People who don't understand physics or technology and it limitations are the ones who readily accept conspiracy theories.

I guess you are referring to Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth.

Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e.controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.

--

There is however a growing body of very solid evidence regarding these "collapses" that has emerged in...

read more»

People who don't understand physics or technology and it limitations are the ones who readily accept conspiracy theories.

I guess you are referring to Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth.

Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e.controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.

--

There is however a growing body of very solid evidence regarding these "collapses" that has emerged in the last couple of years - gaining ground even in the mainstream media. This new evidence casts grave doubt upon the theories of the 9/11 building collapse "experts" as well as the official reports by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST.

Or perhaps it is Scholars For 9/11 Truth, and their diverse membership you choose to ignore.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth (S9/11T) is a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11.

I suppose that Pilots For 9/11 Truth, as a group, are also in the technological darkness you refer to as well? Their membership obviously has no insights to offer.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers pe

Thanks for the links for groups of people 'seeking the truth'. That's not the same as those who know the truth. Those seeking don't have the answers they are 'seeking' becuase they apparently don't know the facts. Here's a few for review as well:

Purdue University recreates collapse of twin towers using most accurate scientific computer models to date.


As for the towers and building 7 and any flase claims about controlled demolition: I provide the [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Columbia+University+Lamont-Doherty+Earth+Observatory+9/11&btnG=Google+S...

Thanks for the links for groups of people 'seeking the truth'. That's not the same as those who know the truth. Those seeking don't have the answers they are 'seeking' becuase they apparently don't know the facts. Here's a few for review as well:

Purdue University recreates collapse of twin towers using most accurate scientific computer models to date.


As for the towers and building 7 and any flase claims about controlled demolition: I provide the Columbia University Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatories own seismograph machine that fully recorded every thud, every explosion and every collapse that happened on that tragic day. And even though Alex Jones (and others) tried to twist these facts they were in fact refuted by the researchers whose data they claimed to reference.


Furthermore, NOBODY has produced ANY video footage of any of the WTC buildings showing any outward exposions from the bases preceeding any collapse. All of the controlled demolitions in recorded history plainly show these outward explosions as the support columns are severed and the building drops downwards. That's what a controlled drop is. If you have real footage of the WTC buildings we'd all love to see it.

Napster has referred to the Purdue computer simulation several times on Clipmarks, as if it were some Holy Grail of truth about the issue of the falling of the WTC. Critics have raised MANY very particular questions about the Purdue simulation and have observed that it actually contradicts the official NIST position on the WTC collapse.

Beyond that, however, the Purdue simulation still does not address the questions which NIST also ignored:

(1) The simulation either fails to include, or inaccurately represents, the 47 core columns holding up each of the Twin Towers.

(2) Most of the jet fuel burned outside the buildings, especially in the case of the South Tower - which produced a gl...

Napster has referred to the Purdue computer simulation several times on Clipmarks, as if it were some Holy Grail of truth about the issue of the falling of the WTC. Critics have raised MANY very particular questions about the Purdue simulation and have observed that it actually contradicts the official NIST position on the WTC collapse.

Beyond that, however, the Purdue simulation still does not address the questions which NIST also ignored:

(1) The simulation either fails to include, or inaccurately represents, the 47 core columns holding up each of the Twin Towers.

(2) Most of the jet fuel burned outside the buildings, especially in the case of the South Tower - which produced a glowing orange fireball as the building was struck at an oblique angle. So the simulation could not hold true for the South Tower.

(3) The people who designed the Twin Towers did not think that an airplane plus fire from the jet fuel could bring the buildings down. Indeed, they assumed that "all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building", and yet assumed "The building structure would still be there." Since most of the fuel (especially with the South Tower) exploded outside of the buildings, shouldn't they "still be there"?

(4) Even if the planes and fire had initiated a collapse sequence, why did the towers totally collapse, when no modern steel-framed building has ever before completely collapsed due to fire?

(5) Why did they collapse at virtually free-fall speed? And why did WTC7 -- which wasn't even hit by a plane -- totally collapse at free-fall speed later that same day?

(6) How could the buildings have fallen at near free-fall speed, indicating very little resistance, and yet produce tremendous pulverization of concrete, which indicates great resistance?

(7) No one can explain why steel columns in building 7 were "PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures". Absent controlled demolition, how could such temperatures have been generated by jet f

Napster has referred to the Purdue computer simulation several times on Clipmarks, as if it were some Holy Grail of truth about the issue of the falling of the WTC. Critics have raised MANY very particular questions about the Purdue simulation and have observed that it actually contradicts the official NIST position on the WTC collapse.

Beyond that, however, the Purdue simulation still does not address the questions which NIST also ignored:

I have on a few occasions posted a Google search link to the latest Purdue 9/11 computer models as they are considered by many to be the most scientifically accurate models to date- explaining the extreme temps and freefall collapsin...

Napster has referred to the Purdue computer simulation several times on Clipmarks, as if it were some Holy Grail of truth about the issue of the falling of the WTC. Critics have raised MANY very particular questions about the Purdue simulation and have observed that it actually contradicts the official NIST position on the WTC collapse.

Beyond that, however, the Purdue simulation still does not address the questions which NIST also ignored:

I have on a few occasions posted a Google search link to the latest Purdue 9/11 computer models as they are considered by many to be the most scientifically accurate models to date- explaining the extreme temps and freefall collapsing of the towers. I have not found the 'critics' you speak of regarding the simulations from other professionals in the field. If you have links I'd appreciate seeing them.

Also, regarding the 'alledged demolitions' of ANY of the buildings that day- there are over 20 seismograph machines that surround the Manhattan area and none of them registered any explosions (like you would get from controlled demolitions). The initial impacts of the aircraft hitting the towers and the subsequent collapse waves were fully recorded by the sites however. The ones that Alex Jones has tried to use as refrerences have been discredited by the owners of the facilities themselves. So in short, there is no real or circumstantial evidence to support any buildings being dropped by demo charges.