Picture

See below youtube video with Erik Lawyer, firefighter, one of the experts in "Experts Speak Out".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I moved through the most urban parts of Cleveland pretty quickly, grateful for light traffic on a Saturday afternoon.  In the greater Cleveland area, I stopped a several fire stations, Huron, Lorain, Sheffield Lake, Euclid, Wickliffe, Willoughby, Mentor, Painesville, Grand River and Perry.  I also stopped at the police stations in Huron, Willoughby and Mentor, and I give DVDs to patrol officers in Braetenal, Painesville and Perry. 


At all of these stops I was received with respectful consideration of the effort to ride across the country to raise awareness for AE911Truth – everyone said some version of “thank you, I’ll take a look at it.”  One police chief listened as far as the nanothermite and said “Well, how did that get there?!”  When I said, that’s the reason for the call for a proper investigation, he said, “That’s what I was just thinking.”  One fire chief, welcomed me warmly and invited me in, and then when he started listening to the evidence he put on a really good poke face – I honestly could not discern anything from his facial expressions.  He did offer me a fire department patch before I left the station.  At another fire stations, one of the firefighters was very skeptical but interested and agreed to watch the DVD, and one firefighter was very interested and asked questions about who and motive that I just couldn’t answer – he said that he had wondered how the buildings could come down the way they did, that he was interested, he’d definitely watch the DVD. 

At one police station the dispatcher sent me to deliver the DVD upstairs to the detective division – the receptionist there, when she’d heard that I’d ridden 3300 miles, in her surprise offered me water.  I told her that I didn’t need water at the moment.  The pattern continued when I went around the corner to the fire station, one of the firefighter had the same immediate response “Wow, do you need some water?”  I assured him that I was well hydrated.  As I was sitting outside talking with a news editor, a training officer came by, and a few minutes later came back with a bottle of water – he actually got a bottle of water into my hand (even though I was well hydrated).

I also stopped at the WELW radio station to deliver a DVD.  I have an interview set up with that station for Oct 17.  I dropped in on the Mentor Herald News and talked with the editor – the reporters were all busy, so I offered to send a press release and a photo.  I also talked with the editor of the Mentor Patch online newsletter affiliated with AOL.  Here's the article.

I arrived in the Cleveland area after a long ride in the rain on Friday.   I’d hit a railroad crossing badly and tweaked my rear wheel on the ride into the city on Friday, so my brakes were working poorly for this urban ride.  Riding out of the city on Monday am, the Bicycle Hub mechanic trued my wheel, replaced my rear tire (some of the tread had been ripped off by the railroad crossing), adjusted my brakes, and cleaned up my bike a bit - I appreciated having my bike in capable hands when it needed repairs!

Monday night, I camped at Geneva State Park, just outside of Geneva on the Lake.  The temps dropped to 34 by morning.  My cold weather gear is working okay.  I was cold but not miserable.  I was able to fall asleep and sleep through the night.  In the morning I had a good breakfast at a café.  The waitress and one of the customers was very interested in what I was doing – some of the many people I meet who say, “It didn’t look right the way the buildings came down like that.”  The customer bought my breakfast.

On the road to Erie, PA, I stopped at Ashtabula.  The fire station and police department are about 2.5 miles from my route.  I didn’t make the 5 mile round trip.  Instead I spent the time it would have taken me to ride to the fire station sittings in the sun outside the Mother of Sorrows church.  I needed the rest and time to ponder on the theology related to this whole situation, 9/11.

Back on the road I encountered several fire stations, so I stopped and dropped off DVDs – Conneaut fire department and police station, and three Lake City stations.  At the fire stations I received the usual polite thank-you.  The dispatcher at the police station said she’d share it with the patrol officers.  I also dropped a DVD off at a Lutheran church outside of Conneaut, just taped onto the door. 

At a bar and grill outside of Erie, PA, the first people I talked with were awed with appreciation for my efforts – they gave hand signals indicating love.  The waiter also expressed interest.  I gave them DVDs – I trust they’ll talk with friends about what they learn from their DVDs.

In the morning I woke up to the sound of roaring waves on Lake Erie and wind in the trees.  It sounded intimidating, but wasn’t so bad once I got out of the tent.  I had the good fortune to be leaving my campsite just in time to meet the city building inspector out for a morning bike ride.  He listened to what I was doing, took a DVD, and then guided me into town.

