1犬儒学派的指南9 / 11阴谋论

49 Responses to “A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” 49的反应， “犬儒学派的指南9 / 11阴谋论”

3 year old Kid 3岁的孩子
Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月14日在下午10时28分| Link to this 链接到本

Rather than calling it the Cynic’s Guide, it should be called the CRETINS GUIDE.而不是要求它犬儒学派的指南，它应被称为cretins指南。

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?也许尼克极点可以解释为什么建设007是完全省略，甚至一单提，委员会的报告，他发现如此良好的和全面的？

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?你假设他们不小心忘了提三，而不是2建筑物解体，防灰尘和小碎石在当天的911呢？

How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each?如何解释这些字符NIST的索赔，这两个发射塔被歼灭，在不到10秒钟，每个？

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.这一切的东西关于Jet崩溃和燃烧的建设是完全不相干的-如何能8 0+完好无损的，最强与最重的底部（下上空坠毁，机上地板），被压尘砂废墟内，（根据N IST的;视频证据和地震数据） 10秒时，如果它是一个417米长的空真空顶端位下跌通过-将采取九点二二秒正是。

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?如何能建设提供旁边没有抵抗，但一秒之前开始销毁序列非常事实上，建设是正派的国家，它有一个最低限度的1倍的工作负荷？

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.然而，如果你观察的蓝图，建设，设计与3倍的工作负荷，在铭记，因为他们总是有更多的超过100 ％的冗余作为是建筑法规。

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 -所以，看到作为，例如未受50楼的设计进行3倍， 60层以上，而我们保证它已进行至少1倍， 60层以上，并且低楼层的强硬和加重他们人-

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.它只是没有身体可能崩溃，一个机构通过的路径最阻力位在附近的免费高速-它无视所有普通常识和至少有三个物理定律。

So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges?所以，如果重力无法摧毁110大厦10秒，每个-什么如果不拆卸爆炸物和刀具收费呢？

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.如果这是身体甚至没有可能的严重性，破坏燃烧建筑物的10秒作为是物理事实-那是不是火灾或飞机坠毁，也不是恐怖谁带来的建筑物，对9 11。

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.甚至额外的炸弹在地下室和其他地方不会破坏建筑物在10秒;便需要精确设定，精确定时拆卸就至少每三分之一，如果不是每个二楼。

Reply回复

3 year old Kid 3岁的孩子
Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:53 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月14日在下午10时53分| Link to this 链接到本

Its like this, over 400 Architects and Engineers, myself included - prove the 911 destruction was controlled demolition.其这样，超过400名建筑师和工程师，包括我在内-证明9 11销毁控制拆卸。

Here is all the absolute proof这里是所有的绝对证明

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Reply回复

Sul 无薪假期
Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:36 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月14日在下午11时36分| Link to this 链接到本

Conspiraloon Alert! conspiraloon警报！
Reply回复

Longman 朗文
Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:44 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月14日在下午11时44分| Link to this 链接到本

No really.没有真的。 How many architects, engineers, physics etc have said there’sa problem with the “official” story?有多少建筑师，工程师，物理等，说有问题，与“官方”的故事呢？ Not bleedin many.不bleedin很多。 And most of those who have are doing so to further their own agenda.和大多数人谁也正在这样做，以进一步他们自己的议程。 Wise up.明智的。

Reply回复

paul w 保罗瓦特
Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:46 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月14日在下午11时46分| Link to this 链接到本

3 year old Kid 3岁的孩子
Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm发布时间： 2008年6月14日在下午10时28分

The question is how can you be so totally ignorant?问题是你如何能如此完全无知？ Go and read the following websites:去，并宣读了下列网站：

9-11 Myths 9月11日神话
Screwloosechange.blog screwloosechange.blog
Internet Detectives.互联网侦探。

All your questions will be answered.您所有的问题将得到答复。

Reply回复

paul w 保罗瓦特
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 12:26 am | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日在上午12时26分| Link to this 链接到本

“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?” “也许尼克极点可以解释为什么建设007是完全省略，甚至一单提，委员会的报告，他发现如此良好的和全面的” ？

It wasn’t their job.这不是他们的工作。 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.)一份报告wtc7目前正在进行，并可望很快获得释放（和之前你说'为何要这么长时间？ '你必须记住，不像9月11日truther垃圾，这些报告都必须准确，科学和专业）。

“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?” “你假设他们不小心忘了提三，而不是2建筑物解体，防灰尘和小碎石在当天的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’.这是因为建筑物没有'分化成尘' ，我不会致电遗留下来的两塔'小成堆的垃圾' 。

You do, but then, you’re a truther.你这样做，但随后，您是truther 。 What has reality got to do with anything?有什么现实到了与什么呢？

“How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each?” “如何做这些字符解释NIST的索赔，这两个发射塔被歼灭，在不到10秒钟，每个” ？

Have you actually READ the NIST report?你其实读NIST的报告呢？ Please do.请勿。

“All this stuff about jet crashes and burning building is totally irrelevant” “这一切的东西关于Jet崩溃和燃烧的建设是完全无关”

???????

“How can the 80+ UNDAMAGED, Strongest & Heaviest Bottom floors (under the jet crash floors), be crushed to dust sand rubble within” “如何能80 +完好无损的，最强与最重的底部（下上空坠毁，机上地板），被压尘砂瓦砾内部”

Er, have you READ the NIST report?呃，你阅读NIST的报告呢？ Please do.请勿。

(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.) （塔'樽'所用的内核栏目和外层空间皮肤的实力，楼层暂停两国之间的，因此，开放式设计的楼层）。

“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.” “根据NIST的;录像证据和地震资料） 10秒时，如果它是一个417米长的空真空顶端位下跌通过-将采取9 .22秒正是” 。

Er, have you READ the NIST report?呃，你阅读NIST的报告呢？ Please do.请勿。

“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? “如何能建设提供旁边没有抵抗，但一秒之前开始销毁序列非常事实上，建设是正派的国家，它有一个最低限度的1倍的工作负荷？ 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.”然而，如果你观察的蓝图，建设，设计与3倍的工作负荷，在铭记，因为他们总是有更多的超过100 ％的冗余作为是建筑法规“ 。

???????? (no, really, have you READ the NIST report?) （没有，真的，你阅读NIST的报告？）

“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..” “所以，看到作为，例如未受50楼的设计进行3倍， 60层以上，而我们保证它已进行至少1倍， 60层以上，并且低楼层的强硬和加重他们.. “

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).没有，地板没有被设计进行60 flo0rs以上（阅读上述评论关于塔设计，并宣读了NIST的报告）。

“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.” “这是刚才不是身体有可能崩溃，一个机构通过的路径最阻力位在附近的免费高速-它无视所有普通常识和至少有三个物理定律” 。

And what, precisely, are there three laws of physics?什么，确切地说，有3物理定律？ (the Nobel prize for anyone who can answer this correctly) （诺贝尔文学奖的人谁可以回答这个正确）

So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges?”所以，如果重力无法摧毁110大厦10秒，每个-什么如果不拆卸爆炸物和刀具收费“ ？

Er, gravity without a capital ‘g’?呃，重力，没有一个资本'克' ？

“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. “如果是身体甚至没有可能的严重性，破坏燃烧建筑物的10秒作为是物理事实-那是不是火灾或飞机坠毁，也不是恐怖谁带来的建筑物，对9 11。

A ‘Physics fact’ Really? '物理事实， '真的吗？

“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.” “即使是额外的炸弹在地下室和其他地方不会破坏建筑物在10秒;便需要精确设定，精确定时拆卸就至少每三分之一，如果不是每个二楼” 。

Phew, glad you cleared that up! phew ，很高兴您是否已清除，直至！

Reply回复

Dave D 戴夫d
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 1:57 am | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日在上午01时57分| Link to this 链接到本

911 conspiracies = DEBUNKED 911阴谋= debunked

Reply回复

Sail 启航
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 2:14 am | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日在上午02时14分| Link to this 链接到本

Great show!伟大的演出！ How about a part 2?如何约1第2部分？

Now we have more people speaking AGAINST the truth movement than actually belong to the movement.现在我们有更多的人发言反对真理运动比，其实属于运动。

Reply回复

john 约翰
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:33 am | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日在上午8时33分| Link to this 链接到本

to all the counter intelligence people that are posting lies please be aware that the truth will out and you will be punished.所有的反情报的人是调职在于请注意，真相会出来，你将受到惩罚。 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.通知指出家伙谁试图反3岁孩子的索赔，给没有任何事实本身，告诉你，看一份报告，表示他不引用任何来自等研究所有驳斥地点和面试所有这些显然是假的因为他们从来没有解决的事实，只是攻击的性格。

http://www.netctr.com

Reply回复

Neil 尼尔
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日在上午10时25分| Link to this 链接到本

I was responsible for this documentary, so it’s nice to see it’s provoking a reaction.我是负责这方面的纪录片，所以很高兴看到它的挑衅反应。

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岁的孩子-霍绍极并没有提及任何关于建设7 ，因为我们没有发言，向他（谁他可能）。 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.尼克教宗可能并没有提到它，因为，老实说，我们只有约15分钟的发言时间给他（我们花了大部分的时间，我们曾与他谈论ufos ，他的专长领域。）既不是他也不是我的专家当谈到诸如此类的事情。 His was a good contribution because he talked about looking at Truth Movement evidence alongside evidence put forward that explains the generally accepted narrative.他是一个很好的贡献，因为他谈到看真相运动的证据，除了提出证据，说明人们普遍接受的叙述。 His experience of getting hate mail from Truthers was very interesting, I found.他的经验越来越仇恨邮件从truthers是很有趣的，我发现。

I’d be very interested in seeing the evidence you have for precision timed demolition on every third or second floor.我要非常有兴趣看到的证据你有精确定时拆卸每一个第三或二楼。 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.证人的这些拆毁正在建立的，也许其中的人谁定拆毁，至今一向racked与罪恶感在的后果，他的行动。 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.如果您-或其他任何人对这个问题-这样的东西，请取得联系，我们将奉献整个三个小时的表演。

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.我们并没有提到它，因为纪录片只有17分钟-它的努力包括一个主题一样大9 / 1 1阴谋论，在这么短的时间。 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.此外，我们的工作假设，即广大的听众并没有真正意识到阴谋理论，因此我们不得不这样做，从一个常设的开始，所以发言。 Given more time, I’m sure we would have covered things in more detail.给予更多时间，我敢肯定，我们将涵盖的东西，更详细。

Also, if you think only three buildings were destroyed at the World Trade Center site that day, you need to do more research.同时，如果您认为只有3幢建筑物被摧毁，在世界贸易中心网站的那一天，你需要做更多的研究。

Paul W - What was it one of the people in the debate talked about?保罗瓦特-什么是它其中的人在辩论中谈到了呢？ “Confirmation bias”? “确认偏见”呢？ He’s depressingly right when it comes to the truthers, I’ve found.他的令人沮丧的权利，当谈到该truthers后，我发现。

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.启航-我们要做的犬儒学派的指南，更多的事情（ u fos，正如我刚才所说，将一），但我希望，也许返回到真理运动，或者也许一对阴谋论的一般问题。

Reply回复

Matthew Revell 马修Revell ）
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 12:08 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日在下午12时08分| Link to this 链接到本

I’m Neil’s co-host on the Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute (ie the other cretin).我尼尔的合作，东道国对伍尔弗汉普顿radiophonic研究所（即其他cretin ）。 Just like to note that our website is只是想指出，我们的网站 www.radiophonic.org.uk, www.radiophonic.org.uk ， where you’ll also shortly be able to subscribe to a podcast of the show.在这里您可以在短期内也可以订阅播客的展示。

Reply回复

c0intelpr0 c0intelpr0
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日在下午2时14分| Link to this 链接到本

WTC 7 - The Truth Exposed世贸中心7 -真相暴露

Debunking the lies and misrepresentations of the so-called 9/11 ‘Truth’ movement regarding World Trade Center Building 7.驳斥谎言和歪曲了所谓9 / 11 '真相'运动就世界贸易中心大厦7 。

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

Reply回复

Reptor reptor
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 7:33 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日在下午7点33分| Link to this 链接到本

You guys have hit the nail on the head.你们有一针见血地的头部。 Kudos to you both for having the balls to produce this, I’m sure many truthers will be calling for blood now.给你的声望都因球产生这一点，我敢肯定，许多truthers将要求抽血现在。

Any report on the kind of feedback you’ve had since the show?任何报告中关于种反馈您已自戏呢？

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.请记住我们的所有通知您这样做，谢谢所有谁有胆量参与和促进这说明了。

The cult is slowly being exposed thanks to brave efforts like this.邪教是慢慢地被暴露感谢勇敢的努力，这样的。

Reply回复

3 year old kid 3岁的孩子
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 7:51 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日在下午7点51分| Link to this 链接到本

I stand by what I say, it was the Cretins guide to 911.我坚持我所说的，这是cretins指南911 。

A guide By cretins - For Cretins. 1指南由cretins -c retins。

Forget who was flying the jets and lost their passports and bandannas, etc, that is totally irrelevant re the destruction sequence.忘记谁是飞行消防喉及失去了他们的护照和bandannas等，这是完全不相干的重新销毁序列。

It is not physically possible to have a falling body fall through the path of most resistance.这不是身体可能有一个自由落体运动秋天通过的道路，大部分阻力。 EVER NEVER!!!!!以往任何时候都从来没有!!!!!

And to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed is even more impossible than impossible.和秋天通过的道路，大部分阻力位在附近的freefall的速度，更是不可能比是不可能的。

Just, a minute I am falling over with laughter, hold on.刚才，一分钟我下降超过与笑声，就举行。

Sorry about that, I could not type and laugh at the same time.对不起，我不能类型和笑声在同一时间内。

Why are qualified people unwilling to come forward?为什么有资格的人不愿挺身而出？

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.物理911是这么简单，一般人谁的价值观，他们的职业生涯将不会触及它-因为它是如此明显地控制拆卸。

I now need to go and watch cartoons.我现在需要去和观赏卡通片。

However, for those who want the professional opinion of 400 Architects and Engineers regarding the Controlled Demolitions on 911 go Here:-不过，对于谁想要的专业意见， 400的建筑师和工程师关于控制拆迁对911到这里： -

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Reply回复

Ashley 亚士厘
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日晚上8时35分| Link to this 链接到本

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).是啊，这些troofers我不知道，我敢肯定，有逻辑explainations为崩溃，三钢框架建筑物在他们自己的足迹（只有3钢框架syscrapers崩溃，由于火灾损伤在历史上）。

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.我不是科学家，所以我不能给答案，至于如何将这些建筑物并没有推翻（如逻辑期望，因为他们被击中就一方），我也无法给你一个解释至于如何喷气燃料在燃烧最多1500f可熔融钢已认证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).我敢肯定，英国广播公司（ iirc和有线电视新闻网）有一个阐释如何，他们预测的崩溃， wtc7大约25分钟，然后它的崩溃（我刚才似乎无法找到explainations这虽然狩猎为他们）。 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).如果我预言someones谋杀我敢肯定，它会彻底调查，但这种检查我们的英国广播公司并不需要（一考试将是一个有点问题，因为英国广播公司表示，他们已经拥有失去了他们所有的片段，从9月11日2001年，相当惊人，如果属实）。

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)当然，新美国世纪工程报告，说的愿望，美国传播他们的民主，不会有足够的支持，如果没有某种形式的'新珍珠港'不是预测任何形式的（出版一年前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.奇怪的，缺乏的战斗机超过最受保护的一块领空，在世界上（五角大楼），又是可以理解的（尽管不是向我）和二公布的闭路电视图像是唯一的画面，飞机，尽管数额相机注意力集中在这建设。

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.有趣的是如何拉姆斯菲尔德了3种不同的帐目，他的行动，于当天上午9月11日向委员会和他们，而不是质疑这个，他们结合起来， 2账目和完全无视其他。

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).当然事实，即良好岁的切尼说，他在抵达白宫掩体上午十时，尽管证人把他有大约35分钟前（即前，这架飞机击中，五角大楼）。 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).切尼也说，据报道，有关平面走向五角大楼在40 ， 30 ， 20和10英里，并有人问'如果订单仍然站在'他说，他们（这些显然是不争的命令，以喉拦截这架飞机是标准程序操作，因为这些订单从未放弃）。

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).你的朋友和排雷乔治dubya说，他看到的第一个射流击中大楼前，他在会议上与他的智力上级在学前课堂（这是当然不可能作为唯一的画面，这是不是显示，直到翌日）。 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.当他被告知的第二架飞机击中他坐在那里的另一个20分钟读一本书约山羊，而非回应明显的问题。

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).那么当然dubya花了无穷的时间，尝试连接伊拉克与乌萨马和攻击（尽管，以及众所周知的事实是，乌萨马恨萨达姆几乎高达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.我完全与乔治时，他说'让我们绝对不能容忍的离谱的阴谋论有关的攻击9月11日' ，这只是我不认为他是看在同阴谋论作为我。

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.嘿浩将是伊拉克明年，他们目前正在告诉他们停止核武器计划，尽管事实上原子能机构表示，他们没有一。 There’ll be some poxy Powerpoint presentation on their nuclear prowess (that or a false flag of some description).将有一些poxy PowerPoint简报关于其核力量（即或虚假的旗帜一些描述）。 The endless war on terror really will be endless if we carry on chasing weapons that don’t exist.永无止境的反恐战争真的会层出不穷，如果我们进行对追逐的武器并不存在。

Reply回复

3 year old kid 3岁的孩子
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日在下午8时36分| Link to this 链接到本

So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance?因此，举手，谁认为这是身体，甚至有可能一落体通过的路径最反抗？

Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed?其次，谁认为这是身体，甚至可能下降，通过的路径最阻力位在附近的freefall的速度呢？

That is - in the absence of controlled demolition.这是-在没有控制的拆卸。

Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth.这里是我最喜爱的网站看到： -建筑师和工程师为9 11的真相。

http://www.ae911truth.org/

There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details有400名专业人士为您要问，只是给他们发邮件的详情

Reply回复

Reptor reptor
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 9:01 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日在下午9点01分| Link to this 链接到本

400 professionals? 400专才？ Around the whole world you manage to find 400?周围的整个世界你设法找到400呢？ Is that it?是它？ If there was any fact in these claims then ALL engineers etc would be crying out.如果有任何事实上，在这些索赔，然后所有工程师等，将哭出来。 In fact from the 400 professionals how many are experts in the fields relevant to the science of these claims?事实上，从400名专业人士，有多少是专家们在有关领域的科学这些索赔？

Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked.每一个理论所提出的真理运动已debunked 。 You might not like it.您可能不喜欢它。 It might not sit with your opinion but that’s the facts.它可能不会坐视与您的意见，而是认为的事实。 Deal with it.处理这个问题。 You got it wrong.你犯了错。

Reply回复

Ashley 亚士厘
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 9:53 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日在下午9点53分| Link to this 链接到本

Reptor what are you on about? reptor是什么，你就什么呢？ Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked?每一个理论所提出的真理运动已debunked ？ Where’s this?哪里的呢？ In Wonderland?在仙境？ A lot of the debunking has since been debunked but you fail to mention that in any way, shape or form.有很多的驳斥，至今一向debunked ，但你没有提到以任何方式，形状或形式。

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).有这么许多无法回答的问题，这是积极的可笑，我猜想这就是为什么有这么多的人呼吁建立一个'适当的'调查（内外美利坚合众国）。

Do you dispute the idea that western governments have proposed and even carried out false flag operations to further their own agendas?你争端的观念，西方国家政府建议，甚至进行虚假国旗的行动，以进一步自己的议程？ Have a look in to Operation Gladio in Europe and Operation Northwoods in the US.一看，在运作gladio在欧洲和运作northwoods在美国。

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.这是绝对惊人的一名前意大利总理可以评论沿线'的所有情报界知道中情局和摩萨德进行了9月11日' ，这是所有，但不容忽视。

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如果您有一个看视频的地方乌萨马索赔的责任，为9月11日袭击观赏，看看哪个手，这'本'的用途写，然后访问 http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm and notice that it says ‘Bin Laden is left-handed’.并通知它说， '拉登是惯用左手的' 。 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.奇怪的，但真正的，我猜你会反驳说，乌萨马没有对测试的目的，我们的超级特工或一些这样的cobblers 。

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.如果你们真的认为一bloke在一个洞穴与负荷，他的队友们武装起来的boxcutters可以进行这些攻击的话，我认为你需要重新评估的证据。

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.我注意到，最近有建议，安装设备，在飞机，让使用手提电话，这肯定是没用的高科技，因为这是已经有可能在美国的93近7年前。 so what gives?因此，怎么办？

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.就像我说的金额不一致，半真理和明显的不实，是否有任何人与愿意的外观和心态不够开放，认为政府并不总是讲真话，以本国公民。

For me the one which clinches it is seeing 3 steel framed buildings collapsing in to their own footprints.对我来说，其中clinches ，这是看到三钢框架建筑物倒塌在他们自己的脚印。 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.我不是专家，但我知道，甚至拆房队，并不能保证这种情况出现，当他们的地方，收费及这样做的目的。

2 of the 3 buildings were hit by planes, if they had weakened the structure sufficently it would have been on one side of the building along with the fires being concentrated on that side also thus I would expect them to fall over rather than in to themselves (imagine a Jenga tower, flick out a block on one side, start a fire in that space and what would you expect to happen? I bet the last thing you’re thinking is a nice neat pile, it would go over to one side). 2 3建筑物被击中飞机，如果他们削弱了结构不够会已就一个方面的建设，随着火灾被集中在这方面也因此，我会期望他们跌倒而不是在自己（想象一个jenga塔，弹簧刀了一个区块，一方面，开始发生火警，在这方面的空间和你会怎样预期的情况呢？我敢打赌，过去的事您的想法是，好整齐桩，它将走一方）。

Then there’s WTC7 (although looking at the Commission’s report you’d do well to notice it).然后还有wtc7 （虽然看在委员会的报告，您要做好通知）。 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.该explainaition这个崩溃的是，它捕获的防火，从其中的其他建筑物倒塌，一些柴油坦克陷入对消防和alakazzam另一尼斯整齐桩。 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.现在据我担心钢强化，以抵御2750f火灾2小时倒塌，由于avaiation燃料火灾具有最高的1500f在1小时和1位是一件事，（大部分的燃料焚烧，在火球时，飞机击中的建设，无论如何也有照片，人们站在看出来那里的飞机击中，肯定他们将有相当字面上融化，如果我们要相信在钢塔没有），但相信柴油是大大减少可燃可以做同样的类似的东西从一个童话。

You can believe what you want at the end of the day, everyone has the right to make up their own mind.你可以相信你想要在一天结束时，每个人都有权利，以弥补自己的主意。 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.如果您想要吞下什么，我认为，作为学士学位，然后说的最多你和我都没有关注，试图说服你，否则，但请你停止尝试，以符合您的眼罩对其他所有人，如果阴谋论，是迄今为止牵强，然后人会工作出来，为自己在未经您，尤其是品牌的troofiness 。

Reply回复

3 year old kid 3岁的孩子
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 10:22 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日在下午10时22分| Link to this 链接到本

Thank you Reptor, you are really making my day.谢谢reptor ，你是真的我的天。

Well, go on then just don’t talk about it - let us see the maths and actual Physics.好，继续下去，然后，只是不谈论它-让我们看到数学和物理的实际。

Debunk the Physics, now is your chance old chap.揭穿物理，现在是您的机会，老章。

Give us one single experiment or example were a falling body takes the path of most resistance due to gravity alone.给我们一个单一的实验或举例来说是一个自由落体运动采取的路径最抵抗因重力单。

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.其次，给我们一个单一的实验或举例来说是一个自由落体运动采取的路径最阻力和瀑布在近freefall速度，利用重力单。

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.然后只为加分，以证明我们合格的民俗不知道我们现在所谈论的，以及如何超级聪明的你-向世界展示数学备份索赔。

Please show the Physics and the Maths.请查看物理和数学。

Reply回复

Reptor reptor
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 11:24 pm | 发布时间： 2008年6月15日在下午11时24分| Link to this 链接到本

I don’t have to prove squat.我手边没有证明蹲下。 You’re the ones making ridiculous claims, it’s up to you to prove yourselves.您自己作出荒谬的索赔，它的成立给你，以证明自己。 You tried.您是否曾尝试。 You failed.你失败了。 Move on.继续前进。

If 911 was an inside job why haven’t the media reported on it?如果911是一个内部的工作，为什么没有媒体报道呢？ Why haven’t insurance companies refused to pay up?为什么没有保险的公司拒绝支付了？ Why hasn’t any one of the THOUSANDS of people who need to be in on it come forward?为什么没有任何一个数以千计的人谁，必须在资讯科技挺身而出？

Please troofers, try to think logically.请troofers ，试想想，在逻辑上。

Reply回复

Ashley 亚士厘
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 12:33 am | 发布时间： 2008年6月16日在上午12时33分| Link to this 链接到本

Hahaaaa Reptor your entire response to my problems with the official story consists of ‘they couldn’t possibly do that’. hahaaaa reptor您的整个回应我的问题，与官方的故事组成，他们不可能这样做' 。

Well I bow to your superior knowledge and reasoning, I can see from your responses that you are totally close minded on this issue.以及i低头到您的卓越的知识和推理，我可以看到，从您的回应，你是完全关闭的头脑在这个问题上。 All of the stuff I’ve put in my responses to you are freely available online, have a look in to it.所有的东西我已经在我的反应，您是免费提供的线上，一看在它的。

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).我们不是决策的东西了，没有planers及太空武器和全息图的布并不是我们正在从（这些理论在最佳所提出的白痴，或在最恶劣的故意企图油漆所有的人谁不属于对于官方的故事，作为nutcases ）。

My specific problems as listed above (at the risk of repeating myself) are: -我的具体问题上面列出的（在风险重复我自己）： -

Only 3 steel framed modern skyscrapers have suffered a collapse due to fire damage.只有3钢框架的现代摩天大厦遭受崩溃，由于火灾的损害。 All 3 of those happened on 9-11 and all 3 collapsed into their own footprint.所有三这些发生在9月11日和所有三倒塌到自己的足迹。 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.现在在我看来，造成的损害已asymetrical作为飞机的影响和主要的焦点，消防会已就一个方面的每一项建筑物。 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).如果这种影响和随后的火灾已融化钢铁（不可能因为要淬硬钢和燃烧温度煤油如上所述，但即使我们忽略这个事实），然后建筑物将有架子，由于热力学第二定律（法熵）。 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?现在，始终存在规则的一个例外，所以即使它违反了物理定律，我可能注销之一建筑物参展这种行为作为一个怪胎的发生，但3怪胎发生在同一天？ Puhrlease! 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?事实上，所有3建筑物倒塌，在附近的freefall速度（即如果没有阻力），如果你看看在尘云创造了从破碎/爆炸？ of the cement those clouds would have taken a lot of energy to create (ie made a lot of resistance).该水泥那些云彩会已采取了大量的精力，创造（即取得了很大的阻力）。 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).如果这些云彩已经建立了由自然崩溃，建筑物各楼层将已采取大量的时间崩溃和创造的尘云，这'抵抗'将放慢崩溃大幅（没有）。

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!事实上， wtc7并没有影响，从飞机，有什么似乎是一些小的火灾看录像，但唯一的推进剂，他们可以在这方面的建设是柴油燃烧的大幅凉，比煤油，但这座大楼的倒塌，由于这火灾时，煤油，甚至从飞机没有烧伤的热点，足以融化钢铁！

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’许多目击者描述爆炸wtc7因为它是折叠式，引述对nyfd雇员'有一种流行音乐，流行音乐，流行作为每层每到一地，像一个拆卸'

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.现在你所提到的保险公司，这是一个阴谋我，当我看到的录像，最近的买方和保险的党，国有wtc7 1拉里西尔弗斯坦对视频说如何，他同意与消防处，以'拉' wtc7 （ '拉'是一个长远的所使用的拆迁队伍，为内爆建筑物的使用引爆），我不知道如何在地球上，他们同意支付。 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.我敢肯定，我家保险公司将不会支付，如果我的房子被烧毁，而我是对的纪录说，我3月1 molitov鸡尾酒。

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?只是出于兴趣，我想知道你想出了思想，将采取'千'的人做一些事情是这样的，试想想，有关工作人员在怀特豪斯掩体要求切尼' ，如果秩序仍站在' ，如果这项命令是不争的战斗机，以保障五角大楼这样，工作人员不得不已在资讯科技或将他刚才已服从命令他的上司呢？ 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?他现在想站起来，并告知对切尼，有多远，他认为会得到他，除了多尔队列和损失的退休金等？ What could each person on their own know?有什么可每个人对自己知道吗？ It’s exactly how terrorist organisations work, in cells.它的究竟如何恐怖组织的工作，在细胞。 Ever heard the term ‘plausible deniability’?听说一词可能deniability '吗？ 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.整个阴谋无法查出，除非每个人在每一个部分，决定打击了哨子，现在每个人都有知识，将是一个很少的一部分，大图片，他们会看到他们的知识作为无关紧要。

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?我的意思的证据，美国和英国要战争显然是捏造的， 45分钟索赔，核武器和生物武器，移动化学实验室（一些学生认为，梦见了当时提出的事实），有多少人要已经参与了呢？ How many of them are likely to have signed the official secrets act or the American equivalent?其中有多少人可能已签署官方机密法令，或相等于美国？ 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.又有多少人会愿意冒险说明在监狱中，以打击该哨子对一些对自己并没有真正进行重视。

Some other random ones: -其他一些随机几点： -

How did the BBC and CNN predict the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before it collapsed?如何英国广播公司和有线电视新闻网预测的崩溃， wtc7大约25分钟，然后它倒塌？

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?为什么是乌萨马看到写作与他的右手在录像带中，他的索赔责任时，美国联邦调查局网站上明确表示，他是左手？ Did Osama forget which hand he writes with or are the FBI misinformed?当时乌萨马忘记，其中，另一方面，他写道或正在与联邦调查局误导？

Just because they say you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you ;)只是因为他们说您偏执，这并不意味着他们还没有得到你; ）

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?)一切问题，并寻找自己，不相信我还是相信别人，使自己的心（我只想说这是一个委员会的报告认为，成本1/80th的这笔钱用在寻找什么比尔克林顿是这样做与他的雪茄是不是最好的地方开始， NIST的，也无法取得真正的世界型号的水塔，以跌倒，使他们做了计算机仿真，使他们可以改变参数。嘿，这是不奇怪的人所要求的另一项调查吧？）

Reply回复

3 year old kid 3岁的孩子
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 12:38 am | 发布时间： 2008年6月16日在上午12时38分| Link to this 链接到本

Thank you for that failure to Debunk the 911 Controlled Demolition Physics Reptor.谢谢你，不揭穿911控制拆卸物理reptor 。

No one is forcing you to do anything old chap.没有人强迫你做任何事情岁的章。

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.我们不是你的敌人或敌对或某种怪异的邪教，我们是400 +建筑师和工程师，包括许多人究竟是谁设计和建造钢框架的摩天大楼。

But, if you claim some 400 professional Architects and Engineers at但是，如果您的索赔大约400名专业的建筑师和工程师在 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.是不正确，你甚至不能举一个例子一个自由落体运动走的道路，大部分阻力，然后你真的，并不代表任何公信力，如果你不能回了什么，你都声称。

All those questions you mention about why haven’t the media reported on it?所有这些问题你提到的，为什么没有媒体报道呢？ Why haven’t insurance companies refused to pay up?为什么没有保险的公司拒绝支付了？ Why hasn’t any one of the THOUSANDS of people who need to be in on it come forward?为什么没有任何一个数以千计的人谁，必须在资讯科技挺身而出？ Are nothing to do with Architects and Engineers for 911 truth.是完全不同的建筑师和工程师为911的真相。

To answer any of those questions would be pure speculation and engaging in conjecture and conspiracy theories.回答这些问题将是纯粹的投机活动和从事猜想和阴谋理论。

We at AE911truth.org only deal with Science and Engineering facts.我们在ae911truth.org只处理科学和工程的事实。

And the important indisputable 911 facts are these:-和重要的不争的事实是， 911这些： -

It is physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance.这是身体，不可能一自由落体运动通过的路径最阻力。

It is even more physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance at almost freefall speed.它更是身体，不可能一自由落体运动通过的路径最阻力几乎freefall速度。

Forget about if bandannas and passports were unburned whilst flying out of a suitcase that itself was totally incinerated.忘记如果bandannas和护照，未燃，而飞出的一个手提箱本身是完全焚化。 Forget that jet fighters failed to defend the pentagon despite being on guard 24/7.忘记喷气式战斗机未能捍卫尽管五角大楼正在对民警卫队24 / 7 。 All that sort of stuff is bum fluff.所有这类的东西是烧伤绒毛。

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.现在我会问你要么再次回到了你的索赔或停止尝试留下深刻的印象有关的东西，你清楚知道甚少。

As I have said before and I will say again, this particular media diatribe was A 911 guide By cretins - For Cretins.正如我以前说过，我会再说一遍，这尤其是媒体diatribe是一个911指南由cretins -c retins。

And the fact you cannot back up your ridiculous claims does somewhat prove my point.和事实，你不能备份您的荒谬的索赔是否有点证明我的论点。

Reply回复

Strug strug
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 1:43 am | 发布时间： 2008年6月16日在上午01时43分| Link to this 链接到本

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.什么你们中许多人都忽略了这个广播是，这是不看证据，这主要是在研究如何troofers进行自己。 Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories. troofers往往是蛮横的行为，一个邪教一样，攻击的方式，这些谁不支持他们的理论。

This has been proven on this very page.这已被证明对这个非常的网页。

Reply回复

Fawk Off fawk小康
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 1:45 am | 发布时间： 2008年6月16日在上午01时45分| Link to this 链接到本

Look at this site看看这个网站 http://www.debunking911.com

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

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

“I’m sure there are logical explainations for the collapse of 3 steel framed buildings in to their own footprint (the only 3 steel framed syscrapers to collapse due to fire damage in history).”

Yes, the logical explanations can be found in the NIST report. Have you read the NIST report?

“I’m no scientist so I can’t give answers as to how these buildings didn’t topple (as logic would expect as they were hit on one side”

You don’t need to be a scientist - for the building to ‘topple over’ it would require a force pushing from the side. There was none. The only force on the towers was the greatest; gravity. The towers had no-where else to go but straight down. What were they going to do, tap-dance around New York for a while? PS. Have you read the NIST report?

“I also cannot give you an explaination as to how jet fuel that burns at a maximum of 1500F could melt steel that had been certified to 2750F.”

That’s because it’s impossible. The steel didn’t melt, it was heated and LOST STRENGTH, as neatly explained in the NIST report. Have you read the NIST report?

“I’m sure the BBC (and IIRC CNN) have an explaination of how they predicted the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before its collapse (I just can’t seem to find explainations for this despite hunting for them).”

Hunt some more (hint: try 9-11 Myths, Screwloosechange or
Internet Detectives.) Everyone involved knew WTC7 was coming down, that’s why they cleared the area and no-one was killed. the building was gutted by savage, multi-floor fires, one side had massive structural damage from debris from the collapsing towers, and the fucking thing was starting to lean over at an alarming angle…so, they figured it was probably gonna fall. Funny that…

Also, it fell down because gravity was the greatest force, or do you believe it should have joined the towers in a pirouette around New York? have you read the NIST report?

“If I predicted someones murder I’m sure it would be investigated thoroughly….”

It was. The 9-11 investigation was the largest in US history (and the world?)

“Of course the PNAC report that said that the desires of America to spread their democracy would not have enough support without some kind of ‘new Pearl Harbour’ is not a prediction of any sort (published one year prior to 911)”

Sigh. The reference to a ‘new Pearl Harbour’ was taken completely out of context bu the 9-11 truthers. The comment came during a debate about military prowess. The speaker suggested that history showed military improvements often came after some sort of dramatic event which spurred R&D within the military. He suggested this would occur if there was another dramatic events like a ‘new Pearl Harbour’.

“The strange lack of fighter jets over the most protected piece of airspace in the world (the Pentagon) is again understandable (albeit not to me)”

One of the major findings of the investigation was a shocking lack of communication between the different services…between NORAD, the civilian flight controllers, pilots, etc. In short, a level of incompetence. There were THOUSANDS of planes in the sky that day…jeez, go do some bleeding research (hint: read the NIST report).

“the 2 released CCTV images are the only footage of the plane despite the amount of cameras focussed on this building.”

Actually, no. There were bugger all cameras ‘focused’ on the building…they were focused on the car entry, the service station forecourt, etc., as most cameras are.

“Dick Cheney… ‘if the orders still stand’”

I’m getting tired, so get off your lazy backside and go find out.

“Then of course Dubya spent endless hours to try and connect Iraq with Osama and the attack”

You mean Bush was being a politician and trying to use 9-11 to push through his own agenda! Unbelievable!

Enough. You are a moron.

Next….

3 year old kid
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Link to this

“So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance?”

Me! (and a few hundred thousand engineers and physics professors) Gravity dictated where the thing was gonna go, and it dictated straight down. Where else was it going to go? Up? Sideways? Tell me, what is it about gravity you don’t understand?

“Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed?”

Me! (and ditto). The issue here is that word NEAR…it was NEAR free-fall speed, NOT free-fall speed. Tell me, genius, what speed should it have been? A second longer? Two seconds?

have ANY of your morons read the NIST report?

“Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details”

Er, more to the point, how many have NOT joined?
(hint: tens of thousands)

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

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

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

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

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

3 year old kid
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 9:40 am | Link to this

Edward, don’t expect these failed Communist and failed Socialists (NOW claiming to be CULT WATCHERS) to wake up EVER.

The fact is, they are science savvy poor - they are literally unable to grasp and logically process the important scientific 911 facts.

They are so weak minded and so perversely politically driven they allow 911 dust to cloud & choke their judgments; unburned bandannas to blind their vision and this so called “Cult Watch” Characters are the perfect example of were because they were not the centre of attention at somebody else’s public meeting, and because someone just happened to give them a heckle, they now are prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater and are equivalent to becoming holocaust type deniers.

And all this stuff peddled by the likes of Strug.

Quote:-

“What many of you people are overlooking about this broadcast is that it is not looking at the evidence it is mainly looking at how troofers conduct themselves. Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories.
This has been proven on this very page.”

Well pardon me for holding a professional scientific opinion about the most important aspect of 911, that being it is physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance at near freefall speed - it now turns out these characters don’t actually want to focus on what http://www.ae911truth.org/ is actually saying (the HARD scientific FACTS) but how some supporters address & behave at public meetings.

Well what can one say.

How is this for scientific method:-

They wheel in a left wing disgruntled socialists from “Cult Watch” who is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake UFO expert who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it - when neither of these Cretins has even the savvy to question if the CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official 911 Conspiracy plot.

I mean how sort of low can these Cretins Go?

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

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

Nuff said.

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

Ashley
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 2:42 pm | Link to this

Paul W

Thank you for your erudite reply and for the assertion that I am a moron, unfortunately this is the same kind of personal attack that tries to discredit an argument by resorting to insults as is commonly used by believers of the offical conspiracy theory (if you can’t discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger with an ad-hominem attack - nice).

Your insistence on repeating your ‘have you read the NIST report’ question does not make our arguments go away. NIST initially tried to use real world models to explain the collapse of the 3 buildings, they were completely unable to do this so then changed tack and used a computer simulation to prove their theories (where they could alter the input parameters to their hearts content). NIST initially tried to use real world models to explain the collapse of the 3 buildings, they were completely unable to do this so then changed tack and used a computer simulation to prove their theories (where they could alter the input parameters to their hearts content) 。 Now call me a cynical troofer conspiraloon but if they can’t get real world models to exhibit the behaviour they claim was responsible for the collapse and have to resort to doing it in theory then I have little faith in their findings.

When you tell me to read the NIST report to find out about how the lack of communication between the different services was one of the major contributing factors I’m guessing you mean the 9-11 commission report rather than the NIST report as the NIST report has no such information in it (of course you know this as you keep asking us if we’ve read it, you wouldn’t ask that question unless you had read it yourself eh ;)

You are clearly out of your depth regarding the idea that these buildings would topple over, if the plane impact and resultant fire was one one side of the building then the stresses on the building would be asymetrical. If the stresses on the building were asymetrical you would expect the top of the building to topple over to one side (as explained earlier think Jenga or if you are feeling up to it google for ‘the law of entropy’).

If as you claim that the steel lost strength then that would give even more credence to the idea that the top of the building would have toppled to one side or the other, a weakened piece of steel would not concertina down on itself rather it would go towards the path of least resistance (it would bend before breaking).

How you can claim that the 9-11 investigation was the largest in the world when the sum total of money spent on the 9-11 Commission report came to approximately $500,000 (just to put this in perspective over $40 million dollars was spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky investigation).

All your sighing and huffing and puffing does absolutely nothing to water down my arguments it just makes you look like you are in the playground rather than having an adult conversation.

With regards your assertion that there were only 2 cameras focussed on the area of impact at the Pentagon is absolutely hilarious, this is the most protected building in the world, if you are really of the mind that the images they’ve shown are the best they can offer then seriously I ask you to reconsider. In all likelihood it would be impossible to walk up to that building without a camera being able to get a good look at your face (this would be to deter terrorists from walking up and putting bombs up against the walls, DOH).

I would dearly love to know what you meant by the following: -

“Dick Cheney… ‘if the orders still stand’”

I’m getting tired, so get off your lazy backside and go find out.

Are you in receipt of knowledge that explains this away because you should let people know as no-one else is!

As for WTC7 being ‘gutted from savage multi floor fires’ that is clearly preposterous, go look at some archive footage and come back and say it again. WTC7 was not leaning in any direction whatsoever, there are loads of different angles the collapse was filmed from, please point me in the direction of one which shows this ‘leaning’ (also if it was leaning then the law of entropy would cause us to expect it topple over rather than down and in on itself but the laws of physics don’t seem to be able to convince you of anything).

With regards your question on how long it should have taken WTC7 to collapse, Stephen Jones calculated that just from the resistance of the concrete (ignoring any resistance the steel columns may have had) that the building should have taken just over 10 seconds to collapse rather than the 6.6 it did take (freefall speed with no resistance and in a vacuum would have taken 6 seconds).

As for the PNAC comment being taken out of context, I have read the report myself (it’s freely available online) and I fail to see where you are coming from with this. The gist of it is that America will not be able to spread it’s Pax Americana around the world unless a Pearl Harbour type incident occurs so as to make it a populist move.

With regards the BBC premonition of the collapse of WTC7, I’m sorry your explaination holds no water. This is only the 3rd modern steel framed skyscraper to collapse due to fire damage, no-one could have predicted its collapse some 25 minutes prior.

Please don’t resort to name calling again Paul it only serves to show an element of desperation on your part and that is not a good way to win an argument. Oh btw I loved how you called me lazy and then went on to answer half of my points by calling me a moron, is this not laziness epitomised ;)

3 year old kid
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm | Link to this

Thank you for that Booger,

I am quite happy for people to have differing views, and even be wrong , right or indifferent.

Indeed the whole of science is built on modifying hypotheses and testing them against the available evidence in an iterative process.

But to claim a group of 400 professional Architects and Engineers are plain wrong, and then not offer any proof to back up the ludicrous claim “IT WAS GRAVITY WOT DONE IT GOVE” – is just not on.

I ask, IS that the actions of CRETINS or of serious investigation, learning & discovery?

Is there anything to learn from such pig headed stupidity? Apart from the fact some people are born CRETINS.

Speaking of which - here is a quote from one chap paul W

Quote:-

“Enough. You are a moron.
Next….
3 year old kid
Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Link to this
“So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance?”
Me! (and a few hundred thousand engineers and physics professors) Gravity dictated where the thing was gonna go, and it dictated straight down. Where else was it going to go? Up? Sideways? Tell me, what is it about gravity you don’t understand?
“Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed?”
Me! (and ditto). The issue here is that word NEAR…it was NEAR free-fall speed, NOT free-fall speed. Tell me, genius, what speed should it have been? A second longer? Two seconds?
have ANY of your morons read the NIST report?
“Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details”
Er, more to the point, how many have NOT joined?
(hint: tens of thousands)”

End quote.

This individual proves the point perfectly, not even a GCSE Architecture, Physics or Engineering qualification to his name, has never contacted any of the tens of thousands of qualified individuals he claims so speak for – but guess what - he is right and the outspoken 400 + Architects and Engineering professionals at http://www.ae911truth.org/
ARE WRONG?

Now I ask - does anybody see a problem with this chap’s logic?

So here we have yet another opportunity, another volunteer to show us the Physics and the maths which proves it is even physically possible for a body to take the path of most resistance and indeed at near freefall speed too – so Go on Mr paul W - let us have it sir. We can take your TRUTH.

Show us the Physics and Maths, which proves your hypothesis sir.

Show us this Physics and Maths supported by your alleged: tens of thousands professionals.

And if you are unable to do that for whatever reason – just tell us all about one experiment we can do which proves it is physically possible for a body to pass through the path of most resistance due to gravity alone. EVER!

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

Why are troofers ignoring the PEER REVIEW issue?

GET A PEER REVIEW

PEER REVIEW!!

Without that your science ain’t worth shit.

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

PEER REVIEW PEER REVIEW blah blah blah.

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

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

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

You dismiss a peer review? OMG.

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

Ashley
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 9:21 pm | Link to this

No I am not dismissing a peer review, what I am asking is what journal is likely to agree to print something that questions the official story when academics are losing their positions for daring to even question it.

I’m sure a lot of people would love the opportunity to have their thesis reviewed by their peers, unfortunately they have to find someone to print it (or do you think that they write their thesis and post a copy to all their peers for a ‘peer review’?)

At the moment it’s like the ‘Emporers New Clothes’, there are a few brave souls pointing out the naked facts but they are few and far between.

I think a lot of academics question the official story but after seeing what has happened to their peers when they stood up to be counted they have preferred to voice their concerns off the record.

I mean I am no scientist and I can see the hallmarks of controlled demolition all over the 3 collapses on 9-11, demolition experts could not have collapsed those buildings in to neater piles if they had tried. I am supposed to believe that 2 towers with asymetrical damage and one that just had a fire in it collapsed in to their own footprints which is something even demolition teams would have struggled to do. Sorry but I’m not buying it, you can if you like but I’m not.

I also think that on a wider level the problem with most people who look at the evidence and refuse to entertain the idea that the administration either made it happen or let it happen is the ‘what if it’s true’ factor. If the US administration is complicit in any part of this then that would pretty much blow the notion of democracy in America out of the water. I think some people don’t want to see what the evidence points to because it is so horrible and the implications are so wide ranging that peoples psyches are protecting them from recognising it.

Don’t think for a minute that Dubya would have any compunction about putting civilians in harms way, he has no scruples and sent an army to war based on false pretexts against someone who was an ally up until he invaded Kuwait (and tried to kill his daddy - oh the humanity). If you have a scout round the web you might even find a picture of Rummy Rumsfeld out in Iraq shaking the hand of the leader of Iraq (and at the time he was using chemical warfare against the Kurds, it’s funny how we can point this out as a justification for war now, when it wasn’t even enough to stop Rummy cow-towing to him at the time it happened! Oh and the US supplied the raw materials that Saddam used to make his chemical weapons and gas the Kurds! Funny how a lot of this extraneous information gets filtered out isn’t it?).

The world is a very strange and dangerous place and it doesn’t really work like they taught you in school. The idea that America and the UK can spread democracy with bullets and cluster bombs and try and force our culture on to other countries which for the most part have a different belief system is dangerous in the extreme. I mean the Disney style fun park planned for the green area in Bahgdad, I feel like I’ve followed Alice down the rabbit hole.

Anyway, I digress, I think that the there should be a new inquiry in to 9-11. I mean the 9-11 Commission report started with a belief in the official story and anything that didn’t fit with that wasn’t disproved, it was simply ignored. I think the US owes it to the 3,000 odd people who died that day and also to the dead soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the countless Afghani and Iraqi civilians killed by a force in its ‘War on Terror’ that if you believe the official story was as a direct response to the acts of that day (despite the fact that the neo-cons have had their eye on Iraq since before dubya rose to infamy).

My personal opinion is that it is an affront to the memory of the dead that the US can spend 80 times more money investigating the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal than it did on the 9-11 Commission Report!

But hey that’s just my opinion, you don’t have to believe me just have a look at the facts for yourself and make your own mind up (like I did).

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

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

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

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

Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. “Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7″ points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.

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

Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse.

9/11 demolition theory challenged

An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a “controlled demolition”.

The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.

Resistance to collapse

Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.

In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.

“The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse,” Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.

Dr Seffen was able to calculate the “residual capacity” of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

He added that his calculations showed this was a “very ordinary thing to happen” and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.

The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.

This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive “squibs” can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.

Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.

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

Dr. Keith A. Seffen

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

Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy…

For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is…

“Walter P. Murphy Professor of

Civil Engineering and Materials Science

Northwestern University

The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows…

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

The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, eg University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:

ZP Bazant and Y. Zhou, “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?”, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).

That means it’s not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It’s had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.

I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no “theory of intelligent design” except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.”

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

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

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

Editor:

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

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

Editorial Board:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

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

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

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

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

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

Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse…

Bazant, ZP, & Zhou, Y.
“Addendum to ‘Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis” (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Brannigan, FL
“WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings”
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

“Construction and Collapse Factors”
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, GP
“Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster”
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

“Dissecting the Collapses”
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, TW, & Musso, C.
“Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, TB, Poese, ME, & Atchley, AA
“Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center”
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

“Collapse Lessons”
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, TG
“TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering”
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
“World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations”
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, DE, & Cebon, D.
“Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?”
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
“Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site”
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, NM
“No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report”
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, NM
“Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing”
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

“WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives”
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

3 year old kid
Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am | Link to this

Dr Seffen should be commended for at least trying.

Even NIST did not do the 10-second destruction sequence. (I wonder Why?)

Dr Seffen is a very capable person and his mathematics skills are very good indeed.

However despite being rather imaginative and having a jolly good attempt at modeling the impossible - his analysis has several key glaring flaws some of which I have listed here:-

He has assumed there was no cross bracing. (The WTCs were all heavily cross-braced).

He assumes the towers collapsed uniformly – yet damage and fires were more prevalent on one side and we have a video of the top portion toppling.

He assumes there was no reinforced concrete when in fact there were 300,000 tonnes in each 110 floor WTC building.

His paper defies conservation of energy – there was less than 10% of the necessary energy in the entire upright structure needed to do what Dr Seffen claims happened.

His paper defies conservation of momentum. He claims the top smaller section crushed the heavier lower section whilst the top lighter section stayed in a perfect intact condition until after it had finished destroying the much larger and heavier lower 80+ floors.

These are the less technical problems with the paper of which can be proved easily almost none mathematically via freely available evidence.

Regarding peer review, whilst it is very important, it has one or two very deep flaws.

In the case of this particular Seffen paper the referees are anonymous. So how can this paper be effectively peer reviewed if the referees can not be contacted to make comments and back up their approval by providing actual EVIDENCE.

In relation to all my works, I never have it peer reviewed via journals. I keep it secret because of commercial reasons.

So shipmates and Cult watch pirates - Hands up all those who think burning jet fuel in air can weaken steel? DUH!!!!

Is there anybody else apart from Dr Keith Seffen that believes in Free Energy machines?

If so, does anyone want to buy a safe seafront villa in Baghdad?

Ashley
Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am | Link to this

RINFer

As mentioned previously NIST started their investigations using real world models, they could not get these models to collapse and had to resort to computer simulations in order to prove their theory.

Now I KNOW that I could get a team of demolition experts to effect a collapse like that on a real world model, I wouldn’t have to resort to theory to prove that the buildings could collapse in an identical manner.

Now what I am being asked to believe is that chaotic asymetrical damage to the buildings had a uniform effect in dropping these buildings in a fashion that demolition teams would be proud of. Demolition teams to this day cannot guarantee to drop buildings neatly, some of them don’t even fall when the charges are blown and cost a fortune to bring down.

It would probably be flippant of me to suggest that we could do away with all of these specialised demolitions companies and just start fires in the buildings we want to demolish as 3 out of 3 had uniform collapses on 9-11.

I maintain that a lot of academics in the conspiracy camp would like to get their thesis reviewed by peers but are unable to get them published. Why should this be? I’m sure that if their theories are so easy to shoot down, if the gaping inconsistencies can easily be explained away then journals would jump at the chance to be the one to disprove the conspiracy theorists.

I could go off to a site that holds the conspiracy POV as you have for the non-conspiracy POV and copy and paste a page of their site to debunk your debunking but what would that serve, you’d just find one to debunk my debunking of your debunking ad infinitum. The only way to bring clarity to this situation is for a full and exhaustive new inquiry that has both the funds and powers required to get to the truth. If there is nothing that has been hidden then this shouldn’t be a problem (please don’t quote cost as a deciding factor as it certainly isn’t in other facets of the so called ‘War on Terror’)

At the end of the day I admit that I haven’t gone in to much of the detail, but what I have done is use my own eyes, my own thought processes and drawn my own conclusions based on what I can see and my experiences in the real world (rather than one of abstraction).

I am using my own critical faculties, I mean if I saw a car crash and someone came out of the windscreen I would guess that they weren’t wearing their seatbelt and their momentum carried them through the glass. You could provide me with a peer reviewed document that suggested a James Bond style ejector seat could have caused it or that they could have jumped but that wouldn’t necessarily make it so, I’ma simple soul and would call it as I saw it. You could provide me with a peer reviewed document that suggested a James Bond style ejector seat could have caused it or that they could have jumped but that wouldn’t necessarily make it so, I’ma simple soul and would call it as I saw it 。

When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition, when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition, when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull), when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage, when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel, when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire), when I see molten metal coming from the buildings (consistent with thermite or thermate), when sulfur residue is found on the steel after the collapse (consistent with thermate) then is it any wonder I ‘leap’ to the deduction that it was controlled demolition, is it any wonder that I think a new inquiry is not just called for but vital in getting the answers to these questions.

paul w
Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 1:04 am | Link to this

RINFer
Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Good effort, but you’ll get no-where: truthers are insane.
Just read the ravings of 3 year old Kid, Ashely and Co…it ‘aint gonna t work, they’re too far gone.

Too many bongs, too much paranoia, too many out-of-whack brain cells, too many insecurities.

Is this attacking the person? Damn right it is - if the NIST /Commission reports and the vast amount of online material from various experts and eyewitness doesn’t change their mind, nothing will.

I post here so anyone new to the 9-11 ‘truth’ garbage has an opportunity to listen to the other side. This is a very poorly represented faction of the ‘truth’ movement; don’t expect them to offer debunking sites to newbies so they can compare things.

“I just want to talk facts and not attack the person”….

Pah. It’s all troofer bunk. I posted an answer to their idiotic comments, and said ‘moron’ once, and their reply? They answered NONE of the issues I raised but whined on about name-calling. Pathetic.

All they ever do is run and hide when caught in the headlights of reality.

Have to say though, their later posts on how the buildings should have fallen is a riot. What a bunch of fruit-cakes.

paul w
Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 1:37 am | Link to this

“When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition, when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition, when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull), when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage, when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel, when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire), when I see molten metal coming from the buildings (consistent with thermite or thermate), when sulfur residue is found on the steel after the collapse (consistent with thermate) then is it any wonder I ‘leap’ to the deduction that it was controlled demolition, is it any wonder that I think a new inquiry is not just called for but vital in getting the answers to these questions.”
Ashley
Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am

When I see raving like this, I know Ashley is an idiot.

Am example: “when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire)”

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

These people are hilarious!

paul w
Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 8:19 am | Link to this

More info on black smoke from 911myths:

“While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

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

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

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

paul w
Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 10:00 am | Link to this

“When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition,

No, not ‘exact’ but similar, the way I play football ’similar’ to David Beckham. Go read the NIST report.

“when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition”

And what of the demolition experts who disagree? ONE person, is that it? Come on, Ashley. Is that all you have?

“when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull)”

Yes, do have a look at what demolition experts mean by pull - it means pull a building down using cables (as was done to the damaged buildings around the towers). “Pull” is never used to indicate a demoliton. Never.

“when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage”

Explained by the NIST report (and to be explained by the upcoming WC7 report)

“when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel”

The photo taken of the poor woman was well after the impact and the fires had moved on - the fires moved all over the place. Read the NIST report.

As for ‘melting steel’, no-one other than troofers talk of melting steel. Read the NIST report. It wasn’t hot enough for steel to melt. As for aluminum…

Ah, that’s enough. Look, Ashley, go and study the 9-11 myths and Internet Detectives sites. You sound like a newbie to 9-11, it will help you understand what occurred on 9-11. Check out screwloosechangeblogspot as well. The top section has excellent reports about 9-11.

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

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

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

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

Lets have it.

Ashley
Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 3:09 pm | Link to this

Paul W

4 posts on the trot and I am raving lol. Look Paul you are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. As for calling me a moron you didn’t just do that you ignored half of my post. You have not, as you claim, answered my idiotic comments (which is in itself another personal attack). Why are you getting yourself worked up in to such a frenzy that you have to insult people. I’m not insulting you so why do you feel the need?

Anyway myself and 3yo kid aren’t alone, 36% of people questioned in a national poll in the US believe that the US administration was complicit in some way. There are former members of the intelligence community that believe it was an inside job, a former prime minister of a western country, physics professors, architects, first responders, employees that were there on the day, firemen, policemen, civil engineers, soldiers and countless millions of other people from all walks of life (but of course you know more than all of these put together).

It is not an open and shut case as you would like the rest of the world to believe and do you know what would appease many of these people? A new well funded and powerful inquiry that covers all the bases, rather than starting with a conclusion and looking only for facts which prove them right.

Some of your responses are clearly wrong, ‘pull’ is an industry term for controlled demolition, anyway what did Larry Silverstein mean when he said it? The only answer he has managed to give is to pull the firefighters out of the building, this is a clear lie as no firefighting took place inside WTC7 according to a member of NIST and according to the FEMA report. Now such a clear inconsistency should be investigated, expecially when you consider more than 3,000 people died on that day and countless others are ill from the dust clouds that they were told were safe (let alone the illegal invasion of a sovereign country that ensued as a direct result).

A new investigation is required and all and sundry should be able to put their POV in to that (even the loopy space weapons and holograms ideas etc) so that every avenue can be explored.

Looking at the evidence, the most obvious cause for those buildings to fall were demolition charges, now believers of the official story are coming up with stuff like ‘the molten metal seen coming out of the building is a UPS that was on the 81st floor’ and all sorts of other explainations to anomolies and you are eating them up like a spoon fed baby (btw Aluminum doesn’t glow bright yellow when molten, go find it out for yourself). Now I am sure you are aware that in the archive footage of the collapse there is a clear shot of yellow glowing metal coming out of the building just before collapse, this is consistent with the use of thermate or thermite. Also there are countless interviews with clean up crews and footage that says and shows in no uncertain terms that there were pools of molten metal in the clean up site. Now if the temperatures weren’t hot enough to melt the steel (which is a conclusion of the NIST report), then where did the molten metal come from?

