Structural engineer Ron Brookman probes the NIST analyses of World Trade Center Seven (WTC 7).

This article titled The NIST Analyses: A Close Look at WTC 7 is available free as a download, or can be purchased as a spiral-bound hardcopy in the AE911Truth online store. Brookman‘s careful examination of the NIST final reports regarding WTC 7 reveals an abundance of deficiencies and discrepancies. These come in many varieties. Some are erroneous, in that they conflict with scientific findings reported in the open literature. Others are inconsistencies internal to the NIST reports. And finally, others are incomplete with respect to failure to investigate matters that had been flagged as needing further investigation in official reports from other government agencies.

Once the final edits were complete, Brookman offered the following comment to accompany the article’s announcement.:

“We still have the law on our side. The National Construction Safety Team Act requires NIST to establish the likely technical cause of the building failure. It also requires a public report including the analysis demonstrating the likely cause of failure. Upon reading the final NCSTAR reports issued in November 2008 regarding WTC 7, I could not find a complete analysis that proved the NIST hypothesis was correct. Instead I found numerous inconsistencies and unfinished business. Read the article if you are curious, and keep the NCSTAR reports handy for reference.”

Brookman is one of over 40 structural engineers who have signed the AE911Truth petition calling for a truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11, with emphasis on the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC building 7. He is also one of the interviewees in the article, 29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High–Rises on 9/11. For a broader book–length exposé on WTC 7 see also David Ray Griffin’s The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center7 — Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False.

Read Brookman’s .pdf here

Brookman received his M.S. in Structural Engineering (1986) from the University of California at Davis, following a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the same school in 1984. He has over 23 years experience in structural analysis, design, evaluation and rehabilitation of buildings in northern California.

[ and alblury received his ... ... um ... ]

“Instead I found numerous inconsistencies and unfinished business [with the NIST report].”

I’d say the money is pretty safe.

God, that’s been tried before and is fraudulent every time.

One has to accept the premises of his claims first. Of course, no rational person on EARTH accepts the claim that the fires in WTC 7 were “oxygen starved” because everyone knows they weren’t.

Duh.

We can watch videos of the fires and smoke coming out of windows and damaged areas all day long and know that the fires and plenty of oxygen. But, of course, 9/11 Deniers ignore inconvenient facts as a matter of the dogma they pray to.

I went to this joker’s site and, of course, it’s full of the same woo you post here, ewingsc. Childish and completely silly, as usual.

Gosh, why am I not surprised?

That amateur won’t pay 1 cent much less $5,000 or $10,000 to anybody. It’s already been proven how and why WTC 7 fell, clear to rational people, and the idiot won’t accept it.

So, ewingsc, I have an assignmnet for you so you can prove to yourself the guy’s a fraud. Write him and ask for the specific details about the escrow account information in which he has placed the $10,000 he has specifically committed to, or the $5,000 if you are really nervous about it.

Report back with the specifics of this 9/11 Denier’s REAL commitment. If he has no escrow account, he has no intention of paying anything.

I do understand you never thought of that fact but in the real world we think about facts 24/7.

What a steaming pile of bullshit. Does your moron du jour even bother telling us what laws of physics he thinks were violated by the NIST engineers and scientists?

“I’d say the money is pretty safe.”

Aye.

… but the trolls are freaking out.

Must be easy money for our resident slithering reptiles (toothless old cobras included).
Since they are such experts and have total proof of all the facts.
Oh and Albury says he is a engineer with 40 years experience (bwahhh haha hahaha ahhh)

so easy money for the troll scum.

Aye.

Cutting and pasting from a playbook/script isn’t hard.

I think that the hard part for them is just beginning.

Where’s your proof that NIST ignored or violated any laws of physics, ew? The answers to Fullerton’s questions are all in NCSTAR 1A, which he appears to have read about as carefully as you have, i.e. not at all.

“Where’s your proof that NIST ignored or violated any laws of physics, ew? The answers to Fullerton’s questions are all in NCSTAR 1A, which he appears to have read about as carefully as you have, i.e. not at all.”

Fuck off, spambot. You sad, sad, stupid piece of shit.

Is it a surprise to anyone here that ewingsc stuck his foot in his mouth again?

Did you notice how he won’t ask for the escrow account information? Which one of you are finally going to ask ewingsc to put up or shut up?

When do you intend to PROVE the so-called “prize money” is sitting in an escrow account as it has to be, ewingsc?

Are you going to continue to mislead YOUR readers and evade proividing that necessary evidence? Is that why you are being paid, ewingsc, to continue to mislead Uncensored News readers?

It’s becoming more and more clear, isn’t it?

“It’s becoming more and more clear, isn’t it?”

ummm… no not really.

What is becoming clearer and clearer is that bj edwards is a toothless old cobra, hissing away in his lonely dank room.
sad really.

Why do you be the hero BJ and prove that this money does not exist.
hssssss

I think that this contest is just for dick heads like you, -bj-

Sorry, Lombeer, it’s up to those providing the money to VERIFY it.

No escrow account, no money.

Your small brain can’t grasp that reality so you’ll continue to believe what your masters tell you. Just like a good denier does.

Show us the money, cowards.

I’m offering a trillion dollar reward to anyone who can convince me that explosives were used to bring down the WTC hi-rises.

Go for the big money, you troll -fucks-

http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/06/01/win-5000-10000-wtc7-911-challenge/

ewingsc is speechless again. How is he going to get out of the quicksand this time?

bjedwards is trolling -hard- for his paycheck again

How is he going to rejoin the human race this time ?

Maybe he can’t

Because he’s a

-prick-

I think that this contest is only just for dick head -pricks- like you, -bj-

Win $5000 – $10,000 : WTC7 9/11 Challenge

http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/06/01/win-5000-10000-wtc7-911-challenge/

Run for the money, bitch

You sorry piece of -shit-

So the contest is bogus, isn’t it, ewingsc?