In town, I found the fire department and dropped off a DVD.  The Erie Times-News is right across the street.  I called the number I’d been given by the AE911Truth team for the newspaper and let them know that I was right across the street.  A reporter and a photographer came to meet me at the door.  After a brief interview with the news reporter, the photographer got some video of me on the road and coached me through making a 30-second statement for the camera in front of the fire station (this was a first for me giving a statement in front of a camera, so I was grateful for coaching).

Then the rain started.  I made quick stops at the sheriff office and the police department.  I left DVDs for the county sheriff and gave a DVD to a patrol officer doing security at the door.  I gave a DVD to the dispatcher at the police station.

The ride in the rain was not a problem.  It was wet, but I had a favorable wind.  Key indicators of wind direction in addition to the American flags are autumn leaves dancing and skittering down the road and weeping willow branches waving my direction.  The ride along the lake is beautiful and aside from an occasional steep dip into and out of creek crossings mostly level.  Riding in the wind and the rain reminds me of sailboat racing, where maintaining an alert, active and capable attitude in wind and rain is the norm.  The biggest problem for me with the rain is that people tend to treat me with wariness when I’m wearing rain gear. 

Crossing the state line from Pennsylvania into New York, the rain intensified and the sun came out – perfect conditions for rainbows.  Riding along, it was beautiful to see the end of a rainbow tracking along the tops of the red, gold and green trees.  At little later there was a double rainbow and then the sunlight intensified so that the red, yellow and green of the trees and the rainbow was reflected in the puddles on the road.  In the midst of all that brilliance, who cares about wet feet?

In Fredonia, I was hosted by some AE911Truth petition signers, a physics professor and a webmaster from the university.  A few other people joined our gathering to learn about the bike ride and the cause.   It was great to have a home cooked breakfast in the morning with seconds, the first since Dickenson, ND.


 


Comments

10/11/2012 9:48am

Dear Rena, My husband, David Chandler, the physics teacher in the 911 DVD, has been telling me about your ride. I just tuned into your blog. You are so incredible. I am from Ohio and know the cities that you are stopping it. We couldn't make it to Seattle to see you off. Your interview on the TV was fabulous, do not change a thing. If you need anything, money, ANYTHING, to keep you going, please let us know. Please!!! I mean it.

Reply
10/12/2012 5:01am

Rena, I am so happy to hear you are now in NY state! It's still conspicuously obvious that your journey is meant to be, as a it has been since the start. I've seen stuff like that happen before when something beneficial is going on. Angels all around you!

Reply
10/13/2012 9:09am

Wow, Rena! You're in the homestretch. What a perfect time to head thru the East Coast with all those brilliant fall colors. That coaching really paid off, I'm putting your interview on my blog. Great job!!! :)

Reply
aj
10/13/2012 12:15pm

Wow! God Bless you both! Wish I were still in upstate NY to help get the word out and food out. Jody, thanks for bringing this magnificent story of these heroes to wider attention.

Reply
Albury Smith
10/14/2012 8:10am

If we need you to tell us that a third NYC hi-rise collapsed on 9/11, what was the alleged motive for these secret, imaginary, fireproof, redundant, and unusually quiet demolition explosives?

Reply
10/14/2012 11:51am

Pam and Rena are doing an amazing job at drawing people's attention to a unique event in the history of science. The only day in history that a modern steel framed skyscraper collapsed as a result of "fire." Even more amazing three such skyscrapers collapsed that day. One of them at free fall acceleration. The numerous "firsts" of this day should keep engineers and scientists busy for decades as they study how the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11.

Now you want Pam and Rena to also tell you why the laws of physics were suspended on that day? Aren't you asking rather much of these ladies?