Please don’t patronise me Paul and tell me how much more you know than me, because at best you look bigheaded but to 36% of Amricans you look like something a lot less generous.

Now I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier when you confused the NIST Report with the Kean Report (9-11 commission report) I am less inclined to do so really but I would stop short of calling you names out of politeness. Stop telling people to go and read the NIST report, you clearly haven’t read it but you seem to place a lot of faith in it.

You say that the buldings didn’t collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition but in a similar manner. For the benefit of everyone reading this please can you outline the main differences as you see them? (oh and I’m not on about what NIST says, I’m on about what it looked like)

You say that the woman seen looking out of the entry hole is there after the fires have moved on elsewhere, I’m interested to know how the steel supports were weakened due to fire as the only place where the Kerosene was is where the plane was (or is there some special non-conspiracy kerosene that climbs up stairwells and ignites itself on higher floors?). The reason I ask this is that a standard office fire without the accellerant kerosene would burn at a substantially lower temperature.

If, as you claim, the fire had moved elsewhere that would imply that the kerosene had all burnt off and that the temperature in that area had dropped low enough for people to walk about in it. How on earth are we to believe that with temperatures low enbough for people to survive, steel certified to 2750F for 2 hours weakened enough for collapse? (at a substantially lower temperature for a substantially shorter period of time).

You say that the symtyrical collapses due to asymetrical damage is explained in NIST (not to the satisfaction of a good deal of people), but then you go on to say it will be explained in the upcoming WTC7 report. Now are you clairvoyant, so important you have been given a sneak preview or just plain guessing?

You just appear to be going off to any site you can find in google and quoting their debunking, now I’d like to know have all of these sources been peer reviewed Paul or are you just taking their word for it?

I don’t believe every 9-11 conspiracy out there as I have stated before, but you appear to hold as gospel any piece of information that gives you a chance to debunk. I have used my own critical faculties to come to my own conclusions from looking at the evidence (archive footage etc), a rudimentary understanding of physics, common sense and real world knowledge. You appear to just be putting all your eggs in the debunking websites basket.

To be honest Paul I hope you are right, because if you aren’t then there are bigger problems in the world than the non-existent nuclear weapons program of Iran and the US hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East.

Do you think it is reasonable that $40M is spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal but only $500,000 on the Kean Report? Don’t you think that it is an insult to those who died on the day and since due to the events of that day?

If I was a relative of one of the victims I would be absolutely outraged that the philandering of one man is seen to be 80 times more important that the deaths of 3,000 odd people and the subsequent deaths from the effects.

Wouldn’t you like to see a new inquiry? All of your debunking could be made official instead of guesswork. Then you wouldn’t have to put up with idiotic morons like me.

Anyway toodle-pip for now :)

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

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

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

It is promoting the HATE and distrust of Professionals such as 400+ Professional Architects and Engineers at

http://www.ae911truth.org/

from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS - whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics.

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

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

They wheel in a left wing disgruntled socialists/Commey who

set up “Cult Watch” who is obviously not scientifically

trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering [who has

spent time in jail ] & a fruitcake UFO expert who just

happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has

ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom

just because he really read the official pack of lies and

believed it –

when neither of these Cretins has even the savvy to question

if the CIA actually officially ever wanted Osmar Binladen

for the official outrageous 911 Conspiracy plot.

I mean how low can these HATE Cretins Go?

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

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

AND

IF NOT – Why NOT?

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

Ashley
Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 4:05 pm | Link to this

MaxPane

Could you define antisemitism for us before we talk about it, as sometimes anything remotely critical of Israel is called antisemitism. What do you mean by it?

As far as I’m concerned it doesn’t matter that Israel is a Jewish state, it is a sovereign state first and foremost and is responsible for its actions, the racial or religious make up of its population is neither here nor there. If it was, then surely we are being hateful when we talk disparagingly about Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan.

For instance is the idea that the CIA and Mossad could be in some way related to the 9-11 attacks in order to promote the idea of war with Iraq antisemitic?

I like what Robert Fisk says he feels like when he talks about Israel, ‘it’s like trying to ride two bikes at the same time’.

Toby
Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Link to this

The “9/11 was an inside job” theory relies in part upon evidence of molten metal found at ground zero.

Deutsch Bank hired a firm, RJ Lee Group, to conduct tests on the WTC dust as part of a study of how to clean up their area. Their report concludes:

“Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).”

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

Similar spherical particles were found by Professor Stephen Jones.

The melting point of steel and iron is known. Therefore this is direct and irrefutable evidence of temperatures exceeding those which are possible by hydrocarbon (jet fuel) fires. The existance of molten metal on the scene is backed up by eyewitnesses testimony, while these extreme temperatures were also recorded by NASA thermal satellite images.

NIST denies this evidence exists, although they have admitted that they themselves did not look for such evidence, their reasoning being “there’s no point looking for something that isn’t there.”

Can we agree that since there is evidence of temperatures beyond those which are possible by hyrdocarbon fires, then there should be a new investigation?

Could such molten and evaporated metal affect the building collapse? Or is it insignificant? If you think these high temperatures contributed to the collapse, then wouldn’t it be sensible to find out what caused such temperatures?

It would help us to more fully understand the mechanism of the collapse and prevent such disasters in the future. The NIST report theorises on the conditions and events that lead up to the collapse of the towers, but stops at the actual moment of collapse.

NIST ignores evidence of molten iron (or steel), because it states that hydrocarbon fires cannot burn hot enough to melt steel or iron. Therefore, according to NIST, these spherical particles cannot exist.

This shouldn’t be about “who is right.” This is an important issue concerning the safety of steel structures, especially for those who live or work inside them. There are still questions that need to be answered.

3 year old kid
Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Link to this

It is irrelevant if people believe the Holocaust or not, So WHAT? Who cares about what happened 60+ years ago?

That was then – this is now!

What we should be doing is Exposing this Hit Piece radio broadcast for what it is –

It is promoting the distrust of Professionals such as 400+ Professional Architects and Engineers at http://www.ae911truth.org/ from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS - whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics by peddling nonsense about Holocaust denial.

Let us Examine the scientific method used for this “Cretins Guide to 911” and utterly debunk them :-

I repeat myself:-

They wheel in this disgruntled socialists/ Commey from “Cult Watch” who was told to clear off by “the Troofers” , is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture,
Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake self confessed UFO NUT who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is
a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it – when neither of these brainy Chaps has even the savvy to question if the
CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official outrageous 911 Conspiracy plot.

I mean - what is going on?

So – Is Osmar Bin-whatever wanted by the CIA for 911 or NOT? AND IF NOT – Why NOT?

Does anyone else see a big problem here?

3 year old kid
Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 6:13 pm | Link to this

It is irrelevant if people believe the Holocaust or not, So WHAT? Who cares about what happened 60+ years ago?

That was then – this is now!

What we should be doing is Exposing this Hit Piece radio broadcast for what it is –

It is promoting the distrust of Professionals such as 400+ Professional Architects and Engineers from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS - whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics by peddling nonsense about Holocaust denial.

Let us Examine the scientific method used for this “Cretins Guide to 911” and utterly debunk them :-

I repeat myself:-

I mean - what is going on?

So – Is Osmar Bin-whatever wanted by the CIA for 911 or NOT? AND IF NOT – Why NOT?

Does anyone else see a big problem here?

Does anyone else understand that If the truth is not exposed many more lives will continue to be lost.

SexyComments by通过 BorkWeb

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

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

RINF.COM : THE BREAKING NEWS ALTERNATIVE rinf.com ：突发新闻的替代

A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 1犬儒学派的指南9 / 11阴谋论

49 Responses to “A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” 49的反应， “犬儒学派的指南9 / 11阴谋论”

WOWEB - Web Design

FAST GATEWAY - Web Hosting

INFOTX - Web Hosting Guides and Resources

ASHLEY GUEST HOUSE - Morecambe Guest House

Never Be Lied To Again!

Subliminal Secrets Exposed

Holographic Creation: Your Own Reality

Masonic Secrets Revealed

What You Aren't Supposed To Know

RINF.COM : THE BREAKING NEWS ALTERNATIVE rinf.com ：突发新闻的替代

A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 1犬儒学派的指南9 / 11阴谋论

49 Responses to “A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” 49的反应， “犬儒学派的指南9 / 11阴谋论”

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

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

WOWEB - Web Design

FAST GATEWAY - Web Hosting

INFOTX - Web Hosting Guides and Resources

ASHLEY GUEST HOUSE - Morecambe Guest House

Never Be Lied To Again!

Subliminal Secrets Exposed

Holographic Creation: Your Own Reality

Masonic Secrets Revealed

What You Aren't Supposed To Know