht sage, dass sie das tun. Ich kenne dich schliesslich nicht. Jedoch gibt es für dich keinen Grund dich überlegen zu fühlen. Welche deiner Taten haben einen positiven Einfluss auf die Welt? Bist du dir der momentanen, geselltschaftlichen, globalen Probleme bewusst und was tust du dagegen? Bist du bloss Zuschauer oder ein aktiver Teil einer positiven Veränderung? Das solltest du dich fragen, bevor du über andere Menschen urteilst.Für mich spielt es also keine Rolle, was du über mich schreibst. Denn du kannst darauf wetten, dass ich all diese Dinge schon längst selbst in Betracht gezogen habe. Ich habe einen Weg gefunden ein gückliches Leben zu führen ohne mich zu belügen. Kannst du das selbe von dir behaupten?PS:  Du gehst zwar immernoch leichtfertig mit dem Begriff "Fakt" um und lieferst mir keine Quellenangaben, aber wenigsten erkennst du bereits andere Spekulationen als solche. Man könnte fast meinen du hättest etwas dazugelernt ;)PPS: Mit der Agoraphobie lagst du völlig falsch. Eine Hypothese, die sich ganz einfach durch die Tatsache widerlegen lässt, dass ich arbeite und bei meiner Arbeit ausschliesslich ständig neue Menschen and neuen Orten kennenlerne.

+stau ffapBla. Bla. Bla.Fakt ist, dass sowohl der Abschlussbericht der National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, als auch der Bericht des NIST genau jene Unwissenschaftlichkeit aufweisen, die Du mir vorwirfst.Fakt ist: Die "offizielle Theorie" ist Bullshit.Ich habe keine Theorie, die Du auseinandernehmen kannst und das regt Dich auf. Das wiederum war eine Vermutung :)Die Frage, warum Du überhaupt mit Menschen wie mir diskutierst, bleibt unbeantwortet.Daher beantworte ich sie selbst und schlussfolgere gänzlich ohne empirische Beweise, einfach unter Berufung auf meine Menschenkenntnis: Du bist ein passiv aggressiver Feigling.Irgendetwas nagt an Dir und Deinem Selbstwertgefühl, jedoch lässt Dein Stolz oder mangelnder Insight nicht zu, diesen ungelösten inneren Konflikt zu bewältigen, daher versuchst Du Dir in Auseinandersetzungen mit Verrückten wie mir Deine Überlegenheit zu beweisen. Ganz sicher vom heimischen PC aus. Hence the Feigling.Erbärmlicher Zug, zugegeben, aber Dein Einsatz ist fleißbienchenwürdig.Kannst es Dir abholen, sofern Deine latente Agoraphobie es zulässt....letzteres war ein absoluter Schuss ins Blaue, erschreckenderweise liegt mein Bauch aber sehr oft sehr richtig.PS: Warte, warte, da kommt eine Vision! Ich kann es fühlen! Moment - warte - ....Oh... Einsamkeit; der Geruch von kaltem Furz; gebügelte Socken...Ha! Du hattest bisher 1,5 Freundinnen :DRichtig? Richtig?

+schmuiWieso Feigling? Was daran feige sein soll, verstehe ich nun wirklich nicht. "PPS: "Habe ich alles schon widerlegt gesehen." ist übrigens Deine bekloppteste Äußerung bis jetzt."Das mag vielleicht billig erscheinen, das war mir auch bewusst. Aber wenn ich schreibe, dass ich etwas widerlegt gesehen habe, dann auf eine Faktenbasierte Art, die mir frei von logischen Fehlschlüssen erschien. Das heisst, dass ich diese Dinge allesamt überprüft habe. Im Gegensatz zu dir heisst das, dass ich akribisch alles auf die Primärquellen zurückführte etc. anstatt einfach nur einen Artikel zu lesen und ihn komplett zu übernehmen ohne auch nur irgendetwas nachgeprüft zu haben. Das hast du mit deinem Artikel von Kevin Ryan auch sehr schön demonstriert.""...Vielleicht kommt noch eine Antwort, wenn ich Zeit finde."Da war die letzte Nuss anscheinend doch zu hart :)"Selbst dir muss klar sein, dass es vorhin meist nur um eine sehr begrenzte Anzahl von Behauptungen ging. Kevin Ryan ging mehr ins Detail, deshalb habe mir auch nur den ersten Abschnitt vorgenommen. Ich dachte, das würde vielleicht Zweifel in dir hervorrufen und den Wunsch nach eigenen Überprüfung und ein wenig echtem Skeptizismus wecken, aber da habe ich mich wohl getäuscht. Stattdessen hast du einfach das Thema gewechselt und eine Feuerwerk an Halbwissen auf mich abgeschossen. Jeder Satz voll mit mehreren Behauptungen, die sich schnell niederschreiben lassen(da du sowieso nichts ausführlich überprüfst) aber deren Widerlegung ungleich zeitaufwändiger ist. Vor allem weil du keine Quellen nennst, die wiederum ihre Quellen nennen.Wenn ich es mir recht überlege, dann hat es keinen Zweck mit dir zu diskutieren. Wenn du jetzt noch nicht gemerkt hast, dass dir einiges an Wissen fehlt, um Themen wie 9/11 zu behandeln, dann bist du ohnehin nicht an der bestmöglichen Wahrheit interessiert.So naiv wie du an die Sache herangehst, kann das nichts werden. Aber bitteschön, wenn du mit deiner Unmündigkeit zufrieden bist, dann möchte ich dich nicht weiter stören. Glaube ruhig weiter daran, dass Wahrheit ohne grossen Zeitaufwand und Arbeit zugänglich ist. So brauchst du dich auch nicht wie ein Idiot zu fühlen, wenn du solch unsinnige Hypothesen von dir gibst. Die Bescheidenheit die Worte "ich bin mir nicht sicher" auszusprechen besitzt du wohl nicht. Stattdeseen scheinst du "Ich habe mir zwar nicht beide Seiten der Diskussion angehört und ich habe die Fakten auch nicht überprüft, aber ich weiss..." zu bevorzugen.

+stau ffap"Momentan habe ich wenig Zeit und du hast eine Vielzahl an Behauptungen aufgestellt. Nichts neues dabei. Habe ich alles schon widerlegt gesehen. Kannst du selbst recherchieren. Ich habe dir Beispiele gegeben wie es geht. Versuche dich zur Abwechslung doch einmal selbst zu widerlegen(wie es ein kritischer Geist ohnehin tun würde).Vielleicht kommt noch eine Antwort, wenn ich Zeit finde."Da war die letzte Nuss anscheinend doch zu hart :)"Was für ein dümmlicher Kommentar ist das denn? Interessierte Menschen diskutieren gerne und lernen gerne, das ist normal. Wenn du in deiner eigenen kleinen Scheinwelt leben willst dann kannst du gerne von schwierigen Diskussionen fernbleiben. Das wird dich wohl schockieren, aber es gibt Personen, die noch an anderen Dingen als Saufen, Party, Frauen und Sport interessiert sind, was ohnehin absolut sinnfreie Aktivitäten sind, die nichts zum Wohle der Menschheit beitragen."Pardon, aber diese Neigung deinerseits klingt ziemlich ungesund. Diskussionen rein um der Diskussion willen riechen meiner Meinung nach stark nach Selbstwertproblemen und weniger nach Charakterstärke. Ich diskutiere zwar auch gerne, jedoch fange ich nicht mit Vorliebe verbale Auseinandersetzungen - wie zivilisiert auch immer diese sein mögen - mit meiner direkten Opposition an. Nicht, dass ich die Arroganz besäße, zu behaupten oder auch nur zu denken, dass ich die "richtige Antwort" bereits wüsste, jedoch spare ich mir das Gespräch, wenn mein Gegenüber zB denkt, man könne Krebs einzig und allein mit Vitamin C behandeln und heilen (Im Gegensatz zu Dir). Ich suche daher den Diskurs mit Parteien, die die kausalen Konflikte meines Gedankenkonstrukts erklären und bestenfalls sogar aufheben, entweder durch Korrektur meiner bisherigen Überzeugung oder, wenn nötig, auch komplette Aufgabe.Du hingegen diskutierst über Youtube-Kommentare mit einem "Truther", den Du entweder für blöd und/oder un-/fehlinformiert hälst und sabbelst so lange bis er aufgibt.Ergo: Du bist ein richtig guter Mensch.*PS: Die implizite Unterstellung, dass ich mich nur mit "Saufen, Party, Frauen und Sport" beschäftigen würde, ist komplett bescheuert, das weißt Du aber eigentlich. Wenn dem so wäre, wäre ich nicht hier.PPS: "Habe ich alles schon widerlegt gesehen." ist übrigens Deine bekloppteste Äußerung bis jetzt.*passiv aggressiver Feigling

+schmui"Das hier ist dein HOBBY?!...WTF...Diskutierst Du etwa auch superdupergerne mit Holocaustleugnern? Aaah! Wie krank!"Was für ein dümmlicher Kommentar ist das denn? Interessierte Menschen diskutieren gerne und lernen gerne, das ist normal. Wenn du in deiner eigenen kleinen Scheinwelt leben willst dann kannst du gerne von schwierigen Diskussionen fernbleiben. Das wird dich wohl schockieren, aber es gibt Personen, die noch an anderen Dingen als Saufen, Party, Frauen und Sport interessiert sind, was ohnehin absolut sinnfreie Aktivitäten sind, die nichts zum Wohle der Menschheit beitragen.Super gerne mache ich das auch nicht. Nicht immer sind die Diskussionen interessant. Mit dir zu diskutieren macht zum Beispiel überhaupt keinen Spass, weil du von Anfang an mit Beleidigunen um dich geworfen hast. Es gibt allerdings auch intelligente und zivilisierte Leute auf Youtube. Von solchen Leuten habe ich schon viel gelernt.Momentan habe ich wenig Zeit und du hast eine Vielzahl an Behauptungen aufgestellt. Nichts neues dabei. Habe ich alles schon widerlegt gesehen. Kannst du selbst recherchieren. Ich habe dir Beispiele gegeben wie es geht. Versuche dich zur Abwechslung doch einmal selbst zu widerlegen(wie es ein kritischer Geist ohnehin tun würde).Vielleicht kommt noch eine Antwort, wenn ich Zeit finde.