However, if you really need a hint as to the why, you might ask yourself why the US started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you can't figure that out, maybe you should go back to watching the presidential debates.

http://howstupidare.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-stupid-are-americans.html

Reply
Rena
10/14/2012 2:19pm

Hi Albury, My purpose is to raise awareness and point to the need for a proper investigation based on the scientific forensic evidence. Thanks. Rena

Reply
Albury Smith
10/15/2012 6:05am

The NIST WTC investigations are considered quite proper by the ASCE, ICC, AIA, RIBA, and other relevant professional organizations, Rena, as well as by most established structural engineering publications. Dropping empty cardboard boxes on each other:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw
is not considered proper scientific forensic procedure or evidence, nor is divining collapse causes by timing them, dishonestly presenting the times (6.5 seconds for WTC 7's facade is about 2 seconds short, and it's impossible to time to the nearest 1/10 second from the videos), citing molten metal in debris fires weeks later, or proving that rust, sulfur, silicon, and aluminum were present in some dust samples, and then claiming that they "remind" you of something for which you provide no exemplars. Proper investigations also require plausible motive and perpetrator(s), and if we need someone to "raise awareness" of the fact that WTC 7 collapsed at ~5:21 PM, you've pretty well eliminated both. Since Swiss Re, Lloyd's, Zurich Financial, Copenhagen Re, and 8 other major insurance companies all paid out a total of $4.68 billion for 9/11-related losses at the WTC without even mentioning these secret explosive demolitions, your awareness raising seems to have a long way to go.
Please count the number of signatories to Erik Lawyer's petition who even CLAIM to be FDNY:
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
I hope you'll raise their awareness too, since they have even more reason than you do for wanting to know about the WTC collapses.

10/15/2012 9:15am

Albury, an argument such as "dropping cardboard boxes..." is called a straw man in a debate. It is the use of an alternate argument in place of the other side's argument. A quick review of the materials at www.ae911truth.org should be sufficient to demonstrate that their position is not based on cardboard boxes.

Likewise the specific losses an insurance company has nothing to do with the validity of AE911Truth's position. If I may offer an example of an argument of your form. Mr. X was issued a speeding ticket by Officer Y. Mr. X had not been speeding. Mr. X paid the ticket. By your method of argument, Mr.X had been speeding. As I hope you will understand, the act of driving too fast and the act of paying the ticket need not have any relationship.

As to WTC 7 falling with the acceleration of gravity, perhaps you are unaware that NIST has admitted to this. At the same time, NIST has failed to explain it. David Chandler's site www.911speakout.org may be helpful to you in this matter.

Reply
Albury Smith
10/15/2012 4:27pm

An argument of your form is that 12 different insurance companies, at least 4 of which are foreign-based, all paid Mr X a total of $4.68 billion without even investigating the nature of his losses.
NIST did not "admit" to Chandler's precious 2.25 seconds from t=1.75 to t=4 seconds (not the first 2.25 seconds as incorrectly related by a biking lady to a recent firehouse acquaintance); they couldn't have cared less about it, since it had nothing to do with the cause of WTC 7's collapse, and they're forensic SEs, not wannabes. A proper venue for Mr. Chandler is right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuBiDavR3FU
instead of spreading junk science online and begging for donations. By his faulty reasoning, every column on every floor in a real C/D is rigged, since the difference in collapse rate is indiscernible from one floor to the next in any of them, and that simply isn't how real C/Ds work. He could easily disprove his own "theory" by doing the same PhysicsToolKit analysis of the Landmark Tower implosion, and then studying the charge placement drawings:
http://www.break.com/index/landmark_tower_demolition.html
Pretty steady drop considering the fact that almost all of the explosives were on the lower floors, huh?

Reply
10/15/2012 5:24pm

Albury,

Are you familiar with the phrase, "baffle them with bullshit?" Your style of writing is what leads me to ask this. When speaking with a non-specialist audience, if your objective to be clear instead of to confuse, you should not resort to the use of jargon that is likely to be unfamiliar to the audience.

As to your remarks about the insurance companies, my argument is the logical one without regard to the sums involved. Perhaps insurance executives believe it is not wise to argue with the same government that sends them hundreds of billions when their speculations go wrong, as was the case with AIG.

As to Mr. Chandler, he is not spreading junk science or begging for donations. He is a patriot serving humanity. Mr. Chandler and others were instrumental in getting NIST to admit to free fall. As I suspect you are aware, free fall means zero structural resistance. Any collapse resulting from fire is a collapse that experiences structural resistance. If your objective is to enlighten the readers of Rena's and Pam's blogs, perhaps you could document an instance of another skyscraper collapsing as a result of "ordinary office fires" and an instance of any large structure that did collapse as a result of fire doing so with the acceleration of gravity. If not, perhaps sticking with the baffling is your forte.

