Thank you for telling me how to think.krow said:
Could you tell me what I fancy for lunch now please?
9/11 "a covert operation to bring about a fascist coup in this country".
- Thread starter krow
- Start date
Could you tell me what I fancy for lunch now please?
That cat looks, like, soooo happy!corporate whore said:
You can almost see the though bubble ... "Jesus fucking Christ, what's the fucking beardy loon doing now? The fucking humiliation of it all ...".
corporate whore said:
* 64% Want an investigation into the major discrepencies and ommissions in the Offical 9/11 Comission Report. 45%, a plurality, believe government officals knew ahead of time and let it happen on purpose. 44% are not sure or believe that 19 Arabs could not have committed the terrorist attacks on September 11 alone
* 90% of CNN Viewers Believe in a 9/11 Cover-up.
* 66% of New Yorkers Want the 9/11 Investigation reopened. Half believe people in the United States Government knew ahead of time and let it happen.
* 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story according to a New York Times/CBS News poll, 16% believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks. The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job.
* In 2004 a Zogby Poll showed that just over half of New Yorkers believed there was a cover up. In May of this year another Zogby poll indicated that around half of ALL Americans did not buy the official story.
The tinfoil hat shrug-off doesn't cut it anymore.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
It doesn't, but the monster thread that rips all these conspiracy theories to bits is easy to find. You at least should be able to rise above your ignorance.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
When does the book come out ?
It's kind of like Diana now, it's a self-perpetuating industry.
It's kind of like Diana now, it's a self-perpetuating industry.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Do 70% still think Saddam was involved in 9/11 ?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Yes they fucking are. Get used to it.krow said:
Or rather they take a wider view of the problem considering a more banal coverup where the US was completely unready and people covered their arses afterwards.
But we're not talking about 84% of the US, we're talking about your ignorance.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
No, i will because there is no reason to doubt it once you've read up on the topic. Which i have and which you haven't.krow said:
Try me on this one and i'll rip you to shreds, or someone else will. If you want to learn then try debunking 911 or one of the other sites.
So start here:
Heikki Kurttila, D.Sc. – Safety Engineer and Accident Analyst.
"Conclusion: The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum. The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."
Judy Wood, PhD – Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering: "So, for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone.
Did we see this? I believe it's pretty clear in some of the videos. The "wave" of collapse, progressing down the building, is moving faster than free-fall speed. This would require something like a detonation sequence. ...
In conclusion, the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible. [link]
G.W. Longspaugh, MS Aerospace Engineering (1942 - 2006) – Retired Aerospace Engineer
"The debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. In particular, in the absence of some agency (possibly unknown to physical science) that removed the wings, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001."
David Leifer, BSc, B.Arch, M.Ed, PhD, IEng, ACIBSE "The frequently repeated TV images of the aircraft slamming into the World Trade Centre overwhelmed any thoughtful response. Naturally, the collapse of the buildings was attributable to this traumatic event.
It was only later when pictures emerged showing the inappropriate damage to the Pentagon – reported to have been caused by a large aircraft crashing through several layers of external wall – that professional doubt was aroused in my mind. Thereafter, The fall of the World Trade Center video showed the side of one tower ‘unzipping’ along one side of a damaged floor. My knowledge of structure and dynamics told me that unless the other sides simultaneously ‘unzipped’ there was no way that the tower would have ‘pancaked’ onto it’s own footprint: it should surely have toppled outwards. That both towers did the same was just too improbable to be plausible.
Graeme MacQueen, PhD – Associate Professor of Religious Studies and founding Director, Centre for Peace Studies, McMaster University.
there’s no way those 3 towers were brought down by planes, jet fuel and fire. One tower, maybe. A structural flaw in the tower, a set of coincidences. Two towers — we’re getting into a highly unlikely situation, even though their construction was similar, because the planes hit in different ways. Three towers (including WTC 7 now, which wasn't hit by a plane), the odds against this are astronomical."
Heikki Kurttila, D.Sc. – Safety Engineer and Accident Analyst.
"Conclusion: The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum. The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."
Judy Wood, PhD – Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering: "So, for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone.
Did we see this? I believe it's pretty clear in some of the videos. The "wave" of collapse, progressing down the building, is moving faster than free-fall speed. This would require something like a detonation sequence. ...
In conclusion, the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible. [link]
G.W. Longspaugh, MS Aerospace Engineering (1942 - 2006) – Retired Aerospace Engineer
"The debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. In particular, in the absence of some agency (possibly unknown to physical science) that removed the wings, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001."
David Leifer, BSc, B.Arch, M.Ed, PhD, IEng, ACIBSE "The frequently repeated TV images of the aircraft slamming into the World Trade Centre overwhelmed any thoughtful response. Naturally, the collapse of the buildings was attributable to this traumatic event.
It was only later when pictures emerged showing the inappropriate damage to the Pentagon – reported to have been caused by a large aircraft crashing through several layers of external wall – that professional doubt was aroused in my mind. Thereafter, The fall of the World Trade Center video showed the side of one tower ‘unzipping’ along one side of a damaged floor. My knowledge of structure and dynamics told me that unless the other sides simultaneously ‘unzipped’ there was no way that the tower would have ‘pancaked’ onto it’s own footprint: it should surely have toppled outwards. That both towers did the same was just too improbable to be plausible.
Graeme MacQueen, PhD – Associate Professor of Religious Studies and founding Director, Centre for Peace Studies, McMaster University.
there’s no way those 3 towers were brought down by planes, jet fuel and fire. One tower, maybe. A structural flaw in the tower, a set of coincidences. Two towers — we’re getting into a highly unlikely situation, even though their construction was similar, because the planes hit in different ways. Three towers (including WTC 7 now, which wasn't hit by a plane), the odds against this are astronomical."
you must be jokingkrow said:
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Heikki's wrong, the pattern of collapse is nothing like a controlled demolition. For more info search for a post i made on the topic.krow said:
Judy Wood- Wrong the video shows the opposite.
GW. loonspud - Was he there or is he just looking at photos taken X hours later?
Leifer - It's good he says that as the TOWERS DID NOT PANCAKE.
You're doing nothing but regurgitating the same lies yet again. If you're not willing to try to engage on any of the points (so we can prove you wrong) i and others will lose what little patience we have when discussing this topic.
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
debunking 911 said:
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project.
Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile."
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984.
"One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"
Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.
"A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. … There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. … Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible.…
Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.
I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. Now some people will say that’s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder." [video]
Get debunking.
Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile."
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984.
"One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"
Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.
"A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. … There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. … Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible.…
Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.
I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. Now some people will say that’s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder." [video]
Get debunking.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Done. You're quoting a source known to be inaccurate.
At least one of your sources belives that the towers were destroyed with laser beams from space. (If you don't know which one then please, fuck off until you do.)
You're a joke.
At least one of your sources belives that the towers were destroyed with laser beams from space. (If you don't know which one then please, fuck off until you do.)
You're a joke.
from alpha centauri?Bob_the_lost said:
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Source unspecified. I think the author of that particular paper was taken away and put back in their padded room at that point.Detroit City said:
editor
hiraethified
"Religious studies"? Bwahahaha! You may as well ask the dustman's opinion, that's how relevent that clown's "expert" opinion is.krow said:
I can't even be arsed to look up the rest on that list, but I can guarantee that there'll be no leading experts in fields directly related the the claimed areas of expertise. But be sure to explain why you're choosing to completely ignore the overwhelming mass of vastly qualified experts who don't agree with the Godsquad bloke's clueless opinion. You're a gullible fool.
Oh, and could you tell me exactly when was your previously quoted expert Wayne Madsen served as a U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer and for how long, please? I've already asked once and it's going to get very annoying if you continue to refuse to back up your sources. Thanks.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Not quite true, Robert Bowman was indeed all the things claimed, however he's going for election so is automatically untrustworthy.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
He believes that the US did it on purpose by the looks of things.editor said:
editor
hiraethified
He's another rabid God-squader too.Bob_the_lost said:
Either way, I still can't fnd any remotely rational explanation why people searching for the 'truth' should place this one guy's rather peripheral and politically motivated opinion over the overwhelming body of expert contemporary analysis.
editor said:
There are so many architects, engineers and mechanics involved in the 9/11 Truth movement that they have their own organisation, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
They give a rundown of the reasons the twin towers can be proved to ghave been brought down by explosives rather than fire:
1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
3. Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)
4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
8. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
11. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.
13. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings
And demonstrated the 'collapse' exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”
Here is the statement from just one of the architects:
Eric Douglas – Registered Architect in New York and California.
"The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.
NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.
There were also flaws in NIST’s computer simulations, including its impact simulation, its fire loading simulation, its temperature mapping simulation, its thermal/structural component simulations, and its global simulation. The LS-DYNA simulation showed that the aircraft would have done much less damage than NIST assumes, and NIST’s subsequent "scenario pruning" was confused and unsubstantiated. The decision to exclude the hat truss from the structural/thermal response simulations was a significant omission. The sequence of failed truss seats leading to pull-in forces on the exterior columns is central to NIST’s theory but not explained or supported by simulation.
This paper will conclude that the findings of the NIST investigation, although not necessarily incorrect, are not inherently linked to the reality of the failure mechanisms that took place in WTC buildings 1 and 2. The author calls on NIST to explain the discrepancies in its reports, admit the level of uncertainty in its findings, broaden the scope of its investigation, and make its raw data available to other researchers."
I'm leaving urban75 alone from now on,I can't stand the management. Bye.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
oh, I'll bin this then, wouldn't want it hanging around after all
Similar threads