+stau ffap Ah, ok. Sorry, komplett überlesen.Das Verfassen eines Kommentars nimmt nicht wirklich viel Zeit in Anspruch, mir ging es eher um die Recherche. Eigentlich ausschließlich. Die ist in der Tat relativ zeitintensiv, da man sich generell durch einen Wust aus antisemitischem Illuminatenkack und anderweitig verrücktem Kram wühlen muss. Egal.Ich gebe Dir in einem Punkt absolut Recht, und zwar in dem, dass man sich gar nicht so weit aus dem Fenster zu lehnen braucht, um Kritik an den Vereinigten Saaten zu üben, bzw viel mehr deren Regierung(en).Guantanamo, PRISM, Iraks Massenvernichtungswaffen, Achse des Bösen - alles Schlagwörter bei denen jeder aufgeklärte Mensch, der noch alle Tassen im Schrank hat, die Kotze hochkommt.Meines Empfindens reicht das schon. Komplett. Ich brauche kein übermächtiges Feindbild, um mich mit mir selbst wohl zu fühlen.Wie man es aber auch dreht und wendet:9/11 ergibt aus der Perspektive des aufmerksamen Fernsehzuschauers und Zeitunglesers einfach gar keinen Sinn.19 fiese Moslems schnappen sich 4 Flugzeuge, werden von niemandem aufgehalten, da effektiv fast alle Protokolle ignoriert werden, fliegen ungestört in New Yorks Luftraum, fliegen dort Maneuver, mit denen erfahrenste Piloten überfordert gewesen wären, obwohl keiner der angeblichen Entführer jemals etwas vergleichbares geflogen ist, treffen beide Türme, diese stürzen ein und auch ein drittes Gebäude, das eigentlich nur leichte Feuerschäden erlitten hat. Etliche Zeugen berichten von Explosionen vor den Einschlägen der Flugzeuge, die Möglichkeit einer Sprengung wird aber von Anfang an abgelehnt und das auch im Fall des WTC7, obwohl niemals ein Gebäude dieser Art aufgrund von Feuerschäden auf diese Weise eingestürzt ist. ...oder überhaupt eingestürzt ist.Begründet wird das so:...Dass besagter Einsturz des WTC7 über 20 Minuten im Vorraus "angekündigt" wurde scheint niemanden zu stören und obwohl sich später herausstellt, dass die Flugzeugentführer aus Saudi Arabien, den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten, Syrien und Egypten stammen, ist sofort klar, dass Bin Laden, also Afghanistan schuld ist. Trotz fehlendem Bekenntnis. Einfach so.Oh und man hat einen Perso gefunden. In dem ganzen Chaos. Von einem der Entführer, natürlich.Tja. Und dann kommst Du an und willst mir erzählen, dass das alles so ganz richtig ist.Und das:"Meine Motivation ist gemischter Natur. Einerseits diskutiere ich gerne. Andereseits lerne ich immer mal wieder etwas dazu in diesen Diskussionen. Diese Diskussionen motivieren mich zusätzlich über gewisse Themen zu informieren."Das hier ist dein HOBBY?!WTF?!! Wenn ich wüsste (oder, um da einen Schritt auf Dich zuzugehen, mir zu 99,irgendwas% sicher wäre) dass die, den 11. September betreffenden, Theorien kompletter Bullshit sind, würde ich mich KEINE EINZIGE SEKUNDE mehr mit diesem Scheißthema beschäftigen. Diskutierst Du etwa auch superdupergerne mit Holocaustleugnern? Aaah! Wie krank!Wie auch immer.Hol' das Stöckchen!!!"A steel beam on the 13th floor, NIST claims, caused a steel girder attached to Column 79 to break loose. Having lost its support, Column 79 failed, and this failure started a chain reaction, in which all 82 of the building’s steel columns failed. [51]Without getting into the question of whether this is even remotely plausible, let us just focus on the question: Why did that girder fail?It failed, NIST said, because it was not connected to the floor slab with sheer studs. NIST wrote:In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders.Floor beams . . . had shear studs, but the girders that supported the floor beams did not have shear studs.This point was crucial to NIST’s answer to a commonly asked question: Why did fire cause WTC 7 to collapse, when fire had never before brought down steel-framed high-rise buildings, some of which had had much bigger and longer-lasting fires? NIST’s answer was: differences in design.One of those crucial differences, NIST stated repeatedly, was “the absence of [girder] shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint.”But this was a fabrication on NIST’s part. How can we know this? All we need to do is to look at NIST’s Interim Report on WTC 7, which it had published back in 2004, before it had developed its theory of girder failure.This report stated that girders as well as the beams had been attached to the floor by means of shear studs. [52]We have here as clear a case of fabrication as one will see, with NIST simply making up a fact in order to meet the needs of its new theory."

+schmuiStand doch eigentlich alles schon in meinen vorherigen Antworten. Vielleicht hast du ja das Update nicht gesehen. Hier nochmals:"Ich unterrichte Physik, Chemie und Mathematik. Da hat immer wieder ein wenig Zeit übrig. Natürlich recherchiere ich auch gerne.Ausserdem fällt mir das schreiben leicht, deshalb geht das gar nicht so lange wie du denkst."Meine Motivation ist gemischter Natur. Einerseits diskutiere ich gerne. Andereseits lerne ich immer mal wieder etwas dazu in diesen Diskussionen. Diese Diskussionen motivieren mich zusätzlich über gewisse Themen zu informieren.Hinzu kommt, dass ich denke, dass ich eine Meinung vertrete, die in solchen Diskussionen oft unterrepräsentiert ist. Naturwissenschaftler gibt es nunmal nicht viele und sie verbringen ihre Zeit meist nicht auf solchen Webseiten. Die meisten Menschen informieren sich leider nicht über Skeptizismus, die wissenschaftliche Methodik oder psychologische Erkenntnisse. Auch das ist ein Grund für meine Kommentare und meine Playlist.Im Grunde genommen ist es mir egal zu welcher Meinung du kommst. Solange du wenigstens die Themengebiete kennst, die ich erwähnt habe(Skeptizismus, Recherche, Psychologie, wissenschaftliche Methodik). Dann hast du meiner Meinung nach die Grundwerkzeuge, um dir eine reife Meinung zu bilden.Natürlich kann bin auch ich nicht 100% sicher was 9/11 betrifft. Die Sicherheit, die man in der Naturwissenschaft erreicht, kann man natürlich nicht erreichen, wenn es um Zeitungsartikel, Geschichten etc. geht. Da es offensichtlich schwierig ist, diese Dinge selbst nachzuprüfen(auch die Qualität der Daten ist oft schlecht). Wenn es um solche Dinge geht muss man also mit einer gewissen Unsicherheit leben können.Beantwortet das deine Fragen?Bei meiner Meinung geht es übrigens auch um Menschen, die von Terroristen umgebracht wurden. Da könnte ich doch genauso schockiert sein wie du. Bin ich aber nicht. Ausserdem zieht die Regierung der USA auch ohne 9/11 allerlei krumme Dinge ab. Guantanamo, Massenüberwachung, die zahllosen Kriege, die die USA angezettelt hat, die zahlreichen zivilen Opfer, die die USA verursacht hat, das bewusste Eingreifen von Grosskonzernen in die Politik der USA, um Massnahmen gegen die globale Erwärmung zu verhindern und die Bevölkerung zu belügen etc. Diese Liste könnte ich endlos weiterführen und diese Dinge sind sehr gut dokumentiert. Wir stehen vor einer schweren Zeit und ich denke wir sollten uns auf die tatsächlichen/gut gesicherten Probleme fokusieren.Noam Chomsky ist in dieser Beziehung zu empfehlen.

+stau ffapWtf. Ok, na dann hau mal raus. Warum hast Du so unglaublich viel Zeit für den ganzen Scheiß und warum ist es Dir ein derartiges Anliegen?Bitte keine Gegenfrage. Warum ich so vehement meine Meinung vertrete, dürfte klar sein: Wenn ich richtig liege, wurden tausende Amerikaner von ihrer eigenen Regierung ermordet (+ hunderttausende "Ölaugen", aber die zählen ja nicht so richtig, nech?).Wenn Du hingegen Recht hast, bin ich halt ein Verschwörungstheoretiker. So wie die Leute, die die Mondlandung anzweifeln, Chemtrails filmen und/oder behaupten, ihre Nachbarn wären CIA/FBI/Mossad-Agenten. Diese Menschen bedrohen weder die nationale, noch die internationale Sicherheit. Punkt. Wirst Du wahrscheinlich auch gleich stichhaltig widerlegen, was auch immer.Also noch einmal: Was ist Deine Motivation und warum hast Du überhaupt so extrem viel Zeit um den ganzen Kram zu recherchieren?Ich bin gespannt.

+schmuiDeutsch ist kein Problem. Ich unterrichte Physik, Chemie und Mathematik. Da hat immer wieder ein wenig Zeit übrig. Natürlich recherchiere ich auch gerne. Ausserdem fällt mir das schreiben leicht, deshalb geht das gar nicht so lange wie du denkst.

+stau ffap Ugh! This gets very annoying. I'd rather switch to my native language (German) right now but I doubt that you'd be able to do that. So fuck it, just one more thing: What's your day job? Seems like you have a lot of time to investigate (like, A LOT. Way more than I have.), so I'm assuming that it's either your job OR that you're unemployed.I'm a painter. What's your occupation?

+schmui"When you're finished, google "Operation Northwoods" and "Gleiwitz incident" in case you go "Oh my gawd, why would anyone do this?!""It's pretty naive to think, that simply because i don't believe in your flawed 9/11 hypothesis, that i automatically believe, that i automatically trust the government. In fact, i don't trust the US government (and the media) at all. But that's mainly due to the fact, that the US has become a plutocracy. It's laughable anyways to think, that the US is a democracy with the amount of corruption, that is going on and the kind of system you have. Look at switzerland. That's a democracy. Money and greed is poisoning your country(many countries in fact). But unlike your flawed 9/11 hypothesis, there's hard evidence for this. There's a clear motive and there are numerous documented cases of how money corrupts the system and causes inequalities of all kinds."Well, it's most likely if the other options are pretty much impossible. I guess if you use nano thermite combined with an explosive it might be quiet(!) possible. That's actually the part I'm scratching my head about because I simply don't know since THERE WAS NO SERIOUS INVESTIGATION."By the way, nano thermite also explodes, so it's anything but quiet. If combined with explosives it will be even louder. You may have been talking about normal thermite, which doesn't explode.Then of course there are other things, that don't make sense. They've already successfully flown Airplanes into the buildings. Why would they have to cause the collapse of the buildings as well? Why is that so important? And if they wanted to bring down WTC 7 then how did they plan it? How did they calculate with certainty that it would catch fire? Obviously fires would have been needed to cover for the controlled demolition. This doesn't make any sense to me.Especially since you seem to claim, that the government had something to do with it. Who else would put explosives in there? Despite this claim, you can't even say who exactly it was and why they did it. A motive is missing. The people, who you think planned it are missing.You simply do not have a case, despite years of "investigation" by conspiracy nuts. It's pseudo-sceptical nonsense.You guys don't even agree on anything. You should ask yourself, why there are so many different hypothesis out there. The answer is quite simple. All of those hypothesis are unsupported by solid evidence. That's why no hypothesis has become the dominant one. Some think, that there weren't even planes, but missiles. You're just a confused group of non-experts, that were too lazy to do any real investigation on top of that.Opperation Northwoods is another one of those jokes. The government makes up a lot of those hypothetical scenarios. They are suggestions, that have to be approved. That papers like this have been written, doesn't mean, that they will all become reality.And i already know your next line. "You have to be a fool to think, that this is a coincident!". To that i'd simply answer, that we're seven billion people on this planet. All kinds of freak coincidences happen all the time, that's to be expected. Therefore you need more to connect such a paper(one of many such papers with different hypothetical scenarios) to an incident like 9/11.

+schmuiSeriously? You had to copy and paste the whole thing in here, instead of just sending a link? And you can't even present the facts by yourself?It seems that all you're able to do is parrot what other people are saying. Apparently you're unable to think for yourself.So, it's no wonder, that you fall for people like kevin ryan.You do realise, that you haven't presented any evidence, i hope. You just presented an interview with a guy, that doesn't provide any hard evidence.Let me just take some examples and show you how weak this guys claims really are:"So, to begin with the columns being severed: NIST did admit that only a small percentage of the columns were severed. It was 14% of the columns in the First Tower, and 15% in the Second Tower. (When we talk about columns in the Towers, we’re talking about 47 core columns - very supermassive core columns - and then over 200 perimeter columns.) So when 14% were severed, that left far more capacity of the building to support its own load. This was made clear by the design claims from the original engineering design, and reported in the Engineering News Record back at the time when the buildings were constructed. The original design claims included that one could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building and part way from the corners of perpendicular sides, and the building would still withstand its loads in a 100-mile-per-hour wind from any direction. That really puts this 14% and 15% column loss in perspective. The design claims show that 25% of the columns could be lost without problem."This is absolutely ridiculous. He has done no modelling to my knowledge. The world trade center has a highly complex structure. Furthermore the building is burning. The temperature leads to the expansion of steel. Steel at some places is hotter than in other places, which leads to huge additional forces in the structure itself, that adds to the strain of the weight of the building. The structural damage to the World Trade Center Structue together with the thermal expansion, creep stresses(plasticity) and the weakening of steel create a very complex static situation. It must be clear to any person with experience in physics, that this a a highly complex problem, that can't be answered the way he tried to do it."...would still withstand its loads in a 100-mile-per-hour wind from any direction"Apart from the fact that the source is missing. We have no idea how this figure was calculated and whether it was accurate. Additionally this figure most certainly assumes, that the building isn't on fire. Which just adds to the absurdity of the claims.Just look at the primary school math he uses. It's a joke and i'm offended, that you're even presenting me childish nonsense like this. It just shows how naive and uneducated you really are(in physics at least)."In summary, 38 of 59 columns of the north wall, three of 59 columns of the south wall, and nine of 47 core columns were severed or heavily damaged."That would be 19% and not 15% of the core columns. Did he make those numbers up?//www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101366  , page 313I examined the first point he tried to make and showed you how childish his standards for "evidence" are. I can go on though. It stays pretty much as naive as it started.

+stau ffapWhen you're finished, google "Operation Northwoods" and "Gleiwitz incident" in case you go "Oh my gawd, why would anyone do this?!"After you've done that: Shut the fuck up.