Good Works

Albury Smith
10/15/2012 6:24pm

One-Trick Chandler's a charlatan serving himself, GW, not a "patriot serving humanity," and I already explained to you why his basic premise is just plain wrong. It's unfortunate that the NIST engineers had to put up with his nonsense, but the free-fall period he's so obsessed with is clearly explained by their collapse sequence, and not something they had to "admit." Analyze the Landmark Tower implosion the same way he did WTC 7's collapse, and tell me which floors had all of the columns cut, and which ones had few to none cut. As I said, he's peddling junk science and begging for donations.
Insurance companies really aren't that generous with hundreds of millions of dollars each, so you may want to enlighten their legal departments to Gage's "research." I'd also suggest bringing the FDNY up to speed, since few to none of them signed Lawyer's petition. Aren't they as smart as your average troofer, or don't they care what killed more than 300 of their colleagues, relatives, and close friends?

Mark Snyder
10/15/2012 8:44pm

Watching the Landmark building video (http://www.break.com/index/landmark_tower_demolition.html), I see flashes all along the full height of the building. Obviously these detonations served a purpose and they did not rely solely on explosions at the base. This video provides a possible clue into why the twin towers were destroyed essentially from the top down. You can see the entire Landmark building beginning to tilt from the base. If that had happened to the twin towers, there would have been huge amounts of damage to neighboring buildings, and that would have been unacceptable to anyone on the "inside" planning such a demolition. It is very suspicous that the only buildings suffering complete destruction carried the "WTC" designation. Foreign terrorists would have relished greater damage and attacked the base asymmetrically, as in 1993, which, assuming enough explosive energy, would cause the building to tip over rather than disintegrate through the path of greatest resistance as we see in the videos of both WTC 1 & 2.

Building 7 also demonstrates an apparent intent to avoid damage to it's neighbors, resulting in a short pile of debris, mostly in the footprint, with the outer walls falling last on top of the pile, which is the exact intent of a well-performed, textbook perfect controlled demolition.

Also, NIST failed to account for the molten metal found in the basements of all 3 of the tallest WTC towers. To claim unassisted hydrocarbon-fueled fires can melt steel is to defy the second law of thermodynamics (simply put, temperatures higher than the source of heat cannot be attained no matter how long the exposure to the source), something NIST has no problem with by simply ignoring the photographic evidence and eyewitness reports from first responders.

The NIST report ignored eyewitness testimony of NYFD firefighters who reported multiple explosions, ignored hard evidence from the FEMA report (and elsewhere) and demonstrated a lack of scientific methodology by refusing to even test samples for explosives or explosive residues. NIST also mentions that they only had a fraction of a percent of the steel to look at. This was of course due to the illegal and rapid destruction and removal of evidence from the crime scene -- another valid reason in itself to call for a new investigation.

Mr. Smith, as patriotic Americans, it is our duty to question authority. That is one of the essential components of the principles this country was founded upon. I question why anyone who considers themselves to be a patriotic individual, would challenge a fellow American's duty to call attention to a government agency that demonstrates even one of the above mentioned investigative shortcomings, let alone the rest of the unanswered questions about every other aspect of what happened on 9/11.

“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”
― Benjamin Franklin

10/15/2012 9:26pm

To: Albury
From: Winston

Your arguments have degenerated to name calling and you seem obsessed with the Landmark Tower. Please remember that NIST asserts that the WTC towers collapsed as a result of fires, and the audience is interested in the World Trade Center buildings.

You might want to revise the history books and just pop in a skyscraper or two that collapsed from fire and at free fall speed. That shouldn't be too hard. Just edit a few wikipedia pages.

Good night,
Winston

Reply
Albury Smith
10/16/2012 7:17am

Aren't you at all interested in validating Chandler's hypothesis, Winston? I'm not "obsessed" with any particular known C/D, but Landmark clearly demonstrates that differences in acceleration rates are indiscernible between the lower floors that are considerably weakened by explosives and the upper ones that are crushed almost solely by gravity. In Chandler's hypothesis, 24 core columns weighing 730# per lineal foot and having 3.070" webs and 4.91" thick flanges are miraculously cut multiple times with secret explosives in a split second, along with 57 lighter ones weighing a mere 500# per lineal foot, and in the NIST hypothesis, interior floor collapses cause key columns to become unsupported laterally and buckle over a ~7-second period before the facade begins falling. The eyewitness accounts, both immediately prior to and during WTC 7's collapse, as well as during the ~8 months of cleanup, clearly support the latter hypothesis.
If you ever bothered to read NCSTAR 1A, you'd also know that WTC 7 is the only known instance of a TOTAL collapse of a HI-RISE solely from fires, but many steel-framed structures have collapsed solely from fires. It was hardly unexpected by these NYC eyewitnesses:

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

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

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

Reply
Mark Snyder
10/15/2012 11:36pm

To: Albury Smith,

When you are willing to make all the necessary arrangements to be away from your home and work for 3 months, and undergo all the preparation and organization it takes to begin to ride your bicycle from coast to coast across America in support of the NIST report, and you start your journey, I will read your blog and listen to your arguments as to why you believe in such a poor example of investigation and science. Until then, I will listen to, and support those with the unanswered questions and the conviction it takes to partake in such selfless action in the interest of uncovering the truth for the benefit of America and the world.

Reply
Albury Smith
10/16/2012 7:02am

Mark:

The flashes in the upper stories of the Landmark Tower are the few explosive charges used to keep the building collapsing inward after the massive charges at or near grade started the entire building in motion. Watch the video again, and be sure to turn up the sound. Fiterman Hall and the Deutsche Bank Building were later razed because of debris damage from the WTC collapses, and other non-WTC buildings were extensively damaged, so your logic eludes me.

If molten metal in debris fires long after a collapse is C/D evidence to you, what explosives or incendiaries burn for more than few minutes, and what known C/Ds have left molten metal in their debris? NIST very clearly did account for it in their FAQs, and stated that it was conceivable that even steel may have melted in the debris fires, but that the melting of structural steel was not a factor in any WTC collapse. The FDNY who are quote mined for the word "explosion" did not claim to have heard demolition explosives, didn't connect the sounds to any building collapse, and few to none of them are in the 9/11 "truth movement," as a quick "FDNY" search of signatories to Erik Lawyer's petition will easily confirm:

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469

Despite your assertion, there was nothing "illegal" about scrapping the steel and not paying a fortune to move it multiple times, store it, etc. It was examined by SEAoNY, PANYNJ, NSF, FEMA BPAT, and other engineers during the cleanup, and had very little evidentiary value after that, although some is still stored in Hangar 17 at JFK, and in NIST HQ at Gaithersburg, MD. If the steel had been cut with explosives, everyone on site would have noticed it, regardless of their level of expertise.

Riding a bike from coast to coast may be good exercise and a welcome change of pace, but it doesn't enhance someone's understanding of forensic structural engineering concepts, and it isn't patriotic to libel people with total nonsense, no matter how fervently you do it.

Reply
Mark Snyder
10/16/2012 10:57am

Yes, indeed! in controlled demolitions explosives are used. The Landmark Building was no exception. Those flashes indicate that structural elements are being destroyed to achieve the desired effect. No argument there. The buildings that were damaged to the point where they decided to raze them were not totally destroyed or completely gutted on 9/11 -- I think you misinterpretted what I said.

If molten metal is present it is evidence of something. What do you think caused molten metal to be found long after the collapse? Gravity? Your question is another reason we need a truly scientific, impartial investigation. Can you show me an example of a gravitational collapse that results in molten metal in the basement? The more molten metal you have, the longer it takes to cool down. If molten metal wasn't a factor in any WTC collapse, what is it doing there? How did it get there? What could cause enough heat to melt it? Just more questions that could be answered with a proper investigation.

The firefighters who reported explosions but were ignored by NIST, points out how the nationally accepted and normally carefully followed standard of fire investigation, NFPA 921, was ignored in regard to the WTC investigation. NFPA 921 states in no unceretain terms that when explosions are reported, tests for explosives should be undertaken in the investigation, especially, it includes, in cases of suspected terrorism. Why was this national standard not followed? Another reason to call for a real investigation.

As Erik Lawyer has pointed out, there are many firefighters who agree that something is terribly fishy about the way the buildings came down, but they are in fear of losing their jobs and/or being ridiculed or ostracised if they challenge the government agency produced mainstream media version of the events of 9/11. I suspect your reason to challenge and try to discredit people seeking the truth is for similar reasons. The number of people who support the truth movement, or the 'official' story, is no indicator of what the truth is. Truth is not statistical. The truth of physical events can be determined by real scientific investigation.

