The show highlights some of the uglier sides to the British Truth movement - which must not be ignored, including abundant racism, a cult like mentality and the refusal to objectively look at hard facts. المعرض الضوء على بعض من أقبح الجانبين البريطاني لحركة الحقيقة -- التي يجب عدم تجاهلها ، بما فيها العنصريه وفيره ، مثل عبادة عقليه وموضوعية لرفض النظر في الحقائق.
Update: Be sure to bookmark theتحديث : مما لا شك فيه فإن علامةWolverhampton Radiophonic Institute وولفيرهامبتون معهد radiophonicweb site as they plan to investigate other myths and theories, which can be heard via their site. الموقع على الانترنت لانها خطة للتحقيق في غيرها من الاساطير والنظريات ، التي يمكن الاستماع اليها عبر مواقعها.
Have Your Say: A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theoriesقل كلمتك : المتهكم دليل 9 / 11 نظريات المءامره Please note, only selected comments will be published. يرجى ملاحظه ، مختارة فقط وسوف تنشر تعليقات.
49 Responses to “A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” 49 ردود على "دليل المتهكم الى 9 / 11 نظريات المءامره"
3 year old Kidطفل عمره 3 Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 14th ، 2008 في الساعة 10:28 |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
Rather than calling it the Cynic’s Guide, it should be called the CRETINS GUIDE. بدلا من الدعوة الى المتهكم عليه دليل ، وينبغي ان يسمي المشوهون الدليل.
Perhaps Nick Pole can explain why Building 007 was totally omitted from even one single mention in the Commission Report he found to be so good and comprehensive? ربما نيك قطب يمكن ان تفسر لماذا تم بناء 007 أغفلت تماما من أحد حتى يرد ذكره في تقرير اللجنة وقال انه وجد ان ذلك جيد وشامل؟
Do you suppose they accidentally forgot to mention 3 and not 2 buildings were disintegrated to dust and little rubble on the day of 911? هل نفترض انها مصادفه نسيت ان اذكر 3 وليس 2 تفككت الى المباني والغبار والركام قليلا على 911 يوم؟
How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each? كيف تفسر هذه الحروف nist الادعاء بأن اثنين من أبراج كانت تال للابادة في اقل من 10 ثانية لكل؟
All this stuff about jet crashes and burning building is totally irrelevant - How can the 80+ UNDAMAGED, Strongest & Heaviest Bottom floors (under the jet crash floors), be crushed to dust sand rubble within, (according to NIST; the video evidence and seismic data) 10 seconds, when if it were a 417 metres of empty vacuum the top bit fell through - it would take 9.22 seconds Precisely. كل هذه الأشياء عن تحطم طائرة وحرق المبنى تماما -- كيف يمكن 80 + محطم ، اقوى اثقل & الطوابق السفلى (في اطار حادث تحطم الطائرة طوابق) ، الى ان سحقت داخل الانقاض والغبار والرمل ، (وفقا لnist ؛ الفيديو وأدلة البيانات السيزميه) 10 ثانية ، عندما لو كانت فارغه 417 متر من فراغ أعلى قليلا من خلال سقطت -- انها ستقوم باتخاذ 9،22 ثانية على وجه التحديد.
How can a building offer next to no resistance yet 1 second prior to the initiation of destruction sequence the very fact the building was upright states it had a minimum of 1 times working load? كيف يمكن بناء العرض القادم لمقاومه اي بعد 1 ثانية قبل بدء تسلسل جدا تدمير المبنى الواقع ان الدول تستقيم وكان الحد الادنى من العمل حمل 1 مرات؟
Yet if you observe the blueprint the building were designed with 3 times working load in mind as they always have more than 100% redundancy as are the building codes. ولكن اذا كنت مراقبة خطة بناء صممت 3 مرات في الاعتبار حجم العمل لانها دائما اكثر من 100 ٪ التكرار كما هي قوانين البناء.
So, seeing as for example the UNDAMAGED 50th floor was designed to carry 3 times the 60 floors above it, and we are guaranteed it had to carry at least 1 times the 60 floors above it, and the lower the floors the tougher and heavier they were - ذلك ، كما نرى على سبيل المثال فإن الحد الادنى هو محطم 50th مصممة لحمل 3 مرات 60 طوابق فوقه ، ونحن على مضمونه وكان لتنفيذ على الاقل 60 مرات 1 طوابق فوقه ، والطوابق السفلى فإن أشد وأثقل أنها وكانت --
It is just not physically possible to collapse a body through the path of most resistance at near free speed – it defies all common sense and at least three laws of physics. ومن الممكن ماديا وليس فقط الى انهيار الهيءه من خلال مسار اكثر من المقاومة في القريب الحرة بسرعة -- أنه يتحدى كل الحس السليم وثلاثة على الاقل من قوانين الفيزياء.
So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges? ولذلك ، اذا لا يمكن ان خطورة تدمير 110 مبنى في غضون 10 ثانية لكل -- ماذا اذا لم يكن الهدم والمتفجرات وقاطع التهم؟
And if it is physically not even possible for Gravity to destroy the burning buildings within 10 seconds as is Physics fact - then it was not the fire or the jet crash nor the terrorist who brought the buildings down on 911. واذا كان من الممكن ماديا ولا حتى لخطورة لتدمير وحرق المبانى فى غضون 10 ثانية كما هو الواقع فيزياء -- ثم انه ليس من الحريق او حادث تحطم الطائرة ولا الارهابيه التي جلبت من المباني على 911 لأسفل.
Even additional bombs in the basement and elsewhere would not destroy the buildings in 10 seconds; it would require precision set, precision timed demolition on at least every third if not every second floor. وحتى قنابل اضافية فى الطابق السفلى وأماكن أخرى لن تدمر المباني في 10 ثانية ، انه يتطلب مجموعة من الدقه ، ودقة توقيتها وهدم على الأقل في كل ثالث ان لم يكن كل الطابق الثاني.
3 year old Kidطفل عمره 3 Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:53 pm |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 14th ، 2008 في الساعة 10:53 |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
Its like this, over 400 Architects and Engineers, myself included - prove the 911 destruction was controlled demolition. عن مثل هذا ، أكثر من 400 المعماريين والمهندسين ، وانا منهم -- 911 اثبات وتمت السيطرة على تدمير وهدم.
Here is all the absolute proof هنأ جميع الاثبات المطلق
LongmanLongman Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:44 pm |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 14th ، 2008 في الساعة 11:44 |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
No really. لا حقا.How many architects, engineers, physics etc have said there’sa problem with the “official” story? كم عدد المهندسين المعماريين والمهندسين ، والفيزياء ، الخ قال ان هناك مشكلة مع "الرسمية" قصة؟Not bleedin many. لا bleedin كثيرة.And most of those who have are doing so to further their own agenda. ومعظم هؤلاء من قد تفعل ذلك لمزيد من جدول الأعمال الخاصة بها.Wise up. اليقظه.
paul wبول ث Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:46 pm |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 14th ، 2008 في الساعة 11:46 |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
3 year old Kid طفل عمره 3 Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm تاريخ النشر : يونيو 14th ، 2008 في الساعة 10:28
The question is how can you be so totally ignorant? والسؤال هو : كيف يمكنك ان تكون حتى يجهل تماما؟Go and read the following websites: اذهب واقرأ المواقع التالية :
9-11 Myths 9-11 الأساطير Screwloosechange.blog Internet Detectives. مخبرون شبكة الانترنت.
All your questions will be answered. جميع اسئلتك وسوف يتم الرد عليها.
paul wبول ث Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 12:26 am |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 15th ، 2008 في 12:26 صباحا |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
“Perhaps Nick Pole can explain why Building 007 was totally omitted from even one single mention in the Commission Report he found to be so good and comprehensive?” "ربما نيك قطب يمكن ان تفسر لماذا تم بناء 007 أغفلت تماما من أحد حتى يرد ذكره في تقرير اللجنة وقال انه وجد ان ذلك جيد وشامل؟"
It wasn’t their job. انها ليست بالمهمه المنوطه بهم.A report on WTC7 is currently underway and is expected to be released soon (and before you say ‘why has it taken so long?’ you must remember that, unlike 9-11 truther rubbish, these reports have to be accurate, scientific and professional.) تقرير عن wtc7 يجري حاليا ، ويتوقع ان يصدر قريبا (وقبل أن تقول 'لماذا انه استغرق وقتا طويلا؟' يجب ان نتذكر انه ، خلافا ل9-11 truther مشتعله ، هذه التقارير الى ان تكون دقيقة ، والعلمي والفني .)
“Do you suppose they accidentally forgot to mention 3 and not 2 buildings were disintegrated to dust and little rubble on the day of 911?” "هل نفترض انها مصادفه نسيت ان اذكر 3 وليس 2 تفككت الى المباني والغبار والركام قليلا على 911 يوما من؟"
That’s because the buildings didn’t ‘disintegrate into dust’ and I wouldn’t call the remnants of the two Towers ‘little piles of rubbish’. ذلك لأن المباني لم 'تتفكك الى الغبار' وانني لن ندعو من بقايا أبراج اثنين 'قليلا اكوام من القمامه'.
You do, but then, you’re a truther. كنت افعله ، لكني بعد ذلك ، كنت truther.What has reality got to do with anything? ما حقيقة واقعة حصلت على القيام بأي شىء؟
“How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each?” "كيف تفسر هذه الحروف nist الادعاء بأن اثنين من أبراج كانت تال للابادة في اقل من 10 ثانية لكل؟"
Have you actually READ the NIST report? هل فعلا nist قراءة التقرير؟Please do. يرجى القيام به.
“All this stuff about jet crashes and burning building is totally irrelevant” "كل هذه الأشياء عن تحطم طائرة وحرق المبنى تماما"
??????? ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
“How can the 80+ UNDAMAGED, Strongest & Heaviest Bottom floors (under the jet crash floors), be crushed to dust sand rubble within” "كيف يمكن ان 80 + محطم ، اقوى اثقل & الطوابق السفلى (في اطار حادث تحطم الطائرة طوابق) ، وسحقت الرمال والغبار الى داخل الانقاض"
Er, have you READ the NIST report? ايه ، هل اقرأ التقرير nist؟Please do. يرجى القيام به.
(the towers were ‘cylinders’ that used the inner core columns and outer skin for strength, the floors within suspended between the two, hence the open-plan design of the floors.) (الأبراج وكانت 'اسطوانات' التى يستخدم فيها الاعمده الاساسية الداخلية والجلد الخارجي للقوة ، للارضيات داخل معلقه بين البلدين ، ومن ثم فتح - تصميم خطة للأدوار.)
“according to NIST; the video evidence and seismic data) 10 seconds, when if it were a 417 metres of empty vacuum the top bit fell through - it would take 9.22 seconds Precisely.” "ووفقا لnist ؛ الفيديو الادله والبيانات السيزميه) 10 ثانية ، عندما لو كانت فارغه 417 متر من فراغ أعلى قليلا من خلال سقطت -- انها ستقوم باتخاذ 9،22 ثانية على وجه التحديد."
Er, have you READ the NIST report? ايه ، هل اقرأ التقرير nist؟Please do. يرجى القيام به.
“How can a building offer next to no resistance yet 1 second prior to the initiation of destruction sequence the very fact the building was upright states it had a minimum of 1 times working load? "كيف يمكن بناء العرض القادم لمقاومه اي بعد 1 ثانية قبل بدء تسلسل جدا تدمير المبنى الواقع ان الدول تستقيم وكان الحد الادنى من العمل حمل 1 مرات؟Yet if you observe the blueprint the building were designed with 3 times working load in mind as they always have more than 100% redundancy as are the building codes.” ولكن اذا كنت مراقبة خطة بناء صممت 3 مرات في الاعتبار حجم العمل لانها دائما اكثر من 100 ٪ التكرار كما هي قوانين البناء ".