+stau ffapWell, it's most likely if the other options are pretty much impossible. I guess if you use nano thermite combined with an explosive it might be quiet(!) possible. That's actually the part I'm scratching my head about because I simply don't know since THERE WAS NO SERIOUS INVESTIGATION.Now would you please either address the multiple inaccuracies of the NIST report or shut the fuck up? Thanks.Compare the following to the NIST report. Oh and PLEASE don't ask me to provide you a link to the NIST report you lazy piece of schnitzel!Alright, here we go. There are also several other articles but this will do:Today is the 14th of August 2014, and it’s my great pleasure yet again to be speaking to Kevin Ryan, who many of you will remember joined us earlier this year to talk about his book Another Nineteen : Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects. Today of course we’re going to be speaking about a different area of 9/11 research, but just before we get on to that, let me remind listeners about Kevin. Kevin Ryan is one of the most widely respected 9/11 researchers. In 2004 he was fired from his position as Site Manager for Environmental Testing Division of Underwriters Laboratories for asking questions about that company’s testing of the World Trade Center construction materials, as well as that company’s involvement in the WTC investigation being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Since being fired for asking questions, he has held prominent positions with many scholarly 9/11 research groups, co-authored several books and many peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject, and he continues to give many presentations and interviews. Kevin, it’s great to be speaking with you again. Thanks very much for joining us on The Mind Renewed.Kevin Ryan: Thank you Julian. It’s great to be with you.JC: Now, today I want to ask you about the reports by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (commonly known as NIST), on its own investigations into the World Trade Center disaster of 2001. I understand that these investigations were commissioned by the US Government in 2002 with the express purpose of (and I’m quoting here): “determining why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” The final report on the Twin Towers came out in 2005, and the final report on building 7 came out in 2008. And I expect that most people would think that such an august institution as NIST would have explained exactly why and how those high-rise buildings collapsed in such a way that would neatly fit with the official story of 9/11. However, in 2011 you gave, I think, a startling presentation at the Toronto Hearings on 9/11 at Ryerson University in Toronto, in which you made, I think, some really quite compelling arguments that NIST had failed in its mission; and, worse than that, you gave the impression that you thought it had been even fraudulent in its work in some respects. So I thought that it would be great if you would come on the show to share with us your reasons for this. We’ll proceed with that in a moment or two, but first, for the sake of listeners who might not have heard you before, could you tell us why you got into this business of questioning the NIST reports, and why did you started questioning the official version of 9/11 at all?KR: Yes, I’d be glad to. My investigation into 9/11 began simply as a series of questions about things that were happening in my country, the United States, in 2003. It was born of the justification for the original Iraq invasion – the Iraq War – in 2003. It was clear to me that the justification for that invasion was based on false premises. The Niger Document about yellow cake, the aluminium tubes – these were coming out as false, even at the time when my Government was using them to justify a war. So I wondered when that sort of deception began; and it made me recall some comments made by the CEO of the company where I worked, Underwriters Laboratories, who had told us when he visited our location that the company had tested and certified the steel used to build the World Trade Center Towers. That got me interested in the story of what happened on 9/11, because 9/11 was really the driving force behind this new War on Terror that was doing so much to change our values, and doing so much in general around the world. So I began looking more into the events of 9/11 and learned that there were really quite a lot of serious questions about how the three building – three skyscrapers at Ground Zero in Manhattan – had fallen.I began to ask more questions about that testing that our CEO had referred to. It would have been testing done forty years earlier when the buildings were constructed to ensure what’s called fire resistance. This is a kind of testing in which floor assemblies and column assemblies are put into a big testing furnace, and they’re tested per a standard called ASTM E119, which rates the components for a certain amount of fire resistance. In the case of the WTC Towers they were tested to the 1968 New York City code which required that the floors would withstand two hours of intense fire in the furnace, and that the columns would withstand three hours of fire in the furnace. One of the big contradictions with the facts of 9/11 is that one of the Twin Towers completely collapsed in only 56 minutes which, given that the official account was a fire, contradicted the facts of what happened. So after a year of questioning my company, I ended up writing to the Government agency NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), asking them about the investigation that they were conducting and that my company was helping with, and asking them to clarify some of these contradictions. I was fired from my job for having done that. I went on from there to become a researcher into 9/11 in my spare time. I spent the next ten years (almost ten years so far) going into great detail into the events of 9/11 – not just at the World Trade Center, but otherwise as well.JC: Were you questioning what Underwriters Laboratories was actually doing themselves for NIST?KR: Yes, I was. At the time I was trying to be really helpful. I felt I was trying to protect my company’s reputation, actually; although I was increasingly suspicious that something was going on that was not above board. So I asked about things like the Pancake Theory, which was at the time the leading theory for how the Towers actually collapsed (that the floors could not withstand their load due to the fire, the floors collapsed after sagging, and then the columns were just simply unsupported and they collapsed as well). Unfortunately for that theory in August of 2004, just before I wrote to the Government agency, my company had done testing that disproved that Pancake Theory. They built models of exact replicas of the floor assemblies from the WTC Towers; put them in the furnaces and did testing, stripping off all of the fire-proofing for the most part (basically no fire-proofing); they loaded the floors with twice the load known to have existed in the WTC Towers; they raised the temperatures well beyond what would have been seen in the WTC Towers; and yet still the floors did not fail to hold their load. The Pancake Theory really at that time was defeated, and it took years before everyone admitted that. But it was clear in August of 2004 that the Pancake Theory was no longer viable. So I asked about that and other tests that NIST was doing.JC: Is it right that the Pancake Theory is not actually part of the NIST report on the Twin Towers, because that went beyond their remit?KR: They performed the tests and show in detail the test results, but they don’t come out and call it the Pancake Theory and that this is what they were trying to do. The earlier investigation, which was conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and ASCE, the American Society of Civil Engineers, did define the Pancake Theory, but NIST did not support it later. That’s probably because they could not support it with their physical testing.JC: Would that be true of the Pile Driver Theory as well?KR: Well, the fact is NIST ultimately did not live up to their charter. You stated the charter of the NIST investigation at the beginning of the programme: they were to explain how and why all three buildings collapsed. What they actually did was to provide what they call the “collapse initiation sequence”. They failed to explain the actual dynamics of the collapse. So what they provided ultimately was a sequence that led up to what they proposed was an inevitable collapse of each building. What I did in my Toronto Hearings presentation was to look in detail at that collapse initiation sequence for the Towers, and examine whether or not each of the steps for that sequence was valid.JC: Let’s turn to some of those specific steps. I’m going to list the seven steps that you mention and then ask you to comment on each in turn. You said that this is what NIST claims:1/ a number of columns were severed by aircraft impact;2/ loads were redistributed to the remaining columns;3/ fireproofing was widely dislodged;4/ columns and floor assemblies were softened by high temperatures;5/ softened floor assemblies began to sag;6/ sagging floors pulled the exterior columns inwards causing columns to buckle, and7/ instability then spread around the exterior of the building.You have disagreement with each of those points, so let me start with the columns and the loads: “a number of columns were severed by aircraft impact, and loads were redistributed to the remaining columns.” What problem do you have with this?KR: Well, let me step back just for a second and mention that this was the only time in history that any building had ever collapsed completely from fire. On that day three instances – the only instances ever – occurred. That’s why we’re looking at the evidence that the Government would present for this explanation that would support the political policies; and we’re looking in detail.So, to begin with the columns being severed: NIST did admit that only a small percentage of the columns were severed. It was 14% of the columns in the First Tower, and 15% in the Second Tower. (When we talk about columns in the Towers, we’re talking about 47 core columns – very supermassive core columns – and then over 200 perimeter columns.) So when 14% were severed, that left far more capacity of the building to support its own load. This was made clear by the design claims from the original engineering design, and reported in the Engineering News Record back at the time when the buildings were constructed. The original design claims included that one could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building and part way from the corners of perpendicular sides, and the building would still withstand its loads in a 100-mile-per-hour wind from any direction. That really puts this 14% and 15% column loss in perspective. The design claims show that 25% of the columns could be lost without problem.JC: Let me throw in here something I mentioned to you before the interview. Bažant and Verdure wrote an article in 2007 called Mechanics of Progressive Collapse, in which they looked at the Twin Towers collapses. In it, they say that 13% of the total 287 columns were severed, but they also say: “…and many more were significantly deflected.” What that means I’m not quite sure, but then they say: “This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, attaining or nearing the load capacity for some of them.” So they’re giving the impression there that there was this extra deflection of columns, which goes beyond this 13/14/15% that you’ve just talked about.KR: Yes, so that does highlight an issue that independent researchers have had over the years. We’re given a number of different and conflicting official explanations through the Government agencies FEMA and NIST, and we wait patiently for those explanations to come out. That’s what we did in the case of the NIST Report. Then we also have either media, or other official story supporters like professor Bažant, coming up with additional information that’s not supported, or not cited by the official investigation. You gave an example there: this idea of a much greater percentage of columns being deflected or weakened in some way was not part of the official investigation, or its explanation for what happened. So we don’t necessarily look to try to answer every possible theory that could be put out there, but try to focus on the official investigation itself. So if professor Bažant could give more detail on exactly what the load reduction capacity was in specific quantitative detail, then perhaps NIST could look at that and say: “Yes, we agree with that, or No”; but I don’t believe that’s happened.JC: You quote from one article – written, I think, by those who were actually involved in the design work in the first place back in the 1960s – that these loads on some of the perimeter columns could be increased by more than 2000% before failure occurs.KR: That’s right. That was part of the Engineering News Record reports as well. One thing to remember is what the people who designed the building said. In 1993 (after the 1993 bombing of the WTC Towers), John Skilling, who was Lead Engineer for the design of the buildings, said that, given the exact occurrence of a jet airliner impacting the Towers (even though a lot of people would die because of the jet fuel fires), the Towers would easily withstand an airliner impact. So the people who designed the Towers did not think that an airliner impact would bring the Towers down. The loads, as you said, would be redistributed, given the loss of columns, [but] the safety factor – the over-design of the building – was so great that column loads could be increased more than 2000% according to the Engineering News Record. So far, these first two steps – and I think NIST agrees – are not the critical factors that NIST gave for the collapse of the buildings. At this point in our discussion there’s nothing that would lead us to believe that the Towers would be the first instances of total global collapse from fire.JC: Things really start to kick in with their third point, on fireproofing, which they say was “widely dislodged”. On the surface, that looks reasonable: If a large Boeing 767 were to plough into a building, one might expect something like fireproofing – which one might imagine to be quite flimsy – to be stripped away, such that the fire would have a chance to do its real damage. But what kind of evidence did NIST produce to suggest that that really happened?KR: Well, originally the NIST group did not present any evidence for that; they just stated that. Back in 2004 when I originally questioned NIST directly, their draft report – which is all that they had put out at the time – presented no physical evidence that fireproofing would have been widely dislodged. They said that the Towers would not have collapsed given the impact and the loss of columns and so forth if the insulation had not been widely dislodged. (They say “insulation” when they mean fireproofing.) So some of us asked them: “Well, where’s your physical evidence for this? Where’s the testing?”They did insert a twelve-page appendix in the 2005 final report, describing a test that they performed using a shotgun. It’s a modified shotgun, as if you’d bought it from Walmart or something. They modified it to use different projectiles, and they loaded it with nuts and bolts and so forth. Their test amounted to 15 shots from this shotgun at materials that were placed in a plywood box. They show the pictures in this appendix, and it doesn’t look like the fireproofing has been sheared very significantly in the photographs. But, more important, it turns out that the energy required for this was simply not present. All of the available kinetic energy was consumed in severing the columns and destroying the aircraft as it hit the building. So, what would have been needed to shear off the fireproofing was another megajoule of energy per square metre, and shotguns pointed in every direction with these tiny little projectiles. Their evidence really isn’t there for that sort of effect; so we’re not convinced at all that that’s what happened.JC: Is there academic research that backs up this claim that there isn’t enough kinetic energy to produce this effect?KR: Yes, I cited calculations done by engineers at MIT. They had done very detailed calculations earlier, before the NIST report came out, showing where the kinetic energy was consumed in the impact, how the aircraft was torn apart, and how the columns were severed. All that made sense at the time. But then when the NIST report came out, and they added this additional appendix, they had an energy deficit. There was no extra energy for all of the shotgun blasts. Frankly, they would have had to strip the fireproofing from huge section of this acre-wide building – five floors worth of building.JC: Does NIST acknowledge the energy deficit in the report?KR: They do not. As I said, they did not even really put the shotgun test in their draft report; they inserted it in the final report, and never really mentioned the energy requirements.JC: Has the MIT article been refuted?KR: No, that article from MIT was not really mentioned either; they glossed over really the entire question.JC: You say that it’s not convincing that a Boeing 767 could transform into this mass of parts and become like a shotgun blast. But when I spoke to Dr. Frank Legge a while ago about the hit at the Pentagon, he described an experiment with an F4 Phantom aircraft which was flown directly at a resistant object, and he said that that was indeed completely fragmented. So, I’m just wondering whether that kind of effect could have produced something analogous to shotgun blasts here, and removed the fireproofing?KR: Yes, I think I know what Dr. Legge was referring to, and I believe I’ve seen the video of the test he mentioned. When we talk about the 767 slamming into the Towers, we’re talking about a plane coming through this perimeter wall, and it has a lot of area to work on, right? In order to support the official story it has to sever the columns; as it’s severing the columns and also moving between the columns, it has to be converted into tiny projectiles (I assume people know what shotgun pellets look like); and then it has to move across a wide area of the building, and from multiple directions be able to shear off fireproofing using shearing forces. So, at this point, it is certainly not proven by any means. But there is a video from Purdue University – another group connected to the official accounts – that shows an animation of what happened, in which it’s very clear (from their perspective) that the debris particles that were created were rather large; they were not small and pellet-sized at all.JC: Let’s turn to step 4, which is the softening and the sagging. This is where the explanation suggests that the floors themselves began to sag due to the extreme heat. They did something called a “paint deformation test” to establish this. What was that test? Can you describe what they did with that?KR: Yes, this is one of the first things that I questioned when I wrote to the Government agency NIST. They had done what is basically a paint-cracking test. They had built a calibration curve by taking steel samples – some of the few steel samples that were saved from the Towers – and they had painted them with WTC primer paint that would have been used on the columns. They exposed those pieces to a range of temperatures, and therefore built this calibration curve with which they could compare the actual materials that were found. They found that the samples that were saved – that had been exposed to the actual fires in the WTC Towers – had seen a temperature of only about 250° centigrade, or Celsius. That’s quite low given the kinds of temperature effects that NIST implies. (250° Celsius is about 480° degrees Fahrenheit.) None of the temperatures reached the 600° Celsius which has frequently been cited as a point at which steel loses half of its strength. (That’s not critical, given that the design of the Towers allowed this huge safety factor as we discussed before.) None of the steel samples reached even the point at which half of the strength would have been lost. When we’re talking about what steel they took and did this comparison with, NIST said it was selecting samples from an enormous amount of steel, and that they were looking at regions of impact and fire damage in that sample selection process. So, given the low temperature result, the 4th step of this collapse initiation sequence – that these temperatures weakened the columns and the floors – doesn’t hold up in terms of examination of the evidence.JC: Could you tell us at what kind of temperature the sagging phenomenon starts to take place?KR: Well, in their floor test the sagging started to occur at temperatures above 1000° Celsius; and that makes some sense. The maximum temperatures that NIST cited in their report were gas temperatures of about 1000° Celsius. But we’re talking about the steel; that steel temperature will lag behind the gas temperature. What they actually showed in the floor model test that UL helped them with was that, if they put the floor models in the furnace and tested per ASTM E119, the temperature would rise, and after about 45 minutes the sagging would begin, but only about 3 inches of sagging would occur at that temperature. If they let it go farther it would sag a bit more, but not nearly up to the point that they reported in their computer model, (which they ended up resorting to, because these physical tests were not really supporting their predetermined conclusions).So, it’s a strange question: To what temperature would it have to rise to meet the predetermined objective of NIST? The fact is, the floors in these test models did not do what NIST was implying they might do. You could see in the pictures that after 45 minutes, and even after the tests were finished, the floors had barely sagged at all.JC: And yet, when I turn back to that article by Bažant and Verdure, they say that “[b]ecause a significant amount of steel insulation was stripped” – (they make that claim) – “many structural steel members heated up to 600°C”. They then go on to say that “at 600°C” “about 85%” of the yield strength is lost. So they’re claiming that many structural steel members did in fact get up to that temperature.KR: Yes, as we see in the NIST Report – the NCSTAR1-3C and NCSTAR1-3E reports – the physical tests show that none of the steel samples taken from the Towers reached a temperature of 600°Celsius. So there is absolutely no evidence for what professor Bažant is contending. None of the steel recovered from the WTC Towers and tested by NIST reached the temperature of 600° Celsius; there is simply no physical evidence for that contention.JC: Well, it’s amazing that you say that, because that quote actually references the NIST study. It says, “NIST 2005” : “many structural steel members heated up to 600° C, as confirmed by annealing studies of steel debris (NIST 2005)”.KR: Yes, so it’s clear there’s a problem there. They make it very clear in their report that they did this paint deformation test, and also a steel microstructure test. A steel microstructure test shows very clearly that if anything had reached 600° C, it would have formed what are called spheroids; there would have been a steel microstructure effect called spheroidisation. None of the steel samples from the WTC showed that; therefore none of those samples had reached a temperature of 600° Celsius.JC: And yet, in their next step, NIST says that whatever sagging of floor assemblies did take place, this was sufficient to pull the exterior columns inwards. Bažant and Verdure say this was due to “catenary action” (a lateral force produced by the chain-like curvature of the steel that was able to pull the sides inwards). Do you buy that?KR: No, I don’t buy it, because I’m looking at the direct evidence, not at hypothetical statements as Bažant and company are doing. If you look at the actual physical evidence – again, from the tests that my Company, UL, did on behalf of NIST for their investigation – you see that, when the floor assemblies were put in the furnaces and tested for the standard test, the sagging of the floors was only about 3 inches in the middle of the 35-foot-long span of floor assembly. This was with basically all the fireproofing removed. They had a series of models made with decreasing amounts of fireproofing applied, and even the one that basically had no fireproofing on it only sagged about 3 inches in the middle, and the major joist parts did not sag at all.The problem with the NIST report is that, with all these physical tests failing to support their contentions, they turn to a computer model. (By the way, NIST is not willing to share that with the public.) They show these computer model images in their report, and they turn this 3 inches of sagging into a dramatic 42 inches of sagging, with the joists bending down severely. At this point, it really begins to show that NIST was more political science than physical science; people begin to believe that they were intending simply to support the political policy of their bosses. They reported directly to the Department of Commerce, and to the President, so it’s not terribly surprising to some people that they would do this sort of thing. To turn away from the physical evidence and create a computer model that contradicts the physical evidence (and which they’re not willing to share with the public) – that’s where we begin to believe that we are looking at scientific fraud.JC: I said to you before the interview that I checked out the computer scenario that you’re referencing. Is it “DBARE” in the NCSTAR 1-6, Chapter 4?KR: Yes, that’s one of the cases in the computer model.JC: I did notice that they ran this model with no insulation, at 598° centigrade, for a massive 90 minutes. Do you think that’s all quite unreasonable?KR: I really do, and obviously as we stated there’s no physical evidence that the fireproofing was stripped off. Even if it had been, the floor models test show that the floors would not have sagged as much as the computer showed they did. The steel temperatures did not reach 600° Celsius per the steel temperature tests, so obviously that’s incorrect. And the 90 minutes is twice as long as – according to the NIST Report – the areas of failure could have seen. The fires in the WTC Towers had to migrate around the core of the building in order to reach the areas where initial failure was said to have occurred. So, in the North Tower for example, the plane hit the north side of the building and had to migrate around to the south face of the building where the initial failure – according to NIST – occurred. That migration time would have allowed for only about 45 minutes of fire at the failure zone. So, to expose their computer-generated segments to 90 minutes of fire, which is twice as long, at temperatures that far exceeded what the physical evidence showed, and stripping off all the fireproofing when there’s no evidence for that, is quite unbelievable. It gets worse than that, as I think you might have seen.JC: You mention disconnecting the floors and then applying an imaginary pull-in force. What’s that?KR: Yes, if you look at this report NCSTAR1-6, the computer model that justified the NIST contentions was based on these segments of wall assembly that were ultimately disconnected from the floors. So that raises the alarming question that NIST’s sequence of events is dependent on the floors pulling this wall inward, and of course if they’re disconnected that can’t possibly happen in the real world. So one might wonder: Why would they do that? And the reason, I believe, is that the wall assemblies were this incredible grid of supported structure; if a floor had sagged – it didn’t, but if it did – it would have had a limited ability to pull in a floor, because the floors and the walls formed this interconnected grid. All of the floors would have had to sag. Had that happened, there would still have been support from the surrounding structure. So, I think they had to disconnect the floor models to give even an indication that the wall might have pulled in (using a force that frankly did not exist if the floors were not connected).JC: So, is the idea that the sagging pulled in the sides, and then a disconnection phenomenon happened almost instantaneously in order to allow the collapse to take place?KR: Well, in order for the inward pull of the wall to occur, the floors would have had to be connected. Unfortunately, in the model, the disconnection occurred before the inward pull was applied, so that’s an indication of just blatant fraud in my opinion.JC: And is the scenario that they rely upon for their explanation?KR: That’s right. That’s right.JC: And yet we have Bažant and Verdure saying that these were “meticulous, exhaustive and very realistic computer simulations”.KR: Well, those are impressive adjectives, but what we really need is evidence in order to support this critical story – this explanation that drives all public policy, or did at the time, in all of the wars. We really need evidence, and we need to be objective.JC: Then we have this final step where the claim is that “instability spread around the building”. My immediate reaction to that is: If it was happening all the way around the building, you might have this uniform symmetrical collapse, but wouldn’t that have to happen almost instantaneously?KR: That’s right. I considered myself how quickly this instability would have had to spread, so I gave the example of the North Tower. If, on the south face of the Tower, the columns began to be pulled inward and therefore the building began to collapse on one side, then in order to see the uniform collapse that we saw – perfectly vertical, uniform collapse – that instability would have had to spread around the other walls of the building in approximately half a second, or less, of the ten-second fall time that we saw. Now, that’s twice or several times the speed of sound; it doesn’t make sense that that sort of physical deformation would be able to travel at that speed.JC: Then we’re left with this phrase: “global collapse ensued”. That looks like ‘no further questions asked’.KR: Yes, that gets us back to the fact that many of the questions are left unanswered. The buildings’ fall time itself, approximately 10 to 12 seconds according to NIST, seems to defy the idea of the resistance that would have come from the floors below. If each of the floors had caused a hesitation of just half a second, we would need another 40 seconds for the buildings to have collapsed. There should have been some sort of deceleration given the massive structure below, but we didn’t see that. Neither was there any mention of the things people call ‘squibs’, these cannon-like bursts of material that appear to be explosive effects that were occurring 10 to 30 floors below the collapse front. There’s no mention of the molten metal that was pouring from the building, or the rubble piles; and a lot of other evidence was just ignored by NIST simply not addressing the collapse dynamics.JC: Do you feel they only went so far with their investigation because they realised there were so many problems?KR: Yes, I think that’s what happened. That’s my guess.JC: Let’s turn to WTC Building No. 7. Just before we get to this 2008 Final Report, I believe I’m right in saying that the earlier investigation into the collapse of Building 7 considered the role of diesel tanks fuelling the fires in the building, and there was the suggestion that debris from WCT 1 had significantly weakened the structure. But that was all abandoned by NIST, was it not, in its final report?KR: Yes, that’s exactly right. The earlier investigation by FEMA suggested that diesel fuel fires from diesel fuel tanks below the building had a significant effect in causing fire that would burn for a long time and cause the destruction of this third skyscraper, Building 7. It needed to be an unusual explanation because this building was not hit by a plane. It was 47 stories tall, and it fell in basically 7 seconds into its own footprint, so there really needed to be a very solid and convincing case. Thus we saw the diesel fuel fire hypothesis: that damage from the falling North Tower initiated fires, and then somehow initiated the uniform collapse of this third building. We [also] heard that the design of the building over the Con. Ed. substation was somehow impactful. But, as you just mentioned, NIST abandoned, and clearly they took the opposite position on, all three of these early hypotheses. They said that none of those things played a significant role in the collapse of this building. They ultimately said it was basically an office fire. They didn’t make it really clear how the office fire began, but they did say that it was an office fire that brought this building down.JC: What was their investigative approach like with Building 7? Did they concentrate on physical testing and use photographic evidence, or did they again mostly rely on computer modelling?KR: They did rely on computer modelling; in fact they did no additional physical testing. We talked about the report for the Towers that came out in September of 2005. It was after yet another three years, September of 2008, that the report for Building 7 came out. They had disconnected that report from their investigation. They were clearly having trouble with it. In 2006 the lead investigator was reported saying that they had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7. They didn’t know what had occurred as of 2006, which was very surprising given that in 2008 they knew exactly what happened in their final report.JC: Something that always sticks in my mind is a quote by David Coburn of Popular Mechanics. In the BBC’s Conspiracy Theory program on 9/11 (in 2007, I think), the presenter says, “But it does look exactly like a controlled demolition, to which David Coburn replies: “I understand why people might think that. I see what they’re saying, but when you learn the facts about the way the building was built, and about the way it supported itself, and the damage that was done from the collapsing towers that preceded it, the idea that it was a demolition just holds no water.” So, he was giving the impression that he really did completely understand how that building came down, but you’re saying that at that time, in 2007, NIST itself wasn’t sure.KR: That’s right. Shyam Sunder, who was the lead investigator for NIST, was interviewed for New York Magazine in 2006, and he stated they really didn’t know what happened to Building 7. Yet, a year later, you’re saying that a media representative – who I would assume is much less technically competent – was very well-versed on exactly what happened. This is the field of play that those of us interested in getting to the truth of the matter have to deal with: we’ve had the official investigations, and yet also these media representatives lobbing various competing and, in some cases, conflicting ideas to the public; and people trying to deal with all of that at the same time.JC: Yes. OK, I want to give an impression of NIST’s basic narrative for Building 7. I shall list what you said in your Toronto presentation and then ask you to flesh it out a little. You said that they say: “Thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the north-east corner of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Column 79 to 44 to the West on the 13th Floor. This movement was enough for the girder to walk off its support at Column 79.” Now, there’s a lot to take in there. Could you flesh that out and give us a clearer picture of what they’re saying?KR: Yes. After abandoning those earlier hypotheses, NIST began to look at what might have been the initiating event, so again they went back to what they felt initiated the event. So, looking at videos and photographs, at least at the beginning, NIST noticed that there was a kink in the building at the east side, which appeared to be underneath one of the core columns, or some of the core columns of the building. They hypothesised that this would have been around Column 79. (Each column in the building had a number.) Column 79 is one of the core columns, not in the middle but towards the east side of the building. [So, they reasoned], if you see the building kinking, that point must have been where the failure occurred. (Looking at the video [though], you have to notice the perfect symmetry – other than this minor kinking on the east side of the building – coming down looking exactly like a controlled demolition as cited by almost everyone who sees it.)NIST came up with something based on what we call linear thermal expansion. Materials like steel expand, if you heat them up, and they expand linearly (in the sense of axially) according to the length of the column. That’s what’s happening in their hypothesis. In each of the floors there are massive beams that hold up the concrete in the floor pans in the building. NIST has hypothesised that there was a fire that occurred on Floor 12, which heated up the floor of Floor 13; that caused these floor beams to expand a few inches along their 53-foot length; and when doing that these beams butted up against what’s called a girder (which is another structural component in the floor). The idea is that a few inches of expansion broke some bolts and pushed this one girder off its seat, and that caused this critical Column 79 to be unsupported in some way; the column then buckled and failed; and that led to complete collapse of the building in seven seconds. Now, that’s a stretch to believe in itself. But we have to investigate, because we’re trying to be objective and look at the evidence: Is it possible that that would have occurred? That’s what I tried to do in my presentation.JC: Yes, I’ll ask you about the details in a moment. Let me first ask: Is their idea in the report that the internal structure failed and fell ahead of the external structure, falling such that you could have this free fall?KR: They do imply that, yes. They suggest that it was like an empty box with all the internal structure not really connected to the outside of the box. I mean, they had to explain how this building could have come down so quickly, and they did imply in the report that all the internal guts of the building just collapsed, and then the empty box around it collapsed. Of course, that doesn’t make sense either, because the columns were all connected together; everything was connected to the exterior of the building. There was no internal building within an external shell, so that doesn’t really hold up either. But we have to keep going back to exactly what they’re saying to see if any of it supports itself. So far, with the Towers, we’ve seen that it didn’t, and I believe that’s what I showed as well with Building 7.JC: OK, now one of the points that you make is that their fire theory actually contradicted what was known about the fire resistance plan for the building.KR: Yes, my company, Underwriters Laboratories, is cited directly in the NIST WTC 7 Report as having performed the fire resistance testing for the steel components in the building. According to the New York City Code, the building should have withstood hours of fire, and yet we’re given this failure-caused-by- thermal-expansion-due-to-fire hypothesis that contradicts that fire resistant certification. There are additional complications too. The NIST Group, in their interim meetings, stated clearly that in a given area of the building there was only 20-minutes worth of fire load. So the fire had to migrate throughout the building. But in a given area, for example near Column 79 on Floor 12, there was only approximately 20-minutes worth of fuel for the fire to consume. So, if we’re talking about hours of fire resistance and 20 minutes of fire load, they directly contradict each other.JC: And all the fireproofing presumably was intact?KR: That’s exactly right. NIST does not contend that fireproofing loss occurred in Building 7, so these are fully fireproofed steel components that somehow failed due to fire.JC: And you say somewhere that, although the sprinkler system apparently wasn’t working, that system did actually allow for an external water source to be added in an emergency. And the fire crews were around; they could have added that.KR: Yes, they don’t go into a great deal of detail on that. A lot of people have said that the sprinkler system in the building was not functioning, but it’s clear that there was a possibility of making it functional. That was just not done.JC: Let’s concentrate on this thermal expansion, and discuss the shear studs as well. Could you explain how important these shear studs are to this whole study?Why did NIST say one thing at one time, and then seem to change its mind about it?KR: shear studs are basically large bolts that are set in the floors. They connect the floor assemblies, the pans, to the floor beams. NIST originally stated that most of the beams and girders were made composite with the floor slabs, so there were shear studs. In 2004 they said they did exist, and then in 2008, when NIST put out their final report, they contradicted themselves saying shear studs were not installed on the girders. The point here is that, if this linear thermal expansion occurred, it would have had to be what’s called differential linear thermal expansion for it to have any effect; that is, the floor beam and the floor slab would have had to expand at different rates, and the shear studs prevented that, so they made them composite. They made them as one piece. It’s kind of technical, but the fact is that NIST contradicted itself on these shear studs. They also contradicted an academic report made by a man named Salvorinus who was Project Manager for the engineering company that built the buildings. His diagram and his academic paper made it clear that these girders did in fact have shear studs on them. The point is that NIST, as it went on, was trying to get closer and closer to some possibility that this linear thermal expansion could cause even this beginning, initiating event, and they were having trouble and having to contradict themselves to do it.JC: You’re saying that they had to get rid of the shear studs in order for this phenomenon of differential thermal expansion to account for the collapse?KR: That’s right. They had to get rid of the shear studs. Frankly, they had to ignore a lot of other connections, because when we talk about this girder moving off its seat, it was bolted and welded to the seat. So, this linear thermal expansion had to create enough force to break all these shear studs and the bolts that were on the seat, and the welding points on the steel. It had to break all of that in order for this critical girder to move off of its seat and fall to the floor.JC: This differential thermal expansion between the steel and the concrete was necessary to produce this effect.KR: That’s right, because the floors were all composite. We’re talking about a huge floor slab, right? It would resist the linear thermal expansion of the individual floor beams. The floor slab is this huge concrete and steel pan structure, so if it was connected to the floor beams it would have resisted that; and in fact for the linear thermal expansion to occur by just a few inches, it would have had to break those shear studs off.JC: Is it true that the concrete and the steel have quite a difference in the rate of expansion under heat?KR: That’s exactly right. There are differences in the expansion capacity of the different materials. That would have created problems for the steel expanding differentially and causing the effect that NIST said that it did. There’s one other thing: there was some input to the NIST report after it came out from some professors in Australia who had actually tested the exact linear thermal expansion effect that NIST was citing; and they came out clearly saying that that was not their experience in their testing. They had done actual physical tests – the kinds of tests that NIST should have done – to see if this linear thermal expansion would have occurred; and it would not have occurred according to these professors from Victoria University in Australia.JC: That’s interesting. I’m trying to understand this. So they’re saying that that phenomenon did not occur under their testing, and yet you say this differential expansion does generally happen. I don’t understand how that works.KR: Well, no I don’t necessarily say… Linear thermal expansion is not a new effect. It is something that can occur. All materials expand when they’re heated, but I’m not contending that that did occur in WTC Building 7 – certainly not from 20 minutes worth of fire, and not on fireproof steel components. I believe that it did not occur. But even if it had, the idea is that these beams composite with the floor would be susceptible to failure is something that these professors from Australia are challenging. There are certain restraints that do occur when these things are connected. It may be too complicated for us to get into in this interview, but basically the linear thermal expansion would not ever occur due to this restraining force from the floor slab.But what makes it even more difficult to believe is that, in the computer model, NIST actually didn’t heat the floor slab. We’ve got a composite structure that’s connected with shear studs, and what NIST does in its computer is to heat simply part of the structure: the beams below. Again, they heat to temperatures that are not supported by any physical evidence, but they don’t heat the concrete floor slab above. That’s what they feel causes the differential linear thermal expansion at a greater degree. But, of course, if you don’t heat the floor slab you’re not really reflecting anything realistic.JC: Yes, I was just thinking that. Is there any way in which the fire could have heated just the steel without heating the concrete?KR: Well, it would have had to heat the steel beams, but not the steel pans upon which the floor slab was lying. But they’re right next to each other, so it would need to have been some sort of torch effect that doesn’t make a lot of sense given the effects of a normal office fire.JC: Now that NIST has its results, has it issued any recommendations to the building industry? Have these been taken up by the architects and engineers?KR: I wrote a paper on that a year or two ago called Are Tall Buildings Safer as a Result of the NIST WTC Reports? It’s a very good question. If the NIST World Trade Center reports are in fact legitimate, then we have a problem: any tall building that experiences an office fire, as World Trade 7 did, can collapse in a matter of seconds; thus we have a critical safety problem. We would need to retrofit around the world.The NIST Group did make a number of recommendations related to what happened with the WTC collapse: from the evacuation to the elevators, and all sorts of things. [But] our greatest interest must be in the things that led to the supposed collapse of the building: thermal differential expansion, for example. [But] when we look at the municipal codes, and what building professionals have adopted, they have not adopted any of the recommendations related to the supposed collapse initiation of either the Towers or Building 7. That is an indication that the building community is not taking the NIST WTC reports seriously. That goes for the recommendations for the Towers, as well as for things like increasing fireproofing, bond strengths, or anything like that that might have some relation to what happened to the Towers. The building community has not adopted any recommendations related to those things. So that’s an indication. There are a lot of reasons why we can’t believe NIST’s report. They’ve ignored previous findings; they didn’t do any physical test to confirm the explanation of the Building 7; the fire hypothesis is contradicted by the fire-resistance plan that existed; based entirely on computer simulations that we can’t see, and that are not based on evidence, and so forth and so on. It’s just really completely unbelievable.JC: You say it’s not possible to get hold of the data that they used for their computer modelling. Was this the request that was made, to which NIST responded by saying: We’re not going to give you this information because it might “jeopardize public safety”? Is that the one?KR: That’s the one, yes. Structural engineer Ron Brookman, a fellow board director of mine at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, had made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to NIST in 2009. He asked for all the calculations and the analysis related to this central claim of NIST that the girder walked off its seat. NIST ultimately responded to Ron Brookman saying that they’re going to withhold the thousands of files related to that because the NIST Director had determined that the data might jeopardise public safety.JC: I don’t quite see how that could possibly jeopardise public safety. In fact it seems to me to be quite the opposite really.KR: Yes, that’s what I would think: this is all about safety, and people need to know so that this sort of thing doesn’t happen again. Instead, what we’re finding is that they’re concealing the information that leads to their conclusions, because for some reason that information itself might jeopardise the public safety.JC: Is it right that with Building 7 they didn’t actually look at the possibility of thermite being used? I understand that Steven E. Jones had identified the residues of thermite before NIST’s final report on Building 7 came out. But I understand that they didn’t consider that.KR: That’s true. They were forced to make some statement in what they call a FAQ response. They made a kind of weak hand-waving statement about thermite, saying that if thermite had been used, their hypothesis was that it would have been used in one gigantic bomb placed right next to Column 79; and that would have been too much thermite for anybody to have brought into the building without anybody noticing. To me, that’s a kind of diversionary statement; it’s more a straw man argument.There’s great evidence for thermite at the WTC: molten metal; all of the witnesses to molten metal; the photographic evidence; the fact that the fires could not be put out for five months; the many witnesses to the air being filled with hot burning particles; the numerous vehicles in the area that were scorched by something; and a lot of other evidence, including peer-reviewed scientific research that I’ve helped to produce along with professor Jones. All this leads to the conclusion that thermite – highly-explosive potential – and also incendiary material was present at the WTC.JC: Niels Harrit and his group claimed to have identified nanothermite, a very sophisticated form of thermite, in 2009. But I understand that in 2011 James Millette also looked at dust samples from the WTC collapses, and drew the conclusion that there was actually no evidence for nanothermite.KR: Yes, I’ve heard of this and had some reactions with one or two people on it. James Millette, it turns out, was well-known for having helped create the official reports on the analysis of WTC dust. He had created a form that was used to pre-screen all the materials in the dust (that means selecting some things for analysis and ignoring other things). Then, after the report from Harrit et al came out citing red/grey chips in the dust, Millette was prompted to do a few studies based on some samples he had in his possession. (Because he was one of the official investigators, he had some of this dust.) He did claim that he finally found these red/grey chips, which he had not reported before. He did not cite any of the iron-rich spheres, which essentially every other researcher has identified in the WTC dust. But he did now finally say that he’d found these red/grey chips.What he did was an interesting sort of series of tests that had very little to do with the Harrit paper. The Harrit paper cites approximately ten specific tests that were performed on these red/grey chips; and Millett performed one of those ten tests. Then, something that was very indicative to me, he put them basically in a muffle furnace and ashed them; he brought them up to 400° Celsius and they turned to ash. One of the critical aspects of the red/grey chip analysis was that these chips ignite above 400° Celsius; so at 400° Celsius they would not have turned to ash, according to Harrit, at all. Then, at about 430 degrees Celsius, they would ignite and form these iron-rich spheres, that would form right out of the material itself. That’s an indication of a thermitic reaction, because one of the major products of thermite reaction is molten iron. Millette ignored all of that by putting his materials in a muffle furnace. Then he said they ashed at a temperature below what should have been the ignition temperature. So there’s a lot of questions about these series of tests that Millette did. It has not been peer-reviewed, and it hasn’t been published years later. People cite this unreviewed paper all the time, but what would be better for scientific progress (as with Harrit’s and Jones’s academic papers, that are peer-reviewed and published) would be for a published and peer-reviewed response to be forthcoming in future which actually does replicate the study, and doesn’t do this sort of thing, which doesn’t seem to be very helpful.JC: So I’m getting the impression from everything you’ve said today about NIST that really it’s more of a political organisation than most people would suppose. We tend to think of it as the epitome of science, but the impression I’m getting is that it is compromised politically.KR: That does seem to be the case. Certainly the NIST WTC reports suggest that the NIST scientists – at least with this investigation – were led and directed by political interests.JC: Just before we end, I want to ask you a general question about what you think the state of play is now with the call for 9/11 Truth. Do you think that you, and others who are researching this, are getting to the point now where there’s so much evidence that we really should be seeing a proper investigation? And, if that’s the case, are we actually getting any closer to a proper investigation?KR: Well, I think that people are more open to questions about 9/11 given that it’s been thirteen years since those events. As time passes, wounds heal, and people are not as invested in questions that might contradict their worldview from that long ago. Yes, I do believe we have an opportunity, even this year, to see a legitimate investigation. There’s an initiative in New York City called The High-Rise Safety Initiative in which citizens of New York City have submitted 60,000 signatures on a petition to the City Council of New York to call for the investigation of any high-rise collapse in the city; and this would go back to the events of 2001 – particularly Building 7. They’ve been challenged, because there are politicians in the New York City Council who are trying to reject that petition – to throw out more than half of the signatures obtained; right now there’s a battle going on. People can find the website for High Rise Safety Initiative just by searching on the Internet, and I think there are ways to help.JC: You say there’s a possibility that this might actually go forward this year.KR: Yes, they’re going to court now with the City Council, and if they win, then there will be a vote in November for this new law, which would require investigation going back to the events of Building 7.JC: If this does go ahead, do you have the hope that it would be a fair investigation, or do you think that the political forces would again come and compromise even that?KR: It would be a chance; it would be an opportunity to do a fair investigation – a legitimate investigation.JC: Well, Kevin, thank you ever so much for coming again on the programme. You’ve provided, as you did last time, a wealth of information for us. I think you’ve given us reason enough at least to question the work of NIST in this area; I think you’ve cast a shadow of significant doubt over the idea that the collapses have been satisfactorily explained according to the official story of 9/11. So, I do thank you very much indeed for sharing all this with us, and for coming on the programme again. It’s been good to speak to you.KR: Well, you’re welcome. And thank you for your efforts to get the word out on subject such as this.JC: Thank you ever so much.KR: Thanks Julian.PS: Cognitive dissonance my ass. Do you even know what that means?