There are indeed laws against the removal or destruction of evidence in a crime scene. Have you heard different? Destruction and/or removal of evidence from a crime scene is a felony. You put a price on moving the evidence as though that price should be a consideration in a crime investigation, but what price do you put on the truth concerning those who lost their lives, and their family members who began the 9/11 Truth Movement, whose loved ones remains were put out with the trash, and who are still asking questions that have gone unanswered? Another reason for a real investigation. If a member of your family died when your house was completely destroyed and someone said they heard an explosion, wouldn't you question what happened? Would you settle for an investigation that didn't check for explosive residues? Would you just get rid of the mess as fast as possible so no proper investigation could be done on the evidence?

Judging by the way NIST mishandled it, what makes you think the same influences couldn't have been in place regarding the handling of the SEAoNY, PANYNJ, NSF, FEMA and BPAT investigations? Of course we don't know who may or may not have been bought or coerced -- that would require a new investigation at least. Perhaps you believe it is impossible for corruption of any kind in our government, but that would be pretty naive, wouldn't it? Did any of those 'investigations" you cite explain the complete destruction of any of the three tallest WTC buildings in a manner consistant with the laws of physics -- or at all? If so, please point them out. A truly impartial investigation would not consist solely of members of government agencies or organizations that depend heavily on government funding or have affiliation with big money interests. To limit who does the investgation to that degree is far from impartial.

Yes, of course riding a bike doesn't teach anyone about forensics. Did someone imply it did? In this case, it demonstrates a personal commitment to a cause. It shows that some of us still believe that our government agencies and their actions must be held accountable by the people, and it shows that some people have the courage to question and participate in trying to keep it all honest. This is one of the most important strengths of the design of our system of government. I'm not seeing a case of "libel" here on the part of people asking questions -- I see a case of patriotism in action. I can only conclude that you, based on your writings in this blog, demonstrate an attempt to distract those exercising their heart-felt responsibility to their country. How can you defend such action on your part? Would you have us just believe everything we are told from a single-minded source with mass media complicity and never, ever question authority?

Mark Snyder
10/15/2012 11:37pm

To: Albury Smith,

When you are willing to make all the necessary arrangements to be away from your home and work for 3 months, and undergo all the preparation and organization it takes to begin to ride your bicycle from coast to coast across America in support of the NIST report, and you start your journey, I will read your blog and listen to your arguments as to why you believe in such a poor example of investigation and science. Until then, I will listen to, and support those with the unanswered questions and the conviction it takes to partake in such selfless action in the interest of uncovering the truth for the benefit of America and the world.

Reply
Rena
10/16/2012 5:12am

Hi Albury, I see that you have questions. I appreciate this. One purpose for the 9/11 Journey for Truth bike trek is to open honest public discussion about the scientific forensic evidence from the WTC site.

While I am the person riding my bicycle across the country - a project that I personally sponsored and initiated - I am part of a much larger team of architects, engineers, physicists and others who volunteer our valuable time in support of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

At this time, I do not personally have time to respond to many questions. I am busy, pretty much dawn to dusk, especially as the days get shorter, completing a bicycle tour across the country.

Members of the AE911Truth team are available to answer questions about the science. Please note: questions about motives, insurance policies, etc., are outside the purpose and mission of AE911Truth, http://www.ae911truth.org/en/about-us.html.

I am confident that the team will respond if you, or anyone else, would like to send questions specifically about the science. http://www.ae911truth.org/en/contact.html

Thanks, Rena Patty

Reply
Albury Smith
10/16/2012 7:11am

Thanks for your response, Rena, and I hope you two ladies have a very safe and enjoyable trip. I've contacted Mr. Gage and his people on numerous occasions, and they've never been very forthcoming with answers. Since they believe that two dozen massive W14 X 730 columns like the ones in the core of WTC 7 can be secretly severed with explosives multiple times in Manhattan in a splt second, a video demonstration on just a few W14 X 730s would be much more informative than a long bike ride.

Reply
10/16/2012 7:52am

Albury,

I could not find you answer as to which other skyscraper has ever collapsed as a result of fire. Also, I did not see your answer as to what other large structure has ever collapsed at the rate of free fall (a rate of acceleration which requires no structural resistance) as a result of fire.

