i heard the guys that wired buildings were mossad agents..up to 140 of them...they are good at keeping secrets..cops and firefighters both admit that their was bombs going off..they arent hiding anything..

How convenient. I guess with an unlimited imagination anything is possible. I don't suppose you have a source or anything remotely resembling proof that 140 covert Mossad agents/controlled demolition experts wired up the towers and WTC7 while avoiding detection by bomb-sniffing dogs, security, or the public? Keep in mind that each tower was over 3 times the height of the tallest building ever to be intentionally demolished with explosives, plus they were using an explosive that had never before been used to demolish a building. Keep in mind, also, that only a few employees of a few companies in the world are experts in the field of controlled demolition, and all of these employees could be easily tracked. Someone had to teach these covert Mossad agents how to plant explosives in a building in order to bring it down, so who? Also, please don't ignore the fact that the south tower had to be demolished so precisely that it would damage WTC7 just enough to make it look like it could've fallen on it's own. Again, this was a building (the south tower) that was three times taller than any building that had ever before been destroyed by controlled demolition, a new explosive/demolition tool was used, and oh by the way, a 767 slammed into it.

Explain how they pulled that off.

140 mossad agents were arrested after 9/11 for questioning...they were released and deported by michael chertoff...all information concerning their arrests is classified...

Link please.

Do you think what I outlined above is possible and the results could be reproduced by legitimite controlled demolition experts? Again:

What does that even mean?

If you mean semantics by "symantics" -- then what, exactly, does a sub-field of linguistics have to do with physics? I mean, physics isn't really discussed in any one language; if its semantics are confusing in one language, you can move on to another language. In fact, physics is probably best described in the "language" of mathematical modelling.

This is not one of those posts that makes Conspiracy Theorists look like reasonable people trying to make people understand a cogent point. I practically had to wipe the foam off my screen. After this post, it's just unreasonable to be taken with any more degree of seriousness than Yosemite Sam when he's hopping up and down, screaming, even if (by some chance) you were telling the truth.

--Jaylemurph

"Semantics is commonly used to refer to a trivial point or distinction that revolves around mere words rather than significant issues."

To give an example: As the laws of physics indicate the WTC buildings collapsed through controlled demolition, to argue the set-up is to argue over semantics.

I think Sunofone's statement is quite relevant.

Let me get this straight - you're saying the fact that all three buildings ended up in a heap on the ground, just like a CD'ed building does, they had to've been CD'ed, and there is no need to talk about how explosives got there? The placement of the explosives is just a trivial or minor detail that we shouldn't have to be concerned about?

That would be an interesting way to avoid an extremely sticky situation, I guess. You can't explain who planted the explosives, or how, so you choose to say it's irrelevant. Interesting. Cowardly, but interesting.

I've learned long ago to let Sunny's comments roll off my back. I've engaged him in the past, and it was nothing but moving goalposts. I don't believe he's ever stayed on topic for more than 2 posts in a row. When you answer him once, he changes the subject. Answer him again, and the subject changes yet again. Trying to get him to focus on one subject is like trying to nail Jello to a tree.

All three buildings had major repair work just months and even weeks before the explosions, it is well documented.

Then you shouldn't have a hard time providing the documentation. I'll accept a link of some sort, preferably from a non-CT site, please.

Sunafone, seriously....Are the 911 and Moonhoax CT the only of these that you would fight to the death for??

Well not according to CNN, looks like you are in the minority on this one Ya I know it's only a poll and most reject polls but even if this one is off it's a very very high number.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041111195501242

Two things...... Who did they ask in this poll, the americans that hates your moron president Bush!!?? And also, a resent poll showed that 70 + % believed that there was aliens on Earth!! It doesnt matter if the whole world believe in *** if (they/it) is not real.

Again, and like one of the things DEBUNKER said.....

Are you CBs smarter then.....-EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD!!??.... who doesnt write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire, just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context (!!!!)then all those structural engineers world wide MUST be working for Bush,right?


How this can make sense to anyone is truly amazing.

What amazes me is that three towers in the same city on the same day all fell the exact same way within hours of each other. I'm not convinced 100% that this was an inside job but boy is this fishy. Like I said a poll is a poll is a poll but I do feel they have some validity to them. Even if the poll was 50/50 it should constitute another investigation IMO.

Care to post a link to that poll?



