Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

Translation: “Yes the publishing rules at JEM are clearly biased (which is the whole point in your post Q), but I’m not objective either so I don’t care, nor will I consider it when disingenuously requesting papers opposing the official theory be published in mainstream journals. Instead I’ll cover for this with silly pictures and comments, in hope that other biased people see it as a good argument.”

By the way... I should have added in my previous post... when is that pile of politically driven pseudo-science that NIST came up with to prop-up the official story going to be peer-reviewed? How many years has it been now?

"I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

"I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable," explained Dr. Quintiere. "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."

~James Quintierre, NIST former Chief of Fire Science Division

http://www.ae911trut...estigation.html

Wrong again Q24.

You can keep on crying about this and so can he. It will change nothing. The reason that he got trounced is because he had nothing substantial to bring to the table. He was put in his place because he was out of his league, not because of the number of words he was allowed. He could write a million words but they'd still be inadequate. Why? Because he isn't qualified to be publishing in that journal in the first place. Why isn't he qualified? Because HE IS A LAWYER, NOT AN ENGINEER OR PHYSICIST. Easy enough to understand?

Should I repeat that? I probably should huh? I mean, it's the core point after all. He has no idea what he's talking about. Why?

HE IS A LAWYER, NOT AN ENGINEER OR PHYSICIST.

Get the picture yet?

Please do come back when he has something that isn't easily used to mop up the floor. So far his contributions are A JOKE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong again Q24.

You can keep on crying about this and so can he. It will change nothing. The reason that he got trounced is because he had nothing substantial to bring to the table. He was put in his place because he was out of his league, not because of the number of words he was allowed. He could write a million words but they'd still be inadequate. Why? Because he isn't qualified to be publishing in that journal in the first place. Why isn't he qualified? Because HE IS A LAWYER, NOT AN ENGINEER OR PHYSICIST. Easy enough to understand?

Should I repeat that? I probably should huh? I mean, it's the core point after all. He has no idea what he's talking about. Why?

HE IS A LAWYER, NOT AN ENGINEER OR PHYSICIST.

Get the picture yet?

Please do come back when he has something that isn't easily used to mop up the floor. So far his contributions are A JOKE.

How do I know this? Why am I so confident about this? Let me tell you how and why...

It has been how many years now since then?

Has he presented his full case with the full freedom allotted by the internet? Has he more fully fleshed out his position? Has he ignored the limitations imposed by JEM in order to speak his mind and illustrate his reasoning with these freedoms? If so, have they stood unrefuted and undeniable?

If he has, please do present that for us all.

If he hasn't, please ask yourself.... WHY THE HELL NOT?

It seems to me that he'd rather declare that he was mistreated rather than attempt to defend his completely destroyed position. He has no leg to stand on. He can't defend what he started with because it was complete nonsense. If you think otherwise, take up the torch yourself Q24. Take up the torch and show us all how he was right and Bazant was wrong.

You could lead the vanguard. You could be the savior. Bring the TruthTM to all of us Q24. Tell us how it is. Educate us. Inform us.

Inquiring minds want to know. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong again Q24.

You can keep on crying about this and so can he. It will change nothing. The reason that he got trounced is because he had nothing substantial to bring to the table. He was put in his place because he was out of his league, not because of the number of words he was allowed. He could write a million words but they'd still be inadequate. Why? Because he isn't qualified to be publishing in that journal in the first place. Why isn't he qualified? Because HE IS A LAWYER, NOT AN ENGINEER OR PHYSICIST. Easy enough to understand?

Should I repeat that? I probably should huh? I mean, it's the core point after all. He has no idea what he's talking about. Why?

HE IS A LAWYER, NOT AN ENGINEER OR PHYSICIST.

Get the picture yet?

Please do come back when he has something that isn't easily used to mop up the floor. So far his contributions are A JOKE.

WHETHER YOU THINK GOURLEY’S ENGINEERING/PHYSICS ARGUMENT IS CORRECT OR NOT IS ANOTHER SUBJECT. AT A MINIMUM WE KNOW THAT HIS PAPER WAS PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED, AND THAT THOUSANDS OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS, ALONG WITH MILLIONS OF CITIZENS AGREE WITH HIM. HOWEVER, THE POINT IS THAT THE PUBLISHING RULES AT JEM ARE BIASED - THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MERIT OF THE ARGUMENTS. I THOUGHT THAT WAS CLEAR FROM MY LAST TWO POSTS. I’M UNDECIDED WHETHER THIS BIG RED TEXT GETS OUR POINTS ACROSS ANY BETTER BUT THOUGHT I’D FOLLOW YOUR LEAD.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHETHER YOU THINK GOURLEY’S ENGINEERING/PHYSICS ARGUMENT IS CORRECT OR NOT IS ANOTHER SUBJECT. AT A MINIMUM WE KNOW THAT HIS PAPER WAS PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED, AND THAT THOUSANDS OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS, ALONG WITH MILLIONS OF CITIZENS AGREE WITH HIM. HOWEVER, THE POINT IS THAT THE PUBLISHING RULES AT JEM ARE BIASED - THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MERIT OF THE ARGUMENTS. I THOUGHT THAT WAS CLEAR FROM MY LAST TWO POSTS. I’M UNDECIDED WHETHER THIS BIG RED TEXT GETS OUR POINTS ACROSS ANY BETTER BUT THOUGHT I’D FOLLOW YOUR LEAD.