Of course, there are so many additional questions that you might want answered as well.

Thus, I trust you will join with me and other supporters of AE911Truth in calling for a new and independent investigation in to what caused the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Good Works

Reply
Albury Smith
10/16/2012 8:43am

Please read my reply to Winston, GW, in which I cited NCSTAR 1A on the fact that fire-induced hi-rise collapses had not occurred prior to 9/11. Divining the cause of a collapse by timing it is pure junk science, as I also explained here. Global collapses by their very nature are very rapid, and the ~2.25 seconds of virtual free fall corresponds to an interval during which the moment-connected perimeter columns buckled in unison, a perfectly normal phenomenon under the circumstances.
Real evidence of C/D would have been seen on the ends of the explosively-cut steel, as well as being heard for miles, and there simply is no real evidence for your hypothesis.

Reply
10/16/2012 10:10am

Albury,

I am glad that acknowledge that no skyscrapers collapsed as a result of fire prior to 9/11. I presume you will also acknowledge that no skyscraper has collapsed as a result of fire after 9/11.

You seem to be quite free throwing around terms like "junk science" and "no evidence" exists. The scientists I know tend to be more cautious about saying such things with regard to whatever topic they are investigating.

You may recall that when a highway bridge collapsed in Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge), the steel from the bridge was kept for study. In fact this collapse was studied quite carefully, as having highway bridges collapse is quite a serious matter. I posit that the collapse of skyscrapers is an even more serious matter. Unfortunately much of the steel from the WTC buildings was shipped away to China before it could be studied.

I have not heard your answer as to how a fire-induced collapse, which by its nature is a collapse that experiences structural resistance, can proceed with an acceleration that precludes the presence of structural resistance.

Again I presume you believe this matter is worth a careful study and that you support AE911Truth's simple suggestion that firsts such those mentioned on this page deserve independent investigation.

However, I will let you have the last word on this matter, as I have other things to do, and I will not post again to follow up with you.

Good Works

Reply
Albury Smith
10/16/2012 10:35am

All of your confusion could be cleared up if Gage and his "1700 experts" would actually adhere to the Scientific Method principle he talks about in his latest video, i.e. testing and experimentation. If they'd simply get some W14 X 730s and show us the new silent method of cutting them multiple times with explosives, I'm sure you'd see the real merits of his hypothesis.

Reply
10/16/2012 10:57am

To: Albury
From: Winston

Minitrue has no records of WTC 7 ever existing.

Please consider this matter all buried.

With double plus good wishes,
Winston

Reply
Albury Smith
10/16/2012 4:59pm

The argument here is over how many columns were cut in the upper stories of the Landmark Tower, Mark, and how that negates Chandler's specious and superficial conclusions. "Molten metal is evidence of something" called debris fires, which burned at the site for several months. If you think it's evidence of controlled demolition, please answer my previous questions. Since it was reportedly seen flowing from recognizable steel shapes, it was most likely lead or aluminum, both of which were in abundance in all 3 WTC hi-rises. To answer your question, the aluminum got there in plane fuselages, commercial storefront window and door openings, and architectural cladding, and the lead got there from the numerous UPS battery backup systems used by financial services companies, and from batteries in vehicles in the lower level parking areas. Since no partially-melted columns were found in the debris, it didn't come from them, and there were no recorded temperatures there hot enough to have melted steel.
The firefighters' accounts of explosions were not immediately prior to or during any of the 3 collapses, and the accounts didn't connect them to collapses, nor did anyone claim to have heard demolition explosives, which would have been noticed from a lot farther away than the firefighters reporting them were. Few to no FDNY are in your 9/11 "truth movement," so you apparently know something that people who were actually there don't.
An enormous effort was made to find and identify human remains, but some did inevitably get discarded. Citing grieving victims' relatives is not investigating anything; it's simply an appeal to emotion. I'm sorry that you find facts and common sense to be distracting, but no one's stopping the ladies from biking across the country and saying whatever they want to whoever will listen. I wish them well, but I'd hardly call what they're doing patriotic. You did imply in your "When you are willing to make all the necessary arrangements to be away from your home..." post that their long bike ride somehow makes their argument more valid than mine or the NIST investigators', and I disagree with that assessment.
I question what I'm told also, and would like Mr. Gage and his "1700 experts" to show us on video how to cut W14 X 730s secretly with explosives. He brought up Scientific Method in his latest misleading and dishonest video, so where's HIS testing and experimentation? If you're interested in NIST's, here's a link to some of it:
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101034
It's also included throughout their other reports:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm
They do quite a bit more than simply give lip service to Scientific Method.