There is no prize money, there is no escrow account.

So why are you posting bogus crap, ewingsc?

“What a steaming pile of bullshit. Does your moron du jour even bother telling us what laws of physics he thinks were violated by the NIST engineers and scientists?”

albury, the laws are alluded to right there in the first post. Anyone who knew anything about physics know see that. I guess we know who’s really a full of shit moron.

Oh and BJ it’s only a fraud if there is no money. Entertaining a paranoid delusion that there is no money is not proof there is no money. You find out if there is no money by submitting your entry proving the WTC 7 story is not a crackpot theory that violates the laws of physics. When your entry can’t be disproven and you don’t get paid, that’s fraud and you can easily sue for the money. We all know you can’t do this though.

Besides financial fraud there is also authority fraud. Authority fraud is posing as competent authorities in a field you know nothing about. Clearly Albury and BJ are both guilty of this.

AntiPscho wrote:

“Oh and BJ it’s only a fraud if there is no money.”

Gosh, really?

Why do you think there are laws to protect us from fraud.

Verification of the existence of the money is why we have escrow accounts and we are entitled to know the money exist BEFOREHAND.

“Entertaining a paranoid delusion that there is no money is not proof there is no money.”

That delusion is entirely yours. Nobody claimed there was “no money”, dimwit. Asking for proof is what protects your fellow citizens from fraud.

As it turns out, I e-mailed vernon911truth the following:

—
To: info@vernon911truth.org
Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2010 8:38 am

I and others are interested in taking up your challenge.

Would you provide verification of the existence of the prize money? Bank, escrow account, or formal legal verification.

Thanks in advance.

Brad Edwards
—

The response?

—
From: Vernon 9/11 Truth
Date:Thu, Jun 3, 2010 8:17 pm

You can find that info here:

http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
—

So it looks like vernon911truth takes offense at anyone exercising their right to request verification of the funds.

The Canadian Authorities might want to investigate, wouldn’t you agree?

ROFL. bjedwards wrote “Nobody claimed there was “no money”, dimwit.” yet read above where BJ says “No escrow account, no money.” and “There is no prize money, there is no escrow account.” Typical projection. It’s clear who the real dimwit is. BJ has as much credibility as albury, absolutely none. The raving stupidity of denialists is truly a thing to behold. Respond to the challenge or FO you loony crackpot kooks.

In your own words, Psycho, what laws of physics were violated in NCSTAR 1A?

God, you are as dumb and as clueless as they come, AntiPyscho.

Ewingsc, you, and me cannot PROVE there is prize money, can we?

Duh.

So, one asks for PROOF, like I asked ewingsc to do and he refused. PROOF in the form of a proper escrow account. “No escrow, account, no money” does NOT mean there is “NO money” until and unless we KNOW there is no escrow account or other proper from of verification.

(Of course, 9/11 Deniers always take the word of other deniers that con them.)

How do you think one PROVES there is prize money? By asking for evidence for the standard, legal form: an Escrow account and by the provider of the prize money providing – willingly – proof.

Duh.

Which is what I asked for in e-mailing vernon911truth. But you are incapable of reading, as the rest of the bozos here, and it completely flew over your head.

Why am I not surprised? One can never underestimate the intelligence of 9/11 “Truthers.”

ROFL More projection. If the money is not in escrow that does not mean there is no money. However, when a person offers money such as the $5000 or $10000 here, this is a legal contract. If a contestant submits a valid response but is denied the money this and only this is fraud. At this point the person withholding the money can go to jail for up to two years.

BTW I made some calls. In Canada contests are the realm of the federal competition bureau but only if they promote a product or business. So this doesn’t apply. Provincially the gaming commission would handle this if tickets were to be purchased. No tickets are needed so there are no problems here either. However, even if tickets were required to be purchased the prize money does not have to be in escrow because a legal contract is already in place. Escrow only gives naive participants the appearance of credibility.

In sort BJ, you are a dumb and clueless bozo without a shred of credibility. Submit your response or FO.

Now that the truther nut making this bogus offer has the link to the NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7, he should try to read and understand it. He has my pledge of a trillion dollars cash if he can prove to me that explosives caused the collapse of any of the 3 WTC hi-rises on 9/11, or that any laws of physics were violated by NIST in their WTC reports.

troll edwards and debunker albury are here to defend the “September criminals” and support false-flag terror events
http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/05/23/the-911-issue-how-to-stop-world-war-iii/

Silly M C C is here to support al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist group that attacked us on 9/11.

hey edwards and albury

http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/

“He has my pledge of a trillion dollars cash”

is that in an escrow account?

He has my word on it. If he can prove to me that any law of physics was violated in the NIST reports, or that explosives were planted in any of the 3 WTC hi-rises that collapsed on 9/11, I’ll pay him a trillion dollars. I’ll even let you in on it, Lombeer.

perhaps, you should be focussing on the 10,000 dollar challenge albury.
Easy money for you, eh mate.

Why? He’s not going to pay.

neither are you. cos you are FOS.

Totally FOS.

By the way that albury and fucknut bj have sat on this site for the last two months

– I reckon they could win this big cash payout with their eyes closed.

“al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist group that attacked us on 9/11.”

Got any proof ?

…any proof at all?

… apart from just this proof ?

http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/04/22/zionists-named-the-bogeyman-on-911/

AntiPyscho, not thinking rationally, wrote for all to see:

“…this is a legal contract. If a contestant submits a valid response but is denied the money this and only this is fraud. At this point the person withholding the money can go to jail for up to two years.”

And just WHO is the JUDGE of the response as VALID, AntiPyscho?

LOL!