???????? ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟(no, really, have you READ the NIST report?) (لا ، حقا ، هل اقرأ التقرير nist؟)
“So, seeing as for example the UNDAMAGED 50th floor was designed to carry 3 times the 60 floors above it, and we are guaranteed it had to carry at least 1 times the 60 floors above it, and the lower the floors the tougher and heavier they were..” "وهكذا ، وكما نرى على سبيل المثال فإن الحد الادنى هو محطم 50th مصممة لحمل 3 مرات 60 طوابق فوقه ، ونحن على مضمونه وكان لتنفيذ على الاقل 60 مرات 1 طوابق فوقه ، والطوابق السفلى فإن أشد وأثقل كانت.. "
No, the FLOORS were NOT designed to carry the 60 flo0rs above (read the comments above about the tower design and read the NIST report). لا ، ارضيات لم تكن مصممة لتحمل 60 flo0rs اعلاه (اقرأ التعليقات الواردة اعلاه عن برج التصميم وnist قراءة التقرير).
“It is just not physically possible to collapse a body through the path of most resistance at near free speed – it defies all common sense and at least three laws of physics.” "ما هو ممكن وليس جسديا للانهيار هيئة من خلال مسار المقاومة في معظم حرة بالقرب من السرعه -- وليتحدى كل الحس السليم وثلاثة على الاقل من قوانين الفيزياء".
And what, precisely, are there three laws of physics? وماذا ، بالضبط ، هل هناك ثلاثة قوانين الفيزياء؟(the Nobel prize for anyone who can answer this correctly) (جائزة نوبل للمن اي شخص يمكن الاجابه على هذا صحيح)
So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges?” ولذلك ، اذا لا يمكن ان خطورة تدمير 110 مبنى في غضون 10 ثانية لكل -- ماذا اذا لم يكن الهدم والمتفجرات وقاطع الاتهامات؟ "
Er, gravity without a capital ‘g’? ايه ، دون خطورة رأس المال 'ز'؟
“And if it is physically not even possible for Gravity to destroy the burning buildings within 10 seconds as is Physics fact - then it was not the fire or the jet crash nor the terrorist who brought the buildings down on 911. "واذا كان من الممكن ماديا ولا حتى لخطورة لتدمير وحرق المبانى فى غضون 10 ثانية كما هو الواقع فيزياء -- ثم انه ليس من الحريق او حادث تحطم الطائرة ولا الارهابيه التي جلبت من المباني على 911 لأسفل.
A ‘Physics fact’ Really? ا 'الفيزياء الواقع' حقا؟
“Even additional bombs in the basement and elsewhere would not destroy the buildings in 10 seconds; it would require precision set, precision timed demolition on at least every third if not every second floor.” "وحتى قنابل اضافية فى الطابق السفلى وأماكن أخرى لن تدمر المباني في 10 ثانية ، انه يتطلب مجموعة من الدقه ، ودقة توقيتها وهدم على الأقل في كل ثالث ان لم يكن كل الطابق الثانى."
Phew, glad you cleared that up! Phew ، وكنت سعيدا ان تطهير!
Sailالشراع Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 2:14 am |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 15th ، 2008 في 2:14 صباحا |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
Great show! عرض كبير!How about a part 2? ماذا عن جزء 2؟
Now we have more people speaking AGAINST the truth movement than actually belong to the movement. والآن اصبحت لدينا عدد اكبر من الناس تحدث ضد حركة الحقيقة من ينتمون فعلا الى الحركة.
johnجون Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:33 am |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 15th ، 2008 في 8:33 صباحا |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
to all the counter intelligence people that are posting lies please be aware that the truth will out and you will be punished. لجميع الناس الاستخبارات المضاده التي هي نشر الاكاذيب وارجو ان يدرك ان الحقيقة سوف بها وسوف تعاقب.Notice that the guy who tried to counter 3 year old kids claims, gave no facts himself, told you to look at a report that he does not quote anything from, etc. Look at all the debunking sites and interviews all of them are obviously bogus as they never tackle the facts just attack the personalities. لاحظ ان الرجل حاول من 3 لمواجهة المطالبات اطفال من عمره ، لا تعطي اي وقائع نفسه ، قال لك ان القي نظرة على التقرير انه لا اقتبس من اي شيء ، وما نظر في جميع المواقع والفضح المقابلات جميعهم من الواضح ان زاءفه لأنها أبدا معالجة وقائع الاعتداء على الشخصيات فقط.
I was responsible for this documentary, so it’s nice to see it’s provoking a reaction. وكنت مسؤولا عن هذا وثائقي ، لذلك لطيف وانظر الى انه استفزاز رد فعل.
3 Year Old Kid - Nick Pole didn’t mention anything about building 7 because we didn’t speak to him (whoever he might be). طفل عمره 3 -- نيك قطب لم يذكر اي شيء عن بناء 7 لاننا لم التحدث اليه (قد يكون كائنا من كان).Nick Pope probably didn’t mention it because, to be honest, we only had about 15 minutes to speak to him (we spent most of the time we had with him talking about UFOs, his area of expertise.) Neither he nor I are experts when it comes to that sort of thing. نيك البابا ربما لم يذكر لانه ، أن نكون صادقين ، نحن فقط كان حوالى 15 دقيقة من التحدث اليه (وقضينا معظم الوقت كنا معه الحديث عن ufos ، صاحب مجال من مجالات الخبرة.) لم يسبق له ولا لانا الخبراء عندما يتعلق الامر الى هذا النوع من الشيء.His was a good contribution because he talked about looking at Truth Movement evidence alongside evidence put forward that explains the generally accepted narrative. بلدة تمثل مساهمه طيبة لأنه تحدث عن النظر الى الحقيقة جنبا الى جنب مع الحركة ادلة الاثبات التي طرحت وهذا يفسر المقبولة عموما والسرد.His experience of getting hate mail from Truthers was very interesting, I found. تجربته في الحصول على بريد الكراهية من truthers كانت شيقه جدا ، وجدت.
I’d be very interested in seeing the evidence you have for precision timed demolition on every third or second floor. كنت مهتما جدا لرؤية الادله لديك لدقة التوقيت على هدم كل ثلاث او في الطابق الثاني.Witnesses to these demolitions being set, maybe one of the people who set the demolitions and has since been racked with guilt at the consequences of his actions. الى الشهود ويجري عمليات الهدم هذه ، ربما واحد من الناس مجموعة من عمليات الهدم ومنذ ذلك الحين يعاني مع الذنب في النتائج المترتبة على افعاله.If you - or anyone else for that matter - has anything like this, please get in touch and we’ll dedicate a whole three hour show to it. اذا كنت -- او اى شخص اخر لهذا الامر -- اي شيء مثل هذا ، من فضلك إبق على اتصال وسنقوم بتخصيص كل ثلاث ساعات وتبين له.
“Do you suppose they accidentally forgot to mention 3 and not 2 buildings were disintegrated to dust and little rubble on the day of 911?” "هل نفترض انها مصادفه نسيت ان اذكر 3 وليس 2 تفككت الى المباني والغبار والركام قليلا على 911 يوما من؟"
We didn’t mention it because the documentary was only 17 minutes - it’s hard to cover a subject as big as 9/11 conspiracy theories in such a short time. ونحن لم يذكر لانه كان يعرض فيلم وثائقي 17 دقيقة فقط -- انه من الصعب ان تغطي الموضوع في حجم 9 / 11 نظريات المءامره في مثل هذا الوقت القصير.Also, we were working on the assumption that the vast majority of listeners weren’t really aware of the conspiracy theories, so we had to do it from a standing start, so to speak. ايضا ، كنا نعمل على افتراض ان الاغلبيه العظمى من المستمعين ليست في الحقيقة إدراكا من نظريات المءامره ، ولذلك كان علينا ان نفعل ذلك من البداية الداءمه ، اذا جاز التعبير.Given more time, I’m sure we would have covered things in more detail. وبالنظر الى مزيد من الوقت ، وانا على يقين من اننا سوف تكون قد غطت الامور بمزيد من التفصيل.
Also, if you think only three buildings were destroyed at the World Trade Center site that day, you need to do more research. ايضا ، الا اذا كنت تعتقد ان ثلاثة مبان دمرت في موقع مركز التجارة العالمي في ذلك اليوم ، كنت بحاجة الى القيام بالمزيد من البحث.
Paul W - What was it one of the people in the debate talked about? ث بول -- ما هو واحدة من الناس في المناقشه تتحدث عن؟“Confirmation bias”? "تأكيد الانحياز"؟He’s depressingly right when it comes to the truthers, I’ve found. الحق على الاسى انه عندما يتعلق الامر الى truthers ، انا وجدت.
Sail - we’re going to do Cynic’s Guides to more things (UFOs, as I mentioned, will be one) but I hope to maybe return to the Truth Movement, or perhaps one on conspiracy theories in general. الإبحار -- نحن ذاهبون الى القيام المتهكم أدلة على مزيد من الاشياء (ufos ، كما ذكرت ، سيكون واحدا) ولكن ربما على أمل العودة الى الحقيقة الحركة ، أو ربما على نظريات المءامره واحدة في العام.
I’m Neil’s co-host on the Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute (ie the other cretin). انا نيل للاستضافة وولفيرهامبتون radiophonic عن معهد (أي الآخر المشوه).Just like to note that our website is مثلما أن نلاحظ أن موقعنا على الانترنتwww.radiophonic.org.uk, www.radiophonic.org.uk ،where you’ll also shortly be able to subscribe to a podcast of the show. حيث عليك ايضا قادرة في القريب العاجل على الاشتراك الى podcast للعرض.
Debunking the lies and misrepresentations of the so-called 9/11 ‘Truth’ movement regarding World Trade Center Building 7. فضح الأكاذيب والادعاءات الكاذبه من ما يسمى ب 9 / 11 'الحقيقة' الحركة ازاء بناء مركز التجارة العالمي 7.
ReptorReptor Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 7:33 pm |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 15th ، 2008 في الساعة 7:33 |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
You guys have hit the nail on the head. يا رفاق قد أصاب كبد الحقيقة.Kudos to you both for having the balls to produce this, I’m sure many truthers will be calling for blood now. الشهره لكم على حد سواء لديها لانتاج هذه الكرات ، وانا على يقين انها ستكون كثيرة truthers تدعو الى الدم الآن.
Any report on the kind of feedback you’ve had since the show? تقرير عن أي نوع من التغذيه المرتده قد قمت منذ تظهر؟
Please keep us all informed of what you’re doing, and thank you to all who had the guts to take part and promote this show. يرجى الاحتفاظ لنا جميعا على علم انك ما تقوم به ، وشكرا لجميع من كان الاحشاء الى المشاركة وتعزيز هذا المعرض.
The cult is slowly being exposed thanks to brave efforts like this. عبادة ببطء يتعرض بفضل بالجهود الشجاعه التي يبذلها في هذا الشكل.
3 year old kidطفل عمره 3 Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 7:51 pm |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 15th ، 2008 في الساعة 7:51 |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
I stand by what I say, it was the Cretins guide to 911. انني اقف من قبل ما اقول ، هو دليل المشوهون 911.
A guide By cretins - For Cretins. دليل من قبل المشوهون -- المشوهون ل.
Forget who was flying the jets and lost their passports and bandannas, etc, that is totally irrelevant re the destruction sequence. ننسى من كان والطائرات التي تحمل جوازات سفرهم وفقدت bandannas ، الخ ، وهذا هو تماما اعادة تدمير السلسله.
It is not physically possible to have a falling body fall through the path of most resistance. ومن غير الممكن ان يكون جسديا هبوط الهيءه من خلال سقوط اكثر من طريق المقاومة.EVER NEVER!!!!! من اي وقت مضى على الاطلاق!!!!!
And to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed is even more impossible than impossible. وتقع على الطريق من خلال معظم المقاومة في لحرة بالقرب من السرعه أكثر من المستحيل من المستحيل.
Just, a minute I am falling over with laughter, hold on. فقط ، لمدة دقيقة وانا مع هبوط اكثر من الضحك ، على عقد.
Sorry about that, I could not type and laugh at the same time. آسف على ذلك ، لم أستطع النوع وتضحك في نفس الوقت.
Why are qualified people unwilling to come forward? لماذا هي غير راغبة في الاشخاص المؤهلين على ان تتقدم؟
The Physics of 911 is so simple that most people who values their career will NOT touch it - because it is SO Obviously a Controlled Demolition. فيزياء 911 بسيطة جدا ان معظم الناس من قيم حياتهم انه لن اتطرق -- لانه من الواضح ان ذلك الهدم التي تسيطر عليها.
I now need to go and watch cartoons. انني الآن بحاجة الى الذهاب ومشاهدة أفلام الكرتون.
However, for those who want the professional opinion of 400 Architects and Engineers regarding the Controlled Demolitions on 911 go Here:- بيد انه بالنسبة لتلك الفئة الفنية من يريد الرأي 400 من المعماريين والمهندسين وفيما يتعلق عمليات الهدم التي تسيطر على 911 اذهب هنا : --
Ashleyاشلي Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 15th ، 2008 في الساعة 8:35 |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
Yeah these troofers I don’t know, I’m sure there are logical explainations for the collapse of 3 steel framed buildings in to their own footprint (the only 3 steel framed syscrapers to collapse due to fire damage in history). نعم هذه troofers انا لا اعرف ، انا متأكد ان هناك من المنطقي explainations لانهيار 3 مباني في اطار الصلب الخاصة بها على الاثر (3 الصلب الوحيد في اطار syscrapers للانهيار بسبب الاضرار الناجمة عن حرائق في التاريخ).
I’m no scientist so I can’t give answers as to how these buildings didn’t topple (as logic would expect as they were hit on one side), I also cannot give you an explaination as to how jet fuel that burns at a maximum of 1500F could melt steel that had been certified to 2750F. أنا لا أستطيع أن العالم حتى لا تعطي اجابات لكيفية هذه المباني لا في اسقاط حكومة (كما نتوقع من المنطق كما كانت تصل على جانب واحد) ، كما انني لا يمكن ان تعطيك explaination الى الطريقة التي تحرق وقود النفاثات في باقصي قدر من 1500f يمكن أن نذوب الصلب التي كانت معتمدة ل2750f.
I’m sure the BBC (and IIRC CNN) have an explaination of how they predicted the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before its collapse (I just can’t seem to find explainations for this despite hunting for them). انا على يقين انها لهيئة الاذاعة البريطانية (وiirc سي) أن يكون explaination للطريقة التي تنبأ انهيار wtc7 حوالى 25 دقيقة قبل انهياره (أنا فقط لا يمكن ان يبدو لايجاد explainations لهذا على الرغم من الصيد بالنسبة لها).If I predicted someones murder I’m sure it would be investigated thoroughly but this kind of examination of our BBC is not required (an examination would be a bit of a problem as the BBC have said they have lost all of their footage from Sept 11th 2001, quite amazing if true). اذا كنت تنبأ someones القتل وانا متأكد انه سيكون من اجراء تحقيق دقيق ولكن هذا النوع من الفحص من بي بي سي غير مطلوب (دراسة وسيكون شيئا من هذه المشكلة وكما قال لهيئة الاذاعة البريطانية انهم فقدوا كل من لقطات الحادي عشر من ايلول / سبتمبر 2001 ، واذا كان هذا صحيحا تماما مدهشه).
Of course the PNAC report that said that the desires of America to spread their democracy would not have enough support without some kind of ‘new Pearl Harbour’ is not a prediction of any sort (published one year prior to 911) وبطبيعة الحال فإن pnac ان التقرير قال ان رغبات الامريكية لنشر الديمقراطيه على ما كان لها ما يكفي من الدعم من دون نوع من 'بيرل هاربر الجديدة' ليس التنبؤ من اي نوع (نشرت قبل سنة واحدة 911)
The strange lack of fighter jets over the most protected piece of airspace in the world (the Pentagon) is again understandable (albeit not to me) and the 2 released CCTV images are the only footage of the plane despite the amount of cameras focussed on this building. الغريب عدم وجود طائرات نفاثه مقاتلة على مدى اكثر من قطعة وحمايه المجال الجوي في العالم (البنتاغون) مفهومه هو مرة أخرى (وإن لم يكن لي) والافراج عن الدوائر التلفزيونيه المغلقه 2 الصور الوحيدة لقطات للطائرة على الرغم من المبلغ من الكاميرات تركز على هذا بناء.
Funny how Rumsfeld gave 3 different accounts of his actions on the morning of 9-11 to the commission and they, rather than querying this they combine 2 of the accounts and completely ignore the other. وألقى رامسفيلد مضحكا كيفية 3 حسابات مختلفة من أعماله صباح يوم 9-11 إلى لجنة وأنها ، بدلا من سؤال هذا فهي تجمع بين 2 من الحسابات ويضرب عرض الحائط الاخرى.
Of course the fact that good old Dick Cheney says he arrived in the Whitehouse bunker at 10am despite witnesses putting him there some 35 minutes earlier (ie before the plane hit the Pentagon). وبطبيعة الحال حقيقة ان العز وديك تشيني يقول انه وصل في وقود النقل في مدينة ويت هاوس 10am الشهود على الرغم من وضع له هناك حوالى 35 دقائق في وقت سابق (أي قبل أن تصل الطائرة البنتاغون).Cheney was also reportedly told about the plane heading towards the Pentagon at 40, 30, 20 and 10 miles out and was asked ‘if the orders still stand’ and he said that they did (these obviously weren’t the scramble orders to jets to intercept this plane as is standard operationg procedure as these orders were never given). وتفيد التقارير ايضا كان تشيني ابلغ عن الطائرة باتجاه البنتاغون في 40 و 30 و 20 و 10 ميلا من اصل وسئل 'اذا كانت لا تزال قائمة الاوامر' وقال إن فعلوا) ومن الواضح ان هذه ليست هي التدافع أوامر الى طائرات اعتراض هذه الطائرة كما هو معيار operationg هذه الاجراءات كانت الاوامر قط).
Your freind and mine George Dubya says that he saw the first jet hit the tower before going in to his meeting with his intellectual superiors in the pre-school classroom (this was of course impossible as the only footage of this wasn’t shown until the following day). صديقكم والالغام جورج dubya يقول انه شهد اول طائرة تصل الى البرج قبل الذهاب في لقائه مع رؤساء بلدة الفكريه في الفصول الدراسيه في مرحلة ما قبل المدرسة (وهذا امر مستحيل بالطبع الوحيد لقطات من ذلك لم تظهر حتى في اليوم التالي).When he was told of the second plane hitting he sat there for another 20 minutes reading a book about goats rather than responding to the obvious problem. وعندما قيل له من ضرب الطائرة الثانية جلس هناك 20 دقيقة أخرى لقراءة كتاب عن الماعز بدلا عن التصدي لهذه المشكلة واضحة.
Then of course Dubya spent endless hours to try and connect Iraq with Osama and the attack (despite the well known fact that Osama hated Saddam nearly as much as Dubya). بعد ذلك بطبيعة الحال dubya أمضى ساعات لا نهاية لها في محاولة لربط العراق مع اسامة والهجوم (على الرغم من حقيقة معروفة وهي ان ما يقرب من اسامة يكره صدام بقدر ما dubya).
I’m completely with George when he says ‘Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th’ it’s just I don’t think that he is looking at the same conspiracy theory as me. انا مع جورج تماما عندما يقول 'دعونا يسمح ابدا الفاحشه نظريات المءامره بشأن هجمات الحادي عشر من ايلول / سبتمبر' هو فقط ولا اعتقد انه عند النظر الى نفسها بوصفها نظرية المءامره لي.
Hey-ho it’ll be Iraq next, they are currently being told to stop their weapons program despite the fact that the IAEA have said that they don’t have one. - يا حو انه سوف يكون العراق المقبل ، ويجري حاليا قال لوقف برنامج الاسلحة على الرغم من ان الوكالة الدولية للطاقة الذريه وقال انه ليست لديهم واحدة.There’ll be some poxy Powerpoint presentation on their nuclear prowess (that or a false flag of some description). سوف يكون هناك بعض poxy PowerPoint عرض على المهاره العالية النووية (ان العلم او كاذبة مع بعض الرموز).The endless war on terror really will be endless if we carry on chasing weapons that don’t exist. لا تنتهي الحرب على الارهاب ستكون حقا اذا كنا لا نهاية لها تحمل على مطاردة الاسلحة لا وجود لها.
3 year old kidطفل عمره 3 Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 15th ، 2008 في الساعة 8:36 |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance? الأيدي حتى تصل ، من يفكر فيه ، حتى انه من الممكن ماديا لهبوط الهيءه الى المرور عبر أكثر من طريق المقاومة؟
Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed? وثانيا ، من يفكر فيه ، حتى انه من الممكن ماديا من خلال سقوط اكثر من مسار المقاومة في لحرة بالقرب من السرعه؟
That is - in the absence of controlled demolition. وهذا هو -- فى حالة عدم وجود رقابة والهدم.
Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. هنا هو المفضل لدى شبكة وهلة : -- المعماريين والمهندسين 911 لتقصي الحقائق.
There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details وهناك 400 المهنيين لكم ان نسأل ، منها البريد الالكتروني فقط للاطلاع على التفاصيل
ReptorReptor Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 9:01 pm |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 15th ، 2008 في الساعة 9:01 |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
400 professionals? 400 المهنيين؟Around the whole world you manage to find 400? في مختلف انحاء العالم كله كنت تدير العثور على 400؟Is that it? هل هذا فقط؟If there was any fact in these claims then ALL engineers etc would be crying out. اذا كان هناك أي حقيقة في هذه المطالبات بعد ذلك جميع المهندسين الخ سيكون يستصرخ.In fact from the 400 professionals how many are experts in the fields relevant to the science of these claims? في الواقع من 400 كم عدد هؤلاء المهنيين والخبراء في ميادين العلوم ذات الصلة الى هذه المطالبات؟
Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked. من الناحية النظريه التي قدمها كل الحقيقة كانت حركة مفضوح.You might not like it. أنت قد لا يعجبنا.It might not sit with your opinion but that’s the facts. قد لا أجلس مع رأيك ولكن هذا الحقائق.Deal with it. التعامل معه.You got it wrong. حصلت على انها خاطءه.
Ashleyاشلي Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 9:53 pm |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 15th ، 2008 في الساعة 9:53 |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
Reptor what are you on about? Reptor على ما انت؟Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked? من الناحية النظريه التي قدمها كل الحقيقة كانت حركة مفضوح؟Where’s this? أين هذا؟In Wonderland? في العجائب؟A lot of the debunking has since been debunked but you fail to mention that in any way, shape or form. الكثير من الفضح مفضوح منذ ذلك الحين ولكنك ان اغفل الاشارة الى ذلك بأي حال من الأحوال ، صورة أو شكل.
There are so many unanswered questions it is positively farcical, I guess that’s why there are so many people calling for a ‘proper’ investigation (inside and outside America). هناك الكثير من الاسءله ومن المسخره بشكل ايجابي ، واعتقد ان هذا هو سبب وجود هذا العدد الكبير من الناس تدعو الى اجراء 'سليمة' التحقيق (في أمريكا وخارجها).
Do you dispute the idea that western governments have proposed and even carried out false flag operations to further their own agendas? هل النزاع فكرة ان الحكومات الغربية المقترح وحتى كاذبة نفذت عمليات العلم لمزيد من جداول الأعمال الخاصة بها؟Have a look in to Operation Gladio in Europe and Operation Northwoods in the US. وقد لالقاء نظرة في عملية gladio في اوروبا وعملية نورثود في الولايات المتحدة.
It is absolutely amazing that a former Prime Minister of Italy can comment along the lines of ‘all the intelligence community knows CIA and Mossad carried out 9-11′ and it is all but ignored. ومما لا ريب فيه من المدهش ان رئيس وزراء سابق من ايطاليا يمكن التعليق على غرار 'كل مجتمع الاستخبارات وكالة المخابرات المركزية ويعلم الموساد قامت 9-11' ومن جميع ولكن تجاهلها.
If you have a look at the video where Osama claims responsibility for the 9-11 attacks watch to see which hand this ‘Osama’ uses to write with, then visit اذا كان لديك نظرة على شريط الفيديو لاسامة فيها مسؤوليتها عن هجمات 9-11 مراقبة لمعرفة اي منها هذا من جهة 'اسامة' استخدامات الكتابة ، ثم زيارة http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm and notice that it says ‘Bin Laden is left-handed’. ويقول انه لاحظ ان 'بن لادن هو اعسر'.Strange but true, I guess your retort would be that Osama did it on purpose to test our super special agents or some such cobblers. غريب لكنه صحيح ، واعتقد ان الرد السريع الخاص بك ان اسامة على انه لا غرض لاختبار لنا السوبر خاصة او وكلاء او بعض هذه الاسكافيون.
If you really think a bloke in a cave with a load of his mates armed with boxcutters can carry out these attacks then I think you need to re-evaluate the evidence. اذا كنت اعتقد حقا أ الرجل في كهف مع حموله من بلدة المسلحه مع الاصحاب boxcutters يمكن القيام بهذه الهجمات بعد ذلك واعتقد انكم بحاجة الى اعادة تقييم الادله.
I noticed recently that there are proposals to install equipment in planes to allow the use of mobile phones, surely this tech is useless as this was already possible on United 93 nearly 7 years ago. لقد لاحظت في الآونة الأخيرة ان هناك مقترحات لتركيب المعدات والطائرات في السماح باستخدام الهواتف النقاله ، ومن المؤكد ان هذه التقنيه لا طائل منه حيث ان هذا كان من الممكن بالفعل على ما يقرب من 93 المتحدة منذ 7 سنوات.so what gives? ماذا يعطي؟
Like I said the amount of inconsistencies, half-truths and obvious untruths are there for anyone with a willingness to look and a mind open enough to think that governments don’t always tell the truth to their citizens. كما قلت مبلغ من التناقضات ، وانصاف الحقائق والاكاذيب واضحة هل هناك أي شخص استعداد للنظر والاعتبار بما فيه الكفايه لفتح اعتقد ان الحكومات لا يقولون الحقيقة دائما لمواطنيها.
For me the one which clinches it is seeing 3 steel framed buildings collapsing in to their own footprints. بالنسبة لي واحدة وهي الاحكام التي تشهد 3 الصلب في إطار انهيار المباني الخاصة بها لاقدامها.I am no expert but I do know that even demolitions teams can’t guarantee this to happen when they place charges and do it on purpose. انا لا خبير ولكنني اعرف انه حتى فرق الهدم لا يمكن أن تضمن لهذا أن يحدث عندما الرسوم ومكان تفعل ذلك عن قصد.
2 of the 3 buildings were hit by planes, if they had weakened the structure sufficently it would have been on one side of the building along with the fires being concentrated on that side also thus I would expect them to fall over rather than in to themselves (imagine a Jenga tower, flick out a block on one side, start a fire in that space and what would you expect to happen? I bet the last thing you’re thinking is a nice neat pile, it would go over to one side). 2 من 3 مبان اصيبت من طريق الطائرات ، ان كانت قد أضعفت الهيكل فيه الكفايه انه كان على جانب واحد من بناء جنبا الى جنب مع الحرائق التي ركزت على هذا الجانب أيضا وهكذا واتوقع منها ان سقوط ما يزيد على وليس في لانفسهم (تخيل jenga برج ، النقره الى كتلة على جانب واحد ، واضرام النار في الفضاء والتي ما تتوقعون ان يحدث؟ اراهن ان آخر شيء انك تفكر هي جميلة بارعه كومة ، فإنه يحتمل ان تزيد الى جانب واحد (.
Then there’s WTC7 (although looking at the Commission’s report you’d do well to notice it). ثم هناك wtc7 (على الرغم من النظر في تقرير اللجنة كنت جيدا لانها أشعار).The explainaition of this collapse is that it caught on fire from one of the other buildings that collapsed, some diesel tanks caught on fire and alakazzam another nice neat pile. وقد explainaition من هذا الانهيار هو ان اشتعلت فيها النيران من واحد من غيرها من المباني التي انهارت ، وبعض خزانات وقود الديزل واشتعلت فيها النيران alakazzam نيس بارعه كومة اخرى.Now as far as I’m concerned steel hardened to withstand 2750F fires for 2 hours collapsing due to avaiation fule fires with a max of 1500F in an hour and a bit is one thing (the majority of the fuel burned off in the fireball when the plane hit the building anyway and there are also pictures of people standing looking out of where the plane hit surely they would have quite literally melted if we are to believe the steel in the towers did), but to believe that diesel which is significantly less combustible could do the same is akin to something from a fairy tale. الآن بقدر ما انا قلق الصلب لزيادة صلابه الصمود 2750f حرائق 2 ساعة للانهيار بسبب حرائق avaiation fule مع ماكس من 1500f في ساعة وبت شيء واحد (اغلبيه من حرق الوقود في حين ناريه طائرة تضرب مبني على أي حال وكما ان هناك صورا من الناس يبحثون الداءمه من الطائرة حيث تصل بالتأكيد سيكون له ذاب بكل معنى الكلمه واذا كان لنا ان نعتقد ان في الصلب لم ابراج) ، ولكن نعتقد ان وقود الديزل الذي يقل كثيرا للاحتراق ويمكن ان تفعل نفس الشيء هو اقرب الى شيء من خرافة.
You can believe what you want at the end of the day, everyone has the right to make up their own mind. يمكنك ان نصدق ما تريد في نهاية المطاف ، لكل فرد الحق في تعويض اعتبارها الخاصة بها.If you want to swallow what I see as BS then that’s up to you and I have no concern for trying to convince you otherwise but please stop trying to fit your blinkers on to everyone else, if the conspiracy theories are so far fetched then people will work it out for themselves without your particular brand of troofiness. إذا كنت تريد أن تبتلع ما ارى على درجة البكالوريوس ثم ان يرجع اليك وأنا ليس لي القلق لمحاولة اقناع لكم ولكنها على خلاف ذلك يرجى وقف محاولة لتناسب الخاص بك الى الغمامات على الجميع ، اذا كانت نظريات المءامره حتى الان ثم المجلوب الناس على العمل بها لانفسهم دون العلامه التجارية الخاصة بك ولا سيما من troofiness.
3 year old kidطفل عمره 3 Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 10:22 pm |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 15th ، 2008 في الساعة 10:22 |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
Thank you Reptor, you are really making my day. شكرا reptor ، انت حقا جعل بلدي اليوم.
Well, go on then just don’t talk about it - let us see the maths and actual Physics. حسنا ، على الذهاب بعد ذلك فقط لا يتحدث عنه -- ودعونا نرى الفعلي للرياضيات والفيزياء.
Debunk the Physics, now is your chance old chap. إفضح الفيزياء ، الآن هي فرصتك القديمة الفصل.
Give us one single experiment or example were a falling body takes the path of most resistance due to gravity alone. يقدم لنا تجربة واحدة او مثلا هي الهيءه التي تقع على طريق يأخذ اكثر خطورة بسبب المقاومة وحدها.
Secondly, give us one single experiment or example were a falling body takes the path of most resistance and falls at nearly freefall speed using gravity alone. وثانيا ، يقدم لنا تجربة واحدة او مثلا هي الهيءه التى تقع فى الطريق يأخذ أكثر من المقاومة وتقع على ما يقرب من خطورة استخدام حرة السرعه وحدها.
And then just for extra points to prove we qualified folk don’t know what we are talking about and how super brainy you are - show the world the maths to back up the claim. وبعد ذلك فقط لمزيد من النقاط المؤهلة لاثبات اننا قوم لا نعرف ما نحن نتحدث عن كيف وانت سوبر brainy -- تظهر للعالم الرياضيات لدعم هذه المطالبة.
Please show the Physics and the Maths. الرجاء اظهار الفيزياء والرياضيات.
ReptorReptor Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 11:24 pm |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 15th ، 2008 في الساعة 11:24 |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
I don’t have to prove squat. ولست بحاجة الى اثبات squat.You’re the ones making ridiculous claims, it’s up to you to prove yourselves. انت جعل تلك المطالبات من السخريه ، ويعود الأمر اليك لاثبات انفسكم.You tried. هل حاولت.You failed. هل فشلت.Move on. على التحرك.
If 911 was an inside job why haven’t the media reported on it? واذا كان 911 وظيفة داخل لماذا لم تقارير عن وسائل الاعلام؟Why haven’t insurance companies refused to pay up? لماذا لم ترفض شركات التأمين على الدفع؟Why hasn’t any one of the THOUSANDS of people who need to be in on it come forward? لماذا لم تستطع اي واحدة من الآلاف من الناس من يكون في حاجة الى ان يأتي الامام علي؟
Please troofers, try to think logically. يرجى troofers ، وحاول ان تفكر منطقيا.
Ashleyاشلي Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 12:33 am |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 16th ، 2008 في 12:33 صباحا |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
Hahaaaa Reptor your entire response to my problems with the official story consists of ‘they couldn’t possibly do that’. Hahaaaa reptor كامل استجابة لمشاكل بلدي مع القصة الرسمية ويتألف من 'انها لا يمكن ان نفعل ذلك'.
Well I bow to your superior knowledge and reasoning, I can see from your responses that you are totally close minded on this issue. انني انحني اجلالا واكبارا بالاضافة الى حسابك في الاعلى والمعرفه والمنطق ، استطيع ان ارى من ردودكم ان انت تماما في التفكير وثيق حول هذه المساله.All of the stuff I’ve put in my responses to you are freely available online, have a look in to it. كل من وضع مادة لقد قمت في الردود على بلدي انت بحرية على شبكة الانترنت ، في نظره اليها.
We aren’t making stuff up, the no planers and space weapons and hologram BS is not where we’re coming from (these theories are at best put forward by idiots or at worst a deliberate attempt to paint all people who don’t fall for the official story as nutcases). نحن لسنا حتى جعل الاشياء ، لا الفارات واسلحه الفضاء والصورة الثلاثيه الابعاد ليست على درجة البكالوريوس حيث نحن قادمة من (هذه النظريات هي في أحسن الأحوال التي طرحها البلهاء أو في اسوأ الاحوال محاولة متعمده لطلاء جميع الناس من لا تدخل للقصة الرسمية كما nutcases).
My specific problems as listed above (at the risk of repeating myself) are: - بلدي مشاكل محددة كما هو وارد أعلاه) في خطر تكرار نفسي) : --
Only 3 steel framed modern skyscrapers have suffered a collapse due to fire damage. فقط 3 ناطحات السحاب الحديثة في اطار من الصلب الذي عانى من الانهيار بسبب الاضرار الناجمة عن حرائق.All 3 of those happened on 9-11 and all 3 collapsed into their own footprint. 3 كل من حصل على تلك 9-11 وانهارت كل 3 الى اثر الخاصة بها.Now as I see it, the damage would have been asymetrical as the planes impact and main focus of the fire would have been on one side of each of the buildings. الآن ، كما ارى ، فان الضرر قد asymetrical كما أثر الطائرات والتركيز الرئيسى للنار لقد كان على جانب واحد من كل من هذه المباني.If this impact and subsequent fire had melted the steel (impossible due to the hardened steel and the burning temperature of kerosene as mentioned above, but even if we ignore that fact) then the buildings would have toppled over due to the second law of thermodynamics (the law of entropy). واذا كان هذا الاثر لاحقا اطلاق النار وذاب الفولاذ (من المستحيل نظرا لزيادة صلابه الفولاذ وحرق درجة الحراره من الكيروسين وكما ذكر اعلاه ، ولكن حتى اذا تجاهلنا هذه الحقيقة) فان المباني قد اطاح يرجع الى ما يزيد على القانون الثاني للديناميكا الحراريه) قانون الانتروبيا).Now there is always an exception to the rule, so even though it contravenes the laws of physics I could probably write off one of the buildings exhibiting this behaviour as a freak occurence, but 3 freak occurences on the same day? الآن هناك دائما استثناء للقاعدة ، وذلك على الرغم من أنه يتعارض مع قوانين الفيزياء وانني ربما شطب واحد من المبانى واظهار هذا السلوك باعتباره نزوه ما يحدث ، ولكن الحوادث نزوه 3 وفى اليوم نفسه؟ Puhrlease!
The fact that all 3 buildings collapsed at near freefall speed (ie as if there was no resistance), if you look at the dust clouds created from the crushing/exploding? ان جميع المبانى المنهاره في 3 حرة بالقرب من السرعه (أي ما إذا لم يكن هناك اي المقاومة) ، واذا نظرتم في سحب الغبار التي انشئت من سحق / انفجار؟of the cement those clouds would have taken a lot of energy to create (ie made a lot of resistance). للاسمنت من شأنه ان تلك الغيوم التي اتخذتها الكثير من الطاقة لخلق (أي تقدم الكثير من المقاومة).If these clouds had been created by the natural collapse of the buildings each floor would have taken an amount of time to collapse and create the dust clouds and this ‘resistance’ would have slowed the collapse substantially (it didn’t). واذا كانت هذه السحب قد انشئت قبل انهيار طبيعي للمبانى فى كل طابق من شأنه ان اتخذت مبلغ من الوقت لتهيئة الانهيار وسحب الغبار وهذه 'المقاومة' ان انهيار تباطا بدرجه كبيرة (لا).