Reply
Mark Snyder
10/16/2012 5:34pm

I have no more time for your absurd speculations. I have not, and will not, read your posts from now on. I am disgusted that your posts have fouled this otherwise very pleasant and hopeful blog. I will not waste further time trying to answer your insincere questions geared at wasting time because I am spending my time and energy spreading the same message as Rena and Pam and running my business. This pointless bickering is a waste of time because it resolves nothing. A real investigation would resolve these issues. Goodbye.

Reply
Albury Smith
10/17/2012 4:54am

You don't seem interested in a real investigation at all, Mark, and have already announced your conclusions without conducting one. If you truly were, you'd join me in urging Gage and his "1700 experts" to demonstrate the secret explosive cutting of steel columns like the 24 in the core of WTC 7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
"Test and experiment" doesn't just apply to everyone else, and I believe that such an experiment would resolve many of your questions.

10/16/2012 5:34pm

Ad Hominem attacks, insinuations, false assumptions, technical babble, straw-man arguments, website and video postings that lead to nowhere, or lead to a 300-plus government document with no specific reference. How do you expect to get sympathy around here with people who are emotionally supporting the riders who speak up for a new investigation? To me, your untimely presence and "overkill" here indicate that Pam and Rena must be doing right if the website warrants a professional smear campaign.

Reply
Albury Smith
10/17/2012 5:02am

Real forensic structural engineering investigations require "technical babble," so you're apparently not interested in this topic. My link to NCSTAR 1-5B was to illustrate what "test and experiment" means in the Scientific Method, and the index link was to other NIST reports, most of which include the results of tests and experiments. Unlike Mr. Gage, the NIST scientists and engineers don't just talk about Scientific Method; they employ it daily.

Reply
10/16/2012 9:25pm

Dear Rena, I am so proud of you and thrilled that you're in NY!! I cannot imagine doing what you have just done. I can't think of anything more appropriate than rainbows for your entry into NY. Looking forward to hearing how things are progressing as you near or enter my beloved Big Apple! Love, Shar

Reply
10/17/2012 6:14am

Hi Albury,

Part of open and honest public discussion for me is having a sense of who I am communicating with. When I talk with people along the way, I see them face-to-face, I can inquire about their careers and families. I can interact at a pace that is respectful both for their situation and my own. Sometimes I hand off information quickly because they or I are busy and on a tight schedule, and sometimes I have time to sit down and answer questions or take a tour of a fire station. Respect for self and others is for me an essential part of civil public discourse.

As I mentioned before, I am too busy at the moment to converse with you at a pace that works for me while I also maintaining my focus on safely completing my bicycle trek across the country.

I would like to continue our discussion. I’d like to learn more about you and better understand your motivations and best intentions. Please send your contact information to JourneyForTruthCoordinator@gmail.com, and include your phone number and I’ll follow up with you within the next three weeks.

Thanks!

Rena

Reply
Just Askin'
10/17/2012 10:04am

Albury,

I think I can sum up your position as being that everything is all hunky-dory with the official conspiracy theory as put forth by the US government and replayed to us by the media over and over again. As a reminder, the official theory is that 20 or so mostly Saudi youths outwitted the world's only military superpower and destroyed three buildings in NYC with two planes and forced the world's most powerful and peace-loving nation to start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and who knows where next.

Anyhow, and the reason I'm asking, is that since you know everything is all good here in America, why do you keep posting on Rena's blog? I ask this, you see, because when I stumble across a blog on a topic such that it is of minimal interest to me, say a blog that asserts the need for candy bars to be distributed in child-proof packaging to reduce in between meal snacking by toddlers, I don't bother to comment on the bloggers' failure to grasp what is important.

I'm just askin'.

Reply
10/17/2012 6:37pm

I prefer that people don't call other people names, including "troll." Would you be willing to join me in considering a person's best intentions? It may be a stretch, but give it a try.

For me, respect is a non-negotiable value. And in my experience respect is contagious, so I encourage everyone to offer respect, always, for everyone.


Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply