Un Cynic's Guide Per 9 / 11 Conspiracy Theories

49 Responses to “A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” 49 risposte a "Un Cynic's Guide Per 9 / 11 Conspiracy Theories"

3 year old Kid 3 anni di età Kid
Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 14, 2008 a 10:28 pm | Link to this Link a questo

Rather than calling it the Cynic’s Guide, it should be called the CRETINS GUIDE. Piuttosto che chiede che il Cynic's Guide, dovrebbe essere chiamato CRETINS guida.

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? Nick Polo forse può spiegare il motivo per cui Building 007 è stato completamente omesso anche da una sola menzione nella relazione della Commissione è risultato essere così buona e globale?

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? Lei si supponga che essi accidentalmente dimenticato di menzionare 3 e non 2 edifici sono stati disintegrato alla polvere e macerie po 'il giorno della 911?

How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each? Come si spiegano questi personaggi il NIST sostengono che le due alte torri sono state distrutte in meno di 10 secondi ciascuno?

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. Tutto questo stuff circa getto va in crash e la masterizzazione edificio è del tutto irrilevante - Come può l'80 + integre, Strongest & pesante Bottom piani (sotto il getto di crash piani), essere schiacciati alla polvere di sabbia all'interno di macerie, (secondo NIST; le prove e video dati sismici) 10 secondi, quando se fosse un 417 metri di vuoto vuoto alto bit è sceso attraverso - ci vorrebbe Proprio 9,22 secondi.

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? Come si può offrire un edificio accanto alla resistenza non ancora 1 secondo prima di iniziare la sequenza di distruzione il fatto stesso l'edificio venne eretta membri essa ha avuto un minimo di 1 volte carico di lavoro?

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. Eppure se si osserva il progetto della costruzione sono stati progettati con 3 volte carico di lavoro in mente come sempre oltre il 100% di ridondanza come lo sono le norme edilizie.

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 - Così, visto che per esempio non danneggiata la 50a piano è stato progettato per il trasporto di 3 volte il termine di 60 piani sopra di esso, e abbiamo la garanzia si è dovuto procedere ad almeno 1 volte il termine di 60 piani sopra di esso, e quello inferiore il pavimento il più duro e più pesante che sono state --

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. E 'non solo fisicamente possibile crollo di un corpo attraverso la strada della resistenza più vicino a velocità libera - tutti i sfida il senso comune e almeno tre leggi della fisica.

So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges? Quindi, se Gravità non potrebbe distruggere i 110 edifici entro 10 secondi ciascuno - quello che ha fatto se non di demolizione esplosivi e oneri taglierina?

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. E se non è fisicamente possibile anche per la gravità di distruggere la masterizzazione di edifici entro 10 secondi come è fatto Fisica - allora non è stato l'incendio o il crash del getto, né il terrorismo che ha proposto il edifici su 911.

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. Anche ulteriori bombe nel seminterrato e altrove non distruggere gli edifici in 10 secondi, ma richiederebbe la precisione impostata, la precisione è scaduta demolizione su almeno ogni terzo se non ogni secondo piano.

Reply Rispondere

3 year old Kid 3 anni di età Kid
Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:53 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 14, 2008 a 10:53 pm | Link to this Link a questo

Its like this, over 400 Architects and Engineers, myself included - prove the 911 destruction was controlled demolition. La sua come questo, più di 400 architetti e ingegneri, me compreso - dimostrare il 911 è stato la distruzione di demolizione controllata.

Here is all the absolute proof Ecco tutti i prova assoluta

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Reply Rispondere

Sul Sul
Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:36 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 14, 2008 a 11:36 pm | Link to this Link a questo

Conspiraloon Alert! Conspiraloon Alert!
Reply Rispondere

Longman Longman
Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:44 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 14, 2008 a 11:44 pm | Link to this Link a questo

No really. No davvero. How many architects, engineers, physics etc have said there’sa problem with the “official” story? Come molti architetti, ingegneri, ecc fisica hanno detto c'è un problema con il "ufficiali"? Not bleedin many. Non bleedin molti. And most of those who have are doing so to further their own agenda. E la maggior parte di coloro che hanno lo fanno a loro ordine del giorno. Wise up. Saggio.

Reply Rispondere

paul w Paolo w
Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:46 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 14, 2008 a 11:46 pm | Link to this Link a questo

3 year old Kid 3 anni di età Kid
Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm Inviato: Jun 14 2008, 10:28 pm

The question is how can you be so totally ignorant? La questione è come si può essere così totalmente ignoranti? Go and read the following websites: Andate e di leggere le seguenti siti web:

9-11 Myths 9-11 Miti
Screwloosechange.blog
Internet Detectives. Internet detective.

All your questions will be answered. Tutte le vostre domande riceveranno risposta.

Reply Rispondere

paul w Paolo w
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 12:26 am | Inviato: Jun 15 2008, 12:26 AM | Link to this Link a questo

“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?” "Forse Nick Polo può spiegare il motivo per cui Building 007 è stato completamente omesso anche da una sola menzione nella relazione della Commissione è risultato essere così buona e globale?"

It wasn’t their job. Non era il posto di lavoro. 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.) Una relazione sul WTC7 è attualmente in corso e dovrebbe essere rilasciata presto (e prima di dire 'il motivo per cui ha preso così tanto tempo?' Si deve ricordare che, a differenza di 9-11 truther spazzatura, questi rapporti devono essere esatti, scientifica e professionale .)

“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?” "Ci si supponga che accidentalmente dimenticato di menzionare 3 e non 2 edifici sono stati disintegrato alla polvere e macerie po 'il giorno della 911?"

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’. Questo perché gli edifici non ha 'disintegra in polvere' e io non mi chiamare i resti di due Torri 'po' di mucchi di spazzatura '.

You do, but then, you’re a truther. Lo si fa, ma poi, sei un truther. What has reality got to do with anything? Che cosa è la realtà ha a che fare con qualcosa?

“How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each?” "Come si spiegano questi personaggi il NIST sostengono che le due alte torri sono state distrutte in meno di 10 secondi ciascuno?"

Have you actually READ the NIST report? Avete letto il NIST relazione? Please do. Vi preghiamo di fare.

“All this stuff about jet crashes and burning building is totally irrelevant” "Tutte le cose su questo getto va in crash e la masterizzazione edificio è del tutto irrilevante"

???????

“How can the 80+ UNDAMAGED, Strongest & Heaviest Bottom floors (under the jet crash floors), be crushed to dust sand rubble within” "Come può l'80 + integre, Strongest & pesante Bottom piani (sotto il getto di crash piani), essere schiacciati alla polvere di sabbia all'interno di macerie"

Er, have you READ the NIST report? Er, Hai letto la relazione NIST? Please do. Vi preghiamo di fare.

(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.) (le torri sono state 'cilindri' che ha utilizzato il nucleo interno ed esterno colonne pelle per forza, i pavimenti in sospeso tra i due, quindi aprire il piano di progettazione dei piani.)

“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.” "Secondo NIST; le prove video e dati sismici) 10 secondi, quando se fosse un 417 metri di vuoto vuoto alto bit è sceso attraverso - ci vorrebbe Proprio 9,22 secondi."

Er, have you READ the NIST report? Er, Hai letto la relazione NIST? Please do. Vi preghiamo di fare.

“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? "Come si può offrire un edificio accanto alla resistenza non ancora 1 secondo prima di iniziare la sequenza di distruzione il fatto stesso l'edificio venne eretta membri essa ha avuto un minimo di 1 volte carico di lavoro? 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.” Eppure se si osserva il progetto della costruzione sono stati progettati con 3 volte carico di lavoro in mente come sempre oltre il 100% di ridondanza come lo sono i codici di costruzione ".

???????? (no, really, have you READ the NIST report?) (no, davvero, Hai letto la relazione 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..” "Allora, visto che per esempio non danneggiata la 50a piano è stato progettato per il trasporto di 3 volte il termine di 60 piani sopra di esso, e abbiamo la garanzia si è dovuto procedere ad almeno 1 volte il termine di 60 piani sopra di esso, e quello inferiore il pavimento il più duro e più pesante sono stati .. "

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). No, i piani non sono state concepite per trasportare il 60 flo0rs sopra (leggi le osservazioni di cui sopra circa la progettazione e la torre di leggere la relazione NIST).

“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.” "E 'non solo fisicamente possibile crollo di un corpo attraverso la strada della resistenza più vicino a velocità libera - tutti i sfida il senso comune e almeno tre leggi della fisica".

And what, precisely, are there three laws of physics? E ciò che, appunto, ci sono tre leggi della fisica? (the Nobel prize for anyone who can answer this correctly) (il premio Nobel per tutti coloro che possono rispondere a questa correttamente)

So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges?” Quindi, se Gravità non potrebbe distruggere i 110 edifici entro 10 secondi ciascuno - quello che ha fatto se non di demolizione esplosivi e oneri taglierina? "

Er, gravity without a capital ‘g’? Er, gravità senza una società di capitali 'g'?

“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. "E se non è fisicamente possibile anche per la gravità di distruggere la masterizzazione di edifici entro 10 secondi come è fatto Fisica - allora non è stato l'incendio o il crash del getto, né il terrorismo che ha proposto il edifici su 911.

A ‘Physics fact’ Really? A 'Fisica fatto' Davvero?

“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.” "Anche ulteriori bombe nel seminterrato e altrove non distruggere gli edifici in 10 secondi, ma richiederebbe la precisione impostata, la precisione è scaduta demolizione su almeno ogni terzo se non ogni secondo piano."

Phew, glad you cleared that up! Phew, lieti che è stata cancellata!

Reply Rispondere

Dave D Dave D
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 1:57 am | Pubblicato: giugno 15, 2008 a 1:57 am | Link to this Link a questo

911 conspiracies = DEBUNKED 911 = cospirazioni DEBUNKED

Reply Rispondere

Sail Vela
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 2:14 am | Pubblicato: giugno 15, 2008 a 2:14 am | Link to this Link a questo

Great show! Grande show! How about a part 2? Come parte di un 2?

Now we have more people speaking AGAINST the truth movement than actually belong to the movement. Ora abbiamo più persone che parlano contro la verità quelli attualmente in circolazione appartengono al movimento.

Reply Rispondere

john John
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:33 am | Pubblicato: giugno 15, 2008 a 8:33 am | Link to this Link a questo

to all the counter intelligence people that are posting lies please be aware that the truth will out and you will be punished. a tutte le persone contro di intelligence che sono menzogne si prega di inviare essere consapevoli del fatto che la verità verrà fuori e ti verrà punito. 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. Si noti che il tizio che ha cercato di contrastare 3 anni per bambini sostiene, non ha dato se stesso fatti, vi ha detto di esaminare una relazione che egli non citare qualsiasi cosa, da, ecc Vedi tutti i siti di debunking e interviste tutti sono ovviamente fasullo come non hanno mai affrontare i fatti appena attacco la personalità.

http://www.netctr.com

Reply Rispondere

Neil Neil
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am | Inviato: Jun 15 2008, 10:25 AM | Link to this Link a questo

I was responsible for this documentary, so it’s nice to see it’s provoking a reaction. Sono stato responsabile di questo documentario, pertanto, è bello vedere che provoca una reazione.

3 Year Old Kid - Nick Pole didn’t mention anything about building 7 because we didn’t speak to him (whoever he might be). 3 Year Old Kid - Nick Polo non ha citato nulla edificio 7 perché non parlare di lui (chiunque egli sia). 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. Nick Papa probabilmente non ha menzionato perché, a essere onesti, abbiamo solo avuto circa 15 minuti per parlare con lui (abbiamo trascorso la maggior parte del tempo abbiamo avuto con lui a parlare di UFO, la sua area di competenza.) Né lui né io siamo esperti quando si tratta di che tipo di cose. His was a good contribution because he talked about looking at Truth Movement evidence alongside evidence put forward that explains the generally accepted narrative. Il suo è stato un buon contributo, perché ha parlato guardando Verità Movimento elementi di prova a fianco elementi di prova addotti che spiega la narrativa generalmente accettati. His experience of getting hate mail from Truthers was very interesting, I found. La sua esperienza di ottenere la posta da odio Truthers è stato molto interessante, ho trovato.

I’d be very interested in seeing the evidence you have for precision timed demolition on every third or second floor. Sarei molto interessato a vedere gli elementi di prova che avete per la precisione a tempo di demolizione su ogni secondo o terzo piano. 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. Testimoni di queste in fase di demolizioni, forse una delle persone che impostare la demolizioni e da allora è stato travasato con senso di colpa per le conseguenze delle sue azioni. 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. Se si - o di chiunque altro per questo - ha nulla di simile, si prega di mettersi in contatto e noi provvederemo a dedicare un intero tre ore di spettacolo.

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. Non abbiamo citato perché il documentario è stato solo 17 minuti - è difficile per coprire un oggetto grande come 9 / 11 teorie cospirative in un tempo così breve. 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. Inoltre, abbiamo lavorato sul presupposto che la stragrande maggioranza degli ascoltatori non erano veramente consapevoli delle teorie cospirative, per cui abbiamo dovuto farlo in piedi da un inizio, per così dire. Given more time, I’m sure we would have covered things in more detail. Dato più tempo, sono sicuro che avremmo coperto le cose in modo più dettagliato.

Also, if you think only three buildings were destroyed at the World Trade Center site that day, you need to do more research. Inoltre, se si pensa solo tre edifici sono stati distrutti al World Trade Center sito in quel giorno, è necessario fare di più ricerca.

Paul W - What was it one of the people in the debate talked about? Paolo W - Che cosa è stato una delle persone nel corso della discussione ha parlato? “Confirmation bias”? "Conferma pregiudizi"? He’s depressingly right when it comes to the truthers, I’ve found. E 'tristemente ragione quando si tratta della truthers, ho trovato.

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. Vela - che andremo a fare Cynic's Guide di più le cose (gli UFO, come ho detto, sarà uno), ma spero di tornare in forse la Verità Movimento, o forse uno su teorie cospirative in generale.

Reply Rispondere

Matthew Revell Matteo Revell
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 12:08 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 15, 2008 a 12:08 pm | Link to this Link a questo

I’m Neil’s co-host on the Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute (ie the other cretin). Sono Neil co-ospitante in Wolverhampton Radiophonic Istituto (vale a dire gli altri cretin). Just like to note that our website is Proprio come a notare che il nostro sito web è www.radiophonic.org.uk, where you’ll also shortly be able to subscribe to a podcast of the show. dove tra breve anche essere in grado di iscriversi a un podcast dello show.

Reply Rispondere

c0intelpr0 c0intelpr0
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 15, 2008 a 2:14 pm | Link to this Link a questo

WTC 7 - The Truth Exposed WTC 7 - La Verità Exposed

Debunking the lies and misrepresentations of the so-called 9/11 ‘Truth’ movement regarding World Trade Center Building 7. Debunking di menzogne e di misrepresentations il cosiddetto 9 / 11 'Verità' in materia di circolazione World Trade Center Building 7.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GdpEtOcEmtU

Reply Rispondere

Reptor Reptor
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 7:33 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 15, 2008 a 7:33 pm | Link to this Link a questo

You guys have hit the nail on the head. You guys hanno colpito il chiodo sulla testa. Kudos to you both for having the balls to produce this, I’m sure many truthers will be calling for blood now. Kudos a voi sia per avere le palle per la produzione di questo, sono sicuro che molti truthers sarà chiede ora di sangue.

Any report on the kind of feedback you’ve had since the show? Qualsiasi relazione sul tipo di feedback che hai avuto dal momento che lo spettacolo?

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. Vi preghiamo di tenerci informati di tutti quello che stai facendo, e grazie a tutti che ha avuto il coraggio di prendere parte e promuovere questo spettacolo.

The cult is slowly being exposed thanks to brave efforts like this. Il culto si sta lentamente di essere esposti grazie a coraggiosi sforzi come questo.

Reply Rispondere

3 year old kid 3 anni di età bambino
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 7:51 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 15, 2008 a 7:51 pm | Link to this Link a questo

I stand by what I say, it was the Cretins guide to 911. Mi attengo a quello che dico, è stata la Cretins guida di 911.

A guide By cretins - For Cretins. Una guida Con cretins - Per Cretins.

Forget who was flying the jets and lost their passports and bandannas, etc, that is totally irrelevant re the destruction sequence. Dimenticare che è stato battenti getti e perso i loro passaporti e bandannas, ecc, che è del tutto irrilevante ristabilire la distruzione sequenza.

It is not physically possible to have a falling body fall through the path of most resistance. Non è fisicamente possibile avere un corpo di cui caduta attraverso il percorso della maggior parte delle resistenza. EVER NEVER!!!!! MAI MAI !!!!!

And to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed is even more impossible than impossible. E a scendere attraverso la strada della resistenza a più vicino a velocità libera è ancora più impossibile di impossibile.

Just, a minute I am falling over with laughter, hold on. Giusto, un minuto di cui io sono con più di risate, resistere.

Sorry about that, I could not type and laugh at the same time. Ci scusiamo per l'inconveniente, non potevo non ridere tipo e allo stesso tempo.

Why are qualified people unwilling to come forward? Il motivo per cui persone qualificate sono disposti a farsi avanti?

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. La Fisica della 911 è così semplice che la maggior parte delle persone che valori la loro carriera non riguarderà - perché è così Ovviamente, un Demolizione controllata.

I now need to go and watch cartoons. Ho bisogno ora di andare a guardare cartoni animati.

However, for those who want the professional opinion of 400 Architects and Engineers regarding the Controlled Demolitions on 911 go Here:- Tuttavia, per coloro che vogliono il parere professionale di 400 architetti e ingegneri per quanto riguarda la demolizione controllata a 911 andare qui: --

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Reply Rispondere

Ashley Ashley
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 15, 2008 a 8:35 pm | Link to this Link a questo

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). Yeah questi troofers Non so, sono sicuro che ci sono logiche explainations per il crollo di 3 frame in acciaio in edifici a loro ingombro (solo il 3 acciaio incorniciato syscrapers al collasso a causa di danno fuoco nella storia).

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. Io non sono scienziato quindi non posso dare risposte su come questi edifici non abbattere (come sarebbe logico aspettarsi che sono stati colpiti da un lato), anch'io non può darvi un explaination in che modo il carburante degli aerei che brucia a un massimo di 1500F potrebbe fondere l'acciaio che era stata certificata a 2750F.

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). Sono sicuro che la BBC (e IIRC CNN) hanno un explaination di come essi previsto il crollo del WTC7 circa 25 minuti prima del suo crollo (ho appena può non sembrano trovare explainations per questo, nonostante la caccia per loro). 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). Se previsto someones omicidio sono sicuro che sarebbe esaminato accuratamente, ma questo tipo di esame della nostra BBC non è richiesta (un esame sarebbe un po 'di un problema come la BBC ha detto che hanno perso tutti i loro riprese dal 11 settembre 2001, piuttosto sorprendente, se vero).

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) Naturalmente il PNAC relazione che ha detto che i desideri d'America per diffondere la loro democrazia non sarebbe sufficiente sostegno senza una sorta di 'nuova Pearl Harbour' non è una previsione di qualsiasi tipo (pubblicato un anno prima 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. La strana mancanza di caccia oltre il pezzo più protetto dello spazio aereo nel mondo (il Pentagono) è ancora una volta comprensibile (anche se non a me) e il 2 rilasciato CCTV immagini sono le uniche riprese del piano, nonostante la quantità di telecamere incentrata su questo edificio.

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. Funny come Rumsfeld ha dato 3 diversi conti delle sue azioni la mattina del 9-11 per la Commissione e che, piuttosto che questa interrogazione si combinano 2 dei conti e ignorare completamente l'altro.

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). Naturalmente il fatto che il buon vecchio dice Dick Cheney è arrivato in Whitehouse bunker a 10, nonostante la messa testimoni lui circa 35 minuti prima (vale a dire prima che l'aereo ha colpito il Pentagono). 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). Cheney è stato anche riferito, ha detto circa l'aereo verso il Pentagono a 40, 30, 20 e 10 miglia è stato chiesto e 'se gli ordini ancora' e ha detto che hanno fatto (questi, ovviamente, non sono stati gli ordini di arrampicare a getti intercettare questo piano, come è standard operationg procedura di questi ordini non sono mai state date).

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). Il tuo amico e il mio George Dubya che dice di aver visto il primo jet ha colpito la torre prima di andare al suo incontro con i suoi superiori gerarchici intellettuale nel pre-scuola in aula (questo è stato ovviamente impossibile come l'unica riprese di questo non è stato dimostrato fino a quando il giorno seguente). 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. Quando è stato detto del secondo aereo colpisce egli sedeva lì per altri 20 minuti la lettura di un libro sulle capre, piuttosto che rispondere alle problema evidente.

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). Poi, naturalmente, Dubya speso infinite ore per cercare di collegare l'Iraq con Osama e l'attacco (nonostante il fatto ben noto che Osama odiato Saddam quasi quanto 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. Sono completamente con George quando dice 'Cerchiamo di non tollerare scandaloso teorie cospirative, concernente gli attentati di settembre il 11' è solo non credo che egli sta cercando allo stesso teoria cospirativa, come me.

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. Hey-ho sarà il prossimo Iraq, sono attualmente in fase di detto di interrompere le loro armi programma, nonostante il fatto che l'AIEA ha detto che non hanno uno. There’ll be some poxy Powerpoint presentation on their nuclear prowess (that or a false flag of some description). Ci sarà qualche poxy presentazione PowerPoint sul loro abilità nucleare (o che una falsa bandiera di alcuni descrizione). The endless war on terror really will be endless if we carry on chasing weapons that don’t exist. La guerra infinita al terrorismo sarà davvero infinite, se vogliamo portare a caccia di armi che non esistono.

Reply Rispondere

3 year old kid 3 anni di età bambino
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 15, 2008 a 8:36 pm | Link to this Link a questo

So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance? Così mani, che pensa di essere anche fisicamente possibile per un organismo che rientrano a passare attraverso il percorso della maggior parte delle resistenza?

Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed? In secondo luogo, che pensa di essere anche fisicamente possibile scendere attraverso la strada della resistenza a più vicino a velocità libera?

That is - in the absence of controlled demolition. Che è - in assenza di demolizione controllata.

Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. Qui è il mio preferito di vista web: - architetti e ingegneri per 911 verità.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details Ci sono 400 professionisti per voi a chiedere, proprio loro e-mail per i dettagli

Reply Rispondere

Reptor Reptor
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 9:01 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 15, 2008 alle 9:01 pm | Link to this Link a questo

400 professionals? 400 professionisti? Around the whole world you manage to find 400? Intorno il mondo intero si riesce a trovare 400? Is that it? È che essa? If there was any fact in these claims then ALL engineers etc would be crying out. Se vi è stato alcun fatto in questi crediti allora tutti gli ingegneri ecc sarebbe di gridare. In fact from the 400 professionals how many are experts in the fields relevant to the science of these claims? Infatti dal 400 professionisti quanti sono esperti nei settori rilevanti per la scienza di questi crediti?

Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked. Ogni teoria presentata dalla verità circolazione è stato debunked. You might not like it. Potresti non piace. It might not sit with your opinion but that’s the facts. Potrebbe non stare con il tuo parere, ma questa è la realtà. Deal with it. Affrontarla. You got it wrong. You got it sbagliato.

Reply Rispondere

Ashley Ashley
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 9:53 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 15, 2008 a 9:53 pm | Link to this Link a questo

Reptor what are you on about? Reptor che cosa state a circa? Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked? Ogni teoria presentata dalla verità circolazione è stato debunked? Where’s this? Dove è questo? In Wonderland? Nel paese delle meraviglie? A lot of the debunking has since been debunked but you fail to mention that in any way, shape or form. Parecchi dei debunking da allora è stato debunked ma non ricordare che in nessun modo, forma o di forma.

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). Ci sono così tante domande senza risposta è positiva farsa, penso che è il motivo per cui ci sono tante persone che richiedono un 'buon' inchiesta (all'interno e all'esterno America).

Do you dispute the idea that western governments have proposed and even carried out false flag operations to further their own agendas? Lei contesta l'idea che i governi occidentali hanno proposto e anche effettuato operazioni di falsa bandiera di proseguire i rispettivi ordini del giorno proprio? Have a look in to Operation Gladio in Europe and Operation Northwoods in the US. Date un'occhiata per l'Operazione Gladio in Europa e Operazione Northwoods negli Stati Uniti.

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. E 'assolutamente incredibile che un ex Primo Ministro italiano può commento sulla falsariga di' tutte le comunità di intelligence sa CIA e Mossad effettuato 9-11 'e tutti i ma è ignorato.

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 Se si dispone di un guardare il video in cui Osama afferma la responsabilità del 9-11 attacchi guardare per vedere quale parte questo 'Osama' usa per scrivere, quindi visitare http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm and notice that it says ‘Bin Laden is left-handed’. e legale che si dice 'Bin Laden è mancino'. 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. Strano ma vero, immagino il tuo replica sarebbe che Osama ha fatto a fine di testare la nostra super speciale agenti o alcuni di questi calzolai.

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. Se davvero si pensa che un bloke in una grotta con un carico di suoi compagni armati di coltellini può svolgere questi attacchi, penso si ha bisogno di riesaminare gli elementi di prova.

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. Ho notato che di recente ci sono proposte per installare apparecchiature in piani per consentire l'uso dei telefoni cellulari, sicuramente questa tecnologia è inutile in quanto questo è stato già possibile a 93 Uniti di circa 7 anni fa. so what gives? così ciò che dà?

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. Come ho detto la quantità di incoerenze, mezze verità ed evidenti falsità sono lì per chiunque abbia la volontà di guardare e di una mente aperta da pensare che i governi non sempre dire la verità ai loro cittadini.

For me the one which clinches it is seeing 3 steel framed buildings collapsing in to their own footprints. Per me quello che è clinches vedere 3 acciaio incorniciato collasso in edifici a loro orme. 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. Io non sono esperto ma so che anche demolizioni squadre non può garantire che ciò accada quando luogo oneri e lo fa a scopo.

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 di 3 edifici sono stati colpiti da aerei, se avessero indebolito la struttura sufficientemente sarebbe stato su un lato del palazzo insieme con gli incendi di essere concentrati su questo lato anche così mi aspetterei loro di cadere, piuttosto che a se stessi in (Jenga immaginare una torre, flick di blocchi da un lato, avviare un incendio in tale spazio e che cosa vi aspettate che accada? Scommetto l'ultima cosa stai pensando è un bel palo pulito, sarebbe andare oltre ad un lato ).

Then there’s WTC7 (although looking at the Commission’s report you’d do well to notice it). Poi c'è il WTC7 (anche se guardando la relazione della Commissione è di fare bene a bando). 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. Explainaition il crollo di questo è che essa catturati a fuoco da uno degli altri edifici crollati, alcuni serbatoi di gasolio catturati a fuoco e alakazzam un altro bel palo pulito. 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. Ora, per quanto mi riguarda in acciaio indurito per resistere 2750F incendi per 2 ore e collasso a causa di incendi avaiation fule con un max di 1500F in un'ora e un po 'è una cosa (la maggior parte del carburante bruciate nel fireball quando il aereo ha colpito l'edificio e comunque vi sono anche immagini di persone in piedi alla ricerca del luogo in cui l'aereo ha colpito sicuramente avrebbero letteralmente fuso, se vogliamo credere alla siderurgia in torri ha fatto), ma credere che il diesel che è notevolmente inferiore a combustibile potrebbe fare la stessa cosa è simile a qualcosa da una fiaba.

You can believe what you want at the end of the day, everyone has the right to make up their own mind. Si può credere ciò che volete, alla fine della giornata, tutti hanno il diritto di effettuare la loro propria mente. 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. Se si vuole inghiottire ciò che vedo come BS allora che sta a te e non ho alcuna preoccupazione per cercare di convincere l'utente ma la prego di smettere di cercare di misura il vostro blinkers su tutti gli altri, se le teorie cospirative sono finora quindi prelevato persone che lavorano per se stessi senza il vostro particolare marca di troofiness.

Reply Rispondere

3 year old kid 3 anni di età bambino
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 10:22 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 15, 2008 a 10:22 pm | Link to this Link a questo

Thank you Reptor, you are really making my day. La ringrazio Reptor, lei è davvero fare il mio giorno.

Well, go on then just don’t talk about it - let us see the maths and actual Physics. Beh, allora vai a fare non solo parlarne - vediamo la matematica e la fisica reale.

Debunk the Physics, now is your chance old chap. Debunk la Fisica, oggi hai la possibilità vecchio cap.

Give us one single experiment or example were a falling body takes the path of most resistance due to gravity alone. Dacci un unico esperimento o fosse un esempio di cui prende corpo il percorso della maggior parte delle resistenze a causa della gravità solo.

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. In secondo luogo, ci danno un unico esperimento o esempio fosse un organismo di cui prende la strada della resistenza e la maggior parte cade a velocità quasi libera utilizzando gravità solo.

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. E poi solo per punti extra di dimostrare che qualificata folk non sai di cosa stiamo parlando e come super brainy siete - mostrare al mondo la matematica per effettuare il backup di credito.

Please show the Physics and the Maths. Vi preghiamo di mostrare la Fisica e la Matematica.

Reply Rispondere

Reptor Reptor
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 11:24 pm | Pubblicato: giugno 15, 2008 a 11:24 pm | Link to this Link a questo

I don’t have to prove squat. Non devo dimostrare squat. You’re the ones making ridiculous claims, it’s up to you to prove yourselves. Siete quelli che ridicolo crediti, tocca a te di provare voi stessi. You tried. Si è tentato. You failed. Lei non è riuscita. Move on. Andare avanti.

If 911 was an inside job why haven’t the media reported on it? Se 911 è stato uno all'interno di posti di lavoro perché non hanno i mezzi di informazione ha riferito in merito? Why haven’t insurance companies refused to pay up? Perché non hanno le compagnie di assicurazione rifiutato di pagare? Why hasn’t any one of the THOUSANDS of people who need to be in on it come forward? Perché non è uno dei migliaia di persone che devono essere in su di essa presenterà?

Please troofers, try to think logically. Vi preghiamo di troofers, provate a pensare logicamente.

Reply Rispondere

Ashley Ashley
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 12:33 am | Inviato: Jun 16 2008, 12:33 AM | Link to this Link a questo

Hahaaaa Reptor your entire response to my problems with the official story consists of ‘they couldn’t possibly do that’. Hahaaaa Reptor vostra completa risposta ai miei problemi con la storia ufficiale è costituito da 'essi non potrebbe farlo'.

Well I bow to your superior knowledge and reasoning, I can see from your responses that you are totally close minded on this issue. Bene mi inchino al tuo superiore conoscenza e ragionamento, posso vedere dal tuo risposte che vi sono vicino mentalità totalmente su questo tema. All of the stuff I’ve put in my responses to you are freely available online, have a look in to it. Tutte le cose che ho messo nelle mie risposte a te sono liberamente disponibili on-line, date un'occhiata al.

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). Noi non siamo la roba, non la Pialle e spazio armi e ologramma BS non è dove siamo provenienti da (queste teorie sono nella migliore delle ipotesi avanzate dalla idioti o nel peggiore dei casi un deliberato tentativo di dipingere tutte le persone che non rientrano per la storia ufficiale, come nutcases).

My specific problems as listed above (at the risk of repeating myself) are: - Il mio problemi specifici per quanto sopra elencati (con il rischio di ripetermi) sono: --

Only 3 steel framed modern skyscrapers have suffered a collapse due to fire damage. Solo il 3 acciaio incorniciato grattacieli moderni hanno subito un crollo a causa di incendi danni. All 3 of those happened on 9-11 and all 3 collapsed into their own footprint. 3 di tutti coloro accaduto il 9-11 e tutti e 3 i crollato nella loro impronta. 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. Ora come la vedo io, il danno sarebbe stato asymetrical come gli aerei e impatto obiettivo principale del fuoco sarebbe stato su un lato di ciascuno degli edifici. 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). Se tale impatto e il successivo incendio aveva sciolto l'acciaio (impossibile a causa della acciaio e la temperatura di combustione cherosene come già detto, ma anche se non si tiene conto che il fatto), quindi gli edifici avrebbe rovesciato oltre a causa della seconda legge della termodinamica ( la legge di entropia). 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? Ora c'è sempre un'eccezione alla regola, per cui anche se in contrasto con le leggi della fisica ho potuto scrivere off probabilmente uno degli edifici che presentano questo comportamento come un freak evento, ma 3 freak eventi lo stesso giorno? 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? Il fatto che tutti e 3 gli edifici crollati vicino a velocità libera (vale a dire come se non vi era alcuna resistenza), se si considerano le nubi di polvere creata dalla frantumazione / esplodere? of the cement those clouds would have taken a lot of energy to create (ie made a lot of resistance). il cemento di quelle nuvole che hanno preso un sacco di energie per creare (vale a dire fatto un sacco di resistenza). 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). Se queste nuvole era stato creato dal naturale crollo degli edifici ogni piano avrebbe compiuto un periodo di tempo per comprimere e creare le nubi di polvere e questa 'resistenza' avrebbe rallentato il crollo sostanziale (non).

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! Il fatto che il WTC7 non ha avuto alcun impatto da un aereo, ci sono stati ciò che sembrava essere alcuni piccoli incendi guardando il filmato ma solo il propellente che possono mettere in questo edificio è il diesel che brucia sostanzialmente di meglio di cherosene, ma questo edificio crollato a causa di questo fuoco anche quando il cherosene da aerei non bruciare caldo abbastanza per fondere l'acciaio!

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’ Le numerose testimonianze oculari che descrivono le esplosioni a WTC7 come era collasso, per citare a NYFD dipendente 'vi è stata una pop, pop, pop come ogni piano è andato, come una demolizione'

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. Ora lei ha citato le compagnie di assicurazione e questo è uno che mi intrighi, quando vedo il video di recente acquirente e assicurato che uno di proprietà WTC7 Larry Silverstein in video dicendo come concordato con il reparto di fuoco 'pull' WTC7 ( 'pull' è un termine utilizzato da demolizioni squadre per l'implosione di edifici utilizzando detonazioni), mi chiedo come sulla terra, esse hanno deciso di erogare. 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. Sono sicuro che la mia casa di assicurazione non pagare se la mia casa bruciata e mi è stato registrato come dire che ho gettato uno molitov cocktail di esso.

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? Appena fuori di interesse mi piacerebbe sapere dove si arriva con l'idea che avrebbe preso 'MIGLIAIA' di persone a fare qualcosa come questo, basti pensare circa l'agente nel bunker Whitehouse chiedendo Cheney ', se l'ordine era ancora ', Se questo ordine non è stato di arrampicare jet proteggere il Pentagono avrebbe poi la staffer hanno dovuto sono stati in su di esso o che ha da poco sono state rispettate le comandi del suo superiore? 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? Egli sarebbe ora di alzarsi e di informare sui Dick Cheney, fino a che egli pensa che sarebbe lui, diversa da quella della coda di disoccupati e di perdita di pensione etc? What could each person on their own know? Che cosa potrebbe ogni persona a loro sapere? It’s exactly how terrorist organisations work, in cells. E 'esattamente come le organizzazioni terroristiche lavoro, nelle celle. Ever heard the term ‘plausible deniability’? Mai sentito il termine 'plausibile deniability'? 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. Tutta la cospirazione non poteva essere scoperto a meno che ogni persona in ogni parte ha deciso di colpo il fischio, ora ciò che ogni persona ha avuto conoscenza della sarebbe un po 'di parte del quadro e che vedrebbe la loro conoscenza come inconsequential.

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? Voglio dire gli elementi di prova per gli Stati Uniti e il Regno Unito alla guerra in corso è stato fabbricato con chiarezza, i 45 minuti sinistro, il nucleare e biologici arsenale, il mobile laboratori chimici (qualcosa di uno studente fino sognato che è stato poi presentato come fatto), quante persone devono sono stati coinvolti in questo? How many of them are likely to have signed the official secrets act or the American equivalent? Come molti di loro è probabile che hanno firmato l'atto ufficiale di segreti americani o equivalente? 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. Come molti di loro sarebbero disposti a rischiare una magia in carcere a soffiare il fischio a qualcosa che di per sé non portano davvero molto peso.

Some other random ones: - Alcuni altri quelli casuale: --

How did the BBC and CNN predict the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before it collapsed? Come ha fatto la BBC e CNN prevedere il crollo del WTC7 circa 25 minuti prima che crollato?

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? Perché è visto Osama iscritto con la mano destra nel video in cui afferma la responsabilità quando l'FBI sito web chiaramente dice di sinistra è? Did Osama forget which hand he writes with or are the FBI misinformed? Osama ha fatto dimenticare che egli scrive a mano o con l'FBI sono male informato?

Just because they say you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you ;) Solo perché dicono che stai paranoico non significa che non a farti;)

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?) Questione e guardare tutto per te, non mi creda o crede di qualcun altro, creare la vostra mente l'alto (ciò che vorrei dire è che una relazione della Commissione che costano 1/80th della quantità di denaro speso per scoprire ciò che è stato Bill Clinton facendo con i suoi sigari non è il posto migliore per iniziare, anche NIST non ha potuto ottenere mondo reale modelli delle torri a cadere in modo che ha fatto un simulazione al computer in modo che possa modificare i parametri. Hey Non c'è da meravigliarsi persone chiedono un'altra indagine eh?)

Reply Rispondere

3 year old kid 3 anni di età bambino
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 12:38 am | Pubblicato: giugno 16, 2008 a 12:38 am | Link to this Link a questo

Thank you for that failure to Debunk the 911 Controlled Demolition Physics Reptor. La ringrazio per la mancata Debunk i 911 Demolizione controllata Fisica Reptor.

No one is forcing you to do anything old chap. Nessuno ti obbliga a fare qualcosa di vecchio cap.

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. Noi non siamo il tuo nemico o ostile o una sorta di strano culto, noi siamo 400 + architetti e ingegneri tra cui molte persone che effettivamente la progettazione e realizzazione di grattacieli di acciaio incorniciata.

But, if you claim some 400 professional Architects and Engineers at Ma, se si sostiene circa 400 professionisti architetti e ingegneri a 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. sono errati, e non è possibile anche dare un esempio di un organismo di cui il percorso della maggior parte delle resistenza poi davvero non rappresentano alcuna credibilità se non è possibile eseguire il backup dei quali si richieda.

All those questions you mention about why haven’t the media reported on it? Tutti coloro che menzioni domande sui motivi per cui non hanno i mezzi di informazione ha riferito in merito? Why haven’t insurance companies refused to pay up? Perché non hanno le compagnie di assicurazione rifiutato di pagare? Why hasn’t any one of the THOUSANDS of people who need to be in on it come forward? Perché non è uno dei migliaia di persone che devono essere in su di essa presenterà? Are nothing to do with Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. Sono nulla a che fare con architetti e ingegneri per 911 verità.

To answer any of those questions would be pure speculation and engaging in conjecture and conspiracy theories. Per rispondere a qualsiasi di tali questioni sarebbe pura speculazione e impegnarsi in congetture e teorie cospirative.

We at AE911truth.org only deal with Science and Engineering facts. Noi di AE911truth.org trattare solo con la Scienza e Ingegneria fatti.

And the important indisputable 911 facts are these:- L'importante e indiscutibile 911 fatti sono questi: --

It is physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance. E 'fisicamente impossibile per un corpo che rientrano a passare attraverso il percorso della maggior parte delle resistenza.

It is even more physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance at almost freefall speed. E 'ancora più fisicamente impossibile per un corpo che rientrano a passare attraverso il percorso della maggior parte delle resistenza a velocità quasi libera.

Forget about if bandannas and passports were unburned whilst flying out of a suitcase that itself was totally incinerated. Dimenticare se bandannas e passaporti sono state unburned mentre battenti di una valigia che si era completamente incenerito. Forget that jet fighters failed to defend the pentagon despite being on guard 24/7. Dimenticare che i combattenti non getto di difendere il pentagono pur essendo in guardia 24 / 7. All that sort of stuff is bum fluff. Tutto ciò che genere di cose è cinque lanugine.

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. Ora mi chiedo ancora una volta sia il backup di ciò che si sostiene o interrompere cercando di imprimere su ciò di cui hai chiaramente conoscere molto poco.

As I have said before and I will say again, this particular media diatribe was A 911 guide By cretins - For Cretins. Come ho detto prima e dirò ancora una volta, questo particolare media è stata una diatriba 911 guida Con cretins - Per Cretins.

And the fact you cannot back up your ridiculous claims does somewhat prove my point. E il fatto non è possibile eseguire il backup di ridicolo crediti non provare un po 'il mio punto.

Reply Rispondere

Strug Strug
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 1:43 am | Pubblicato: giugno 16, 2008 a 1:43 am | Link to this Link a questo

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. Quello che molti di voi sono persone che domina su questa trasmissione è che non è guardando gli elementi di prova sono soprattutto alla ricerca di come troofers di condotta. Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories. Troofers sono spesso rude e comportarsi in un culto come il modo attaccare quelli che non supportano le loro teorie.

This has been proven on this very page. Ciò è stato dimostrato su questo pagina.

Reply Rispondere

Fawk Off Fawk Off
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 1:45 am | Pubblicato: giugno 16, 2008 a 1:45 am | Link to this Link a questo

Look at this site Guarda questo sito http://www.debunking911.com

paul w
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 7:28 am | Link to this

Ashley
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm | Link to this

“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. Sospiro. 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)

Edward
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 8:52 am | Link to this

When just Dr Steven Jones was speaking out it was “just one expert - that means nothing”.

Then when there were 20 experts speaking out it was “just 20 experts - that means nothing”.

Now there are over 400 experts speaking out and it’s “just 400 experts - that means nothing”…

What’s your threshhold for reality denial? How long until you wake up?

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.

I mean how sort of low can these Cretins Go?

Booger
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 1:15 pm | Link to this

When has your ‘professional scientific opinion’ undergone peer review?

Nuff said.

Btw describing those who do not share your views as ‘cretins’ is cult logic in action.

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.

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)”

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!

Peer Review Please
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 6:00 pm | Link to this

Why are troofers ignoring the PEER REVIEW issue?

GET A PEER REVIEW

PEER REVIEW!!

Without that your science ain’t worth shit.

Ashley
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 6:08 pm | Link to this

PEER REVIEW PEER REVIEW blah blah blah.

Which academic journal is going to print it for your required peer review?

Lecturers are losing their jobs for daring to question the official story, which particular journal do you suggest they look to?

OMG!!
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 6:56 pm | Link to this

You dismiss a peer review? OMG.

Maybe those who lost their jobs have done so because they have shown themselves to be incapable.

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).

Rom
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:41 pm | Link to this

I used to be like you. I used to believe 911 was an inside job. Then I looked at the counter evidence and discovered it wasn’t.

RINFer
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm | Link to this

Incase you missed it … http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

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.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

Dr. Keith A. Seffen

http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/

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…

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

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.”

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/

The paper… http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html

Editor:

Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., PE, SE, NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu

http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis

Editorial Board:

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html

Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., PE, University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html

Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., PE, University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/

Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php

Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/

Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html

Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/

Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/

Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5

Robert J. Martinuzzi, PE, University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm

Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm

Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm

Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592

George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm

Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi

Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/

James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/

Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml

Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i

Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show

Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

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)”

That’sa WOOD fire, you idiot, a WOOD fire!

