The show highlights some of the uglier sides to the British Truth movement - which must not be ignored, including abundant racism, a cult like mentality and the refusal to objectively look at hard facts. O show destaca algumas das uglier lados para os britânicos Verdade movimento - que não deve ser ignorada, incluindo o racismo abundante, como mentalidade e um culto a recusa de olhar objectivamente os factos reais.
Update: Be sure to bookmark theUpdate: Certifique-se de que o favoritoWolverhampton Radiophonic Institute Wolverhampton Instituto Radiophonicweb site as they plan to investigate other myths and theories, which can be heard via their site. Web site em que plano para investigar outros mitos e teorias, o que pode ser ouvido através do seu site.
Have Your Say: A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy TheoriesDiga o que pensa: Um cínico's Guide to 9 / 11 as teorias conspiratórias Please note, only selected comments will be published. Observe, apenas comentários selecionados serão publicados.
50 Responses to “A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” 50 Responses para "Um cínico's Guide to 9 / 11 as teorias conspiratórias"
3 year old Kid3 anos de idade Kid Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm |Posted: 14 de junho de 2008 em 10:28 pm |Link to thisLink para esta
Rather than calling it the Cynic’s Guide, it should be called the CRETINS GUIDE. Em vez de chamar-lhe a Cynic's Guide, deverá ser chamado o GUIA cretinos.
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? Talvez Nick pólo pode explicar porque Building 007 foi totalmente omitido até mesmo a partir de uma única menção no Relatório da Comissão viu a ser tão bom e abrangente?
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? Você suponho que acidentalmente se esqueceu de mencionar 3 e 2 edifícios não foram desintegradas a poeira e escombros pouco sobre o dia de 911?
How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each? Como é que estes personagens explicam o NIST alegação de que as duas torres altas foram aniquiladas em menos de 10 segundos cada?
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. Todas as novidades sobre este jato travamentos e queima prédio é totalmente irrelevante - Como pode a 80 + incólumes, mais fortes e mais pesados Bottom andares (ao abrigo do jato crash andares), pó para ser esmagado escombros areia no interior, (de acordo com o NIST, os elementos de prova e vídeo dados sísmicos) 10 segundos, quando se fosse um vazio de 417 metros do topo vácuo através caiu pouco -, seriam necessários 9,22 segundo Precisamente.
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? Como pode um prédio ao lado de não oferecer resistência ainda 1 segundo antes do início da destruição seqüência o próprio facto o edifício foi ereta afirma que havia um mínimo de 1 vezes carga de trabalho?
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. Mas se você observar o projecto do edifício foi projetado com a carga de trabalho 3 vezes em mente, como sempre mais de 100% redundância assim como a construção códigos.
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 - Então, vendo como, por exemplo, o 50o andar incólumes foi concebido para o transporte de 3 vezes as 60 andares acima dele, e nós estamos garantido que teve de proceder, pelo menos, 1 vezes os 60 andares acima dele, e os pisos inferiores do que as mais duras e mais pesada Foram --
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. Não é fisicamente possível colapso de um corpo através do caminho de resistência mais próximo a velocidade livre - ele desafia todos os senso comum e, pelo menos, três leis da física.
So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges? Portanto, se não poderia destruir o Gravity 110 edifícios dentro de 10 segundos cada - o que é que se não demolição explosivos e cortador encargos?
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 não mesmo que seja fisicamente possível para a gravidade da queima para destruir edifícios dentro de 10 segundos Física como é verdade -, então não foi o fogo ou a jacto crash nem os terroristas que trouxe os edifícios estabelece a 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. Mesmo adicionais bombas na cave e da população não iria destruir os edifícios em 10 segundos, uma vez que exigiria precisão conjunto, a precisão cronometrada em demolição, pelo menos, de três em três, se não a cada segundo andar.
3 year old Kid3 anos de idade Kid Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:53 pm |Posted: 14 de Junho de 2008, 10:53 pm |Link to thisLink para esta
Its like this, over 400 Architects and Engineers, myself included - prove the 911 destruction was controlled demolition. Sua como esta, mais de 400 arquitectos e engenheiros, eu incluído - 911 provar a destruição foi controlada demolição.
Here is all the absolute proof Aqui está toda a prova absoluta
LongmanLongman Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:44 pm |Posted: 14 de junho de 2008 em 11:44 pm |Link to thisLink para esta
No really. Não realmente.How many architects, engineers, physics etc have said there’sa problem with the “official” story? Como muitos arquitectos, engenheiros, etc física que disse há um problema com o "oficial" história?Not bleedin many. Não bleedin muitos.And most of those who have are doing so to further their own agenda. Ea maior parte das pessoas que têm estão a fazê-lo ainda mais sua própria agenda.Wise up. Wise up.
paul wPaul w Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:46 pm |Posted: 14 de Junho de 2008, 11:46 pm |Link to thisLink para esta
3 year old Kid 3 anos de idade Kid Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm Posted: 14 de Junho de 2008, 10:28 pm
The question is how can you be so totally ignorant? A questão é saber como você pode ser tão totalmente ignorantes?Go and read the following websites: Vá e leia os seguintes sites:
9-11 Myths 9-11 Mitos Screwloosechange.blog Internet Detectives. Detectives Internet.
All your questions will be answered. Todas as perguntas serão respondidas.
paul wPaul w Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 12:26 am |Posted: 15 de Junho de 2008, 12:26 am |Link to thisLink para esta
“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?” "Talvez Nick pólo pode explicar porque Building 007 foi totalmente omitido até mesmo a partir de uma única menção no Relatório da Comissão viu a ser tão boa e completa?"
It wasn’t their job. Não era o seu emprego.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.) Um relatório sobre WTC7 está actualmente em curso e espera-se que seja libertado em breve (e antes de dizer "porque é que ele demorou tanto tempo?", É preciso lembrar que, ao contrário de 9-11 truther lixo, estes relatórios têm de ser precisos, científico e profissional .)
“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?” "Você suponho que acidentalmente se esqueceu de mencionar 3 e 2 edifícios não foram desintegradas a poeira e escombros pouco sobre o dia do 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’. Isso porque os edifícios não "desintegrar em pó 'e eu não os restos de chamar as duas torres" pouco montes de lixo ".
You do, but then, you’re a truther. Você fazer, mas, então, você é um truther.What has reality got to do with anything? O que tem a ver com a realidade ganhou alguma coisa?
“How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each?” "Como é que estes personagens explicam o NIST alegação de que as duas torres altas foram aniquiladas em menos de 10 segundos cada um?"
Have you actually READ the NIST report? Você já na realidade ler o NIST relatório?Please do. Por favor fazer.
“All this stuff about jet crashes and burning building is totally irrelevant” "Todo esse material sobre jet travamentos e queima prédio é totalmente irrelevante"
???????
“How can the 80+ UNDAMAGED, Strongest & Heaviest Bottom floors (under the jet crash floors), be crushed to dust sand rubble within” "Como podem os 80 + incólumes, mais fortes e mais pesados Bottom andares (ao abrigo do jato crash andares), pó para ser esmagado dentro de areia escombros"
Er, have you READ the NIST report? Er, ter-lhe que leia o NIST relatório?Please do. Por favor fazer.
(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.) (as torres "cilindros" que usou o núcleo interno colunas e exterior da pele para a força, os pavimentos suspensos no interior entre os dois, daí a concepção do plano de abrir o chão.)
“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.” "De acordo com o NIST, o vídeo provas e dados sísmicos) 10 segundos, quando se fosse um vazio de 417 metros do topo vácuo através caiu pouco -, seriam necessários 9,22 segundo Precisamente."
Er, have you READ the NIST report? Er, ter-lhe que leia o NIST relatório?Please do. Por favor fazer.
“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? "Como pode um prédio ao lado de não oferecer resistência ainda 1 segundo antes do início da destruição seqüência o próprio facto o edifício foi ereta afirma que havia um mínimo de 1 vezes carga de trabalho?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.” Mas se você observar o projecto do edifício foi projetado com a carga de trabalho 3 vezes em mente, como sempre mais de 100% redundância assim como a construção códigos ".
???????? (no, really, have you READ the NIST report?) (não há, realmente, ter NIST lerem o relatório?)
“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..” "Então, vendo como, por exemplo, o 50o andar incólumes foi concebido para o transporte de 3 vezes as 60 andares acima dele, e nós estamos garantido que teve de proceder, pelo menos, 1 vezes os 60 andares acima dele, e os pisos inferiores ao do mais duras e mais pesada eles foram .. "
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). Não, o solo não foram concebidos para transportar as 60 flo0rs acima (ler os comentários acima sobre a torre design e ler o relatório 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.” "Não é fisicamente possível colapso de um organismo através do caminho de resistência mais próximo a velocidade livre - ele desafia todos os senso comum e, pelo menos, três leis da física."
And what, precisely, are there three laws of physics? E qual é, precisamente, existem três leis da física?(the Nobel prize for anyone who can answer this correctly) (o prêmio Nobel de alguém que possa responder a esta corretamente)
So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges?” Portanto, se não poderia destruir o Gravity 110 edifícios dentro de 10 segundos cada - o que é que se não demolição explosivos e cortador encargos? "
Er, gravity without a capital ‘g’? Er, uma gravidade sem capital '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 não mesmo que seja fisicamente possível para a gravidade da queima para destruir edifícios dentro de 10 segundos Física como é verdade -, então não foi o fogo ou a jacto crash nem os terroristas que trouxe os edifícios estabelece a 911.
A ‘Physics fact’ Really? A 'Física fato "A sério?
“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.” "Mesmo adicionais bombas na cave e da população não iria destruir os edifícios em 10 segundos, uma vez que exigiria precisão conjunto, a precisão cronometrada em demolição, pelo menos, de três em três, se não a cada segundo andar."
Phew, glad you cleared that up! Phew, que apurou-se satisfeito por você!
SailVelas Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 2:14 am |Posted: 15 de Junho, 2008 em 2:14 am |Link to thisLink para esta
Great show! Great show!How about a part 2? Como sobre uma parte 2?
Now we have more people speaking AGAINST the truth movement than actually belong to the movement. Agora, temos mais pessoas que falam contra a verdade do que realmente movimento pertencem ao movimento.
johnJohn Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:33 am |Posted: 15 de Junho, 2008, 8:33 am |Link to thisLink para esta
to all the counter intelligence people that are posting lies please be aware that the truth will out and you will be punished. a todas as pessoas que são contrárias inteligência destacamento cabe esteja ciente de que a verdade vai para fora e você será punido.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. Note que o cara que procurou contrariar a 3 anos de idade miúdos reivindicações, não deu factos si próprio, disse-lhe olhar para um relatório que ele não cotação de qualquer coisa, etc Olhe para todos os sites debunking entrevistas e todas elas são obviamente falso como eles nunca enfrentar os factos só atacar os personagens.
I was responsible for this documentary, so it’s nice to see it’s provoking a reaction. Eu era responsável por este documentário, portanto, é bom ver que é provocar uma reação.
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 Pólo não mencionou nada sobre edifício 7, porque nós não falar com ele (aquele que ele poderia ser).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 não mencionou provavelmente porque, para ser honesto, nós só tinha cerca de 15 minutos para falar com ele (que passou a maior parte do tempo que tivemos com ele falando sobre UFOs, a sua área de especialização.) Nem ele nem eu somos peritos quando se trata de que tipo de coisa.His was a good contribution because he talked about looking at Truth Movement evidence alongside evidence put forward that explains the generally accepted narrative. Sua foi um bom contributo, porque ele falou olhando Verdade Movimento provas juntamente com elementos avançados que explica a narrativa geralmente aceites.His experience of getting hate mail from Truthers was very interesting, I found. Sua experiência de ficar ódio e-mail de Truthers foi muito interessante, eu encontrei.
I’d be very interested in seeing the evidence you have for precision timed demolition on every third or second floor. Eu seria muito interessado em ver os elementos de prova que você precisa para a demolição cronometrada em cada segundo ou terceiro andar.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. Testemunhas de estas demolições a ser estabelecidas, talvez uma das pessoas que definir o demolições e desde então foi montado com a culpa as consequências das suas acções.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 você - ou qualquer outra pessoa para que o assunto - tem alguma coisa como esta, favor entrar em contato e nós vamos dedicar toda uma a três horas mostram-lo.
“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?” "Você suponho que acidentalmente se esqueceu de mencionar 3 e 2 edifícios não foram desintegradas a poeira e escombros pouco sobre o dia do 911?"
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. Fizemo-lo porque não mencionar o documentário foi apenas 17 minutos - é difícil cobrir um assunto tão grande como 9 / 11 as teorias conspiratórias em tão pouco tempo.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. Além disso, fomos trabalhar no pressuposto de que a grande maioria dos ouvintes não eram realmente conscientes de teorias da conspiração, de modo que tivemos de fazer um pé-de começar, por assim dizer.Given more time, I’m sure we would have covered things in more detail. Uma vez mais tempo, estou certo de que teria coberto coisas de forma mais pormenorizada.
Also, if you think only three buildings were destroyed at the World Trade Center site that day, you need to do more research. Além disso, se você pensar apenas três edifícios foram destruídos no World Trade Center site naquele dia, o que você precisa fazer mais investigação.
Paul W - What was it one of the people in the debate talked about? Paul W - O que ele era um dos cidadãos no debate falou?“Confirmation bias”? "Confirmação viés"?He’s depressingly right when it comes to the truthers, I’ve found. Ele está depressingly direita quando se trata do truthers, eu encontrei.
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. Velas - vamos fazer Cynic's Guias de mais coisas (UFOs, como já referi, será um), mas eu espero que talvez voltar para a Verdade Movimento, ou talvez uma conspiração sobre teorias em geral.
I’m Neil’s co-host on the Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute (ie the other cretin). Estou Neil's co-anfitrião sobre o Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute (isto é, os outros cretin).Just like to note that our website is Assim como a nota de que o nosso site é www.radiophonic.org.uk, where you’ll also shortly be able to subscribe to a podcast of the show. onde você também vai em breve ser capaz de assinar um podcast para o show.
WTC 7 - The Truth Exposed WTC 7 - A Verdade Exposed
Debunking the lies and misrepresentations of the so-called 9/11 ‘Truth’ movement regarding World Trade Center Building 7. Debunking as mentiras e deturpações das chamadas 9 / 11 'Verdade' movimento quanto World Trade Center Building 7.
ReptorReptor Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 7:33 pm |Posted: 15 de Junho, 2008, 7:33 pm |Link to thisLink para esta
You guys have hit the nail on the head. Vocês têm atingido o dedo na ferida.Kudos to you both for having the balls to produce this, I’m sure many truthers will be calling for blood now. Kudos para você tanto por ter as bolas para produzir este, tenho certeza muitos truthers será chamada de sangue agora.
Any report on the kind of feedback you’ve had since the show? Qualquer relatório sobre o tipo de retorno que você teve desde a mostrar?
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. Por favor, nos manter informados de tudo o que você está fazendo, e muito obrigado a todos os que tiveram a coragem de participar e promover este espectáculo.
The cult is slowly being exposed thanks to brave efforts like this. O culto está lentamente a ser exposta graças aos esforços corajosos como este.
3 year old kid3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 7:51 pm |Posted: 15 de Junho, 2008, 7:51 pm |Link to thisLink para esta
I stand by what I say, it was the Cretins guide to 911. Eu mantenho a aquilo que eu digo, foi o guia de cretinos 911.
A guide By cretins - For Cretins. Um guia Por cretinos - Para cretinos.
Forget who was flying the jets and lost their passports and bandannas, etc, that is totally irrelevant re the destruction sequence. Esqueçam o que estava a voar jatos e perderam os seus passaportes e bandannas, etc, que é totalmente irrelevante restabelecer a destruição seqüência.
It is not physically possible to have a falling body fall through the path of most resistance. Não é fisicamente possível ter uma queda queda corpo através do caminho de mais resistência.EVER NEVER!!!!! SEMPRE NUNCA !!!!!
And to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed is even more impossible than impossible. E, para cair através do caminho de resistência mais próximo em queda livre a velocidade é ainda mais impossível do que impossível.
Just, a minute I am falling over with laughter, hold on. Basta, um minuto estou caindo com mais de riso, a realizar.
Sorry about that, I could not type and laugh at the same time. Sinto muito sobre isso, eu não poderia tipo e rir ao mesmo tempo.
Why are qualified people unwilling to come forward? Porque são pessoas qualificadas não querer avançar?
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. A Física de 911 é tão simples que a maioria das pessoas que valores a sua carreira não irá tocá-lo - porque é tão obviamente uma Demolição controlada.
I now need to go and watch cartoons. Eu agora preciso ir assistir e caricaturas.
However, for those who want the professional opinion of 400 Architects and Engineers regarding the Controlled Demolitions on 911 go Here:- No entanto, para aqueles que querem a opinião de 400 profissionais arquitetos e engenheiros no que respeita à demolição controlada em 911 ir Aqui: --
AshleyAshley Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm |Posted: 15 de Junho, 2008, 8:35 pm |Link to thisLink para esta
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 estes troofers Não sei, tenho certeza de que há lógica explainations para o colapso do aço 3 enquadrados em edifícios para seu próprio pegada (3 a única siderúrgica syscrapers enquadrados em colapso devido ao incêndio prejuízos na história).
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. Não sou cientista então eu não posso dar respostas quanto à forma como estes edifícios não derrubar (como lógica seria de esperar, uma vez que foram atingidas por um lado), eu também não posso lhe dar um explaination quanto à forma como a injeção de combustível que queima um máximo de 1500F poderia derreter aço, que tinham sido certificadas para 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). Estou certo de que a BBC (IIRC e CNN) têm um explaination da forma como eles previram o colapso do WTC7 cerca de 25 minutos antes de seu colapso (Simplesmente não parecem encontrar explainations para esta, apesar da caça para eles).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 eu previa someones homicídio, tenho certeza que seria investigado exaustivamente, mas este tipo de exame de nossa BBC não é exigida (um exame seria um pouco de um problema como a BBC já disseram eles perderam todas as suas filmagens a partir de 11 de Setembro 2001, bastante surpreendente se true).
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) Claro que o PNAC relatório disse que os anseios da América para espalhar a sua democracia não teria apoio suficiente, sem uma espécie de "novo Pearl Harbour" não é uma previsão de qualquer espécie (publicado um ano antes a 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. A estranha falta de caças ao longo dos jatos mais protegidos pedaço do espaço aéreo em todo o mundo (o Pentágono) está novamente compreensível (embora não a mim) e os 2 liberado CCTV imagens são a única filmagem do avião, apesar do montante das câmeras centrou-se no presente edifício.
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. Engraçado como Rumsfeld deu 3 diferentes contas de suas ações na manhã de 9-11, para a comissão e que, em vez de questionar esta eles combinam 2 da contabilidade e ignorar completamente o outro.
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). Claro que o facto de que bons velhos Dick Cheney diz que ele chegou no bunker em Whitehouse 10h apesar testemunhas colocando ele existe cerca de 35 minutos mais cedo (isto é, antes de o avião atingiu o Pentágono).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 também foi noticiado disse sobre o plano aponta para o Pentágono em 40, 30, 20 e 10 milhas para fora e foi perguntado "se as ordens ainda stand" e afirmou que eles fizeram (estas não eram evidentemente a corrida para a emissão de ordens de jatos interceptar este plano como é normal operationg processo, uma vez que estes nunca foram dadas ordens).
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). Seu amigo e mina George Dubya diz que ele viu o primeiro jato atingiu a torre antes de ir para a sua reunião com seus superiores hierárquicos intelectual na aula de ensino pré-escolar (este era obviamente impossível como a única filmagem do presente não foi demonstrado até o dia seguinte).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 ele foi informado do segundo avião bater ele sentou lá por mais 20 minutos lendo um livro sobre caprinos em vez de dar resposta aos problemas óbvios.
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). Depois do curso Dubya gastou horas intermináveis de tentar conectar com Osama Iraque eo ataque (apesar do bem conhecido fato de que Saddam Osama odiava quase tanto como 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. Estou completamente com George quando ele diz: 'Vamos jamais tolerar ultrajante as teorias conspiratórias relativo aos atentados de setembro o 11 º "é só não acho que ele está olhando para a mesma teoria conspiratória como eu.
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-será o próximo Iraque, estão actualmente a ser aconselhados a interromper as suas armas programa não obstante o facto de a AIEA ter dito que eles não têm um.There’ll be some poxy Powerpoint presentation on their nuclear prowess (that or a false flag of some description). Existe alguma será poxy apresentação Powerpoint sobre a sua valentia nuclear (ou que uma falsa bandeira de alguns descrição).The endless war on terror really will be endless if we carry on chasing weapons that don’t exist. A interminável guerra contra o terror será realmente interminável Se continuarmos a perseguir armas que não existem.
3 year old kid3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm |Posted: 15 de Junho, 2008, 8:36 pm |Link to thisLink para esta
So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance? Por isso, mãos para cima, que pensa que é fisicamente possível, mesmo para uma queda corpo de passar através do caminho de mais resistência?
Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed? Em segundo lugar, que pensa que é fisicamente possível até mesmo a cair através do caminho de mais próximo a resistência à queda livre velocidade?
That is - in the absence of controlled demolition. Isso é - na ausência de demolição controlada.
Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. Aqui está a minha favorita Web à vista: - arquitetos e engenheiros para 911 verdade.
There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details Há 400 profissionais para que você pedir, apenas e-mail-los para obter detalhes
ReptorReptor Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 9:01 pm |Posted: 15 de Junho, 2008, 9:01 pm |Link to thisLink para esta
400 professionals? 400 profissionais?Around the whole world you manage to find 400? Cerca de todo o mundo para encontrar a gerenciar 400?Is that it? Será isso mesmo?If there was any fact in these claims then ALL engineers etc would be crying out. Se houve qualquer facto destas alegações, em seguida, TODOS os engenheiros etc seria clama.In fact from the 400 professionals how many are experts in the fields relevant to the science of these claims? Com efeito a partir de 400 profissionais quantos são especialistas nas áreas relevantes para a ciência destes créditos?
Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked. Toda teoria apresentada pela verdade movimento tem sido debunked.You might not like it. Você pode não gostar dele.It might not sit with your opinion but that’s the facts. Pode não se sentar em sua opinião, mas essa é a realidade.Deal with it. Lidar com ele.You got it wrong. Aí está errado.
AshleyAshley Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 9:53 pm |Posted: 15 de Junho, 2008, 9:53 pm |Link to thisLink para esta
Reptor what are you on about? Reptor que é que está em causa?Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked? Toda teoria apresentada pela verdade movimento tem sido debunked?Where’s this? Sempre que é isto?In Wonderland? No País das Maravilhas?A lot of the debunking has since been debunked but you fail to mention that in any way, shape or form. Um lote do debunking foi, desde então, mas você debunked deixar de referir que, de qualquer modo, forma ou formulário.
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). Há tantas perguntas sem resposta é positiva farsa, eu acho que é porque há tantas pessoas que reclamam uma 'boa' inquérito (dentro e fora da América).
Do you dispute the idea that western governments have proposed and even carried out false flag operations to further their own agendas? Você disputa a ideia de que os governos ocidentais têm propostas e até mesmo falsa bandeira operações levadas a cabo para promover as suas próprias agendas?Have a look in to Operation Gladio in Europe and Operation Northwoods in the US. Dê uma vista de olhos nos a Operação Gladio na Europa e na Operação Northwoods os E.U..
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. É absolutamente espantoso que um antigo Primeiro-ministro da Itália pode comentar ao longo das linhas de "toda a comunidade conhece inteligência da CIA e Mossad realizadas 9-11 ', e é tudo, mas ignorada.
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 você tem um olhar para o vídeo em que Osama alega a responsabilidade pela 9-11 ataques relógio para ver o que esta mão 'Osama' usa a escrever com e, em seguida, visite http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm and notice that it says ‘Bin Laden is left-handed’. e percebe que ele diz que "Bin Laden é canhoto".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. Estranha, mas é verdade, acho que seria seu retorta Osama fez isso de propósito para testar o nosso super especial agentes ou alguns desses sapateiros.
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 você realmente pensar um bloke em uma caverna com uma carga de suas esposas armados com boxcutters pode levar a cabo estes ataques, então eu acho que você precisa para re-avaliar as provas.
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. Eu observei recentemente que existem propostas para instalar os equipamentos em planos para permitir a utilização de telemóveis, certamente que esta tecnologia é inútil como este já era possível em aproximadamente 7 Unidos 93 anos atrás.so what gives? de modo que dá?
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. Tal como eu disse a quantidade de contradições, meias-verdades óbvias e falsidades estão aí para qualquer pessoa com uma vontade de buscar e de uma mente aberta o suficiente para pensar que os governos não dizer sempre a verdade aos seus cidadãos.
For me the one which clinches it is seeing 3 steel framed buildings collapsing in to their own footprints. Para mim um dos quais está vendo clinches aço 3 edifícios enquadrados em colapso às suas próprias pegadas.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. Não sou especialista mas sei que ainda demolições equipas não pode garantir que isso aconteça quando eles lugar encargos e fazê-lo a efeito.
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). De 2 a 3 edifícios foram atingidos por aviões, se eles tinham enfraquecido a estrutura suficientemente teria sido em um lado do edifício, juntamente com os incêndios a ser concentradas na lateral também assim que eu esperaria que, em vez de cair em si a (Jenga imaginar uma torre, agite a um bloco de um lado, iniciar um incêndio no espaço e que aquilo que você espera que aconteça? I bet a última coisa que você está pensando é um bom puro pilha, seria ir mais para um lado ).
Then there’s WTC7 (although looking at the Commission’s report you’d do well to notice it). Depois há WTC7 (embora, olhando para o relatório da Comissão você poderia fazer bem ao anúncio dele).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. O explainaition deste colapso é que peguei fogo a partir de um dos outros edifícios que desabaram, alguns tanques diesel capturado em fogo e outro alakazzam nice puro pilha.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. Agora que eu estou interessado aço endurecido para resistir 2750F incêndios por 2 horas colapso devido aos incêndios avaiation fule com um máximo de 1500F em uma hora e um pouco é uma coisa (a maioria do combustível queimado na fireball desativado quando a avião atingiu o edifício e mesmo assim há também fotos de pessoas de pé olhando para fora do local onde o avião atingiu certamente eles teriam literalmente derretido se estamos a pensar nas torres de aço fez), mas acredito que a diesel que é significativamente menos combustível poderia fazer a mesma coisa é extensiva a partir de um conto de fadas.
You can believe what you want at the end of the day, everyone has the right to make up their own mind. Você pode acreditar o que você quer no final do dia, todos têm o direito de fazer a sua própria 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 você quer engolir o que eu vejo como Bacharel em seguida que é com você e não tenho qualquer motivo de preocupação para tentar convencê-lo outra forma, mas por favor tentando parar para atender às suas blinkers sobre a todos os outros, se a medida as teorias conspiratórias são coletados em seguida pessoas que irão trabalhar-o para si próprios, sem a sua marca específica de troofiness.
3 year old kid3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 10:22 pm |Posted: 15 de junho de 2008 em 10:22 pm |Link to thisLink para esta
Thank you Reptor, you are really making my day. Obrigado Reptor, você está realmente fazendo o meu dia.
Well, go on then just don’t talk about it - let us see the maths and actual Physics. Pois bem, vá em seguida, simplesmente não se fala dele - vamos ver a Matemática e Física reais.
Debunk the Physics, now is your chance old chap. Incansavelmente a Física, tem agora a oportunidade de idade chap.
Give us one single experiment or example were a falling body takes the path of most resistance due to gravity alone. Dê-nos a um único experimento ou eram um exemplo queda corpo toma o caminho da resistência maior parte devido à gravidade isoladamente.
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. Em segundo lugar, dar-nos uma única experiência ou eram um exemplo queda corpo toma o caminho da resistência e cai mais perto de queda livre em velocidade usando gravidade isoladamente.
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, depois, apenas para os pontos extra para provar qualificada folk nós não sabemos o que estamos a falar e como você está super Brainy - mostrar ao mundo da matemática que justifica a reivindicação.
Please show the Physics and the Maths. Por favor, mostrar a Física e da Matemática.
ReptorReptor Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 11:24 pm |Posted: 15 de Junho de 2008, 11:24 pm |Link to thisLink para esta
I don’t have to prove squat. Eu não tenho de provar squat.You’re the ones making ridiculous claims, it’s up to you to prove yourselves. Você é o mais ridículo fazer reivindicações, cabe a você a revelar-vos.You tried. Você tentou.You failed. Você falhou.Move on. Seguir em frente.
If 911 was an inside job why haven’t the media reported on it? Se 911 foi um trabalho dentro razão pela qual não têm os meios de comunicação informaram sobre ele?Why haven’t insurance companies refused to pay up? Porque é que as companhias de seguros se recusou a pagar-se?Why hasn’t any one of the THOUSANDS of people who need to be in on it come forward? Por que não tenha qualquer uma das milhares de pessoas que precisam de ser em avançar com ela?
Please troofers, try to think logically. Troofers Por favor, tente a pensar logicamente.
AshleyAshley Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 12:33 am |Posted: 16 de Junho de 2008, 12:33 am |Link to thisLink para esta
Hahaaaa Reptor your entire response to my problems with the official story consists of ‘they couldn’t possibly do that’. Hahaaaa Reptor toda sua resposta aos meus problemas com a história oficial é composto por "eles não poderia fazer isso '.
Well I bow to your superior knowledge and reasoning, I can see from your responses that you are totally close minded on this issue. Bem eu proa para o seu superior conhecimento e raciocínio, posso ver a partir de suas respostas que lhe são totalmente fechar espírito sobre esta questão.All of the stuff I’ve put in my responses to you are freely available online, have a look in to it. Todas as coisas que eu colocar na minha resposta ao que você está disponível gratuitamente on-line, dê uma olhada nos a ela.
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). Nós não estamos fazendo coisas para cima, o espaço não planers e armas e holograma BS não é por que estamos próximos de (estas teorias são, na melhor das hipóteses apresentadas por idiotas ou na pior, uma tentativa deliberada de pintar todas as pessoas que não se enquadram para a história oficial como nutcases).
My specific problems as listed above (at the risk of repeating myself) are: - Meus problemas específicos como listados acima (com o risco de repetir-me) são os seguintes: --
Only 3 steel framed modern skyscrapers have suffered a collapse due to fire damage. Apenas 3 aço enquadrados modernos arranha-céus tenham sofrido um colapso devido ao incêndio danos.All 3 of those happened on 9-11 and all 3 collapsed into their own footprint. Todos aqueles aconteceu em 3 de 9-11 e todos os 3 desmoronou em seu próprio espaço físico.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. Agora, a meu ver, os prejuízos teriam sido asymetrical como os aviões impacto e foco principal do incêndio teria sido em um lado de cada um dos edifícios.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 esse impacto e posterior incêndio teve o aço fundido (impossível devido à queima de aço e da temperatura do querosene como mencionado acima, mas mesmo que ignorar esse facto) e, depois, os edifícios teria devido a derrubada durante a segunda lei da termodinâmica ( a lei da 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? Agora, há sempre uma excepção à regra, por isso mesmo que ele viola as leis da física Eu poderia provavelmente anulem um dos prédios exibem este comportamento como um freak ocorrência, mas freak 3 ocorrências no mesmo dia? 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? O facto de todos os 3 edifícios desabaram em queda livre perto de velocidade (isto é, como se não houvesse resistência), se você olhar para as nuvens poeira criada a partir do esmagamento / explodir?of the cement those clouds would have taken a lot of energy to create (ie made a lot of resistance). do cimento essas nuvens teria tomado uma grande quantidade de energia para criar (ou seja feito um lote de resistência).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 estas nuvens tinha sido criado pelo desmoronamento dos edifícios singulares cada palavra teria tomado uma quantidade de tempo para recolher e criar nuvens de poeira e esta 'resistência' teria atrasado o colapso substancialmente (ele não).
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! O facto de WTC7 não teve impacto de um avião, havia o que parecia ser algumas pequenas incêndios olhando para a filmagem, mas o único propulsor eles podem colocar neste edifício que queima diesel é substancialmente mais fria do querosene, mas este edifício ruiu devido a esta querosene de fogo, mesmo quando os aviões não se queimar quente o suficiente para derreter o aço!
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’ A testemunha ocular muitas contas que descrevem as explosões em WTC7, uma vez que se desmorona, a cotação em NYFD empregado "houve um pop, pop, pop como cada palavra passou, como uma demolição"
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. Agora você mencionou as companhias de seguros e esta é uma que me intriga, quando eu vejo o recente vídeo de comprador e segurados WTC7 um partido que pertence Larry Silverstein em vídeo dizendo como ele concordou com o departamento de fogo 'puxar' WTC7 ( 'puxar' é um termo utilizado pelas demolições equipes para a implosão dos edifícios utilizando detonations), pergunto-me o modo como a terra eles concordaram em pagar.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. Tenho certeza minha casa seguro não pagaria se a minha casa queimada para baixo e eu estava no registro como dizendo que me lançou um coquetel em molitov-lo.
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? Basta fora de juro que eu gostaria de saber onde você venha com a ideia de que iria tomar "milhares" de pessoas para fazer algo como isso, basta pensar sobre o agente nas bancas Whitehouse pedindo Cheney 'se o despacho ainda se situava ', Se essa ordem não foi a scramble lutador jatos para proteger o Pentágono o funcionário teria então tivemos de nos ter sido por ela ou ele só iria ter sido obedecendo os comandos do seu superior hierárquico?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? Estaria ele agora gostaria de stand up e informar sobre Dick Cheney, até onde ele poderia pensar que ele iria chegar, à excepção do dole fila e perda de pensão etc?What could each person on their own know? O que poderia cada pessoa no seu próprio know?It’s exactly how terrorist organisations work, in cells. É exatamente como organizações terroristas trabalho, nas células.Ever heard the term ‘plausible deniability’? Nunca ouviu a expressão "da dúvida"?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. O conjunto conspiração não poderia ser descoberto a menos que todas as pessoas em toda parte decidido a soprar o apito, já que cada pessoa tem conhecimento da seria um pouco de parte da grande imagem e eles iriam ver seus conhecimentos, inconsequentes.
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? Quero dizer os elementos de prova para os E.U. e Reino Unido ir para a guerra foi claramente manufaturados, os 45 minutos alegação, o arsenal nuclear e biológicos, os laboratórios móveis químicos (algo que um aluno que foi sonhado até então apresentada como fato), quantas pessoas devem ter sido envolvido nessa?How many of them are likely to have signed the official secrets act or the American equivalent? Como muitos deles são susceptíveis de ter assinado o ato oficial secrets ou o equivalente americano?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. Como muitos deles estariam dispostos a arriscar um feitiço de prisão para soprar o apito sobre algo que em sua própria realmente não levar muito peso.
Some other random ones: - Alguns outros aleatória queridos: --
How did the BBC and CNN predict the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before it collapsed? Como é que a BBC e CNN prever o colapso do WTC7 cerca de 25 minutos antes de se desmoronou?
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? Por que é visto Osama escrever com a mão direita no vídeo em que ele alega responsabilidade quando o FBI site diz claramente que ele é deixado entregue?Did Osama forget which hand he writes with or are the FBI misinformed? Osama fez esquecer o que ele escreve com a mão ou o FBI estão mal informados?
Just because they say you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you ;) Só porque eles dizem que você está paranóico, não significa que eles não fiquem fora para começá-lo;)
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?) Pergunta tudo e olhar para si mesmo, não me considero nem acredito que alguém, faça sua própria mente-se (o que eu diria é que o relatório da Comissão que o custo 1/80th da quantidade de dinheiro gasto em descobrir o que Bill Clinton era fazendo com seus charutos não é o melhor lugar para começar, também não poderiam obter NIST mundo real modelos das torres a cair mais de forma que eles fizeram uma simulação por computador para que eles possam alterar os parâmetros. Hey Não é de estranhar as pessoas estão pedindo outra investigação eh?)
3 year old kid3 year old kid Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 12:38 am |Posted: 16 de junho de 2008 em 12:38 am |Link to thisLink para esta
Thank you for that failure to Debunk the 911 Controlled Demolition Physics Reptor. Obrigado por que a falta de incansavelmente a 911 Controlado Demolição Física Reptor.
No one is forcing you to do anything old chap. Ninguém está forçando você a fazer alguma coisa velha chap.
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. Nós não somos o inimigo ou hostil ou uma espécie de culto estranho, estamos a 400 + arquitetos e engenheiros, incluindo muitas pessoas que realmente projetar e construir arranha-céus de aço enquadrado.
But, if you claim some 400 professional Architects and Engineers at Mas, se você reclamar cerca de 400 profissionais arquitetos e engenheiros em 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. estão incorretos, você não pode ainda dar um exemplo de uma queda corpo tomando o caminho da maior parte das resistências então você realmente não representam qualquer credibilidade se você não pode voltar-se o que você está alegando.
All those questions you mention about why haven’t the media reported on it? Todas essas perguntas que você menciona sobre por que não têm os meios de comunicação informaram sobre ele?Why haven’t insurance companies refused to pay up? Porque é que as companhias de seguros se recusou a pagar-se?Why hasn’t any one of the THOUSANDS of people who need to be in on it come forward? Por que não tenha qualquer uma das milhares de pessoas que precisam de ser em avançar com ela?Are nothing to do with Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. São nada a ver com arquitetos e engenheiros para 911 verdade.
To answer any of those questions would be pure speculation and engaging in conjecture and conspiracy theories. Para responder a nenhuma dessas questões seria pura especulação, e engajar-se em conjecturas e as teorias conspiratórias.
We at AE911truth.org only deal with Science and Engineering facts. Estamos a lidar com apenas AE911truth.org Ciência e Engenharia factos.
And the important indisputable 911 facts are these:- E de indiscutível importância a estes factos são 911: --
It is physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance. É fisicamente impossível para uma queda corpo de passar através do caminho de mais resistência.
It is even more physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance at almost freefall speed. É ainda mais fisicamente impossível para uma queda corpo de passar através do caminho da maior parte das resistências em queda livre quase velocidade.
Forget about if bandannas and passports were unburned whilst flying out of a suitcase that itself was totally incinerated. Esquece os passaportes e se bandannas foram unburned enquanto voando para fora de uma mala que ela própria era totalmente incinerados.Forget that jet fighters failed to defend the pentagon despite being on guard 24/7. Caças esquecer que não conseguiu defender o pentágono apesar de estar em guarda 24 / 7.All that sort of stuff is bum fluff. Todo esse tipo de coisas é bum perfumarias.
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. Agora vou perguntar-lhe novamente para o que você quer fazer um backup de crédito ou parar de tentar impressionar sobre coisas que você claramente sabem muito pouco.
As I have said before and I will say again, this particular media diatribe was A 911 guide By cretins - For Cretins. Como já disse antes e vou dizer mais uma vez, esta foi uma diatribe especial media 911 guia Por cretinos - Para cretinos.
And the fact you cannot back up your ridiculous claims does somewhat prove my point. Eo fato de você não pode fazer um backup de seus créditos faz um pouco ridículo provar o meu ponto.
StrugStrug Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 1:43 am |Posted: 16 de Junho, 2008, 1:43 am |Link to thisLink para esta
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. O que muitos de vocês estão esquecendo as pessoas acerca desta emissão é de que não é olhar para os elementos de prova que se principalmente a debruçar-se sobre si próprios troofers conduta.Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories. Troofers são muitas vezes rude e agir de culto como forma atacando aqueles que não suportam as suas teorias.
This has been proven on this very page. Isso foi provado sobre esta mesma página.
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. The reference to a ‘new Pearl Harbour’ was taken completely out of context bu the 9-11 truthers. The comment came during a debate about military prowess. The speaker suggested that history showed military improvements often came after some sort of dramatic event which spurred R&D within the military. He suggested this would occur if there was another dramatic events like a ‘new Pearl Harbour’.
“The strange lack of fighter jets over the most protected piece of airspace in the world (the Pentagon) is again understandable (albeit not to me)”
One of the major findings of the investigation was a shocking lack of communication between the different services…between NORAD, the civilian flight controllers, pilots, etc. In short, a level of incompetence. There were THOUSANDS of planes in the sky that day…jeez, go do some bleeding research (hint: read the NIST report).
“the 2 released CCTV images are the only footage of the plane despite the amount of cameras focussed on this building.”
Actually, no. There were bugger all cameras ‘focused’ on the building…they were focused on the car entry, the service station forecourt, etc., as most cameras are.
“Dick Cheney… ‘if the orders still stand’”
I’m getting tired, so get off your lazy backside and go find out.
“Then of course Dubya spent endless hours to try and connect Iraq with Osama and the attack”
You mean Bush was being a politician and trying to use 9-11 to push through his own agenda! Unbelievable!
Enough. You are a moron.
Next….
3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Link to this
“So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance?”
Me! (and a few hundred thousand engineers and physics professors) Gravity dictated where the thing was gonna go, and it dictated straight down. Where else was it going to go? Up? Sideways? Tell me, what is it about gravity you don’t understand?
“Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed?”
Me! (and ditto). The issue here is that word NEAR…it was NEAR free-fall speed, NOT free-fall speed. Tell me, genius, what speed should it have been? A second longer? Two seconds?
have ANY of your morons read the NIST report?
“Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. http://www.ae911truth.org/ There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details”
Er, more to the point, how many have NOT joined? (hint: tens of thousands)
3 year old kid Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 9:40 am |Link to this
Edward, don’t expect these failed Communist and failed Socialists (NOW claiming to be CULT WATCHERS) to wake up EVER.
The fact is, they are science savvy poor - they are literally unable to grasp and logically process the important scientific 911 facts.
They are so weak minded and so perversely politically driven they allow 911 dust to cloud & choke their judgments; unburned bandannas to blind their vision and this so called “Cult Watch” Characters are the perfect example of were because they were not the centre of attention at somebody else’s public meeting, and because someone just happened to give them a heckle, they now are prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater and are equivalent to becoming holocaust type deniers.
And all this stuff peddled by the likes of Strug.
Quote:-
“What many of you people are overlooking about this broadcast is that it is not looking at the evidence it is mainly looking at how troofers conduct themselves. Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories. This has been proven on this very page.”
Well pardon me for holding a professional scientific opinion about the most important aspect of 911, that being it is physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance at near freefall speed - it now turns out these characters don’t actually want to focus on what http://www.ae911truth.org/ is actually saying (the HARD scientific FACTS) but how some supporters address & behave at public meetings.
Well what can one say.
How is this for scientific method:-
They wheel in a left wing disgruntled socialists from “Cult Watch” who is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake UFO expert who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it - when neither of these Cretins has even the savvy to question if the CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official 911 Conspiracy plot.
Ashley Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 2:42 pm |Link to this
Paul W
Thank you for your erudite reply and for the assertion that I am a moron, unfortunately this is the same kind of personal attack that tries to discredit an argument by resorting to insults as is commonly used by believers of the offical conspiracy theory (if you can’t discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger with an ad-hominem attack - nice).
Your insistence on repeating your ‘have you read the NIST report’ question does not make our arguments go away. NIST initially tried to use real world models to explain the collapse of the 3 buildings, they were completely unable to do this so then changed tack and used a computer simulation to prove their theories (where they could alter the input parameters to their hearts content). Now call me a cynical troofer conspiraloon but if they can’t get real world models to exhibit the behaviour they claim was responsible for the collapse and have to resort to doing it in theory then I have little faith in their findings.
When you tell me to read the NIST report to find out about how the lack of communication between the different services was one of the major contributing factors I’m guessing you mean the 9-11 commission report rather than the NIST report as the NIST report has no such information in it (of course you know this as you keep asking us if we’ve read it, you wouldn’t ask that question unless you had read it yourself eh ;)
You are clearly out of your depth regarding the idea that these buildings would topple over, if the plane impact and resultant fire was one one side of the building then the stresses on the building would be asymetrical. If the stresses on the building were asymetrical you would expect the top of the building to topple over to one side (as explained earlier think Jenga or if you are feeling up to it google for ‘the law of entropy’).
If as you claim that the steel lost strength then that would give even more credence to the idea that the top of the building would have toppled to one side or the other, a weakened piece of steel would not concertina down on itself rather it would go towards the path of least resistance (it would bend before breaking).
How you can claim that the 9-11 investigation was the largest in the world when the sum total of money spent on the 9-11 Commission report came to approximately $500,000 (just to put this in perspective over $40 million dollars was spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky investigation).
All your sighing and huffing and puffing does absolutely nothing to water down my arguments it just makes you look like you are in the playground rather than having an adult conversation.
With regards your assertion that there were only 2 cameras focussed on the area of impact at the Pentagon is absolutely hilarious, this is the most protected building in the world, if you are really of the mind that the images they’ve shown are the best they can offer then seriously I ask you to reconsider. In all likelihood it would be impossible to walk up to that building without a camera being able to get a good look at your face (this would be to deter terrorists from walking up and putting bombs up against the walls, DOH).
I would dearly love to know what you meant by the following: -
“Dick Cheney… ‘if the orders still stand’”
I’m getting tired, so get off your lazy backside and go find out.
Are you in receipt of knowledge that explains this away because you should let people know as no-one else is!
As for WTC7 being ‘gutted from savage multi floor fires’ that is clearly preposterous, go look at some archive footage and come back and say it again. WTC7 was not leaning in any direction whatsoever, there are loads of different angles the collapse was filmed from, please point me in the direction of one which shows this ‘leaning’ (also if it was leaning then the law of entropy would cause us to expect it topple over rather than down and in on itself but the laws of physics don’t seem to be able to convince you of anything).
With regards your question on how long it should have taken WTC7 to collapse, Stephen Jones calculated that just from the resistance of the concrete (ignoring any resistance the steel columns may have had) that the building should have taken just over 10 seconds to collapse rather than the 6.6 it did take (freefall speed with no resistance and in a vacuum would have taken 6 seconds).
As for the PNAC comment being taken out of context, I have read the report myself (it’s freely available online) and I fail to see where you are coming from with this. The gist of it is that America will not be able to spread it’s Pax Americana around the world unless a Pearl Harbour type incident occurs so as to make it a populist move.
With regards the BBC premonition of the collapse of WTC7, I’m sorry your explaination holds no water. This is only the 3rd modern steel framed skyscraper to collapse due to fire damage, no-one could have predicted its collapse some 25 minutes prior.
Please don’t resort to name calling again Paul it only serves to show an element of desperation on your part and that is not a good way to win an argument. Oh btw I loved how you called me lazy and then went on to answer half of my points by calling me a moron, is this not laziness epitomised ;)
3 year old kid Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm |Link to this
Thank you for that Booger,
I am quite happy for people to have differing views, and even be wrong , right or indifferent.
Indeed the whole of science is built on modifying hypotheses and testing them against the available evidence in an iterative process.
But to claim a group of 400 professional Architects and Engineers are plain wrong, and then not offer any proof to back up the ludicrous claim “IT WAS GRAVITY WOT DONE IT GOVE” – is just not on.
I ask, IS that the actions of CRETINS or of serious investigation, learning & discovery?
Is there anything to learn from such pig headed stupidity? Apart from the fact some people are born CRETINS.
Speaking of which - here is a quote from one chap paul W
Quote:-
“Enough. You are a moron. Next…. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Link to this “So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance?” Me! (and a few hundred thousand engineers and physics professors) Gravity dictated where the thing was gonna go, and it dictated straight down. Where else was it going to go? Up? Sideways? Tell me, what is it about gravity you don’t understand? “Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed?” Me! (and ditto). The issue here is that word NEAR…it was NEAR free-fall speed, NOT free-fall speed. Tell me, genius, what speed should it have been? A second longer? Two seconds? have ANY of your morons read the NIST report? “Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth.
There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details” Er, more to the point, how many have NOT joined? (hint: tens of thousands)”
End quote.
This individual proves the point perfectly, not even a GCSE Architecture, Physics or Engineering qualification to his name, has never contacted any of the tens of thousands of qualified individuals he claims so speak for – but guess what - he is right and the outspoken 400 + Architects and Engineering professionals at http://www.ae911truth.org/ ARE WRONG?
Now I ask - does anybody see a problem with this chap’s logic?
So here we have yet another opportunity, another volunteer to show us the Physics and the maths which proves it is even physically possible for a body to take the path of most resistance and indeed at near freefall speed too – so Go on Mr paul W - let us have it sir. We can take your TRUTH.
Show us the Physics and Maths, which proves your hypothesis sir.
Show us this Physics and Maths supported by your alleged: tens of thousands professionals.
And if you are unable to do that for whatever reason – just tell us all about one experiment we can do which proves it is physically possible for a body to pass through the path of most resistance due to gravity alone. EVER!
Ashley Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 9:21 pm |Link to this
No I am not dismissing a peer review, what I am asking is what journal is likely to agree to print something that questions the official story when academics are losing their positions for daring to even question it.
I’m sure a lot of people would love the opportunity to have their thesis reviewed by their peers, unfortunately they have to find someone to print it (or do you think that they write their thesis and post a copy to all their peers for a ‘peer review’?)
At the moment it’s like the ‘Emporers New Clothes’, there are a few brave souls pointing out the naked facts but they are few and far between.
I think a lot of academics question the official story but after seeing what has happened to their peers when they stood up to be counted they have preferred to voice their concerns off the record.
I mean I am no scientist and I can see the hallmarks of controlled demolition all over the 3 collapses on 9-11, demolition experts could not have collapsed those buildings in to neater piles if they had tried. I am supposed to believe that 2 towers with asymetrical damage and one that just had a fire in it collapsed in to their own footprints which is something even demolition teams would have struggled to do. Sorry but I’m not buying it, you can if you like but I’m not.
I also think that on a wider level the problem with most people who look at the evidence and refuse to entertain the idea that the administration either made it happen or let it happen is the ‘what if it’s true’ factor. If the US administration is complicit in any part of this then that would pretty much blow the notion of democracy in America out of the water. I think some people don’t want to see what the evidence points to because it is so horrible and the implications are so wide ranging that peoples psyches are protecting them from recognising it.
Don’t think for a minute that Dubya would have any compunction about putting civilians in harms way, he has no scruples and sent an army to war based on false pretexts against someone who was an ally up until he invaded Kuwait (and tried to kill his daddy - oh the humanity). If you have a scout round the web you might even find a picture of Rummy Rumsfeld out in Iraq shaking the hand of the leader of Iraq (and at the time he was using chemical warfare against the Kurds, it’s funny how we can point this out as a justification for war now, when it wasn’t even enough to stop Rummy cow-towing to him at the time it happened! Oh and the US supplied the raw materials that Saddam used to make his chemical weapons and gas the Kurds! Funny how a lot of this extraneous information gets filtered out isn’t it?).
The world is a very strange and dangerous place and it doesn’t really work like they taught you in school. The idea that America and the UK can spread democracy with bullets and cluster bombs and try and force our culture on to other countries which for the most part have a different belief system is dangerous in the extreme. I mean the Disney style fun park planned for the green area in Bahgdad, I feel like I’ve followed Alice down the rabbit hole.
Anyway, I digress, I think that the there should be a new inquiry in to 9-11. I mean the 9-11 Commission report started with a belief in the official story and anything that didn’t fit with that wasn’t disproved, it was simply ignored. I think the US owes it to the 3,000 odd people who died that day and also to the dead soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the countless Afghani and Iraqi civilians killed by a force in its ‘War on Terror’ that if you believe the official story was as a direct response to the acts of that day (despite the fact that the neo-cons have had their eye on Iraq since before dubya rose to infamy).
My personal opinion is that it is an affront to the memory of the dead that the US can spend 80 times more money investigating the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal than it did on the 9-11 Commission Report!
But hey that’s just my opinion, you don’t have to believe me just have a look at the facts for yourself and make your own mind up (like I did).
Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. “Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7″ points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.
Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse.
9/11 demolition theory challenged
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a “controlled demolition”.
The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.
Resistance to collapse
Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.
In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.
“The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse,” Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.
Dr Seffen was able to calculate the “residual capacity” of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.
His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.
He added that his calculations showed this was a “very ordinary thing to happen” and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.
The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.
This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.
Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive “squibs” can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.
Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy…
For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is…
“Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows…
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, eg University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
ZP Bazant and Y. Zhou, “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?”, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it’s not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It’s had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no “theory of intelligent design” except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.”
More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse…
Bazant, ZP, & Zhou, Y. “Addendum to ‘Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis” (pdf) Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, FL “WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings” Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G. Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
“Construction and Collapse Factors” Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, GP “Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster” Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
“Dissecting the Collapses” Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, TW, & Musso, C. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation” JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor. World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (also available on-line)
Gabrielson, TB, Poese, ME, & Atchley, AA “Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center” The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
“Collapse Lessons” Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, TG “TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering” JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B. “World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, DE, & Cebon, D. “Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?” Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs “Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center” Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
Pinsker, Lisa, M. “Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site” Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001). The print copy has 3-D images.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
Post, NM “No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report” ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
Post, NM “Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing” ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects A resource site.
“WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives” ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
3 year old kid Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am |Link to this
Dr Seffen should be commended for at least trying.
Even NIST did not do the 10-second destruction sequence. (I wonder Why?)
Dr Seffen is a very capable person and his mathematics skills are very good indeed.
However despite being rather imaginative and having a jolly good attempt at modeling the impossible - his analysis has several key glaring flaws some of which I have listed here:-
He has assumed there was no cross bracing. (The WTCs were all heavily cross-braced).
He assumes the towers collapsed uniformly – yet damage and fires were more prevalent on one side and we have a video of the top portion toppling.
He assumes there was no reinforced concrete when in fact there were 300,000 tonnes in each 110 floor WTC building.
His paper defies conservation of energy – there was less than 10% of the necessary energy in the entire upright structure needed to do what Dr Seffen claims happened.
His paper defies conservation of momentum. He claims the top smaller section crushed the heavier lower section whilst the top lighter section stayed in a perfect intact condition until after it had finished destroying the much larger and heavier lower 80+ floors.
These are the less technical problems with the paper of which can be proved easily almost none mathematically via freely available evidence.
Regarding peer review, whilst it is very important, it has one or two very deep flaws.
In the case of this particular Seffen paper the referees are anonymous. So how can this paper be effectively peer reviewed if the referees can not be contacted to make comments and back up their approval by providing actual EVIDENCE.
In relation to all my works, I never have it peer reviewed via journals. I keep it secret because of commercial reasons.
So shipmates and Cult watch pirates - Hands up all those who think burning jet fuel in air can weaken steel? DUH!!!!
Is there anybody else apart from Dr Keith Seffen that believes in Free Energy machines?
If so, does anyone want to buy a safe seafront villa in Baghdad?
Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am |Link to this
RINFer
As mentioned previously NIST started their investigations using real world models, they could not get these models to collapse and had to resort to computer simulations in order to prove their theory.
Now I KNOW that I could get a team of demolition experts to effect a collapse like that on a real world model, I wouldn’t have to resort to theory to prove that the buildings could collapse in an identical manner.
Now what I am being asked to believe is that chaotic asymetrical damage to the buildings had a uniform effect in dropping these buildings in a fashion that demolition teams would be proud of. Demolition teams to this day cannot guarantee to drop buildings neatly, some of them don’t even fall when the charges are blown and cost a fortune to bring down.
It would probably be flippant of me to suggest that we could do away with all of these specialised demolitions companies and just start fires in the buildings we want to demolish as 3 out of 3 had uniform collapses on 9-11.
I maintain that a lot of academics in the conspiracy camp would like to get their thesis reviewed by peers but are unable to get them published. Why should this be? I’m sure that if their theories are so easy to shoot down, if the gaping inconsistencies can easily be explained away then journals would jump at the chance to be the one to disprove the conspiracy theorists.
I could go off to a site that holds the conspiracy POV as you have for the non-conspiracy POV and copy and paste a page of their site to debunk your debunking but what would that serve, you’d just find one to debunk my debunking of your debunking ad infinitum. The only way to bring clarity to this situation is for a full and exhaustive new inquiry that has both the funds and powers required to get to the truth. If there is nothing that has been hidden then this shouldn’t be a problem (please don’t quote cost as a deciding factor as it certainly isn’t in other facets of the so called ‘War on Terror’)
At the end of the day I admit that I haven’t gone in to much of the detail, but what I have done is use my own eyes, my own thought processes and drawn my own conclusions based on what I can see and my experiences in the real world (rather than one of abstraction).
I am using my own critical faculties, I mean if I saw a car crash and someone came out of the windscreen I would guess that they weren’t wearing their seatbelt and their momentum carried them through the glass. You could provide me with a peer reviewed document that suggested a James Bond style ejector seat could have caused it or that they could have jumped but that wouldn’t necessarily make it so, I’ma simple soul and would call it as I saw it.
When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition, when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition, when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull), when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage, when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel, when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire), when I see molten metal coming from the buildings (consistent with thermite or thermate), when sulfur residue is found on the steel after the collapse (consistent with thermate) then is it any wonder I ‘leap’ to the deduction that it was controlled demolition, is it any wonder that I think a new inquiry is not just called for but vital in getting the answers to these questions.
paul w Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 1:04 am |Link to this
RINFer Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Good effort, but you’ll get no-where: truthers are insane. Just read the ravings of 3 year old Kid, Ashely and Co…it ‘aint gonna t work, they’re too far gone.
Too many bongs, too much paranoia, too many out-of-whack brain cells, too many insecurities.
Is this attacking the person? Damn right it is - if the NIST /Commission reports and the vast amount of online material from various experts and eyewitness doesn’t change their mind, nothing will.
I post here so anyone new to the 9-11 ‘truth’ garbage has an opportunity to listen to the other side. This is a very poorly represented faction of the ‘truth’ movement; don’t expect them to offer debunking sites to newbies so they can compare things.
“I just want to talk facts and not attack the person”….
Pah. It’s all troofer bunk. I posted an answer to their idiotic comments, and said ‘moron’ once, and their reply? They answered NONE of the issues I raised but whined on about name-calling. Pathetic.
All they ever do is run and hide when caught in the headlights of reality.
Have to say though, their later posts on how the buildings should have fallen is a riot. What a bunch of fruit-cakes.
paul w Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 1:37 am |Link to this
“When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition, when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition, when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull), when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage, when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel, when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire), when I see molten metal coming from the buildings (consistent with thermite or thermate), when sulfur residue is found on the steel after the collapse (consistent with thermate) then is it any wonder I ‘leap’ to the deduction that it was controlled demolition, is it any wonder that I think a new inquiry is not just called for but vital in getting the answers to these questions.” Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am
When I see raving like this, I know Ashley is an idiot.
Am example: “when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire)”
paul w Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 8:19 am |Link to this
More info on black smoke from 911myths:
“While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:
“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”
paul w Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 10:00 am |Link to this
“When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition,
No, not ‘exact’ but similar, the way I play football ’similar’ to David Beckham. Go read the NIST report.
“when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition”
And what of the demolition experts who disagree? ONE person, is that it? Come on, Ashley. Is that all you have?
“when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull)”
Yes, do have a look at what demolition experts mean by pull - it means pull a building down using cables (as was done to the damaged buildings around the towers). “Pull” is never used to indicate a demoliton. Never.
“when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage”
Explained by the NIST report (and to be explained by the upcoming WC7 report)
“when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel”
The photo taken of the poor woman was well after the impact and the fires had moved on - the fires moved all over the place. Read the NIST report.
As for ‘melting steel’, no-one other than troofers talk of melting steel. Read the NIST report. It wasn’t hot enough for steel to melt. As for aluminum…
Ah, that’s enough. Look, Ashley, go and study the 9-11 myths and Internet Detectives sites. You sound like a newbie to 9-11, it will help you understand what occurred on 9-11. Check out screwloosechangeblogspot as well. The top section has excellent reports about 9-11.
Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 3:09 pm |Link to this
Paul W
4 posts on the trot and I am raving lol. Look Paul you are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. As for calling me a moron you didn’t just do that you ignored half of my post. You have not, as you claim, answered my idiotic comments (which is in itself another personal attack). Why are you getting yourself worked up in to such a frenzy that you have to insult people. I’m not insulting you so why do you feel the need?
Anyway myself and 3yo kid aren’t alone, 36% of people questioned in a national poll in the US believe that the US administration was complicit in some way. There are former members of the intelligence community that believe it was an inside job, a former prime minister of a western country, physics professors, architects, first responders, employees that were there on the day, firemen, policemen, civil engineers, soldiers and countless millions of other people from all walks of life (but of course you know more than all of these put together).
It is not an open and shut case as you would like the rest of the world to believe and do you know what would appease many of these people? A new well funded and powerful inquiry that covers all the bases, rather than starting with a conclusion and looking only for facts which prove them right.
Some of your responses are clearly wrong, ‘pull’ is an industry term for controlled demolition, anyway what did Larry Silverstein mean when he said it? The only answer he has managed to give is to pull the firefighters out of the building, this is a clear lie as no firefighting took place inside WTC7 according to a member of NIST and according to the FEMA report. Now such a clear inconsistency should be investigated, expecially when you consider more than 3,000 people died on that day and countless others are ill from the dust clouds that they were told were safe (let alone the illegal invasion of a sovereign country that ensued as a direct result).
A new investigation is required and all and sundry should be able to put their POV in to that (even the loopy space weapons and holograms ideas etc) so that every avenue can be explored.
Looking at the evidence, the most obvious cause for those buildings to fall were demolition charges, now believers of the official story are coming up with stuff like ‘the molten metal seen coming out of the building is a UPS that was on the 81st floor’ and all sorts of other explainations to anomolies and you are eating them up like a spoon fed baby (btw Aluminum doesn’t glow bright yellow when molten, go find it out for yourself). Now I am sure you are aware that in the archive footage of the collapse there is a clear shot of yellow glowing metal coming out of the building just before collapse, this is consistent with the use of thermate or thermite. Also there are countless interviews with clean up crews and footage that says and shows in no uncertain terms that there were pools of molten metal in the clean up site. Now if the temperatures weren’t hot enough to melt the steel (which is a conclusion of the NIST report), then where did the molten metal come from?
Please don’t patronise me Paul and tell me how much more you know than me, because at best you look bigheaded but to 36% of Amricans you look like something a lot less generous.
Now I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier when you confused the NIST Report with the Kean Report (9-11 commission report) I am less inclined to do so really but I would stop short of calling you names out of politeness. Stop telling people to go and read the NIST report, you clearly haven’t read it but you seem to place a lot of faith in it.
You say that the buldings didn’t collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition but in a similar manner. For the benefit of everyone reading this please can you outline the main differences as you see them? (oh and I’m not on about what NIST says, I’m on about what it looked like)
You say that the woman seen looking out of the entry hole is there after the fires have moved on elsewhere, I’m interested to know how the steel supports were weakened due to fire as the only place where the Kerosene was is where the plane was (or is there some special non-conspiracy kerosene that climbs up stairwells and ignites itself on higher floors?). The reason I ask this is that a standard office fire without the accellerant kerosene would burn at a substantially lower temperature.
If, as you claim, the fire had moved elsewhere that would imply that the kerosene had all burnt off and that the temperature in that area had dropped low enough for people to walk about in it. How on earth are we to believe that with temperatures low enbough for people to survive, steel certified to 2750F for 2 hours weakened enough for collapse? (at a substantially lower temperature for a substantially shorter period of time).
You say that the symtyrical collapses due to asymetrical damage is explained in NIST (not to the satisfaction of a good deal of people), but then you go on to say it will be explained in the upcoming WTC7 report. Now are you clairvoyant, so important you have been given a sneak preview or just plain guessing?
You just appear to be going off to any site you can find in google and quoting their debunking, now I’d like to know have all of these sources been peer reviewed Paul or are you just taking their word for it?
I don’t believe every 9-11 conspiracy out there as I have stated before, but you appear to hold as gospel any piece of information that gives you a chance to debunk. I have used my own critical faculties to come to my own conclusions from looking at the evidence (archive footage etc), a rudimentary understanding of physics, common sense and real world knowledge. You appear to just be putting all your eggs in the debunking websites basket.
To be honest Paul I hope you are right, because if you aren’t then there are bigger problems in the world than the non-existent nuclear weapons program of Iran and the US hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East.
Do you think it is reasonable that $40M is spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal but only $500,000 on the Kean Report? Don’t you think that it is an insult to those who died on the day and since due to the events of that day?
If I was a relative of one of the victims I would be absolutely outraged that the philandering of one man is seen to be 80 times more important that the deaths of 3,000 odd people and the subsequent deaths from the effects.
Wouldn’t you like to see a new inquiry? All of your debunking could be made official instead of guesswork. Then you wouldn’t have to put up with idiotic morons like me.
from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS - whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics.
Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 4:05 pm |Link to this
MaxPane
Could you define antisemitism for us before we talk about it, as sometimes anything remotely critical of Israel is called antisemitism. What do you mean by it?
As far as I’m concerned it doesn’t matter that Israel is a Jewish state, it is a sovereign state first and foremost and is responsible for its actions, the racial or religious make up of its population is neither here nor there. If it was, then surely we are being hateful when we talk disparagingly about Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan.
For instance is the idea that the CIA and Mossad could be in some way related to the 9-11 attacks in order to promote the idea of war with Iraq antisemitic?
I like what Robert Fisk says he feels like when he talks about Israel, ‘it’s like trying to ride two bikes at the same time’.
Toby Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 4:11 pm |Link to this
The “9/11 was an inside job” theory relies in part upon evidence of molten metal found at ground zero.
Deutsch Bank hired a firm, RJ Lee Group, to conduct tests on the WTC dust as part of a study of how to clean up their area. Their report concludes:
“Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).”
Similar spherical particles were found by Professor Stephen Jones.
The melting point of steel and iron is known. Therefore this is direct and irrefutable evidence of temperatures exceeding those which are possible by hydrocarbon (jet fuel) fires. The existance of molten metal on the scene is backed up by eyewitnesses testimony, while these extreme temperatures were also recorded by NASA thermal satellite images.
NIST denies this evidence exists, although they have admitted that they themselves did not look for such evidence, their reasoning being “there’s no point looking for something that isn’t there.”
Can we agree that since there is evidence of temperatures beyond those which are possible by hyrdocarbon fires, then there should be a new investigation?
Could such molten and evaporated metal affect the building collapse? Or is it insignificant? If you think these high temperatures contributed to the collapse, then wouldn’t it be sensible to find out what caused such temperatures?
It would help us to more fully understand the mechanism of the collapse and prevent such disasters in the future. The NIST report theorises on the conditions and events that lead up to the collapse of the towers, but stops at the actual moment of collapse.
NIST ignores evidence of molten iron (or steel), because it states that hydrocarbon fires cannot burn hot enough to melt steel or iron. Therefore, according to NIST, these spherical particles cannot exist.
This shouldn’t be about “who is right.” This is an important issue concerning the safety of steel structures, especially for those who live or work inside them. There are still questions that need to be answered.
3 year old kid Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 5:44 pm |Link to this
It is irrelevant if people believe the Holocaust or not, So WHAT? Who cares about what happened 60+ years ago?
That was then – this is now!
What we should be doing is Exposing this Hit Piece radio broadcast for what it is –
It is promoting the distrust of Professionals such as 400+ Professional Architects and Engineers at http://www.ae911truth.org/ from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS - whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics by peddling nonsense about Holocaust denial.
Let us Examine the scientific method used for this “Cretins Guide to 911” and utterly debunk them :-
I repeat myself:-
They wheel in this disgruntled socialists/ Commey from “Cult Watch” who was told to clear off by “the Troofers” , is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake self confessed UFO NUT who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it – when neither of these brainy Chaps has even the savvy to question if the CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official outrageous 911 Conspiracy plot.
I mean - what is going on?
So – Is Osmar Bin-whatever wanted by the CIA for 911 or NOT? AND IF NOT – Why NOT?
3 year old kid Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 6:13 pm |Link to this
It is irrelevant if people believe the Holocaust or not, So WHAT? Who cares about what happened 60+ years ago?
That was then – this is now!
What we should be doing is Exposing this Hit Piece radio broadcast for what it is –
It is promoting the distrust of Professionals such as 400+ Professional Architects and Engineers from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS - whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics by peddling nonsense about Holocaust denial.
Let us Examine the scientific method used for this “Cretins Guide to 911” and utterly debunk them :-
I repeat myself:-
They wheel in this disgruntled socialists/ Commey from “Cult Watch” who was told to clear off by “the Troofers” , is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake self confessed UFO NUT who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it – when neither of these brainy Chaps has even the savvy to question if the CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official outrageous 911 Conspiracy plot.
I mean - what is going on?
So – Is Osmar Bin-whatever wanted by the CIA for 911 or NOT? AND IF NOT – Why NOT?
Does anyone else see a big problem here?
Does anyone else understand that If the truth is not exposed many more lives will continue to be lost.
Tina Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 9:01 pm |Link to this
3 year old kid “It is irrelevant if people believe the Holocaust or not, So WHAT? Who cares about what happened 60+ years ago?”
WOAH!!! Ok, who mentioned the ‘relevance’ of the Holocaust anyway?? And I think you’ll find there is a fairly sizeable group who still do care what happened 60+ years ago. Just ask any Holocaust survivor or families that were affected by it. You’re claim there is not only offensive but shocking!
Anyway, I came here to comment not about that, but felt that needed addressing!
The interesting thing is that this original article is about a radio programme that aired which discuss the movement….I think we have some more ‘evidence’ about this group here! (If evidence is the right word here?!)
Firstly, I thought the radio programme was a fair balance and was very interesting to listen to. Of course ‘truthers’ are not going to agree with the sentiments of the progamme, after all there is a clue in the name of the documentary!
Why is it that when people do not agree with this movement, they seem to immediately label people (eg ‘cretins’ on this comment thread) and shoot people down? Why not just discuss it rather than getting all ranty. Reminds me of the more extreme Christian preachers shouting fire and brimstone from the pulpits!
Also, would be interesting to know if ‘3 year old kid’ and ‘Ashley’ have read the Commission Report FULLY? Along with any other truthers out there.
I’ve heard truthers argue that physicists and other professionals have declared their work on what they felt happened on 9/11, but the thing is,if you are not a physicist, how can verify their findings? Surely this would have to be on a ‘trust’ foundation. Interesting that a leading figure in the truth movement is Prof. David Ray Giffin - a Theology professor. But he then doesn’t seem to talk in regards to his field of expertise.
Anyway, going back to the original point of all these discussions…..
Comments made in the radio programme about the conduct of truthers seem to be accurate based on comments made here by a few! Interesting to note that although their comments may be long, they are fewer in numbers.
I think more of an issue is this issue of conduct of truthers.
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely.News Forum
Rather than calling it the Cynic’s Guide, it should be called the CRETINS GUIDE. Em vez de chamar-lhe a Cynic's Guide, deverá ser chamado o GUIA cretinos.
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? Talvez Nick pólo pode explicar porque Building 007 foi totalmente omitido até mesmo a partir de uma única menção no Relatório da Comissão viu a ser tão bom e abrangente?
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? Você suponho que acidentalmente se esqueceu de mencionar 3 e 2 edifícios não foram desintegradas a poeira e escombros pouco sobre o dia de 911?
How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each? Como é que estes personagens explicam o NIST alegação de que as duas torres altas foram aniquiladas em menos de 10 segundos cada?
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. Todas as novidades sobre este jato travamentos e queima prédio é totalmente irrelevante - Como pode a 80 + incólumes, mais fortes e mais pesados Bottom andares (ao abrigo do jato crash andares), pó para ser esmagado escombros areia no interior, (de acordo com o NIST, os elementos de prova e vídeo dados sísmicos) 10 segundos, quando se fosse um vazio de 417 metros do topo vácuo através caiu pouco -, seriam necessários 9,22 segundo Precisamente.
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? Como pode um prédio ao lado de não oferecer resistência ainda 1 segundo antes do início da destruição seqüência o próprio facto o edifício foi ereta afirma que havia um mínimo de 1 vezes carga de trabalho?
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. Mas se você observar o projecto do edifício foi projetado com a carga de trabalho 3 vezes em mente, como sempre mais de 100% redundância assim como a construção códigos.
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 - Então, vendo como, por exemplo, o 50o andar incólumes foi concebido para o transporte de 3 vezes as 60 andares acima dele, e nós estamos garantido que teve de proceder, pelo menos, 1 vezes os 60 andares acima dele, e os pisos inferiores do que as mais duras e mais pesada Foram --
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. Não é fisicamente possível colapso de um corpo através do caminho de resistência mais próximo a velocidade livre - ele desafia todos os senso comum e, pelo menos, três leis da física.
So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges? Portanto, se não poderia destruir o Gravity 110 edifícios dentro de 10 segundos cada - o que é que se não demolição explosivos e cortador encargos?
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 não mesmo que seja fisicamente possível para a gravidade da queima para destruir edifícios dentro de 10 segundos Física como é verdade -, então não foi o fogo ou a jacto crash nem os terroristas que trouxe os edifícios estabelece a 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. Mesmo adicionais bombas na cave e da população não iria destruir os edifícios em 10 segundos, uma vez que exigiria precisão conjunto, a precisão cronometrada em demolição, pelo menos, de três em três, se não a cada segundo andar.