Struck a nerve I think... The TruthTM hurts don't it?

Let him bring something more substantial to the table. Are you opposed to him actually backing up his original points that were utterly trounced?

That seems to be the actual point to me. Why does it not seem to be the actual point to you?

Isn't the TruthTM what really matters? Let him bring some TruthTM to the table. I'm all ears.

Cry about rules on your own time. That is for lesser men. Bring the TruthTM to the table and let history sort it out.

Fair enough?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'll add that if you can't defend this... If you can't substantiate his demolished point of view,... if you can't repudiate the responses to his originally misguided and misinformed paper... .. you should never bring this up again. If you do bring this up again, it should be pointed out that there is nothing of substance in your claim. Unless, of course, he or you take up the torch and bring something else to the table.

Until then, this is just a bunch of garbage that you are trying to use to substantiate your unfounded claims of controlled demolition. Absolutely nothing that you have presented supports this ridiculous notion. Nothing at all.

Until you can substantiate this ridiculous claim, I suggest you go back to the drawing board and elicit help from people more qualified than you. Do you know what you'll find if you follow that suggestion?

NOTHING.

Why?

There was no controlled demolition. The damn towers fell because they were hit by airplanes piloted by terrorists.

End of story.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Struck a nerve I think... The TruthTM hurts don't it?

Let him bring something more substantial to the table. Are you opposed to him actually backing up his original points that were utterly trounced?

That seems to be the actual point to me. Why does it not seem to be the actual point to you?

Isn't the TruthTM what really matters? Let him bring some TruthTM to the table. I'm all ears.

Cry about rules on your own time. That is for lesser men. Bring the TruthTM to the table and let history sort it out.

Fair enough?

This is perhaps the second weirdest post I’ve ever seen from you – right after this other weird outburst. Sorry booNy but you’re fast approaching skyeagle (non-)standards of discussion where I’m going to start ignoring you altogether. Suggest you read over my last few posts again, try to understand the point and respond with something relevant. So far we have a U.S. attorney with experience in the peer-review process who has highlighted clear bias in the publishing rules at JEM... you actually have no relevant response to this – thus the weird posts and derailment (attempting to discuss the opposing arguments for/against demolition (where this is not even the thread for it) rather than acknowledge the fact of the biased publishing rules of mainstream journals).

In addition, all of your arguments against the WTC demolition have been rebutted numerous times previously – please use the search function; I have no desire to go over them with you again. The only question I’d like you to think about is this: Why do you defend those who carried out the demolitions on 9/11? Why wouldn’t you want the demolitions and those responsible to be exposed? What happened to vigilance and real patriotism?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is perhaps the second weirdest post I’ve ever seen from you – right after this other weird outburst. Sorry booNy but you’re fast approaching skyeagle (non-)standards of discussion where I’m going to start ignoring you altogether. Suggest you read over my last few posts again, try to understand the point and respond with something relevant. So far we have a U.S. attorney with experience in the peer-review process who has highlighted clear bias in the publishing rules at JEM... you actually have no relevant response to this – thus the weird posts and derailment (attempting to discuss the opposing arguments for/against demolition (where this is not even the thread for it) rather than acknowledge the fact of the biased publishing rules of mainstream journals).

In addition, all of your arguments against the WTC demolition have been rebutted numerous times previously – please use the search function; I have no desire to go over them with you again. The only question I’d like you to think about is this: Why do you defend those who carried out the demolitions on 9/11? Why wouldn’t you want the demolitions and those responsible to be exposed? What happened to vigilance and real patriotism?

And the points that you proudly point out on your link still stand unrefuted. You've completely ignored them. You claim that they are easily refuted, and yet take no action to do so. The same is true here.

Your points are defunct. Your position is devoid of substance. This attorney has failed to make his case and you have failed to support him.

He and you have nothing of value to offer on any scientific or engineering front. Nothing at all. You are mutually clueless regarding what was involved in the collapses and you're focused solely on political subterfuge.

You may not realize it right now, and you may never come to realize it... but you are so blatantly wrong about these points that it is embarrassing.