These people are hilarious!

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.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke indicates nothing meaningful.”
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf

The whole article is: http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html

Countdown to idiot troofers ignoring the debunking and screaming about other ‘anomalies’ 5, 4, 3, 2….

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.

MaxPane
Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 2:59 pm | Link to this

Can we please talk about a major problem of the troofer movement, antisemitism.

The programme raised this in a tacful and respectful way but it’s something the troofers don’t like to talk about.

The troofer movement gives antisemites room to spread their ridiculous theories. They must be stopped.

Lets have it.

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.

Anyway toodle-pip for now :)

3 year old kid
Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 3:52 pm | Link to this

No, go and take your filthy lies, hate crimes & Delphi mind tactics elsewhere MaxPane.

What we should be doing is Exposing this Hit Piece Diatribe radio broadcast LIES for what it is – subtle HATE MEDIA.

It is promoting the HATE and 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.

The NAZIS used EXACTLY the same type of tactics with the Reichstag fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Let us Examine the scientific method used for this HIT PIECE Cretins Guide to 911 and TAKE THEM TO PIECES, DUST AND RUBBLE:-

They wheel in a left wing disgruntled socialists/Commey who

set up “Cult Watch” who is obviously not scientifically

trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering [who has

spent time in jail ] & 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 ever wanted Osmar Binladen

for the official outrageous 911 Conspiracy plot.

I mean how low can these HATE Cretins Go?

So shipmates and “Cult Watch” “HATE CRETS” – Is Osmar

Bin-whatever wanted by the CIA for 911 - or NOT?

AND

IF NOT – Why NOT?

And do you still think burning jet fuel can weaken steel? DUH!!!!

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).”

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf

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?

Does anyone else see a big problem here?

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:-

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.

SexyComments by di BorkWeb

TOP NEWS DISCUSSIONS	LATEST NEWS DISCUSSIONS	LATEST FORUM TOPICS
A Cynic's Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Our Government’s Dirty Little Secrets Gait Recognition Software Proposed For Surveillance At A Distance The Heinous Crimes of George W. Bush in 35 Articles of Impeachment Blackwater's Private CIA US School District to Begin Microchipping Students Democrats introduce bill to outlaw Pentagon propaganda Fisk: The West's weapon of self-delusion Washington ordered destruction of Guantánamo interrogation records Airport Scanners Do Virtual Strip Search Iraqi lawmakers say US demanding 58 military bases Guantanamo trials fall short, says Arbour US Congressman Moves to Impeach Bush Biometric scans raise spectre of Big Brother workplaces	Earla Penn commented on: US School District to Begin Microchipping Students ISN’T THAT A VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? THEY CAN TRACK US? YET... Continue Reading & Reply Earla Penn commented on: Had media done their job, there’d be no Iraq War SO THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO STEP A SIDE AND ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO BE WHO THEY ARE!... Continue Reading & Reply Earla Penn commented on: Why Are Corporate Journalists So Afraid of Questioning Authority? So if one is against their ways of their actions. One can’t... Continue Reading & Reply newageblues commented on: Now experts say cannabis should be legal Annabel Goldie calls cannabis an extremely harmful substance. She’s confusing it with... Continue Reading & Reply	RSS Forum Posts Temp Offline - See Latest Forum Posts

ADVERTISEMENTS		SITE MAPS
WOWEB - Web Design FAST GATEWAY - Web Hosting INFOTX - Web Hosting Guides and Resources ASHLEY GUEST HOUSE - Morecambe Guest House	Never Be Lied To Again! Subliminal Secrets Exposed Holographic Creation: Your Own Reality Masonic Secrets Revealed What You Aren't Supposed To Know	7/7 Afghanistan Alternative Energy Art Arte BBC Big Brother Bilderberg Biometrics Bush CIA Climate Change Cover Up Cults Culture Database State David Hicks David Ray Griffin Democrats Demos Drugs Education Istruzione EU False Flag FBI Fraud Free Speech Freemasons G8 Globalization Guantanamo Health News History Storia ID Cards Internet Iran Iraq Israel Israele Law Legge Marches MI5 MI6 Microsoft Military MoD Money Music Musica NASA Neocons NSA Oil Pakistan Podcast Police State Propaganda RFID RINF Rumsfeld Science Scienza Secrecy Security Sicurezza Slavery Space Spazio Sports Sport Spying Stephen Lendman Technology Tecnologia Terrorism Tony Blair Torture TV UK News UN USA News Video Voting Warfare White House Wolfowitz World News Yahoo 2003 - 2005 Archives \| 2005 - 2007 Archives \| 2007 - 2008 Archives \| Current Archives \| Past Version

RINF.COM : THE BREAKING NEWS ALTERNATIVE RINF.COM: il breaking news alternativi

A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Un Cynic's Guide Per 9 / 11 Conspiracy Theories

49 Responses to “A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” 49 risposte a "Un Cynic's Guide Per 9 / 11 Conspiracy Theories"

WOWEB - Web Design

FAST GATEWAY - Web Hosting

INFOTX - Web Hosting Guides and Resources

ASHLEY GUEST HOUSE - Morecambe Guest House

Never Be Lied To Again!

Subliminal Secrets Exposed

Holographic Creation: Your Own Reality

Masonic Secrets Revealed

What You Aren't Supposed To Know

RINF.COM : THE BREAKING NEWS ALTERNATIVE RINF.COM: il breaking news alternativi

A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Un Cynic's Guide Per 9 / 11 Conspiracy Theories

49 Responses to “A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” 49 risposte a "Un Cynic's Guide Per 9 / 11 Conspiracy Theories"

WOWEB - Web Design FAST GATEWAY - Web Hosting INFOTX - Web Hosting Guides and Resources ASHLEY GUEST HOUSE - Morecambe Guest House

Never Be Lied To Again! Subliminal Secrets Exposed Holographic Creation: Your Own Reality Masonic Secrets Revealed What You Aren't Supposed To Know

WOWEB - Web Design

FAST GATEWAY - Web Hosting

INFOTX - Web Hosting Guides and Resources

ASHLEY GUEST HOUSE - Morecambe Guest House

Never Be Lied To Again!

Subliminal Secrets Exposed

Holographic Creation: Your Own Reality

Masonic Secrets Revealed

What You Aren't Supposed To Know