The fact that WTC7 had no impact from a plane, there were what appeared to be some minor fires looking at the footage but the only propellant they can put in this building is diesel which burns substantially cooler than kerosene, but this building collapsed due to this fire when even kerosene from the planes doesn’t burn hot enough to melt the steel! Wtc7 ان لم يكن لها اي اثر من طائرة ، كانت هناك على ما يبدو ان بعض الحرائق البسيطة وعند النظر إلى لقطات ولكن ألا يمكن وضع وقود الدفع في هذا المبنى هو وقود الديزل التي تحرق اكثر برودة من الهواء بدرجه كبيرة الكيروسين ، ولكن هذا المبنى انهار نتيجة لهذا اطلاق النار حتى عندما الكيروسين من الطائرات لا يكفي لحرق الساخنه ذوبان الفولاذ!
The many eye witness accounts that describe explosions at WTC7 as it was collapsing, to quote on NYFD employee ‘there was a pop, pop, pop as each floor went, like a demolition’ العديد من روايات شهود العيان ان الانفجارات التي وقعت في وصف wtc7 كما كان ينهار ، على حد تعبير عن nyfd الموظف 'وكان هناك شاشة عرض ، شاشة عرض ، شاشة عرض وكما في كل طابق ذهب ، مثل هدم'
Now you mentioned the insurance companies and this is one that intrigues me, when I see video of the recent purchaser and insured party that owned WTC7 a Larry Silverstein on video saying how he agreed with the fire department to ‘pull’ WTC7 (’pull’ is a term used by demolitions teams for the implosion of buildings using detonations), I wonder how on earth they agreed to pay out. أشرت الى ان شركات التأمين وهذا هو أحد لي إن الدسائس ، وعندما أرى الفيديو الاخيرة من الطرف المشتري والمؤمن عليه ان wtc7 أ المملوكه لاري سيلفرستاين على الفيديو قائلا : كيف وقال انه يتفق مع ادارة الاطفاء الى 'سحب' wtc7 ( 'سحب' هي مصطلح عمليات الهدم التي تستخدمها فرق العمل لينفذ من المباني باستخدام المتفجرات) ، اتساءل كيف على الارض واتفقوا على الدفع.I’m sure my house insurance wouldn’t pay out if my house burned down and I was on record as saying that I threw a molitov cocktail at it. انا متأكد من بيتي التأمين لن تدفع ما اذا كانت احرقت بيتي وكنت في المحضر قوله ان الاول رمى أ molitov في كوكتيل.
Just out of interest I’d like to know where you come up with the idea that it would take ‘THOUSANDS’ of people to do something like this, just think about the staff member in the Whitehouse bunker asking Cheney ‘if the order still stood’, if this order was not to scramble fighter jets to protect the Pentagon then would the staffer have had to have been in on it or would he just have been obeying the commands of his superior? فقط من الاهتمام على المستوى الشخصي أود ان أعرف الى أين أنت تطرح فكرة ان الامر سيستغرق 'آلاف' من الناس الى القيام بأي شيء من هذا القبيل ، فقط أعتقد عن هذا الموظف وقود النقل في مدينة ويت هاوس يطلب تشيني 'إذا كان الامر ما زال قائما '، اذا كان هذا النظام لم يكن لالتدافع طائرات نفاثه مقاتلة لحمايه البنتاغون عندها موظف كان قد تم في شأنه ، أو على أنه فقط تم اطاعة الاوامر من رئيسه؟Would he now like to stand up and inform on Dick Cheney, how far would he think that would get him, other than the dole queue and loss of pension etc? وقال انه سيكون الان الى الوقوف على وابلغ ديك تشيني ، وقال انه اي مدى تعتقد ان من شأنه ان تحصل عليه ، بخلاف دول الصف وفقدان المعاش التقاعدي وما الى ذلك؟What could each person on their own know? ما الذي يمكن كل شخص على معرفة خاصة بها؟It’s exactly how terrorist organisations work, in cells. انها بالضبط كيفية عمل المنظمات الارهابيه ، في الخلايا.Ever heard the term ‘plausible deniability’? واستمع من اي وقت مضى مصطلح 'الانكار معقول؟The whole conspiracy could not be uncovered unless every person in every part decided to blow the whistle, now what each person has knowledge of would be a little part of the big picture and they would see their knowledge as inconsequential. كله مءامره لا يمكن كشف ما لم يكن كل شخص في كل جزء من اجزاء قررت ان يفجر المباراة ، والآن ماذا كل شخص على علم بشيء من شأنه ان يكون جزءا من الصورة الكبيرة وانها ستتعرض لمعرفتهم كما غير هام.
I mean the evidence for the US and UK going to war was clearly fabricated, the 45 minutes claim, the nuclear and biological arsenal, the mobile chemical labs (something a student dreamed up that was then put forward as fact), how many people must have been involved in that? يعني الادله بالنسبة للولايات المتحدة الامريكية والمملكه المتحدة الذهاب الى الحرب كانت مفتعله بوضوح ، ومطالبة 45 دقيقة ، وترسانة نوويه وبيولوجية ، ومختبرات متنقله الكيمياءيه (ما كان يحلم به أحد الطلاب الذي كان حتى ذلك الحين كما طرح الواقع) ، وكيف يجب ان الكثير من الناس لم يشارك في ذلك؟How many of them are likely to have signed the official secrets act or the American equivalent? كيف وكثير منهم من المحتمل ان يكون لها وقع قانون الأسرار الرسمية الامريكية او ما يعادلها؟How many of them would be willing to risk a spell in jail to blow the whistle on something that on its own doesn’t really carry much weight. وكم منهم ستكون على استعداد لتوضيح المخاطر التي يتعرض لها في السجن الى النفخ في الصافره على شيء من تلقاء نفسها حقا لا تحمل كثيرا من وزنه.
Some other random ones: - بعض عشواءيه اخرى منها : --
How did the BBC and CNN predict the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before it collapsed? كيف وافقت هيئة الاذاعة البريطانية وشبكة سى ان يتنبأ بانهيار wtc7 حوالى 25 دقائق قبل ان انهار؟
Why is Osama seen writing with his right hand in the video where he claims responsibility when the FBI website clearly says he is left handed? لماذا ينظر الى كتابه مع اسامة يده اليمنى في الفيديو حيث مسؤوليتها عندما اف بي اي موقع واضح يقول انه يترك سلم؟Did Osama forget which hand he writes with or are the FBI misinformed? اسامة ننسى الذي لم يكتب من جهة او مكتب التحقيقات الفيديرالي معلومات خاطءه؟
Just because they say you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you ;) لمجرد انهم المذعور كنت أقول أنه لا يعني انهم ليس لتحصل على ؛)
Question everything and look for yourself, don’t believe me or believe someone else, make your own mind up (what I would say is that a commission report that cost 1/80th of the amount of money spent on finding out what Bill Clinton was doing with his cigars is not the best place to start, also NIST couldn’t get real world models of the towers to fall over so they did a computer simulation so they could alter the parameters. Hey it’s no wonder people are asking for another investigation eh?) سؤال كل شيء ، والبحث عن نفسك ، لا نعتقد ويعتقد لي او شخص آخر ، الخاصة بك حتى اعتبارها (ما اود ان اقوله هو ان ثمة لجنة التقرير ان تكلفة 1/80th من مقدار ما ينفق على معرفة ما بيل كلينتون العمل مع صاحب السيجار ليست هي أفضل مكان للبدء ، كما تعذر الحصول على nist العالم الحقيقي نماذج من سقوط البرجين الى اكثر من ذلك انهم لم محاكاه الحاسوب ليتمكنوا من تغيير المعالم. هاى انه لا غرابة ان الناس يطالبون تحقيق آخر ايه؟)
3 year old kidطفل عمره 3 Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 12:38 am |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 16th ، 2008 في 12:38 صباحا |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
Thank you for that failure to Debunk the 911 Controlled Demolition Physics Reptor. شكرا لهذا الفشل الى 911 افضح فان الفيزياء reptor الهدم التي تسيطر عليها.
No one is forcing you to do anything old chap. لا احد يجبر على فعل اي شيء لكم الفصل القديمة.
We are not your enemy or a hostile or some sort of weird cult, we are 400 + Architects and Engineers including many people who actually design and build steel framed skyscrapers. نحن لسنا عدوك او معاديه او غريب نوعا من عبادة ، ونحن على 400 + المعماريين والمهندسين بما فيها العديد من الناس فعلا من تصميم وبناء ناطحات السحاب في اطار الصلب.
But, if you claim some 400 professional Architects and Engineers at ولكن ، إذا كنت مطالبة نحو 400 من المهندسين والفنيين والمهندسين المعماريين في http://www.ae911truth.org/ are incorrect, and you can not even give one example of a falling body taking the path of most resistance then you really do not represent any credibility if you can not back up what you are claiming. غير صحيحة ، وانت لا تستطيع حتى اعطاء مثال واحد من الهيءه التي تقع في اتخاذ طريق اكثر مقاومه فهذا يعني انك حقا لا يمثل اي مصداقيه اذا لم تتمكن من العودة حتى أنت ما تدعي.
All those questions you mention about why haven’t the media reported on it? جميع هذه الاسءله ذكرت لماذا لم تقارير عن وسائل الاعلام؟Why haven’t insurance companies refused to pay up? لماذا لم ترفض شركات التأمين على الدفع؟Why hasn’t any one of the THOUSANDS of people who need to be in on it come forward? لماذا لم تستطع اي واحدة من الآلاف من الناس من يكون في حاجة الى ان يأتي الامام علي؟Are nothing to do with Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. هي لا علاقة للمهندسين المعماريين والمهندسين 911 لتقصي الحقائق.
To answer any of those questions would be pure speculation and engaging in conjecture and conspiracy theories. للاجابة على اي من هذه الاسءله سيكون محض تكهنات وتخمينات والدخول في نظريات المءامره.
We at AE911truth.org only deal with Science and Engineering facts. ونحن في ae911truth.org فقط التعامل مع حقائق العلوم والهندسه.
And the important indisputable 911 facts are these:- والمهم الذي لا جدال فيه 911 وهذه الحقائق هي : --
It is physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance. ومن المستحيل ماديا لهبوط الهيءه الى المرور عبر أكثر من طريق المقاومة.
It is even more physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance at almost freefall speed. ومما يدعو الى المزيد من المستحيل ماديا لهبوط الهيءه الى المرور عبر طريق المقاومة في معظم حرة السرعه تقريبا.
Forget about if bandannas and passports were unburned whilst flying out of a suitcase that itself was totally incinerated. انسي bandannas اذا كانت جوازات السفر وغير المحترقه في حين حلقت من حقيبة نفسها تماما ان يتم احراقها.Forget that jet fighters failed to defend the pentagon despite being on guard 24/7. ننسى ان المقاتلات النفاثه ، فشلت في الدفاع (البنتاجون) على الرغم من الحرس 24 / 7.All that sort of stuff is bum fluff. كل هذا النوع من الاشياء هو بوم زغب.
Now I will ask you again to either back up what you claim or stop trying to impress about stuff you clearly know very little about. انا الآن سوف اطلب منكم مرة اخرى لدعم اما ما تدعون او تتوقف عن محاولة لاقناع الاشياء بوضوح إلا القليل للغاية عن معرفة.
As I have said before and I will say again, this particular media diatribe was A 911 guide By cretins - For Cretins. وكما قلت من قبل وأود أن أقول هذا ، مرة اخرى ، ولا سيما وسائل الاعلام الهجاء هو الدليل من قبل 911 المشوهون -- المشوهون ل.
And the fact you cannot back up your ridiculous claims does somewhat prove my point. وحقيقة كنت لا تستطيع دعم المطالبات الخاصة بك من السخريه الى حد ما لا يثبت وجهة نظري.