I guess what I wrote flew over your head really fast:

“One has to accept the premises of his claims first. Of course, no rational person on EARTH accepts the claim that the fires in WTC 7 were “oxygen starved” because everyone knows they weren’t.”

So you fell for vernon911truth being both the arbiter of the rules, the determination of what he CLAIMS are facts, and the judge.

How do you like those rules, AntiPsycho?

And when you ask him if he really has the money he says “Fuck You!”

It never occurred to you little 9/11 Deniers that the burden of proof is on YOU bozos and vernon911truth to REFUTE the NIST reports – something that NO ONE has ever even begun to do. The only legitimate contest would be for him to pay money for the FIRST person that could PROVE that the towers came down from explosive demolitions.

It just goes to show how true the adage is that one can NEVER underestimate the intelligence of 9/11 “Truthers.”

And you all wonder why you get the derision you ask for.

“And you all wonder why you get the derision you ask for.”

I think you’re getting the bulk of it, pal.

“Contestants must explain how normal oxygen-starved office fires caused 8 stories or about 100 feet of structure including the 58 perimeter columns and 25 massive core columns of WTC7 to be effectively removed simultaneously floor by floor so that the building was able to free fall straight down symmetrically for at least 2.25 seconds.”

You can do that, can’t you bitch.

http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/05/21/nist-report-on-wtc-7-debunked-exposed/

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1_WxkOeIxkk/TAgC45lQsOI/AAAAAAAAAYg/XINfDjnoKLk/s1600/silverstein1b.jpg

… so let me get this straight …

someone “made a decision” …

and then

“we watched the building collapse”

… … right ?

The FDNY made the decision not to fight the fires in WTC 7, ew, but if you’re libeling Larry Silverstein with your goofy BS, how about clearing up these minor details?

-Why would he have publicly admitted even to knowing that there were planted explosives in WTC 7 in the first place?

-What was Silverstein Properties’ and the FDNY’s motive for blowing up a perfectly good, 14 year-old building, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in cash flow from it for eight years and counting, spending ~$700 million, or most of the $861 million insurance settlement, on obligatory replacement of it, and paying ~$500 million back to lenders?
(note: it was built in 1986-1987, at least 15 years after asbestos was written out of all building codes, and it had no asbestos in its SFRM or elsewhere.)

-Why would any insurance company have paid him a dime instead of the $4.68 BILLION total he received if he publicly admitted to foreknowledge of or complicity in the alleged secret demolition of his property, but especially those based in Copenhagen, Zurich (2 of them), and London?

-How did he or the FDNY know that flaming debris from a taller collapsing hi-rise across the street would hit WTC 7, start multi-story fires in it, and break the water main to it, disabling the sprinklers and providing a cover story for the demolition?

-If the alleged explosives were pre-planted, which would have taken weeks or even months in a vacant building and been completely impossible to do secretly in an occupied one, and Barry Jennings heard some of them go off around 10 AM, why was there any discussion at all in mid-afternoon about whether or not to demolish WTC 7 with the other apparently fireproof explosives a few stories higher?

-Do controlled demolitions take seven or eight hours to collapse a building?

-Do they leave no severed columns with copper residue on the ends, or any other evidence in the debris?

-Do they leave ~12 stories on one corner standing?

-Is the FDNY in the controlled demolition business? What other buildings, on fire or not, have they demolished before or since 9/11?

-Please link me to a C/D contractor’s web site, and show me the use of “pull” or “pull it” to refer to building demolition using explosives, not one in which cables are used to pull an already damaged building over, as was done with WTC 6.

-How does a “terrible loss of life” in the WTC towers affect a later decision to demolish a nearby building with no one in it?

-There was a pre-existing ConEd substation at the Vesey Street WTC 7 site in 1986, and the building was designed to straddle it, requiring some of the extremely long (~50′) girder and beam spans inside that contributed to the 9/11 collapse. It was powered up and in full use on 9/11/01, and the demolition of a 200,000 ton, 47-story building directly on top of it probably didn’t do it much good. Do you know whether ConEd’s insurers just absorbed the loss of tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure damage and restoration and then subrogated Industrial Risk Insurers, since Larry Silverstein’s firm was still the responsible party?

… so let me get this straight, alblury …

someone “made a decision” …

and then

“we watched the building collapse”

… … right ?

Isn’t that what you libel-baiting chum Larry said verbatum ?

In this quote ?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1_WxkOeIxkk/TAgC45lQsOI/AAAAAAAAAYg/XINfDjnoKLk/s1600/silverstein1b.jpg

… on television ?

No wonder you are here trying (& failing) to cover his ass with such verve and enthusiasm …

Doesn’t it seem a little strange to you that your evidence-free “explosives” were going off before 10 AM, according to Barry Jennings, but Silverstein and the FDNY were discussing WHETHER to blow up WTC 7 around 3 PM, ew, or isn’t logic your strong suit? What kind of demolition explosives are so quiet that you have to be inside the building to hear them?

I’m not here to ‘clear up minor details’ for your transparent, bullshit, and -lame- disinfo -crap-

You disgusting human being.

Fuck you alblury.

-wanker-

So did he really say this on TV, alblury ?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1_WxkOeIxkk/TAgC45lQsOI/AAAAAAAAAYg/XINfDjnoKLk/s1600/silverstein1b.jpg

“Contestants must explain how normal oxygen-starved office fires caused 8 stories or about 100 feet of structure including the 58 perimeter columns and 25 massive core columns of WTC7 to be effectively removed simultaneously floor by floor so that the building was able to free fall straight down symmetrically for at least 2.25 seconds.”

You can do that, can’t you bitch.

ew jabbers stupidly: “Contestants must explain how normal oxygen-starved office fires…”

Why would the WTC 7 fires have been any more “oxygen-starved” than any other office fires, ew, especially with damage from falling debris to the south side, or do you just like to lie? Here’s what eyewitnesses said about them, and they might even know more about it than you and the nutjob in your article do:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

That’s exactly what he said, ew. Now please explain why you think he was talking about blowing up his own property. Answering my questions would help.

Read NCSTAR 1A and stop sounding stupid, ew.

“Now please explain why you think he was talking about blowing up his own property. ”

Because :

someone “made a decision” …

and then

“we watched the building collapse”

Oh, OK. Now answer the questions I posted above, ew.

Who made the decision, ew?

You’ll have to pick up the phone and ask him yourself.

You have been cutting and pasting the same shite ever since you turned up here.

You haven’t convinced me of anything, albury.

And I don’t give a damn what you think.

-You-

don’t appear to have the same luxury, do you.

Now why don’t you take NCSTAR 1A in your clammy little hand and use what’s in it to enter the above contest.

There’s extra money in it for you …

ewingsc, foot in mouth, wrote:

““Contestants must explain how normal oxygen-starved office fires…”

WHAT oxygen-starved fires, bunky?

LOL!

I thought you were at least bright enough to read, ew, since you posted Silverstein’s PBS quote. He said “And THEY [the FDNY] made that decision…”
I’d pay good money to watch some of you troofers personally tell a group of FDNY guys that they blew up WTC 7. You’d only do it once.

ew, blabbering stupidly again: “You haven’t convinced me of anything, albury.”

I wasn’t trying to, ew; I simply asked you to explain the following, since you appear to understand these things better than I do:

-Why would Larry Silverstein have publicly admitted even to knowing that there were planted explosives in WTC 7 in the first place?

-What was Silverstein Properties’ and the FDNY’s motive for blowing up a perfectly good, 14 year-old building, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in cash flow from it for eight years and counting, spending ~$700 million, or most of the $861 million insurance settlement, on obligatory replacement of it, and paying ~$500 million back to lenders?
(note: it was built in 1986-1987, at least 15 years after asbestos was written out of all building codes, and it had no asbestos in its SFRM or elsewhere.)

-Why would any insurance company have paid him a dime instead of the $4.68 BILLION total he received if he publicly admitted to foreknowledge of or complicity in the alleged secret demolition of his property, but especially those based in Copenhagen, Zurich (2 of them), and London?

-How did he or the FDNY know that flaming debris from a taller collapsing hi-rise across the street would hit WTC 7, start multi-story fires in it, and break the water main to it, disabling the sprinklers and providing a cover story for the demolition?

-If the alleged explosives were pre-planted, which would have taken weeks or even months in a vacant building and been completely impossible to do secretly in an occupied one, and Barry Jennings heard some of them go off around 10 AM, why was there any discussion at all in mid-afternoon about whether or not to demolish WTC 7 with the other apparently fireproof explosives a few stories higher?

-Do controlled demolitions take seven or eight hours to collapse a building?

-Do they leave no severed columns with copper residue on the ends, or any other evidence in the debris?

-Do they leave ~12 stories on one corner standing?

-Is the FDNY in the controlled demolition business? What other buildings, on fire or not, have they demolished before or since 9/11?

-Please link me to a C/D contractor’s web site, and show me the use of “pull” or “pull it” to refer to building demolition using explosives, not one in which cables are used to pull an already damaged building over, as was done with WTC 6.

-How does a “terrible loss of life” in the WTC towers affect a later decision to demolish a nearby building with no one in it?

-There was a pre-existing ConEd substation at the Vesey Street WTC 7 site in 1986, and the building was designed to straddle it, requiring some of the extremely long (~50′) girder and beam spans inside that contributed to the 9/11 collapse. It was powered up and in full use on 9/11/01, and the demolition of a 200,000 ton, 47-story building directly on top of it probably didn’t do it much good. Do you know whether ConEd’s insurers just absorbed the loss of tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure damage and restoration and then subrogated Industrial Risk Insurers, since Larry Silverstein’s firm was still the responsible party?

It really does seem odd that LS and the FDNY were discussing WHETHER to blow up WTC 7 around 3 PM, when those amazing, redundant, delayed-reaction, evidence-free explosives started going off before 10 AM. Please help me out with that one, ew.

What’s it like spending your whole life covering Larry’s arse ?

I don’t even know the guy, and was simply asking questions. Please answer them for me, ew, since you really seem to understand these things, and I want to be just as smart as you are

You have long outworn your ability to ask me questions, alblury.

Don’t ask again.

If you want to be smarter – then

a) simply read more widely.

&

b) rethink your life as a disinfo dipstick.

I wasn’t offering information, ew, I was asking you questions so I could try to understand 9/11 as well as you do. If you had already set off demolition explosives in a building in the morning, why would you be discussing whether to demolish it later that day? What did “a terrible loss of life” have to do with demolishing a burning building with no one inside? Do insurance companies generally pay out billions of dollars to someone who publicly admits on television that he defrauded them by blowing up his property? Did ConEd ever find out that their multi-million dollar substation below WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition of the building, or aren’t they as smart as the 9/11 “truth movement”?
How else am I going to learn if I don’t ask top 9/11 experts like you when I have a great opportunity like this?

This guy is so much more convincing than you are, albury.

And he’s much smarter than you are, too :

http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/06/06/911-blueprint-for-truth-wtc-building-7/

Hope you learn something.

no, lets talk about the SEC being located in WTC7 eh?
Lets talk about the white collar crimes they were investigating? shall we?

If you are looking for a motive for the destruction of 7
I’d look at the tenants.

And if you wanted to know how the explosives got into the building

I’d look at the firm responsible for building security.

Yeah, Box Boy is frickin’ brilliant. He can even time the collapse of WTC 7 when 230+ NIST experts couldn’t figure out how to do it, and he thinks the towers free fell when loose debris from them began hitting the ground while 40-50 stories were still intact. Did you know that people can run right through “pyroclastic” dust clouds and not get burned up, and that they don’t even ignite paper?
Get him to show you how all 47 of the tower core columns could have been reached from the 6 local passenger elevators, 2 express passenger elevators, and a freight elevator above the 78th floor sky lobbies, and how to turn 400,000 yards of concrete to fine dust in seconds, when both towers combined only contained ~90,000 yards above grade.

There was also no “firm responsible for building security,” unless you think the PAPD is a firm. Securacom only furnished and installed electronic security devices at the WTC for the PA, and GeeDubya’s brother was a board member who left his position 15 months before 9/11. Since when do former board members run day-to-day operations of a company, and why would it even have mattered, since Securacom wasn’t responsible for WTC security?

I think Box Boy and his pal Grifter could pee down both of you guys’ legs and tell you it’s raining. Jeezus, do they really grow ‘em that dumb down in NZ?

Box Boy says the fires in WTC were minor, even though people at the scene said this about them:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

How many outright lies does Box Boy have to tell before you realize that he’s fos?

ALL of you anti-truthers are….ah…..anti-truth?!, adhering very ignorantly to obvious lies and deceit….or you are into some very serious exercise (mental gymnastics) to make all turn out the way that the media/gov/corp has SUGGESTED to you. In a REAL untainted and unbias court the Truthers have this 9:11 thing won–hands down! Libertas!

Albury has all the answers to ‘ease my curiousity’ about the events of that day

Respected Middle East expert Alan Hart goes public on 911 crimes.

http://radiodujour.wordpress.com/

Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25569.htm

If I were really “anti-truth,” Bruce, I’d be a big fan of Box Boy and the entire 9/11 “truth movement.” Care to tell me how he knows the collapse time for WTC 7, when NIST could only time the top 242′ of the 610′ building, and found that it took ~5.4 seconds? Free fall from 610′ takes ~6.1 seconds, so did the other 368′ collapse in less than one second, or is he fos?
Do you like liars as much as ewingsc, Lombeer, and M C C do? Yeah, I thought so.

[ sound of man yawning ]

Could all of the evidence of your imaginary explosives, including steel columns with cutter charge signatures on their ends, have been “Hidden in Plain Sight” in the debris for eight months or so, while ~40,000 people were working on the cleanup, ew? Were all of these workers just blind and stupid, or in on your “conspiracy”? Have you ever tried to move steel without looking at it? Are demolition charges so quiet that only people inside of the targeted building can hear them?
What’s the Probable Collapse Sequence in NCSTAR 1A, and what part of it is wrong?

God you’re boring.

And repetitive.

And deceitful.

And repellant.

And uninspiring.

And really really

-unconvincing-

How could I be “unconvincing” when I’m only asking you questions, ew? That doesn’t even make sense.

ew jabbers: “Albury has all the answers to ‘ease my curiousity’ about the events of that day.”

Ease my curiosity, ew.

-How did Box Boy figure out the collapse time for WTC 7, when NIST could only time the top 242′ of it?

-Why was no evidence of a C/D found in the debris of any WTC building that collapsed on 9/11?

-Are demolition charges really so quiet that only people inside of the targeted building can hear them?

-Why would someone have been discussing whether to blow up his property at ~3 PM, if he’d already started doing it at least 5 hours earlier?

-Do fire departments usually blow up burning buildings?

-Do insurance companies generally pay someone $861 million after he publicly admits to destroying his own property, or was IRI just feeling charitable that day?

As I said above – you outwore your ability to ask me questions about 700 of your repetitive disinfo billboard comments ago, alblury.

Don’t ask again. Last reminder.

I know that you can’t personally tell the difference between the bulk of the human species on this planet and the average insect …

But do you -really- think that coming onto a website and repeating paragraphs designed to take any 911 conversation or discussion into an irrelevant little cul de sac like the NIST report

- is really going to have an impact ?

You are spamming this site with all the appearance and effectiveness of a dog marking his territory in the rain.

Wanker.

Why shouldn’t people have the “ability” to question you when they don’t understand what you’re saying, ew? If Gage knows the collapse time for WTC 7, how did he derive it? The Silverstein questions are all legitimate and clearly stated, and you haven’t answered even one of them. Why? I thought the 9/11 “truth movement” wanted to educate people, not insult and harass them.

ewingsc, foot in mouth, wrote:

““Contestants must explain how normal oxygen-starved office fires…”

WHAT oxygen-starved fires, bunky?

LOL!

Denialism – the real issue with 9/11 Deniers and Uncensored.com:

“It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[4] The terms Holocaust denialism and AIDS denialism have been used,[5][6][7][8][9] and the term climate change denialists has been applied to those who refuse to accept that climate change is occurring.[10][11][12][13] Several motivations for denial have been proposed, including religious beliefs and self-interest, or simply as a psychological defense mechanism against disturbing ideas.[14][15]”

…

“Mark Hoofnagle has described denialism as “the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.”[4] and is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics in order to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy:[20]

1. Conspiracy theories – Suggesting opponents have an ulterior motive for their position or are part of a conspiracy.
2. Cherry picking – Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look like they base their ideas on weak research.
3. False experts – Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility.
4. Moving the goalpost – Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often greater) piece of evidence. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. Thus denialists use the absence of complete and absolute knowledge to prevent the implementation of sound policies, or the acceptance of an idea or theory.
5. Other logical fallacies – Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring.

Tara Smilth of the University of Iowa also stated that moving goalposts, conspiracy theories and cherry-picking evidence are general characteristics of denialist arguments, but went on to note that these groups spend “majority of their efforts critiquing the mainstream theory” in an apparent belief that if they manage to discredit the mainstream view, their own “unproven ideas will fill the void”.[21]”

ewingsc, you and your sidekicks here really CAN get help for your problem of continued denial.

Ewingsc also denies that anyone can question anything he says, bje. I’m going to answer some of the questions I asked him, since he won’t:
Insurance companies don’t pay out when fraud is admitted publicly by their insureds, people don’t discuss whether to blow up buildings if they’ve already started doing it, and Box Boy doesn’t have access to any video of the collapse of WTC 7 that shows all of it, and is clearly lying about the total collapse time for the facade, among many other things. Fire departments don’t blow up burning buildings, and controlled demolitions don’t start in the morning and end in late afternoon.
I hope that was helpful, ew.

“I hope that was helpful, ew.”

Yeah thanks albury.

I almost believed you.

“I thought the 9/11 “truth movement” wanted to educate people, not insult and harass them”

Again – not personally part of any “movement”.

And I’m really really -sorry- for harassing you

-albury-

by making you come to this site week after week.

You are here to educate me, aren’t you, ew? Why do I have to answer my own questions about Larry Silverstein, the FDNY, and Box Boy’s claims? You should be doing that as part of my education on 9/11, so why don’t you?

How many different derogatory names have you called me and bje in the last few weeks, ew, and how often have you done it? How many insults have you leveled at us? I call that harassment. What do you call it, and why do you resort to it instead of discussing anything intelligently? If you know more about 9/11 than we do, please feel free to share your knowledge.

“please feel free to share your knowledge”

Cheers.

Will do.

9/11 Proof of Controlled Demolition World Trade Center

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Z_K4r7GXU&feature=related

&

http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/05/21/nist-report-on-wtc-7-debunked-exposed/

ewingsc, foot in mouth, wrote:

“Contestants must explain how normal oxygen-starved office fires…”

WHAT oxygen-starved fires, bunky?

LOL!

Cat still got your tongue, ewingsc?

Nope.

&

ZOOMED EXPLOSIONS – WTC7

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

Windows in a vertical line are simultaneously blown out by the explosions which brought down World Trade Center Building 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8InITc81do

&

NIST engineer denies molten steel at Ground Zero

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36bkCB8sTY

ewingsc, foot in mouth, wrote:

“Contestants must explain how normal oxygen-starved office fires…”

WHAT oxygen-starved fires, ewingsc?

This?: http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc2.html

How is that fire “oxygen-starved”, ewingsc?

Maybe all this smoke from WTC 7 can magically go through window glass?:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

…

No fires, ewingsc?:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

I think it’s time for you to LYING to your readers, ewingsc. Your game was up years ago:

World Trade Center Building 7
and the Lies of the “9/11 Truth Movement”

…

Tell your readers here why you HAVE to lie to them, ewingsc?

Wow; look at all that evidence of explosives. Any thoughts on why not one explosively-severed column was found in the debris, ew? Why didn’t the smoke move before the tops of the towers began falling? Why didn’t seismographs at LDEO or any other location close to the WTC record these explosions prior to any collapse? More conspirators?

What kind of explosives demolish buildings and then keep steel molten in the debris for several months, ew? Would you link me to another controlled demolition where molten steel was found in the debris even a minute afterward? Do you have any reports of molten aluminum or lead at Ground Zero, since both were in abundance inside the towers and WTC 7? Where did the molten steel come from, since no partially-melted pieces were found?
You’re the 9/11 researcher here, and I’m only trying to learn from you, so please help me out.

oh shut up spambot.

Think you scrolled straight past these – so here they are again:

9/11 Proof of Controlled Demolition World Trade Center

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Z_K4r7GXU&feature=related

http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/05/21/nist-report-on-wtc-7-debunked-exposed/

Windows in a vertical line are simultaneously blown out by the explosions which brought down World Trade Center Building 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8InITc81do

and my favourite :

NIST engineer denies molten steel at Ground Zero

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36bkCB8sTY

Desperate.

Disinfo.

Damage control.

Disgusting.

Are you going to take the big $5,000 challenge above, alblury ?

You can do it.

I know you can

Allberry: “You are here to educate me, aren’t you, ew?”

I’m pretty sure no one here is even slightly interested in you. Berry.

Allberry: “How many different derogatory names have you called me and bje in the last few weeks”

I can think of a few, and you are soooo richly deserving of every last one of them.
As for edwards, I scraped something that made me think of him off my shoe the other day after walking across the lawn.

Allberry: “I call that harassment.”
blub blub. poor you.

Allberry: “instead of discussing anything intelligently?”
that is NOT your intent here you sack of crap, we are operating on your level, S O Y O U C A N U N D E R S T A N D U S.

edwards: “LOL!” indeed, you are so unhip its a wonder your bum dosen’t fall off, daddyo.

ewing: “Are you going to take the big $5,000 challenge above, alblury ?
You can do it. I know you can”

easy money for you ‘experts’ (on everything)

Seen this, Lom ?

http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/06/07/steven-jones-kevin-ryan-debunk-the-nist-report/

Goes a long way to explaining why bj and alblury hate Kevin Ryan so much, and why bj and alblury are currently living out their lives here at uncensored.

I don’t like Ryan because he’s a liar. Why do you like liars so much, ew?

Btw, what kind of explosives demolish buildings and then keep steel molten in the debris for several months? Would you link me to another controlled demolition where molten steel was found in the debris even a minute afterward? Do you have any reports of molten aluminum or lead at Ground Zero, since both were in abundance inside the towers and WTC 7? Where did the molten steel come from, since no partially-melted pieces were found in the debris?

“Btw, what kind of explosives demolish buildings and then keep steel molten in the debris for several months?”

are you really so naive, arrogant and ignorant, allberry, to think that there is nothing in the arsenal of the most powerful nation on earth that you are not aware of?

You also live in a fantasy world.

Where can I get some? If it keeps steel molten for months, I’m going to put a boiler in my basement fueled by it. No more oil bills.

You don’t like Ryan because you are scared to death about what he has to say.

More NIST Debunkery here

http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/06/07/9-11-science-vs-conspiracy-theories/

And you -are- “arrogant and ignorant”, alblury.

And I don’t care what you think.

Liars don’t scare me, ew, they disgust me.

You read the last line of my last post, right?

Tell it someone who gives a shit what you think.

Because I don’t.

I think you are full of shit.

I think NIST is full of shit.

And here’s but a few of the many

-many-

reasons why.

http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/06/07/9-11-science-vs-conspiracy-theories/

http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/06/07/steven-jones-kevin-ryan-debunk-the-ni

If you can’t handle me having opinions of my own

- then we probably don’t have much more to say to each other.

You are a repulsive individual, albury.

Enjoy the site.

Enter the contest above.

ewingsc wrote:

“Are you going to take the big $5,000 challenge above, alblury ?”

Guess what, ewingsc? It’s a phony challenge.

I told you you should have done your due diligence.

bj, I’m cutting and pasting my last post directed to albury – here again

- directed at you –

becaause you too, are a desperate deceitful scumbag – worthy of nothing but contempt:

“Tell it someone who gives a shit what you think.

Because I don’t.

I think you are full of shit.

I think NIST is full of shit.

And here’s but a few of the many

-many-

reasons why.

http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/06/07/9-11-science-vs-conspiracy-theories/

http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/06/07/steven-jones-kevin-ryan-debunk-the-ni

If you can’t handle me having opinions of my own

- then we probably don’t have much more to say to each other.

You are a

-truly-

repulsive individual, bj.

Enjoy the site.

Enter the contest above.

Oh and fuck you bj.

Why do you continue to attack me and bje personally instead of refuting anything, ew? My June 6, 2010, 4:09 am post is still here if you’re interested in responding to it instead of name-calling.

“Where can I get some? If it keeps steel molten for months, I’m going to put a boiler in my basement fueled by it. No more oil bills.

Posted by albury | June 7, 2010, 1:48 pm”

and when you see it on ‘discovery channel’ (where you do the majority of your research) you will blindly accept it and move on, never once thinking “i publicly denied that such a thing was conceivable”
As you debunkers always do when time eventually and inevitably proves you WRONG.

“Why do you continue to attack me and bje personally instead of refuting anything, ew? My June 6, 2010, 4:09 am post is still here if you’re interested in responding to it instead of name-calling”

because, shitsack, its the only language you trolls understand.

We have already established that debate is out of the question with you blind fools.
As anything we submit as ‘evidence’ is automatically ruled out as inadmissible, even though its abundantly clear you never even click on the links.
‘You just know’

thats why, spamuppet-troll-stooge-idiot.
Are you a bit dense?

What laws of physics were violated in NCSTAR 1A, Lombeer? If that’s too tough for you, try answering some of the questions I posted here on June 6, 2010 at 4:09 am. Thanks in advance.

NCSTAR1A again. that’s like the Israeli government investigating themselves.
If I wanted to wire a building without anyone knowing
I would use a network system like they use in the pyrotechnics industry, I would wire the system using standard looking ethernet cable with rj45 connectors and wire it under the guise of network infrastructure upgrades.
All totally conceivable, network upgrades take place all the time in large office buildings.
So all your linear dribblings about ” where is the det chord? because it would have to have been done exactly like every other controlled demolition” is smoke and mirrors.
Its highly unlikely they would have used det chord for something they wanted to do in a covert way.

Would your system cut any steel, especially columns, Lombeer? The system allegedly used for the WTC collapses didn’t, or they would have been very noticeable in the debris. That’s really covert. Please feel free to tell me what’s wrong in NCSTAR 1 or 1A.

“Please feel free to tell me what’s wrong in NCSTAR 1 or 1A.”

I’ve already told you over in “ass handed to him” but you chose to ignore it.

Are you telling me you have read NCSTAR 1, in its entirety?
1A, I can understand, 30 pages of introduction of the actors (which obviously impressed you) +table of contents, and “this page was left blank intentionally” pages and there is not much to it.

You’re stalling, Lombeer. What in NCSTAR 1 or 1A is inaccurate, dishonest, or wrong? I’ve already pointed out to you some of the things that are wrong with the claims of the 9/11 “truth movement.”

Lombeer is not stalling.

Albury is stalling – and misdirecting and attempting to bully and corral 911 discussion on this site into red-herring and inconsequential areas such as the deeply suspect NIST report.

He is deeply despised for this.

“What in NCSTAR 1 or 1A is inaccurate, dishonest, or wrong?”

It failed to account for or investigate the possibilities of the use of controlled demo explosions.

There were no “possibilities,” ew, but NIST addressed it in NCSTAR 1A and in these FAQs:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Rpt: What in NCSTAR 1 or 1A is inaccurate, dishonest, or wrong?

“There were no “possibilities,”

Bullshit. Pure bullshit.

albury needs to go push his wtc.nist.gov crap hard someplace else

He also needs to enter the above contest.

That money is virtually already his.

“You’re stalling, Lombeer. What in NCSTAR 1 or 1A is inaccurate”

A copy paste from a previous post is all this is worth

Excuse my absence.
Albury, whats the point in continuously obsessing on NCSTAR 1A and if we have all read it ?
We all know it makes no difference to you.
First off, If we have not read it our views (according to you) are irrelevant.
Secondly, if we have read it, unless we are qualified engineers we most likely would not fully understand it, therefore our views (according to you) are irrelevant.
Thirdly, if we HAVE read it and we ARE engineers and we DISAGREE with it our views (according to you) would be irrelevant. Because we would be ‘crazies’
So, some of us have clearly stated that we don’t believe the the official government account of 911, so why would we believe a government report on the subject?
You ‘believe’ ncstar 1A, neat, and the MIT (military industrial turd) scientists ‘believe’ they are right in the findings.
But what do they say (to cover their asses) on page XXXV of NCSTAR 1A, Albury?
Section ES2 ‘This Report’
It states quite clearly ” however the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of (their words not mine) before congressional action and funding was available for this investigation to begin. As a result, there are some facts the could not be discerned and, thus, there are uncertainties in this accounting”
But according to them that’s all “sweet as”
I’m assuming they already had their results planned ahead of time.?
So why should we give a fig about NCSTAR 1A again?
You yourself repeatedly refer to the “probable collapse sequence” of WTC 7
Would you like a definition of probable? … well you are going to get one
probable |ˌprɒbəb(ə)l|
adjective [often with clause ]
likely to be the case or to happen : i.e. it is probable that the economic situation will deteriorate further
As to your ‘rebuttal’ of NZTRUTH’s previous post.
Al Qaeda created in the Manhattan courtroom, USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AVJBsNPs4
Zbigniew Brzezinski to Jihadists: Your cause is right!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTv2nFjMBk&feature=related
Barack Obama’s top foreign policy advisor has links to terrorism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V-bxx7OyZ0
FBI terrorists etc etc etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaPg1n8P-tM

Posted by Lombeer | May 16, 2010, 1:42 pm

============================

Now dooberry, so you load this info this time, my problem with NCSTAR 1A is

But what do they say (to cover their asses) on page XXXV of NCSTAR 1A, Albury?
Section ES2 ‘This Report’
It states quite clearly ” however the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of (their words not mine) before congressional action and funding was available for this investigation to begin. As a result, there are some facts the could not be discerned and, thus, there are uncertainties in this accounting”


All future parrot like repetitions of “what is wrong with my beloved ncstar 1 a” will be met with this exact post. You spam us we spam you.

What in NCSTAR 1 or 1A is inaccurate, dishonest, or wrong?

“You spam us we spam you.”

Aye – and any interested observer of this back and forth – can make up their own mind about 911

as opposed to having their opinions -given- to them by albury and bj

But what do they say (to cover their asses) on page XXXV of NCSTAR 1A, Albury?
Section ES2 ‘This Report’
It states quite clearly ” however the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of (their words not mine) before congressional action and funding was available for this investigation to begin. As a result, there are some facts the could not be discerned and, thus, there are uncertainties in this accounting”

since you no ready no good.

The foundations for the “War on Terror” lie in the ruins of the World Trade Center. The official account of events surrounding the 9/11/01 collapses is full of inconsistencies, but the mainstream media does not seek answers…

The 2,749 deaths in the World Trade Center on 9/11 were a convenient battle cry to the American public for a preplanned war, so could the collapses have been a governmentally orchestrated “catastrophic and catalyzing event”, just like the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11_wtc_videos.html

We give you no opinions, ewingsc, just the facts — the facts that you cannot refute.

It’s over. You failed. You’ve made a complete mess of Uncensored.com and exposed your idiocy for all to see.

Go back to school and get an education before you are deported.

No, technically what you are giving are ‘other peoples opinions’, the establishments opinions. Brad.

No, Lombeer, we give you the facts, You’ve had the facts for up to 9 years.

You deny the facts. You have to pretend they don’t exist. ALL deniers do that.

You haven’t refuted the facts. You’ve had every opportunity but you are incapable of dealing with the facts.

Just like every sick denier in the world.

That’s why, factually, you’re no different than a Holocaust Denier because you HATE evidence and facts.

oh there you go again, in an act of pure desperation, trying to align us with holocaust deniers.
Yawn.
If we are so ineffectual, why are you here?
…every day?
…day after day after day? … tell us bradley.
Whats wrong with YOU?
Are you a sadomasochist, is that it?

…tell us about your childhood brad edwards.
what made you the tragic toothless old cobra you are today?

how are our spampuppets coming along with their submissions for the competition?

Have you made some dioramas?
I can’t wait to see your submission brad, I bet its neat!
I hope you didn’t use all the pipe-cleaners.

It must be easy since you have all the ‘facts’

I wait with baited breath.

what have you baited your breath with, Lombeer?

“It’s over. You failed. You’ve made a complete mess of Uncensored.com and exposed your idiocy for all to see.”

If you say so, pal.

I’m sure there’s a fascinating mental illness thesis for some budding psych student somewhere in all your posts here bj.

How many people died in WWII, bj ?

6 million ?

Or about 66 million ?

“what have you baited your breath with, Lombeer?”

fish

ok me a JK rowling are badd spellerz, you got me.

Sorry, I’ll correct it…

I wait with abated breath.
or the shortened form,
I wait with bated breath.

phew, glad we’ve got that cleared up

Lombeer, incapable of understanding the written word, wrote:

“oh there you go again, in an act of pure desperation, trying to align us with holocaust deniers.”

Denial is denial is denial. What part of that still confuses you, Lombeer?

9/11 Deniers, Holocaust Deniers, Evolution deniers, round-earth deniers, moon-landing deniers, vaccine deniers – you all have the common – and sick – characteristic of denying facts and reality.

On a scale of importance, right now 9/11 Denial comes right after Holocaust Denial. The subject matter is different, bozo, but the political intent and outright REJECTION of firm, clear, proven evidence about 9/11 in which you intentionally engage is as despicable and sick as Holocaust Denial.

You’re a sickie, Lombeer, a real sickie.

That sickie would be you bj.

So…

6 million dead ..? … or 66 million dead, bj ?

Bonus question : Has there ever been any other Holocausts anywhere else on the world at any other time ?

Well ?

Not a difficult question to answer bj.

6 mill or 66 mill dead, bj?