+schmuiI forgot, "a controlled demolition" is anything but "likely". It's pretty much the nuttiest of all ideas, since there's countless audio evidence from the incident. But yes sure, i bet they used those very quiet explosives, that we hear about all the time, right? The one they always use when they don't want to disturb people with the ear shattering sound of an explosion.

+schmui"The NIST report is inaccurate and the exact opposite of thorough. Please just read it and compare it to the fucking facts.The simulation of how WTC7 came down is simply incorrect. The possibility of a controlled demolition was never investigated, despite being extremely likely at least."This is useless unless you present the evidence for it. You keep making the same mistake. You make a claim, that you do not back up with evidence. That's why your case so far is so weak. We've seen already, that your proves don't really prove what you say they do. It's very probable therefore, that when i read the NIST report i won't see, what you claim i'm going to see. Then i will have to come back and ask you what you meant anyway. So don't waste time and tell me why you personally believe those things. If you're not interested in that, then it makes no sense whatsoever that you even started this conversation.You feel like being weared down, because the truth hurts. It makes you feel less good about your believe system. It's not my tactic, it's just the effect of my arguments.Or in psychological terms: Cognitive dissonance is a very painfull thing.

+stau ffap "You talk about sabatage and destroyed evidence. I hope, that you do realise, that you need good evidence for that as well and i'd like to see your evdence, that proves sabotage and the destruction of evidence."//www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm"I grant you, that evidence was destroyed. Rather foolishely."See, I don't have the time to do that with every single piece of shit you throw at me. It's more than obvious that you're just trying to wear me down.The NIST report is inaccurate and the exact opposite of thorough. Please just read it and compare it to the fucking facts.The simulation of how WTC7 came down is simply incorrect. The possibility of a controlled demolition was never investigated, despite being extremely likely at least.So before you answer:Review the simulation done by NIST of how WTC7 came down. It's incorrect.You can't explain it away. It's incorrect.For fucks sake.Stop smiling, Reese Witherspoon. It's not funny.AAAH!

+schmuiWhy such a over-emotional speech, instead of just showing me the evidence? Why do you feel the need to be emotional? That doesn't really create trust in our ability to observe things objectively.You just provided a newspaper article as "proof". But lets just assume, that the newspaper article is right and the steel cullums were shipped.This would only be destruction of evidence if they hadn't documented the state, that the ruins were in carefully. You have not presented evidence, that they haven't investigated or documented the ruins before they shipped them. In fact a lot of debris has been brought to fresh kills landfill on staten island. But yes, a large portion of the steel has been shipped abroad and recycled.Now, i don't think, that it's good to ship something like this abroad or recycle it. Especially since so many people will want to be able to see it and maybe examine it. There's still a lot of it in the US though.But that's the way it was handled. You weren't able to prove though, that the NIST report is wrong or that they did it to hide something, which is what you're really implying. Therefore it's also not proven, that it was sabbotage. It's only sabbotage, when something is deliberately done to cause harm. This case may have caused some harm, but you haven't proven, that it was done for that reason. It could have been sold to make proffits or a lot of other reasons.I grant you, that evidence was destroyed. Rather foolishely. As far as i know, we don't know the reason for it though, not all of it was destroyed and there's still plenty of evidence around(a lot of material and of course a lot of photographs, audio, video, documents etc.)"Omfg. I start getting convinced you're being paid for this, otherwise you'd have to be seriously deranged."This is another example of how "sceptical" you really are. It shows nicely, that you don't care about evidence. Since you don't have the slightest bit of evidence, that i'm getting paid for this. But it feels great to you, so you accept it. I'm not pushing any buttons. The more convincing i am, the more you feel the need to comment back. It has nothing to do with me getting paid, but with you being gullible and not asking for hard evidence.

+stau ffap"You talk about sabatage and destroyed evidence. I hope, that you do realise, that you need good evidence for that as well and i'd like to see your evdence, that proves sabotage and the destruction of evidence."SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.//www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htmThe columns were shipped before anyone could examine them.Omfg. I start getting convinced you're being paid for this, otherwise you'd have to be seriously deranged.Fuck! Why am I still answering?I guess you really know your stuff and I am not talking about 9/11, I'm talking about pushing buttons.

+schmui"If you'd actually stick to the facts, as you claim, you could only come to the conclusion that the official story is bullshit..."That's one of the least humble things i've heard in a long time. Reminds me of the dunning kruger effect. Most people don't know what they don't know unless someone tells them what they don't know. Same thing with logical fallacies. People don't realise, that they are making them most of the time.You talk about sabatage and destroyed evidence. I hope, that you do realise, that you need good evidence for that as well and i'd like to see your evdence, that proves sabotage and the destruction of evidence."That is not what you do.All you do is claim that the NIST report is thorough and accurate, which it isn't."I would never claim such a thing. That's a typical strawman. Read more carefully please.And of course, the way you describe how memory works is completely fabricated. Show me scientific publications, that support this.A lot of noises, that sound like detonation, happen in a collapse like that. Again, it doesn't matter in this case, since we actually have the audio, that can be analysed by experts. It's a mixture of official and unofficial audio, so it's very improbable, that it all has been faked.

+stau ffap You asked me because you couldn't answer the question. All I know for certain is that the official story contradicts itself and has holes. I cannot know what actually happened because it's almost impossible to investigate anything that might disprove the official story due to DESTROYED EVIDENCE and/or SABOTAGE.The NIST report is NEITHER thorough NORE accurate.If you'd actually stick to the facts, as you claim, you could only come to the conclusion that the official story is bullshit and that furthermore you don't know much about what happened that day except a bunch of useless random facts.

+schmuiYes, but I simply asked you because you asked me. I answered you so i thought it would only be polite if you answered the same question. It had nothing to do with the burden of proof.And yes, lets drop the subject. I'm not really in the mood for large answers. Maybe i'll come back to some in the future.

+stau ffapYou never wrote "the burden of proof is on you" except from your last comment but you did return the question of how building 7 actually came down. Which is the exact same thing."They don't publish the data, therefore there must be something wrong with it."They didn't publish the data that would have explained why the cg recreation of the collapse didn't look anything like the collapse we all have seen on television.Ignore this all you want, it makes the whole thing fishier than rotten salmon.The recreation of the collapse of a builing is, simply put, a math problem. If the result is wrong (cg collapse doesn't match the actual collapse), your calculation must be wrong. If you insist on your result being correct but refuse to give anyone any indications on how you came to that result, you're most definitely a fraud."It's a scientific fact, that eye-witness reports are highly unreliable, because they are wrong too often. You'd know that if you had any idea how memory works."I do know "how memory works".It's pretty unreliable but that's exactly my point. If your memory of an event is rather blurry, you tend to fill in the blanks. You might even remember an entire event you never actually witnessed, simply because your grandma told you the story of how once ate dog food as a toddler a MILLION TIMES. You don't remember it at all but you feel like you should, so you eventually do. You were there, it was well documented so you have to remember it. This might sound overly dramatic but your subconscious mind needs to make sense ot of this. These are the key words: Make sense out of this. Your reference in this case is the "official story" of your grandma. Your "fake memory" will consist of that story + details your subconscious adds to it. Details that go along with the story, not contradict it. In the case of the 9/11 witness reports, you see the exact opposite. ...and NO, they didn't see any UFOs, hear angels singing or anything like that. They paint a picture of the event just as you and I and everyone else had witnessed in front of the screen PLUS Bombs exploding. Those explosions were mentioned only a few times by the main stream media and completely contradict the official story of how WTC7 came down, for example."My agenda is making people think, making people be more carefull with what they call evidence and educating them about logical fallacies. I want people to be educated about what it means to explore something scientifically."That is not what you do.All you do is claim that the NIST report is thorough and accurate, which it isn't.For fuck's sake, do some actual "debunking" or shut up.PS: This is my final comment. I know, I said it before but this time I really mean it. Well, unless you eventually try to address my points.

+schmuiI never wrote, that the burden of proof is on you. But you'd have to be a fool to believe in something without having positive proof for it.Your disprove of the NIST report is also quite fallacious. "They don't publish the data, therefore there must be something wrong with it." Typical logical fallacy.It's a scientific fact, that eye-witness reports are highly unreliable, because they are wrong too often. You'd know that if you had any idea how memory works.My agenda is making people think, making people be more carefull with what they call evidence and educating them about logical fallacies. I want people to be educated about what it means to explore something scientifically.You're a funny guy. The only thing you're albe to do is amuse me to the highest degree.Quote:"I'll make you cry your eyeballs out"Are you serious? Are we in 5th grade now?

+stau ffapAn eye witness is an eye witness. There's nothing scientific about that. So ...what?Does that hurt the credibility of "your" eye witnesses? ...I thought so. Your eye witnesses "make sense". U-hum.What I find interesting is that you completely ignore the "burden of proof fallacy" i pointed out and - let's not forget about that - your personal motivation. What's your agenda? Let's say the "truthers" are wrong, what do you care? You won. Individuals who question the official story are labelled as tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists who believe that the world is secretly run by lizard people. What more do you want? Knock some sense into us? Come on! We're insane, remember?So, what do you want?Hang on, before you answer: Shut up.You did your job, you did it well but you failed.You may keep those questions and put 'em in a place where your conscience will never find them.Good NightPS: Please, please don't answer, otherwise I'll have to truth-bomb you until you cry your eyeballs out. Seriously. I will give you the entire history of false flags until you get a psychosis that - contrary to the one you're having right now - will only be unpleasant to you and nobody else. Yes, I'm that good.So please, keep your bullshit to yourself.

+schmuiOh, eye witness reports! How scientific! ;) ;)There's video and audio, but you're talking about eye-witness reports.But anyways. I'm also not really interested in this discussion. I've had it too often and nothing got accomplished.

+stau ffapThis is where 9/11 apologists and religious nutters are exactly alike. Both try to convince you that the burden of proof is on you.If you make a rather crazy assumption (WT7 callapsed due to small office fires/God exists, is all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful, can't control his own creation and gets off on killing babies) that is not based on reason and logic (NIST report/Bible) and stick to a story that has more holes than it has a plot, it's not on me to disprove you.For all I know, there were several eye witness reports on explosions right before and during the collapse of WTC7, it looked like a text book demolition and - just in case this hasn't been emphasized enough - there has never been a collapse of this kind of building due to fire. Ever.I could go on and on about what "mistakes" the 9/11 Commission made in detail but for the first time ever - and I can't believe I'm typing this - I have a gut feeling that I'm talking to a shill. ...or maybe someone with a very weird psychosis having reverse-paranoia, I'm really not sure what to make out of this. Either way, I'm out.

+schmuiI anwered your question. I think, that it would be fair, if you explained to me now how the WTC 7 really came down.

+stau ffap Sorry but you're just as credible as someone who claims to know that pro wrestling is actually not kayfabe after years of being aware that it's completely fake.In all seriousness: Thousands of architects and engineers are not wrong.The collapse didn't happen they way NIST said it happened ergo the cg animation of the collapse and the video of the actual collapse don't match. They didn't release the actual data they used for the reenactment. The model wasn't accurate. In simple terms, the NIST report is unscientific bullshit. This is Hollywood's homage to the Gleiwitz incident.

+schmuiSo everyone who disagrees with you is automatically a troll? How conveniant.Look at my channel. I'm just a person with great interest in science. I've grown allergic to people who make a point of talking about things, that can't be proven. It has nothing to do with being a troll. Normally i try to keep my critique constructive, present data or at least make people think. Additionally, i like a good discussion.

+stau ffapUnfortunately they never published the data they used for the cg model. Which they should have. You're a troll, just admit it.

+schmuiAccording to the NIST report it was a fire induced collapse. They showed for the first time, how fire can induce a collapse.

rroman3212 is obviously in very DEEP DENIAL! He even wants to deny the psychological reasons for denial. He is really locked up tight in his little mental box. He says, "Actually all they did was talk about denial. That can be applied to anything." It can be applied only insofar as you haven't opened up and actually looked at the empirical evidence, which is overwhelmingly against the official conspiracy of 19 hijackers defeating the mightiest military entity to ever exist in the history of humankind. For a tutorial on the data and scientific facts of 9/11 see: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/911-false-flag-psyop/ \\][//

Ha ha ha... so what is the percentage of the engineering community that have signed up to the official story? Look, a steel frame building falling at freefall speed into it's own footprint is a demolition job - not the result of planes hitting buildings nearby. That's obvious. I'd like to think that words can change that fact, but they can't. So whatever money they gave you to make words with, is money ill spent. You should consider pursuing some legitimate means of earning an income. Cheers.

"It really puts all these psychological aspects of peoples reactions on the spot" Actually all they did was talk about denial. That can be applied to anything. They also talked about how a person naturally rejects facts that don't fit into their world view while disregarding that this is exactly what a person should do. Your world view is (hopefully) not something you just made up. It comes from your real life experiences. Abandoning that because a youtube video says so is just plain stupid.

Again, how does putting out a thousand page report explaining WTC7's collapse in detail qualify as "purposely leaving it out"? Your right, a demolition team probably could replicate the damage on a few upper floors. What I'd like to know is how they keep the explosives from going off during the impact and subsequent fires, or how they get the columns to slowly bend until they buckled, or how they managed to pull all this off with no one noticing. I suspect you have no answers either.

Let me know when damage to a few upper floors on 1 side of a steel building can magically destroy all the undamaged steel below the impact site as well. Its just too funny! No one noticing? LMAO! The only dupes and idiots who think "planes" brought down 3 steel buildings are the dupes and idiots like you. Much of USA and the World knows all about the Satanic Anti Christ JEW and why they must always be removed from Nation after Nation (109 times) for their usury, lies and degeneracy.

It's not magic, just science which you clearly don't understand. That would be why you pretend there was no report on WTC7. Next I suppose you will tell me what a joke the report is, even though you never even read it. And yes, no one noticing, as in the many people who worked in the towers and failed to notice bombs being planted on every floor in front of them. These would be many of the same people whom I work with today. Let me know when you have something intelligent to say.

The Jew Occupied US Government REFUSED to even conduct a 9/11 investigation until 18 months after the event, which they then purposely left out WTC 7. The planes were a distraction for dupes and idiots like you. As if damage to 1 side of a building and a few interior columns on a few upper floors cannot be replicated by a demolition team. Demolition teams MUST damage all support columns not just a few on a few floors to bring down a building. You are a laughable joke.

Very well, but again, you can't have it both ways. Either we accept the idea that what the experts have to say is important, or we decide that it is not. You "point out" that there is no consensus, so we accept that what they have to say matters. But to demonstrate this lack of consensus you bring up a petition signed by less then one tenth of one percent of the engineering community. If that to you qualifies as a lack of consensus to you then there is no such thing.

Sorry, this is all beside the point. The 9/11 truth Movement is a massive con started by Larouche/Tarpley at least since 2004. That's when certain Green Party chapters noticed the phenomena and attempts to hijack the Green Party(partially successful in Vermont). Calling it "denial" is bullshit that backhandedly validates the "Truther" meme. It's a cult con. ANYONE can be conned. No "psychology" needed. I have links to the Green Party lists for those interested.

I have waited for 11 years to hear that experts have come together to prove what I have thought from watching those buildings fall...when I watched it plain horror...11 years later every time I have watched it..implosion...every flippin time. Every Iron worker I have known says the same thing..implosion... it cannot be ignored. My take on it...The Patriot Act...took only 3 days to rip our constitution out from under the people.

This video should be watched by everyone! It really puts all these psychological aspects of peoples reactions on the spot. And clearly rroman3212 is a hired proffesional debunker, and a good one at that. You can see it by his rhetoric which by theory allways is impossible to argue against. :) sorry if my english is not perfect, its not my first language. Cheers from a truther from Denmark. :)

I love how the psychologists talk about why people won't look at the science, as if the truth movement actually relies on science. real science would be 10,000 pages of documents explaining the collapses in detail which no credible organization has ever refuted. Truther science would be a bunch of youtube videos saying "I don't understand this therefore it must not be true".

Could you explain to me how putting out a thousand page report explaining WTC7's collapse in detail qualifies as "forgetting all about it"? And I suggest you learn something about controlled demolitions. I don't think purchasing Boeing 767's, crashing them into buildings, and sitting back to see what happens would be a more profitable way of operating the business.

My steel pot just melted on the stove top. LOL. Demolition teams only have to damage 1 side of a steel building on a couple upper floors and then poor jet fuel on these floors to demolish and entire steel building. They are saving millions doing this type of demolition. LOL Funny how NIST forgot all about the WTC 7 demolition. Liars like you are just funny.

From the time it was passed I have asked many people why it took only 3 days to put together a 500+ page document to knock the constitution off it's feet - when have our legislators ever worked that quick? even the bank bail out was only 3 pages and that took over a week to put together. Yes the Patriot Act was a document waiting for the right time -

Yeah I know. You don't have to be Sherlock Homes to figure that out by his dedicated profile image LOL!. Also of note, none of the professionals putting their name and reputation on the line by being involved in 911 will be paid. But you can be sure would-be conspirators will have well funded campaigns on all levels including Internet trolling.

Nothing wrong with asking questions, but if that is all you are doing then you would accept the answers regardless of what it leads to. If you are only willing to accept answers that lead to your predetermined conclusions then you are doing a lot more then just asking questions, and it is the "lot more" that people have a problem with.

"a steel frame building falling at freefall speed into it's own footprint is a demolition job - not the result of planes hitting buildings nearby. That's obvious" Right. So obvious in fact that the engineering community continues to redesign buildings in response to the fallacious findings of the NIST report and no one seems to care.

You are correct: it is physically impossible for jet fuel to melt the steel *columns*, unfortunatly however no one is claiming that it did. I suggest you take a few minutes to find out what the scientific claims made by NIST are before trying to argue that their claims are scientifically impossible.

its more like comparing the melting points of certain metal alloys versus kerosene etc and thermite. its physically impossible for jet fuel to melt those steel cores which were also covered with fire proofing: asbestos. but i guess you may say "hurr durr 9/11 trewf ez stewpud"

Haha, dude, I've argued with several Truther dip-shits as well. Most of them also accuse me of being a paid internet shill. As if the U.S. Government would waste any money paying people to try and persuade the opinions of these morons, lol.

Yes it is, but you can't have it both ways. If you are going to boast about the fact that you have engineers who agree with you, then you can not disregard the fact that they represent such an insignificant minority of the industry.

To bad William Woodward is still brainwashed by Communist Jew WWII war propaganda. The poor fool still falls for the laughable Holocaust LIES. An idiot can figure out 1 truth but then still falls for all the other historical LIES.

Perhaps. AE911truth can be considered a "community". That is of course despite the fact that they represent less then 0.06% of the scientific community. Not too convincing there.

"so what is the percentage of the engineering community that have signed up to the official story?" About the same percentage of biologists who have signed up to evolution.

can you work as a Child Psychologist with a ph.D in Developmental Psychology?