StrugStrug Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 1:43 am |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 16th ، 2008 في 1:43 صباحا |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
What many of you people are overlooking about this broadcast is that it is not looking at the evidence it is mainly looking at how troofers conduct themselves. ما لكم الكثير من الناس يغفل عن هذا البرنامج هو انه ليس من النظر في الادله المقصود منه أساسا هو النظر في كيفية اجراء troofers انفسهم.Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories. وكثيرا ما rude troofers ويتصرفون في عبادة مثل هذه الطريقة في الهجوم على من لا دعم النظريات.
This has been proven on this very page. هذا وقد ثبت للغاية على هذه الصفحه.
paul wبول ث Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 7:28 am |تاريخ النشر : يونيو 16th ، 2008 في 7:28 صباحا |Link to thisوصلة الى هذا
Ashley اشلي Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm | Link to this تاريخ النشر : يونيو 15th ، 2008 في الساعة 8:35 | وصله الى هذا
“I’m sure there are logical explainations for the collapse of 3 steel framed buildings in to their own footprint (the only 3 steel framed syscrapers to collapse due to fire damage in history).”
Yes, the logical explanations can be found in the NIST report. Have you read the NIST report?
“I’m no scientist so I can’t give answers as to how these buildings didn’t topple (as logic would expect as they were hit on one side”
You don’t need to be a scientist - for the building to ‘topple over’ it would require a force pushing from the side. There was none. The only force on the towers was the greatest; gravity. The towers had no-where else to go but straight down. What were they going to do, tap-dance around New York for a while? PS. Have you read the NIST report?
“I also cannot give you an explaination as to how jet fuel that burns at a maximum of 1500F could melt steel that had been certified to 2750F.”
That’s because it’s impossible. The steel didn’t melt, it was heated and LOST STRENGTH, as neatly explained in the NIST report. Have you read the NIST report?
“I’m sure the BBC (and IIRC CNN) have an explaination of how they predicted the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before its collapse (I just can’t seem to find explainations for this despite hunting for them).”
Hunt some more (hint: try 9-11 Myths, Screwloosechange or Internet Detectives.) Everyone involved knew WTC7 was coming down, that’s why they cleared the area and no-one was killed. the building was gutted by savage, multi-floor fires, one side had massive structural damage from debris from the collapsing towers, and the fucking thing was starting to lean over at an alarming angle…so, they figured it was probably gonna fall. Funny that…
Also, it fell down because gravity was the greatest force, or do you believe it should have joined the towers in a pirouette around New York? have you read the NIST report?
“If I predicted someones murder I’m sure it would be investigated thoroughly….”
It was. The 9-11 investigation was the largest in US history (and the world?)
“Of course the PNAC report that said that the desires of America to spread their democracy would not have enough support without some kind of ‘new Pearl Harbour’ is not a prediction of any sort (published one year prior to 911)”
Sigh. The reference to a ‘new Pearl Harbour’ was taken completely out of context bu the 9-11 truthers. The comment came during a debate about military prowess. The speaker suggested that history showed military improvements often came after some sort of dramatic event which spurred R&D within the military. He suggested this would occur if there was another dramatic events like a ‘new Pearl Harbour’.
“The strange lack of fighter jets over the most protected piece of airspace in the world (the Pentagon) is again understandable (albeit not to me)”
One of the major findings of the investigation was a shocking lack of communication between the different services…between NORAD, the civilian flight controllers, pilots, etc. In short, a level of incompetence. There were THOUSANDS of planes in the sky that day…jeez, go do some bleeding research (hint: read the NIST report).
“the 2 released CCTV images are the only footage of the plane despite the amount of cameras focussed on this building.”
Actually, no. There were bugger all cameras ‘focused’ on the building…they were focused on the car entry, the service station forecourt, etc., as most cameras are.
“Dick Cheney… ‘if the orders still stand’”
I’m getting tired, so get off your lazy backside and go find out.
“Then of course Dubya spent endless hours to try and connect Iraq with Osama and the attack”
You mean Bush was being a politician and trying to use 9-11 to push through his own agenda! Unbelievable!
Enough. You are a moron.
Next….
3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Link to this
“So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance?”
Me! (and a few hundred thousand engineers and physics professors) Gravity dictated where the thing was gonna go, and it dictated straight down. Where else was it going to go? Up? Sideways? Tell me, what is it about gravity you don’t understand?
“Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed?”
Me! (and ditto). The issue here is that word NEAR…it was NEAR free-fall speed, NOT free-fall speed. Tell me, genius, what speed should it have been? A second longer? Two seconds?
have ANY of your morons read the NIST report?
“Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. http://www.ae911truth.org/ There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details”
Er, more to the point, how many have NOT joined? (hint: tens of thousands)
3 year old kid Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 9:40 am |Link to this
Edward, don’t expect these failed Communist and failed Socialists (NOW claiming to be CULT WATCHERS) to wake up EVER.
The fact is, they are science savvy poor - they are literally unable to grasp and logically process the important scientific 911 facts.
They are so weak minded and so perversely politically driven they allow 911 dust to cloud & choke their judgments; unburned bandannas to blind their vision and this so called “Cult Watch” Characters are the perfect example of were because they were not the centre of attention at somebody else’s public meeting, and because someone just happened to give them a heckle, they now are prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater and are equivalent to becoming holocaust type deniers.
And all this stuff peddled by the likes of Strug.
Quote:-
“What many of you people are overlooking about this broadcast is that it is not looking at the evidence it is mainly looking at how troofers conduct themselves. Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories. This has been proven on this very page.”
Well pardon me for holding a professional scientific opinion about the most important aspect of 911, that being it is physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance at near freefall speed - it now turns out these characters don’t actually want to focus on what http://www.ae911truth.org/ is actually saying (the HARD scientific FACTS) but how some supporters address & behave at public meetings.
Well what can one say.
How is this for scientific method:-
They wheel in a left wing disgruntled socialists from “Cult Watch” who is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake UFO expert who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it - when neither of these Cretins has even the savvy to question if the CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official 911 Conspiracy plot.
Ashley Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 2:42 pm |Link to this
Paul W
Thank you for your erudite reply and for the assertion that I am a moron, unfortunately this is the same kind of personal attack that tries to discredit an argument by resorting to insults as is commonly used by believers of the offical conspiracy theory (if you can’t discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger with an ad-hominem attack - nice).
Your insistence on repeating your ‘have you read the NIST report’ question does not make our arguments go away. NIST initially tried to use real world models to explain the collapse of the 3 buildings, they were completely unable to do this so then changed tack and used a computer simulation to prove their theories (where they could alter the input parameters to their hearts content). Now call me a cynical troofer conspiraloon but if they can’t get real world models to exhibit the behaviour they claim was responsible for the collapse and have to resort to doing it in theory then I have little faith in their findings.
When you tell me to read the NIST report to find out about how the lack of communication between the different services was one of the major contributing factors I’m guessing you mean the 9-11 commission report rather than the NIST report as the NIST report has no such information in it (of course you know this as you keep asking us if we’ve read it, you wouldn’t ask that question unless you had read it yourself eh ;)
You are clearly out of your depth regarding the idea that these buildings would topple over, if the plane impact and resultant fire was one one side of the building then the stresses on the building would be asymetrical. If the stresses on the building were asymetrical you would expect the top of the building to topple over to one side (as explained earlier think Jenga or if you are feeling up to it google for ‘the law of entropy’).
If as you claim that the steel lost strength then that would give even more credence to the idea that the top of the building would have toppled to one side or the other, a weakened piece of steel would not concertina down on itself rather it would go towards the path of least resistance (it would bend before breaking).
How you can claim that the 9-11 investigation was the largest in the world when the sum total of money spent on the 9-11 Commission report came to approximately $500,000 (just to put this in perspective over $40 million dollars was spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky investigation).
All your sighing and huffing and puffing does absolutely nothing to water down my arguments it just makes you look like you are in the playground rather than having an adult conversation.
With regards your assertion that there were only 2 cameras focussed on the area of impact at the Pentagon is absolutely hilarious, this is the most protected building in the world, if you are really of the mind that the images they’ve shown are the best they can offer then seriously I ask you to reconsider. In all likelihood it would be impossible to walk up to that building without a camera being able to get a good look at your face (this would be to deter terrorists from walking up and putting bombs up against the walls, DOH).
I would dearly love to know what you meant by the following: -
“Dick Cheney… ‘if the orders still stand’”
I’m getting tired, so get off your lazy backside and go find out.
Are you in receipt of knowledge that explains this away because you should let people know as no-one else is!
As for WTC7 being ‘gutted from savage multi floor fires’ that is clearly preposterous, go look at some archive footage and come back and say it again. WTC7 was not leaning in any direction whatsoever, there are loads of different angles the collapse was filmed from, please point me in the direction of one which shows this ‘leaning’ (also if it was leaning then the law of entropy would cause us to expect it topple over rather than down and in on itself but the laws of physics don’t seem to be able to convince you of anything).
With regards your question on how long it should have taken WTC7 to collapse, Stephen Jones calculated that just from the resistance of the concrete (ignoring any resistance the steel columns may have had) that the building should have taken just over 10 seconds to collapse rather than the 6.6 it did take (freefall speed with no resistance and in a vacuum would have taken 6 seconds).
As for the PNAC comment being taken out of context, I have read the report myself (it’s freely available online) and I fail to see where you are coming from with this. The gist of it is that America will not be able to spread it’s Pax Americana around the world unless a Pearl Harbour type incident occurs so as to make it a populist move.
With regards the BBC premonition of the collapse of WTC7, I’m sorry your explaination holds no water. This is only the 3rd modern steel framed skyscraper to collapse due to fire damage, no-one could have predicted its collapse some 25 minutes prior.
Please don’t resort to name calling again Paul it only serves to show an element of desperation on your part and that is not a good way to win an argument. Oh btw I loved how you called me lazy and then went on to answer half of my points by calling me a moron, is this not laziness epitomised ;)
3 year old kid Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm |Link to this
Thank you for that Booger,
I am quite happy for people to have differing views, and even be wrong , right or indifferent.
Indeed the whole of science is built on modifying hypotheses and testing them against the available evidence in an iterative process.
But to claim a group of 400 professional Architects and Engineers are plain wrong, and then not offer any proof to back up the ludicrous claim “IT WAS GRAVITY WOT DONE IT GOVE” – is just not on.
I ask, IS that the actions of CRETINS or of serious investigation, learning & discovery?
Is there anything to learn from such pig headed stupidity? Apart from the fact some people are born CRETINS.
Speaking of which - here is a quote from one chap paul W
Quote:-
“Enough. You are a moron. Next…. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Link to this “So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance?” Me! (and a few hundred thousand engineers and physics professors) Gravity dictated where the thing was gonna go, and it dictated straight down. Where else was it going to go? Up? Sideways? Tell me, what is it about gravity you don’t understand? “Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed?” Me! (and ditto). The issue here is that word NEAR…it was NEAR free-fall speed, NOT free-fall speed. Tell me, genius, what speed should it have been? A second longer? Two seconds? have ANY of your morons read the NIST report? “Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth.
There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details” Er, more to the point, how many have NOT joined? (hint: tens of thousands)”
End quote.
This individual proves the point perfectly, not even a GCSE Architecture, Physics or Engineering qualification to his name, has never contacted any of the tens of thousands of qualified individuals he claims so speak for – but guess what - he is right and the outspoken 400 + Architects and Engineering professionals at http://www.ae911truth.org/ ARE WRONG?
Now I ask - does anybody see a problem with this chap’s logic?
So here we have yet another opportunity, another volunteer to show us the Physics and the maths which proves it is even physically possible for a body to take the path of most resistance and indeed at near freefall speed too – so Go on Mr paul W - let us have it sir. We can take your TRUTH.
Show us the Physics and Maths, which proves your hypothesis sir.
Show us this Physics and Maths supported by your alleged: tens of thousands professionals.
And if you are unable to do that for whatever reason – just tell us all about one experiment we can do which proves it is physically possible for a body to pass through the path of most resistance due to gravity alone. EVER!
Ashley Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 9:21 pm |Link to this
No I am not dismissing a peer review, what I am asking is what journal is likely to agree to print something that questions the official story when academics are losing their positions for daring to even question it.
I’m sure a lot of people would love the opportunity to have their thesis reviewed by their peers, unfortunately they have to find someone to print it (or do you think that they write their thesis and post a copy to all their peers for a ‘peer review’?)
At the moment it’s like the ‘Emporers New Clothes’, there are a few brave souls pointing out the naked facts but they are few and far between.
I think a lot of academics question the official story but after seeing what has happened to their peers when they stood up to be counted they have preferred to voice their concerns off the record.
I mean I am no scientist and I can see the hallmarks of controlled demolition all over the 3 collapses on 9-11, demolition experts could not have collapsed those buildings in to neater piles if they had tried. I am supposed to believe that 2 towers with asymetrical damage and one that just had a fire in it collapsed in to their own footprints which is something even demolition teams would have struggled to do. Sorry but I’m not buying it, you can if you like but I’m not.
I also think that on a wider level the problem with most people who look at the evidence and refuse to entertain the idea that the administration either made it happen or let it happen is the ‘what if it’s true’ factor. If the US administration is complicit in any part of this then that would pretty much blow the notion of democracy in America out of the water. I think some people don’t want to see what the evidence points to because it is so horrible and the implications are so wide ranging that peoples psyches are protecting them from recognising it.
Don’t think for a minute that Dubya would have any compunction about putting civilians in harms way, he has no scruples and sent an army to war based on false pretexts against someone who was an ally up until he invaded Kuwait (and tried to kill his daddy - oh the humanity). If you have a scout round the web you might even find a picture of Rummy Rumsfeld out in Iraq shaking the hand of the leader of Iraq (and at the time he was using chemical warfare against the Kurds, it’s funny how we can point this out as a justification for war now, when it wasn’t even enough to stop Rummy cow-towing to him at the time it happened! Oh and the US supplied the raw materials that Saddam used to make his chemical weapons and gas the Kurds! Funny how a lot of this extraneous information gets filtered out isn’t it?).
The world is a very strange and dangerous place and it doesn’t really work like they taught you in school. The idea that America and the UK can spread democracy with bullets and cluster bombs and try and force our culture on to other countries which for the most part have a different belief system is dangerous in the extreme. I mean the Disney style fun park planned for the green area in Bahgdad, I feel like I’ve followed Alice down the rabbit hole.
Anyway, I digress, I think that the there should be a new inquiry in to 9-11. I mean the 9-11 Commission report started with a belief in the official story and anything that didn’t fit with that wasn’t disproved, it was simply ignored. I think the US owes it to the 3,000 odd people who died that day and also to the dead soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the countless Afghani and Iraqi civilians killed by a force in its ‘War on Terror’ that if you believe the official story was as a direct response to the acts of that day (despite the fact that the neo-cons have had their eye on Iraq since before dubya rose to infamy).
My personal opinion is that it is an affront to the memory of the dead that the US can spend 80 times more money investigating the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal than it did on the 9-11 Commission Report!
But hey that’s just my opinion, you don’t have to believe me just have a look at the facts for yourself and make your own mind up (like I did).
Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. “Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7″ points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.
Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse.
9/11 demolition theory challenged
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a “controlled demolition”.
The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.
Resistance to collapse
Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.
In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.
“The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse,” Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.
Dr Seffen was able to calculate the “residual capacity” of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.
His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.
He added that his calculations showed this was a “very ordinary thing to happen” and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.
The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.
This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.
Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive “squibs” can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.
Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy…
For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is…
“Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows…
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, eg University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
ZP Bazant and Y. Zhou, “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?”, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it’s not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It’s had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no “theory of intelligent design” except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.”
More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse…
Bazant, ZP, & Zhou, Y. “Addendum to ‘Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis” (pdf) Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, FL “WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings” Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G. Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
“Construction and Collapse Factors” Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, GP “Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster” Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
“Dissecting the Collapses” Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, TW, & Musso, C. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation” JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor. World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (also available on-line)
Gabrielson, TB, Poese, ME, & Atchley, AA “Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center” The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
“Collapse Lessons” Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, TG “TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering” JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B. “World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, DE, & Cebon, D. “Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?” Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs “Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center” Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
Pinsker, Lisa, M. “Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site” Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001). The print copy has 3-D images.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
Post, NM “No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report” ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
Post, NM “Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing” ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects A resource site.
“WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives” ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
3 year old kid Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am |Link to this
Dr Seffen should be commended for at least trying.
Even NIST did not do the 10-second destruction sequence. (I wonder Why?)
Dr Seffen is a very capable person and his mathematics skills are very good indeed.
However despite being rather imaginative and having a jolly good attempt at modeling the impossible - his analysis has several key glaring flaws some of which I have listed here:-
He has assumed there was no cross bracing. (The WTCs were all heavily cross-braced).
He assumes the towers collapsed uniformly – yet damage and fires were more prevalent on one side and we have a video of the top portion toppling.
He assumes there was no reinforced concrete when in fact there were 300,000 tonnes in each 110 floor WTC building.
His paper defies conservation of energy – there was less than 10% of the necessary energy in the entire upright structure needed to do what Dr Seffen claims happened.
His paper defies conservation of momentum. He claims the top smaller section crushed the heavier lower section whilst the top lighter section stayed in a perfect intact condition until after it had finished destroying the much larger and heavier lower 80+ floors.
These are the less technical problems with the paper of which can be proved easily almost none mathematically via freely available evidence.
Regarding peer review, whilst it is very important, it has one or two very deep flaws.
In the case of this particular Seffen paper the referees are anonymous. So how can this paper be effectively peer reviewed if the referees can not be contacted to make comments and back up their approval by providing actual EVIDENCE.
In relation to all my works, I never have it peer reviewed via journals. I keep it secret because of commercial reasons.
So shipmates and Cult watch pirates - Hands up all those who think burning jet fuel in air can weaken steel? DUH!!!!
Is there anybody else apart from Dr Keith Seffen that believes in Free Energy machines?
If so, does anyone want to buy a safe seafront villa in Baghdad?
Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am |Link to this
RINFer
As mentioned previously NIST started their investigations using real world models, they could not get these models to collapse and had to resort to computer simulations in order to prove their theory.
Now I KNOW that I could get a team of demolition experts to effect a collapse like that on a real world model, I wouldn’t have to resort to theory to prove that the buildings could collapse in an identical manner.
Now what I am being asked to believe is that chaotic asymetrical damage to the buildings had a uniform effect in dropping these buildings in a fashion that demolition teams would be proud of. Demolition teams to this day cannot guarantee to drop buildings neatly, some of them don’t even fall when the charges are blown and cost a fortune to bring down.
It would probably be flippant of me to suggest that we could do away with all of these specialised demolitions companies and just start fires in the buildings we want to demolish as 3 out of 3 had uniform collapses on 9-11.
I maintain that a lot of academics in the conspiracy camp would like to get their thesis reviewed by peers but are unable to get them published. Why should this be? I’m sure that if their theories are so easy to shoot down, if the gaping inconsistencies can easily be explained away then journals would jump at the chance to be the one to disprove the conspiracy theorists.
I could go off to a site that holds the conspiracy POV as you have for the non-conspiracy POV and copy and paste a page of their site to debunk your debunking but what would that serve, you’d just find one to debunk my debunking of your debunking ad infinitum. The only way to bring clarity to this situation is for a full and exhaustive new inquiry that has both the funds and powers required to get to the truth. If there is nothing that has been hidden then this shouldn’t be a problem (please don’t quote cost as a deciding factor as it certainly isn’t in other facets of the so called ‘War on Terror’)
At the end of the day I admit that I haven’t gone in to much of the detail, but what I have done is use my own eyes, my own thought processes and drawn my own conclusions based on what I can see and my experiences in the real world (rather than one of abstraction).
I am using my own critical faculties, I mean if I saw a car crash and someone came out of the windscreen I would guess that they weren’t wearing their seatbelt and their momentum carried them through the glass. You could provide me with a peer reviewed document that suggested a James Bond style ejector seat could have caused it or that they could have jumped but that wouldn’t necessarily make it so, I’ma simple soul and would call it as I saw it.
When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition, when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition, when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull), when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage, when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel, when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire), when I see molten metal coming from the buildings (consistent with thermite or thermate), when sulfur residue is found on the steel after the collapse (consistent with thermate) then is it any wonder I ‘leap’ to the deduction that it was controlled demolition, is it any wonder that I think a new inquiry is not just called for but vital in getting the answers to these questions.
paul w Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 1:04 am |Link to this
RINFer Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Good effort, but you’ll get no-where: truthers are insane. Just read the ravings of 3 year old Kid, Ashely and Co…it ‘aint gonna t work, they’re too far gone.
Too many bongs, too much paranoia, too many out-of-whack brain cells, too many insecurities.
Is this attacking the person? Damn right it is - if the NIST /Commission reports and the vast amount of online material from various experts and eyewitness doesn’t change their mind, nothing will.
I post here so anyone new to the 9-11 ‘truth’ garbage has an opportunity to listen to the other side. This is a very poorly represented faction of the ‘truth’ movement; don’t expect them to offer debunking sites to newbies so they can compare things.
“I just want to talk facts and not attack the person”….
Pah. It’s all troofer bunk. I posted an answer to their idiotic comments, and said ‘moron’ once, and their reply? They answered NONE of the issues I raised but whined on about name-calling. Pathetic.
All they ever do is run and hide when caught in the headlights of reality.
Have to say though, their later posts on how the buildings should have fallen is a riot. What a bunch of fruit-cakes.
paul w Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 1:37 am |Link to this
“When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition, when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition, when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull), when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage, when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel, when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire), when I see molten metal coming from the buildings (consistent with thermite or thermate), when sulfur residue is found on the steel after the collapse (consistent with thermate) then is it any wonder I ‘leap’ to the deduction that it was controlled demolition, is it any wonder that I think a new inquiry is not just called for but vital in getting the answers to these questions.” Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am
When I see raving like this, I know Ashley is an idiot.
Am example: “when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire)”
paul w Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 8:19 am |Link to this
More info on black smoke from 911myths:
“While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:
“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”
paul w Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 10:00 am |Link to this
“When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition,
No, not ‘exact’ but similar, the way I play football ’similar’ to David Beckham. Go read the NIST report.
“when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition”
And what of the demolition experts who disagree? ONE person, is that it? Come on, Ashley. Is that all you have?
“when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull)”
Yes, do have a look at what demolition experts mean by pull - it means pull a building down using cables (as was done to the damaged buildings around the towers). “Pull” is never used to indicate a demoliton. Never.
“when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage”
Explained by the NIST report (and to be explained by the upcoming WC7 report)
“when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel”
The photo taken of the poor woman was well after the impact and the fires had moved on - the fires moved all over the place. Read the NIST report.
As for ‘melting steel’, no-one other than troofers talk of melting steel. Read the NIST report. It wasn’t hot enough for steel to melt. As for aluminum…
Ah, that’s enough. Look, Ashley, go and study the 9-11 myths and Internet Detectives sites. You sound like a newbie to 9-11, it will help you understand what occurred on 9-11. Check out screwloosechangeblogspot as well. The top section has excellent reports about 9-11.
Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 3:09 pm |Link to this
Paul W
4 posts on the trot and I am raving lol. Look Paul you are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. As for calling me a moron you didn’t just do that you ignored half of my post. You have not, as you claim, answered my idiotic comments (which is in itself another personal attack). Why are you getting yourself worked up in to such a frenzy that you have to insult people. I’m not insulting you so why do you feel the need?
Anyway myself and 3yo kid aren’t alone, 36% of people questioned in a national poll in the US believe that the US administration was complicit in some way. There are former members of the intelligence community that believe it was an inside job, a former prime minister of a western country, physics professors, architects, first responders, employees that were there on the day, firemen, policemen, civil engineers, soldiers and countless millions of other people from all walks of life (but of course you know more than all of these put together).
It is not an open and shut case as you would like the rest of the world to believe and do you know what would appease many of these people? A new well funded and powerful inquiry that covers all the bases, rather than starting with a conclusion and looking only for facts which prove them right.
Some of your responses are clearly wrong, ‘pull’ is an industry term for controlled demolition, anyway what did Larry Silverstein mean when he said it? The only answer he has managed to give is to pull the firefighters out of the building, this is a clear lie as no firefighting took place inside WTC7 according to a member of NIST and according to the FEMA report. Now such a clear inconsistency should be investigated, expecially when you consider more than 3,000 people died on that day and countless others are ill from the dust clouds that they were told were safe (let alone the illegal invasion of a sovereign country that ensued as a direct result).
A new investigation is required and all and sundry should be able to put their POV in to that (even the loopy space weapons and holograms ideas etc) so that every avenue can be explored.
Looking at the evidence, the most obvious cause for those buildings to fall were demolition charges, now believers of the official story are coming up with stuff like ‘the molten metal seen coming out of the building is a UPS that was on the 81st floor’ and all sorts of other explainations to anomolies and you are eating them up like a spoon fed baby (btw Aluminum doesn’t glow bright yellow when molten, go find it out for yourself). Now I am sure you are aware that in the archive footage of the collapse there is a clear shot of yellow glowing metal coming out of the building just before collapse, this is consistent with the use of thermate or thermite. Also there are countless interviews with clean up crews and footage that says and shows in no uncertain terms that there were pools of molten metal in the clean up site. Now if the temperatures weren’t hot enough to melt the steel (which is a conclusion of the NIST report), then where did the molten metal come from?
Please don’t patronise me Paul and tell me how much more you know than me, because at best you look bigheaded but to 36% of Amricans you look like something a lot less generous.
Now I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier when you confused the NIST Report with the Kean Report (9-11 commission report) I am less inclined to do so really but I would stop short of calling you names out of politeness. Stop telling people to go and read the NIST report, you clearly haven’t read it but you seem to place a lot of faith in it.
You say that the buldings didn’t collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition but in a similar manner. For the benefit of everyone reading this please can you outline the main differences as you see them? (oh and I’m not on about what NIST says, I’m on about what it looked like)
You say that the woman seen looking out of the entry hole is there after the fires have moved on elsewhere, I’m interested to know how the steel supports were weakened due to fire as the only place where the Kerosene was is where the plane was (or is there some special non-conspiracy kerosene that climbs up stairwells and ignites itself on higher floors?). The reason I ask this is that a standard office fire without the accellerant kerosene would burn at a substantially lower temperature.
If, as you claim, the fire had moved elsewhere that would imply that the kerosene had all burnt off and that the temperature in that area had dropped low enough for people to walk about in it. How on earth are we to believe that with temperatures low enbough for people to survive, steel certified to 2750F for 2 hours weakened enough for collapse? (at a substantially lower temperature for a substantially shorter period of time).
You say that the symtyrical collapses due to asymetrical damage is explained in NIST (not to the satisfaction of a good deal of people), but then you go on to say it will be explained in the upcoming WTC7 report. Now are you clairvoyant, so important you have been given a sneak preview or just plain guessing?
You just appear to be going off to any site you can find in google and quoting their debunking, now I’d like to know have all of these sources been peer reviewed Paul or are you just taking their word for it?
I don’t believe every 9-11 conspiracy out there as I have stated before, but you appear to hold as gospel any piece of information that gives you a chance to debunk. I have used my own critical faculties to come to my own conclusions from looking at the evidence (archive footage etc), a rudimentary understanding of physics, common sense and real world knowledge. You appear to just be putting all your eggs in the debunking websites basket.
To be honest Paul I hope you are right, because if you aren’t then there are bigger problems in the world than the non-existent nuclear weapons program of Iran and the US hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East.
Do you think it is reasonable that $40M is spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal but only $500,000 on the Kean Report? Don’t you think that it is an insult to those who died on the day and since due to the events of that day?
If I was a relative of one of the victims I would be absolutely outraged that the philandering of one man is seen to be 80 times more important that the deaths of 3,000 odd people and the subsequent deaths from the effects.
Wouldn’t you like to see a new inquiry? All of your debunking could be made official instead of guesswork. Then you wouldn’t have to put up with idiotic morons like me.
from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS - whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics.
Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 4:05 pm |Link to this
MaxPane
Could you define antisemitism for us before we talk about it, as sometimes anything remotely critical of Israel is called antisemitism. What do you mean by it?
As far as I’m concerned it doesn’t matter that Israel is a Jewish state, it is a sovereign state first and foremost and is responsible for its actions, the racial or religious make up of its population is neither here nor there. If it was, then surely we are being hateful when we talk disparagingly about Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan.
For instance is the idea that the CIA and Mossad could be in some way related to the 9-11 attacks in order to promote the idea of war with Iraq antisemitic?
I like what Robert Fisk says he feels like when he talks about Israel, ‘it’s like trying to ride two bikes at the same time’.
Toby Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 4:11 pm |Link to this
The “9/11 was an inside job” theory relies in part upon evidence of molten metal found at ground zero.
Deutsch Bank hired a firm, RJ Lee Group, to conduct tests on the WTC dust as part of a study of how to clean up their area. Their report concludes:
“Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).”
Similar spherical particles were found by Professor Stephen Jones.
The melting point of steel and iron is known. Therefore this is direct and irrefutable evidence of temperatures exceeding those which are possible by hydrocarbon (jet fuel) fires. The existance of molten metal on the scene is backed up by eyewitnesses testimony, while these extreme temperatures were also recorded by NASA thermal satellite images.
NIST denies this evidence exists, although they have admitted that they themselves did not look for such evidence, their reasoning being “there’s no point looking for something that isn’t there.”
Can we agree that since there is evidence of temperatures beyond those which are possible by hyrdocarbon fires, then there should be a new investigation?
Could such molten and evaporated metal affect the building collapse? Or is it insignificant? If you think these high temperatures contributed to the collapse, then wouldn’t it be sensible to find out what caused such temperatures?
It would help us to more fully understand the mechanism of the collapse and prevent such disasters in the future. The NIST report theorises on the conditions and events that lead up to the collapse of the towers, but stops at the actual moment of collapse.
NIST ignores evidence of molten iron (or steel), because it states that hydrocarbon fires cannot burn hot enough to melt steel or iron. Therefore, according to NIST, these spherical particles cannot exist.
This shouldn’t be about “who is right.” This is an important issue concerning the safety of steel structures, especially for those who live or work inside them. There are still questions that need to be answered.
3 year old kid Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 5:44 pm |Link to this
It is irrelevant if people believe the Holocaust or not, So WHAT? Who cares about what happened 60+ years ago?
That was then – this is now!
What we should be doing is Exposing this Hit Piece radio broadcast for what it is –
It is promoting the distrust of Professionals such as 400+ Professional Architects and Engineers at http://www.ae911truth.org/ from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS - whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics by peddling nonsense about Holocaust denial.
Let us Examine the scientific method used for this “Cretins Guide to 911” and utterly debunk them :-
I repeat myself:-
They wheel in this disgruntled socialists/ Commey from “Cult Watch” who was told to clear off by “the Troofers” , is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake self confessed UFO NUT who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it – when neither of these brainy Chaps has even the savvy to question if the CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official outrageous 911 Conspiracy plot.
I mean - what is going on?
So – Is Osmar Bin-whatever wanted by the CIA for 911 or NOT? AND IF NOT – Why NOT?
3 year old kid Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 6:13 pm |Link to this
It is irrelevant if people believe the Holocaust or not, So WHAT? Who cares about what happened 60+ years ago?
That was then – this is now!
What we should be doing is Exposing this Hit Piece radio broadcast for what it is –
It is promoting the distrust of Professionals such as 400+ Professional Architects and Engineers from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS - whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics by peddling nonsense about Holocaust denial.
Let us Examine the scientific method used for this “Cretins Guide to 911” and utterly debunk them :-
I repeat myself:-
They wheel in this disgruntled socialists/ Commey from “Cult Watch” who was told to clear off by “the Troofers” , is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake self confessed UFO NUT who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it – when neither of these brainy Chaps has even the savvy to question if the CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official outrageous 911 Conspiracy plot.
I mean - what is going on?
So – Is Osmar Bin-whatever wanted by the CIA for 911 or NOT? AND IF NOT – Why NOT?
Does anyone else see a big problem here?
Does anyone else understand that If the truth is not exposed many more lives will continue to be lost.
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely.News Forum
Rather than calling it the Cynic’s Guide, it should be called the CRETINS GUIDE. بدلا من الدعوة الى المتهكم عليه دليل ، وينبغي ان يسمي المشوهون الدليل.
Perhaps Nick Pole can explain why Building 007 was totally omitted from even one single mention in the Commission Report he found to be so good and comprehensive? ربما نيك قطب يمكن ان تفسر لماذا تم بناء 007 أغفلت تماما من أحد حتى يرد ذكره في تقرير اللجنة وقال انه وجد ان ذلك جيد وشامل؟
Do you suppose they accidentally forgot to mention 3 and not 2 buildings were disintegrated to dust and little rubble on the day of 911? هل نفترض انها مصادفه نسيت ان اذكر 3 وليس 2 تفككت الى المباني والغبار والركام قليلا على 911 يوم؟
How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each? كيف تفسر هذه الحروف nist الادعاء بأن اثنين من أبراج كانت تال للابادة في اقل من 10 ثانية لكل؟
All this stuff about jet crashes and burning building is totally irrelevant - How can the 80+ UNDAMAGED, Strongest & Heaviest Bottom floors (under the jet crash floors), be crushed to dust sand rubble within, (according to NIST; the video evidence and seismic data) 10 seconds, when if it were a 417 metres of empty vacuum the top bit fell through - it would take 9.22 seconds Precisely. كل هذه الأشياء عن تحطم طائرة وحرق المبنى تماما -- كيف يمكن 80 + محطم ، اقوى اثقل & الطوابق السفلى (في اطار حادث تحطم الطائرة طوابق) ، الى ان سحقت داخل الانقاض والغبار والرمل ، (وفقا لnist ؛ الفيديو وأدلة البيانات السيزميه) 10 ثانية ، عندما لو كانت فارغه 417 متر من فراغ أعلى قليلا من خلال سقطت -- انها ستقوم باتخاذ 9،22 ثانية على وجه التحديد.
How can a building offer next to no resistance yet 1 second prior to the initiation of destruction sequence the very fact the building was upright states it had a minimum of 1 times working load? كيف يمكن بناء العرض القادم لمقاومه اي بعد 1 ثانية قبل بدء تسلسل جدا تدمير المبنى الواقع ان الدول تستقيم وكان الحد الادنى من العمل حمل 1 مرات؟
Yet if you observe the blueprint the building were designed with 3 times working load in mind as they always have more than 100% redundancy as are the building codes. ولكن اذا كنت مراقبة خطة بناء صممت 3 مرات في الاعتبار حجم العمل لانها دائما اكثر من 100 ٪ التكرار كما هي قوانين البناء.
So, seeing as for example the UNDAMAGED 50th floor was designed to carry 3 times the 60 floors above it, and we are guaranteed it had to carry at least 1 times the 60 floors above it, and the lower the floors the tougher and heavier they were - ذلك ، كما نرى على سبيل المثال فإن الحد الادنى هو محطم 50th مصممة لحمل 3 مرات 60 طوابق فوقه ، ونحن على مضمونه وكان لتنفيذ على الاقل 60 مرات 1 طوابق فوقه ، والطوابق السفلى فإن أشد وأثقل أنها وكانت --
It is just not physically possible to collapse a body through the path of most resistance at near free speed – it defies all common sense and at least three laws of physics. ومن الممكن ماديا وليس فقط الى انهيار الهيءه من خلال مسار اكثر من المقاومة في القريب الحرة بسرعة -- أنه يتحدى كل الحس السليم وثلاثة على الاقل من قوانين الفيزياء.
So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges? ولذلك ، اذا لا يمكن ان خطورة تدمير 110 مبنى في غضون 10 ثانية لكل -- ماذا اذا لم يكن الهدم والمتفجرات وقاطع التهم؟
And if it is physically not even possible for Gravity to destroy the burning buildings within 10 seconds as is Physics fact - then it was not the fire or the jet crash nor the terrorist who brought the buildings down on 911. واذا كان من الممكن ماديا ولا حتى لخطورة لتدمير وحرق المبانى فى غضون 10 ثانية كما هو الواقع فيزياء -- ثم انه ليس من الحريق او حادث تحطم الطائرة ولا الارهابيه التي جلبت من المباني على 911 لأسفل.
Even additional bombs in the basement and elsewhere would not destroy the buildings in 10 seconds; it would require precision set, precision timed demolition on at least every third if not every second floor. وحتى قنابل اضافية فى الطابق السفلى وأماكن أخرى لن تدمر المباني في 10 ثانية ، انه يتطلب مجموعة من الدقه ، ودقة توقيتها وهدم على الأقل في كل ثالث ان لم يكن كل الطابق الثاني.