Yes, the above statement is sort of hard to make sense of. However, based solely on your generalizations, I do understand your statement. "Every engineer in the world", "everyone is working for Bush" "engineers are the smartest people alive", blah blah blah.

Your argument is one of the worst I have heard from debunkers and seems to be dictated more by emotion than logic. You can ignor polls showing popular opinion, yet turn around an claim "every engineer" is in complete agreement. Unless, you can provide some sort of proof that "every engineer" on the planet agrees with the cause of the collapse, then inline with your logic it begs the question "which engineers" agree? Keep in mind all anyone has to do to refute whatever engineers you dig up, is to point out that 70% of engineers also believe there are aliens on earth.

Anyway, I think its pretty obvious there is something very wrong with the official story and popular opinion agrees. I could really care less what machanical explanation can explain the collapse. No matter how much sense those explanations make its only theory and even if the towers did collapse purely from fire and damage alone (which I could accept), it doesn't explain the moutain of contradictions, inconsistencies and matters of suspect surrounding the events before, on and since 911.

im the one who has been on the same issues from day one-- you on the the other hand have had more than my comments roll off your back ...you have also let the laws of physics and common sense roll off your back too-- you cannot deny the video of the collapses!!! you cannot deny the eye witness testimony!!! you cannot produce a single review of prof steven jones's anaylysis that establishes mathamatical errors!!! you cannot deny the literal pools of molten steel in the sub basements of all three buildings that collapsed nor the fact that clean up could not commence for five weeks until the cores cooled-- there is video of molten steel flowing as if in a foundry along with recordings of firefighters describing "secondary devices going off resulting in subsequent collapses"-- there were wargames taking place on the morning of 9/11 mimicking the exact scenario of hijacked commercial aircraft targeting the wtc and still the pentagon was targeted 44 minutes after the second tower was struck eliminating all doubt as tothe nature of the attack even though they were able to vector paine stewarts private jet after only 30 minutes of radio silence-- you cannot deny the fact that the investigations were stifled by ANTHRAX ATTACKS that were proven to have domestic origins and yet not have prosecutions-- insider trading in the form of put options that led to the cia's buzzy krongaurd and no prosecution-- the revelations of bin ladens cia roots and the undeniable business links between the bushes and bin ladens-- bush senior was meeting with osamas older brother on the morning of 9/11/01-- bldg 7,bldg 7, bldg 7,BLDG 7, BLDG 7 OMG WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU LOOK AT BUILDING 7!!!!!! the list of people that have faced the truth and come foeward is staggering and too long to put here but it includes vast assortments of scholars,veterans,pilots,engineers,architects,major generals,firefighters and many more-- nail that list of facts to your tree and then maybe you will SEE them

Wow, might be one of the best responses I've read in a while.

im not sure, undecided?

I would like to say that I have heard in various news type programs, over time, information that leads me to conclude that Osama Bin Laden was a self-made sort of leader, who was a wealthy individual, and a dedicated and religious person. He also conveyed a deadly serious impression to a CNN reporter, when he threatened to kill him.

That was years ago, and of little concern to me, though.

Back in 2001, I was a member of an investment and market analysis forum. There was a strange individual who, over time, used a clever series of ongoing commentary, which was always biased to the short side. After he began 24 hr. diatribes, I realized he was more than one individual- with an agenda.

Without going into any of the really minor details, he got reported to the FBI, right after 9-11. He was a muslim. There was no doubt, to any astute individual.

He was short, and he probably knew something. This was not pointed out to the press. There was no need. There was no clear proof, or way to follow-up. And, there was nothing to do about it. It looked very suspicious.

It all added up to tag-team defamation of the U.S., the dollar, and the market. Starting a few weeks prior to 9-11.

There you got with the wacky & wild generalisations again without a shred of evidence that EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD actually agrees with you.

You haven't even posted a survey of them, for starters. So what have you got? Nothing but an over the top claim using the fallacious argument of alleged popularity, but NO EVIDENCE of that popularity.

Can you NAME with their STATEMENTS, an equal number to that these guys? 230+ Architects and Engineers who don't believe the Bush Administration's lies.

I don't believe you can.

To be honest, I suspect that you could not get even 1/3rd that number.

Ok, people, spoiler alert: facts are contained below.




http://911debunker.livejournal.com/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...aw/1227842.html

http://electionnightspecial.blogspot.com/2...tions-1-10.html

http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-conspiracy...s-debunked.html

http://www.debunker.com/conspiracy.html

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2...t-wont-die.html

let me get this straight.

You're ignoring the reality that these three steel-framed hi-rise buildings not only did something that no other steel-framed hi-rise tower buildings have ever done (suffered total collapse straight down through their own structure), you're also ignoring that all three collapsed symmetrically - despite two of them suffering damage only to one side, and the third suffering only minor damage that was insignificant for it's size - and that all three collapses dropped down at a speed close to freefall (AMAZING! RIGHT THROUGH THEIR OWN STRUCTURE TOO).

It should be very obvious that none of this is possible without CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Unless you can cite some examples of other steel-framed hi-rise tower buildings doing exactly the same thing, without any controlled demolitions being responsible.

I guess that ignoring physics and commonsense is pretty silly when you can ignore those sorts of points that I just mentioned.

It isn't necessary to say WHO planted the explosives as we're not here to "solve the whole crime" and such an excuse on your part is a fallacious one. Now, that's what I would call "cowardly", but not at all interesting - I've seen the same over-used dumb excuses too many times from the "Arabs Did it" great defenders of the Bush Administration's 9/11 fairytale.

It's very easy to recognise that a crime has been committed, and that the Bush Administration is covering up for the real perpetrators.

Structural Engineers on 9/11 building collapse:

Popular Mechanics article from 2005

Recent study by Purdue University 2007

And the conclusions of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) from FAQ page here

No. As has been covered before on this forum, it took over 1 hour and 15 minutes to intercept Payne Stewart's plane and then it was with a plane already airborne that had to be diverted from a training mission.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

Notice that the time in the report changes from EDT (Eastern Daylight Time) to CDT (Central Daylight Time). This is where many people get tripped up on the timing because they forget that there is an hour difference in the time zones.

Well here's a link with quite a few names, plus references to peer-reviewed technical papers:
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/search?u...;max-results=50

That apart, the number of technical people who put their names on the NIST report runs into the hundreds.

OF COURSE YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT THE POPULAR MECHANICS "DEBUNK" WAS ITSELF THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED - surely it's been mentioned many times before, as it has elsewhere that the PM article was filled with misrepresentations, distortions, strawman arguments, and even the occassional outright lies?

Popular Mechanics claims about 9/11 were long thoroughly debunked and the attempt to defend the "Official" conspiracy theory of the Bush Administration that 9/11 was perpetrated by Arabs was shown as a pile of dogpoo and outright lies,

Popular Mechanics claimed to have referred to 200 experts, but really relied only on 33 alleged "experts", many of whom were actually JOURNALISTS not structural engineers, physicists, engineers, or anything like it.


Here are some links debunking the claims made in Popular Mechanics:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/indexg.html

http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/rep...r_mechanics.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...toffscousin.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/augus...armechanics.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/popular-mechanics.html

The Official 9/11 Fairytale is just a pile of lies. You really should read this book;



Debunking 9/11 Debunking
An Answer to Popular Mechanics and the Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory - David Ray Griffin

http://www.interlinkbooks.com/product_info...roducts_id=1615


Media Reviews

"Considering how the 9/ll tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/ll deserve to be investigated and addressed."
-- Howard Zinn

"Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics."
-- Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration

"David Ray Griffin hits another one out of the park by taking on the left gatekeepers and the mass media for the lies and cover-up called ‘the official story of 9/11/01,' which is the greatest conspiracy theory ever perpetrated on the American public. I highly recommend this book for all thinking Americans."
-- Meria Heller, Producer & Host of the Meria Heller Show

here's a transcript of the on-air destruction of Popular Mechanic's 'rebuttal' about the missing DNA of the alleged "hijackers" - the original Radio program exchange can be heard here -
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3


(Transcript)

PM - Popular Mechanics: Davin Coburn “researcher, editor, reporter on the original 9/11 article”
CG - Charles Goyette, Radio Show Host

CG: Is there information that has not been given to the public?

PM: Very little… there is very little that has been held back as far as the basic facts of what happened that morning in terms of the material we looked into.

CG: I was under the impression that there were a lot of facts that were withheld. I mean, the surveillance videos, for example, around the Pentagon we were told about: a hotel video, a convenience store video, we haven’t seen those. Apparently they were swooped up very quickly or so the report goes.

PM: That is the case, those have been taken for larger criminal investigations those are now being disclosed to the public, you know with the Judicial Watch material…

CG: I’ve talked with the guys at Judicial Watch, and they’re not very happy about it, they released like four frames that don’t really show much of anything.

PM: They don’t show very much considering that the frame rate was one frame per second and the plane Flight 77 was moving about 780 feet per second, from that distance it’s not surprising that there was not a whole lot caught on that video.

CG: Are you telling me that’s the only video?

PM: No, I suspect there are other videos, I suspect they’re still being used for various investigations.

CG: What the hell is there to investigate? They told us who the guys were, they held onto some of that stuff for the Moussaoui trial for the love of God, like it was really relevant to his trial (sarcastic), it’s five years later, when are the American people entitled to the evidence?

PM: I think there’s plenty of evidence out there…

CG: It’s not the evidence we’ve seen that we’re concerned about, it’s the evidence we haven’t seen. Does that make any sense?

PM: Oh sure it makes sense…. The evidence is abundant…

CG: It’s the dog that didn’t bark… We know the evidence we’ve seen, that doesn’t cause any suspicion so much as the evidence that we don’t see. It’s not helpful in this country with a very secretive government when a big, powerful magazine like you guys, who owns Popular Mechanics?

PM: “Hearst.”

CG: Ok, with Hearst Corporation, with all of your might, instead of joining the people in their natural curiosity to see all the evidence, you try to say, “Oh shut up, you peons don’t know what you’re talking about, everything’s fine, keep on moving, there’s nothing to see here.” Hearst should be using their influence to get all the evidence released and that will end all the conspiracy talk! Wouldn’t it?

PM: (does not answer this question)

CG: …I want to come back to the unseen evidence - the dog that didn’t bark. Hearst has a lot of muscle - where are you in lobbying for the release of all the evidence to put an end to all this madness, speculation and distrust?..

PM: It’s not up to us…

CG: I said use your influence.. Look, is there something we don’t know about this that they have to hide from us? No, or so I presume. We’re told who did it, we’ve invaded two countries in response to it, we’ve spent billions of dollars, I mean, what could be possibly secretive right now?

PM: How can I answer the question?

CG: Because you don’t know, we just want to see the evidence. If the plane flew into the building, show us the damn pictures. What could that possibly hurt?

PM: (Cannot answer question)

CG: …Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics…say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.

PM: When the North Tower collapsed… there was damage to Building 7…. What we found out was…about 25% of the building’s south face had been carved away from it… Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower…

CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true… I go, oh that’s interesting…if that’s true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you’ve got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn’t show that. So I’m going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don’t show me the picture.

PM: …We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate….

CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can’t see them.

PM: Correct.

CG: Well, that’s a fine kettle of fish, isn’t it? ….What did you see there that I can’t see?

PM: Just what was described.

CG: Well it must be something that’s dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You’re publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they’ve done the worst possible thing, they’ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.

CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn’t know we had different classes of citizens. You can’t tell me it’s because it’s a criminal case because they’ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher.

PM: ….I can’t answer that question.

CG: I know you can’t.

PM: (is speechless)….

…Caller (Mike): What about the 7 to 9 hijackers that were reported in the British press who came forward and said, “We’re alive, what are we doing on the FBI list of so-called hijackers? We’re alive and well.” How do you explain that one?

PM: It was one BBC report - I am saying that is false.

Caller: How did you verify that the British story was false?

PM: The remains of the hijackers who have been widely understood to have been on those planes…

Caller: What remains?

PM: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place.

Caller: The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after, and they were able do autopsies on bodies? Are you insane? Where are the autopsy reports you were referring to, on the hijackers, where are those reports? I haven’t heard anything about autopsy reports.

CG: I want to know, even if we presume you’re correct that they recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA with which to match it? Where did they get the original DNA of a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic madmen? Where did they get the DNA? Had they submitted DNA before they, uh…I mean, where the hell did they get it? You’re not even talking sensibly with me.

PM: Off the top of my head, I don’t know the answer to that.

CG: Of course you don’t.

PM: I’ll get back to you with it.

CG: Is that a promise?

PM: I will do my best.

CG: People all across the state of Arizona now are hearing Davin Coburn say on the show that he’s gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists who had…hijacked those planes. Good, I’d like to hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these kinds of representations are made?

PM: No, actually I don’t…

CG: You don’t understand why when you tell us that they found the hijackers’ DNA remains amongst the molten steel, and I ask you where did they get the original DNA from the hijackers to match it against - Do you think that’s bizarre to ask a question like that, do you think it’s conspiratorial just to want to know?…You told me that they have DNA evidence that matches the hijackers…

PM: I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a question that’s worth answering….

CG: …You’ve told me that they checked their DNA, where did they get their original DNA to check it against? You’re the one with the answers, I’m not. I just ask questions.

PM: …A seven year old can ask why, over and over and over….

CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country, we’ve invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, we’re gonna spend trillions of dollars. It’s not a seven year old asking why, I want to know where they got the evidence that they matched it against. What’s so hard about that?

PM: The way that you’re framing it is intentionally…

CG: Of course it is, ’cause it’s five years later and we haven’t heard the answer. And you haven’t given it to us in Popular Mechanics. I swear to God, that’s it. You see, it’s the way I’m framing it makes it an illegitimate question? Well tell me how to reframe it, tell me how to ask it differently.

PM: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked.

CG: I want the question I asked. All right, that’s it. Hey Davin, thanks…the Charles Goyette Show.

END


Well...we still haven't had the question answered,and PM could not answer it!. Can you help? Where DID they get the original DNA of the hijackers from, such that when DNA was recovered from the collapsed WTC buildings, they were able to match it and announce the identity of the hijacker?

Anyone know?



.

In other words, you make wild generalisations again about the alleged opinions of people who you can't actually name or show that they agree with you.

The NIST report does not cite "hundreds" of structural engineers. You want to be 'specific' about structural engineers architects when pretending there aren't any on the 9/11 Truth side, but when it comes down to it, you go all wishy-washy and start generalising again by pretending that "hundreds" of "technical" experts somehow equals "hundreds" of structural engineers and architects.

While the NIST report does not list the specialities of the technical staff, they are all going to be qualified engineers of some sort. That's what "technical staff" means.
I gather from the speed of your reply that you did not in fact read my link.

Why should a guy from Popular Mechanics be expected to know about DNA?

If you want my guess, they matched the DNA found against that from the relatives of the hijackers.

On and on and on it goes; where it stops nobody knows.

Washington Post article



Oh, and does everyone know that the moon doesn't really exist either.

The Perdue re-creation video shows a thin aluminum sheet skid off the top of the plane. They show that same thin flap of aluminum go through 3 re-inforced steel columns with no resistance. The Perdue video was a silly cartoon with little to no real physics.

The assertion that the Purdue study confirms the NIST and FEMA studies is inaccurate. They are actually at odds with one another

The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation: ‘The weight of the aircraft’s fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid.’ This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA report which stated: ‘despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage.’


These computer guys at Purdue are animators, and have no idea how that plane broke up inside the building or how much fuel exploded on impact instead of knocking out columns first. I wish we really knew, but this animation is just to bolster the government’s theory. It really does not explain WTC 7 where no plane hit, yet it collapsed in a similar manner. It does not explain the South Tower, where the impact of the plane was more oblique, not centered on the Core Columns. It also does not explain all the firefigher reports (over a hundred different individuals) who heard and felt explosions throughout the building. And most importantly it does not explain how the buildings could have fallen at almost freefall speed, when a gravity-driven collapse would have been much slower because of the absorption of energy required by each floor in order to snap all the bolts or rivets and welds that held the steel frame together. The scary thing is that if WTC 7 really did collapse without explosives, then no one should enter a skyscraper till we find out why, and if explosives really did bring the three buildings down but is being covered-up and not investigated, then the USA is the scariest place you can imagine

Another thing I read from the NIST report is also contradicted here: NIST admits that the only parts of the planes that could have severed or even significantly damaged the core columns were the engines and the wheel assemblies. Since one of the engines and wheel assemblies from second plane was observed to exit the building on impact, at most 4 core columns in WTC2 and 2 core columns in WTC1 could have been severed, not nearly enough to explain collapse. Certainly the NIST does not support the high numbers of core columns severed that this “scientific animation”.

This video simulation does NOT show how both complete towers could have collapsed, just how one building was impacted by one jetliner. This video suggests – without acknowledging that it does so – that such an impact could cause such a building to collapse, while providing nothing valid to support such a claim

Let's see them try to simulate how damaging part of the upper story on ONE SIDE ONLY of one of these towers could have caused the whole thing to crumble in just slightly slower than freefall speed, symmetrically, straight down through it's own structure.

What this simulation does is provide support for NIST’s simulation of the impact; it just repeats that story, but doesn’t explain how a total collapse of s steel-framed hi-rise can come about from an uneven impact and the resulting uneven damage.They seem to think that if they keep telling the same lies over and over again it will somehow turn to the truth. That’s not science, it’s called marketing and advertising.

This Purdue University “study” claims to be independent but in reality has been federally funded and was conducted by individuals with direct links to the Pentagon and the White House.

The Study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The board of the NSF was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr, has worked for the Department of defense, where he was under secretary for research and engineering, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which is responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military and famed for its black op projects and offshoot offices.

So while it claims to be independent the study was in fact funded by the government and carried out by long time government hired hands. The study clearly set out not to attempt to discover anything new but to prove the preconceived official fire theory.

Again this underscores the fact that a truly independent investigation into 9/11 is the only way the mountains of evidence pointing towards a controlled demolition will even be considered.

I suspect that once independent programming experts are allowed to examine the computer program which produced the present model under consideration they will discover it to be skewed to produce equally flawed theory as well.

I also recall the “scientific animation” on Nova shortly after 9/11 which demonstrated the “pancake theory”, which essentially ignored the existence of the core columns altogether, that has since been thoroughly debunked, even by the NIST. The point being that a “sciency-looking” animation proves nothing.

In other words, you're again making a claim that you can't support. Yes there may be some softawre engineers of some sort, possibly a few other kinds of technical experts too, not necessarily even a majority of engineers.

They made the CLAIM.

Obviously they couldn't back it and the claim was nothing more than a LIE.




.

Strawman again.

I'm not Reynolds, I don't believe he even posts here.

Stick with what has been posted by people HERE






.

You can of course back up this claim?

No, this is not an example of a straw man argument. Any and all claims of various 9/11 conspiracy researchers are indeed 'fair game' in a discussion involving claims of conspiracy.

Had you read my link to the Washington Post article you would not only know who Morgan O. Reynolds is, but also why such claims are very relevant to what people have been saying here.

BTW, please do not instruct me as to what I'm free to discuss here.

It may be shown in the animation as a thin sheet, but an aircraft fuselage also contains a lot of substantial frames.

No contradiction, one statement is about the physical impact of the liquid on the structure, the other about whether there was a shock wave when it ignited.

Do try to understand the difference between an animation and an engineering computation. The former merely illustrates the conclusions of the latter, which involves using the same methods that help design every structure built nowadays.

I love the way conspiracists say that only a small number of conspirators need be involved, and then say that anyone, like the Purdue engineers, who disagree with them must be a part of the conspiracy.

No. There were planes. Believe me.

--Jaylemurph

That article seems to sum up the conspiratorialists to me:
"Why should we have to provide any answers ourselves? Uncle Sam is evil, and that's all that matters."

Conspiracies start because questions are unanswered, whats wrong with asking questions? or coming up with alternative explanations?
If being normal means believing everything on the news and hopping on the bandwagon of the 'majority' than you can count me out.
Somehow people think that if you believe in conspiracies your a weirdo, and that by labeling someone a conspiracy theorist that they are not credible.
Narrow minded skeptics are far from the truth, and never really prove anything but their ignorance. If there are no conspiracies then WTF is going on?
Skeptics mostly never show any evidence to disapprove a conspiracy, they just lie their ass off for whoever they work for.
If you want the truth look for it because it damn well aint gonna be found on tv or the newspaper.

Absolutely, that's genuinely wanting to investigate something to try to find out the truth about it. It's the kind of attitude from those in that article, though, the "*patronising chuckle* I don't believe the official version, and I can come up with dozens of reasons why, the way i see it at any rate, it couldn't possibly have happened like the official version says, but I'm not interested in what actually might have happened or why, all I want to do is rubbish the official version and those poor misguided fools who still believe it" mindset, that milldy irritates me.

Well, clearly, 7, you just don't know how stupid you are, and that you need saving from the Big Meaney Conspirators.

Thank goodness there are those out there who can read poorly-designed websites loudly proclaiming to everyone things that are (paradoxically) COMPLETE SECRETS, TOTALLY COVERED UP, squawk it back to us verbatim, and deign to tell us how no other sane, intelligent person could come up with any other explanation for events.

--Jaylemurph

Top Ten Arab and Iranian Conspiracy Theories Ending 2004

This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic and dangerous!

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0105/memr...nspiracies.php3

And...

The Best Conspiracy Theories

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/mag...e/15-11/st_best





The nonsense some people believe in..

heres the exact quote--
the one thing that is clear from this record is that the details become nonexistant from the 0938:00(EDT) period(when communication was deemed comprimised) on until the jet was vectored-- i find it unusual that the time markers would not include the am or pm indicator considering they were using a 12- hour based time measure while at the same time adding the 0 in front of the single digits-- one thing that is clear from that record is that the exact time the military craft was put into action is unestablished-- considering we were running drills that day of the exact same scenario taking place you would think the response would have been even shorter that normal circumstance consdered

That is the NTSB report from the Payne Stewart crash. I'm not talking about 911 and I don't care. You said they had jets to him in under 30 minutes and you were wrong. Further, they were not using a 12 hour based time measure, they used a 24 hour time. If you actually read through the report you will see times reported of 2200 EDT of when the pilot when to bed the night before.

2 of which had 767's flown into them at cruising speed, the other had a 110 story collapse right next to it. Yes, those three events were unique. To pretend there were no planes involved is being selectively stupid.



I'm not ignoring that fact. The buildings coming more or less straight down isn't illogical to me. And I can't believe it's not illogical to you. I can't believe anyone would expect the buildings to fall like a chopped down tree, especially 7, with it's wide footprint to height ratio. Stand on an aluminum can and have someone poke one side with a stick. What happens? Do you fall over face first? No, you fall straight down because once the integrity of the can is compromised, the rest of the can can't support the weight.



Ridiculous.



I can't. I cannot give you another example of a 110 story building getting struck by a 767 flying at cruising speed. And it's silly to rule out the official version just because it had never before happened in history.



What physics have I ignored? Show me some math that makes my beliefs incorrect.

And citing common sense is a bit hyproctrical, since you haven't bothered to address the question I asked earlier about how the explosives got there and who trained the people to plant and detonate them.



Ah. Again, how convenient for you.



But who cares who did it, right? Isn't that what you just said? Who did it doesn't matter, right?

Also, to believe everyone who believes the official version is a fan of George Bush is idiotic and juvenile. You're asking us to want to believe he was behind it because we don't like him. Calling me a Bush supporter illustrates how painfully wrong you are.

Nothing at all, unless you don't listen to the answers while continually repeating the questions.



I have yet to see one. After 6+ years, you'd think that someone would come up with an alternate explanation, but none has surfaced yet.

Do you have one? If so, please let me know what you think happened, in detail, on 9/11.



Good for you. So you now believe in the official version? Truthers love to tell us that we're in the overwhelming minority because the results of some unscientific poll taken during a 15 minute period on a show catering to conspiracy nuts said over 80% of the population believes Dylan Avery's crap. Welcome to the side of sanity, I guess.

Oh, to believe something solely based on the fact that the majority doesn't believe it will make you wrong nearly every time. Why do you think "Ask The Audience" is such a powerful helper on Millionaire?



More government disinformation agent crap? Say it ain't so.



But it will be told by such bastions of honesty such as Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, and Morgan Reynolds?

I think you mean "conspiracy theories" start because questions remain unanswered.

Conspiracies however are commonplace and normal.


The claim that 19-Arabs-Did-It is a CONSPIRACY THEORY.

The participants in the Boston Tea Party were involved in a CONSPIRACY.

The planners of the American Revolution were in a CONSPIRACY to downthrow the government (which happened to be the British at the time).

The people involved in the manipulation of the the intelligence behidn the lies about WMDs in Iraq were in a CONSPIRACY,

The people involved in Iran-Contra were in a CONSPIRACY.

Watergate was a CONSPIRACY

Bank cartels are CONSPIRACIES.

Pharmaceutical cartels are CONSPIRACIES.

Organised crime groups are CONSPIRACIES

You don't have to wait long for the next one to come along:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=116378

Second request for a link.