Perhaps some day you'll actually learn something about these topics that you try to argue over. Perhaps not. In either case, the reality of the situation will not change; and your present course of thought will never be validated.

On that note I bid you good night. May you waken with more sense in your head than existed before it hit the pillow.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry booNy but you’re fast approaching skyeagle (non-)standards of discussion where I’m going to start ignoring you altogether.

You have been asked to provide evidence supporting your claim that the collapse of the WTC buildings were the result of controlled demolitions and so far, you have simply failed to deliver the goods.

On another note, you have also failed to understand the full scope of the intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11 attacks despite the fact that such failures and conflicts between our intelligence agencies were revealed in those investigations and you seem unaware that problems continued even after the 9/11 attacks. In other words, you have failed to provide evidence of a government 9/11 conspiracy.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further demonstration of your skyeagle-esque standard of (non-)discussion, booNy...

This attorney has failed to make his case and you have failed to support him.

Of your whole post, this is the only sentence relevant to the point I have raised. It’s nothing but a statement of opinion. There is no argument to back it up. You cannot fairly reason why JEM allowed Bazant double to triple the publishing space that was permitted to Gourley. So all you provide is a hollow opinion and a lot of babble that is irrelevant to the point.

You have been asked to provide evidence supporting your claim that the collapse of the WTC buildings were the result of controlled demolitions and so far, you have simply failed to deliver the goods.

Well booNy... I mean err... skyeagle, if you give me an example of what might constitute circumstantial evidence for a demolition, to show that you understand the concept of circumstantial evidence in the first place (as you have failed terribly in the past) and that you’re not just a waste of time, and then we can talk. [i’m betting I receive nothing relevant in response to this request].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further demonstration of your skyeagle-esque standard of (non-)discussion, booNy...

Of your whole post, this is the only sentence relevant to the point I have raised. It’s nothing but a statement of opinion. There is no argument to back it up. You cannot fairly reason why JEM allowed Bazant double to triple the publishing space that was permitted to Gourley. So all you provide is a hollow opinion and a lot of babble that is irrelevant to the point.

The actual point is that Gourley has not and cannot support his criticisms of Bazant's paper. There is nothing stopping him from writing as much as he wants right now. He could write a million words right now. You can both keep whining about JEM until you're blue in the face and it will change nothing. You, he, or someone else needs to bring something of substance to the table if you're going to make any headway at all.

And that, Q24, is the actual point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a news clip from a cnn reporter and he said it was not a plane and there was nothing at the site to think it was a plane.

its on youtube iam to lazy to find it lol. if it was a plane how come light poles where not knocked down and parts all over the place.

that place was built to take a big hit

Same thing happened at Shanksville--everybody that was there reported nothing resembling a wrecked Boeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thing happened at Shanksville--everybody that was there reported nothing resembling a wrecked Boeing.

I guess you forgot that those people confirmed that crash site was that of United 93.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well booNy... I mean err... skyeagle, if you give me an example of what might constitute circumstantial evidence for a demolition, to show that you understand the concept of circumstantial evidence in the first place (as you have failed terribly in the past) and that you’re not just a waste of time, and then we can talk. [i’m betting I receive nothing relevant in response to this request].

You are just wasting time pushing controlled demolitions as responsible for the collapse of the 9/11 buildings since no evidence of explosions is seen or heard on video nor detected by monitors in the area, and It was clear the WTC buildings did not collapse due to explosives. For an example:

* No visible evidence of bomb explosions in the videos

* No sound of bomb explosions in the videos

* No evidence of blasting caps, detonation cords, nor any evidence of explosives found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

You also ignored the fact the WTC buildings were buckling just prior to their collapse.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tilted as it came crashing down."

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking.

There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

http://www.represent...xplosives2.html

9/11 cops saw collapse coming

New York Daily News - June 19th, 2004

The World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground, scientists probing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster said yesterday.

In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m.

But emergency responders inside the tower never got the order to evacuate due to faulty communications equipment and garbled lines of command, investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology said in its second interim report on the collapse's causes.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings," lead investigator Shyam Sunder said at a presentation in midtown.

http://www.skyscrape...e_20040619.html

NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says (Update2)

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

Science Daily

Science News

... from universities, journals, and other research organizations

Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

ScienceDaily (Apr. 11, 2005) — NEW YORK CITY (April 5, 2005) -- The Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) today presented its analysis of how the World Trade Center (WTC) towers collapsed after two aircraft were flown into the buildings by terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001. This is the most detailed examination of a building failure ever conducted.

http://www.scienceda...50411122017.htm

Clear evidence that fires were weakening the structure of the WTC buildings. and none implicating explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thing happened at Shanksville--everybody that was there reported nothing resembling a wrecked Boeing.

BTW, explain why you do not see anything resembling a Tu-154 at the crash site of Caspian Airlines,Flight 7908, which was a Tu-154.

_46062465_007652620-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, all of your arguments against the WTC demolition have been rebutted numerous times previously – please use the search function; I have no desire to go over them with you again. The only question I’d like you to think about is this: Why do you defend those who carried out the demolitions on 9/11?

It is peculiar that you would say such a thing with no evidence to present to us, and it has been over 11 years and yet, not one shred of evidence of controlled demolitions. If you are going to make a claim, you have to back it up with evidence and so far, you have yet to do so. :no:

Investigators and demolition experts in the area found no evidence and no evidence is depicted on video nor on audio or even on monitors in the area, so the question its:

With no evidence whatsoever, where did you get the false idea that explosives were used?

Structural and Civil Engineers against Controlled Demolition

Letter to the Editor

Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Van D. Romero, Ph.D. in Physics

"Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

- Van D. Romero, Ph.D. in Physics

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members.

Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

- A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

- The College of Engineering and Technology department

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

So once again, where is your evidence of controlled demolitions because none can be found on videos, monitors, and demolition experts, civil engineers, and architects found no such evidence of explosives either. :no:

And, let me remind you that 9/11 Truthers do not have the support of the majority of professional and private pilots, architects, demolition experts, and civil engineers. :no:

And, we can put you in the same boat as those within the 9/11 Movement who have claimed that a cruise missile struck that Pentagon despite no evidence to backup their claim, which flies in the face of collected evidence anyway!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accept all the evidence Raptor, including yours.

I just interpret it differently, and I ain't the only one.

You seem to reject evidence that works against your position.

It is not a rejection of anything that works against my position.

Evidence is backed by facts.

How is a statement a fact if it relies on data that icannot be proven 100% accurate?

This is you trying to fit pieces of "circumstantial(at best)" evidence to fit your theory.

aka "cut the square peg to force it to fit in the round hole."

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have seen, read, and understood it, huh?

Nah...of course not!

It's all available, in what would no doubt be considered boring journals of engineering data, analysis, calculation, and other such fun stuff.

But you'll never investigate any of that. It was done by professional engineers, and as such, is pretty boringly unique and complicated to the HB attempting to read it.I've read piles of it. The summary reports are well written, and concisely show the facts.

While I have NOT read every single piece of evidence on the subject, I have read up on the subject extensively and watched numerous and various video's

Also read what other people think and watched or read evidence that they have provided, on various forum's like this one,and various other site's, and researched into that evidence they have provided... (I do not take anything at face value, without researching into it)

Some of those article's/Video's evidence has been by engineer's or various other specialist's in their chosen field

That's how you can know about this stuff. Reading, and studying that which you don't know.

You're onbiously neither an engineer--or anyone with a reasonable semblance of an education enriched by the elegance of science and the beauty of mathematics.

When I replied previously to this post, maybe attack was not the right word to use (one of my off day's), the word/word's I should of used was, presume or assume and worded my reply accordingly

What I was meaning to say was that You seem to assume/presume a lot seeing as You do NOT know me personally or do NOT know what education I have had or have not had

You cannot (not aimed at You personally aimed at anyone) take anyone at face value when all You see is word's on a screen, there is time's when what people type can be misinterpreted, I have a communication disorder and I find that to be the case more often than I like

Admittedly I am not very good when it come's to Mathematic's.... (it used to bore me / and I never really understood it TBH)

However I have alway's been scientifically minded, and due to that I have alway's been good at that subject, or at subject's that an understanding of science is relevant

Do You really think that everyone need's to be a engineer or whatever other specialist, to be able to see when something just does not sit right in the 9/11 story ?

Admittedly, there is a need for some form of intelligence, to sort out the BS from the real evidence, as some evidence can be fabricated

But to expect any member to be a specialist in any given field is taking it a bit far....

A majority of member's come here to enquire about subject's they may be interested in, and to learn more about them, also to see what other people think of those subject's

That's not a tough call. You wouldn't be an HB or CT if you were. But if by some miracle you want to learn about it, you've got a year or two ahead of you before you come to a rudimentary understanding of the principals involved in analysis and engineering studies.

There is another thing that You seem to assume/presume without knowing, just because a person state's their belief on a topic does not mean they are a CT, You replied to the same topic are You a CT ? No ? didnt think so...

I am NOT a CT, I do NOT go in for conspiracy theorie's as such, however I do believe that 9/11 was a false flag and there is one or two other conspiracy theorie's that I also see as highly possible, but saying that there is a lot more conspiracy theorie's that I believe is a load of BS

Why do so many people love to put a label on people, just because they believe something different from what other's do?

And yes I do want to learn about this subject, why else would I be here and why else would I have invested so much time already researching on the topic in question...

We know what happened on 9-11, in excruciatingly graphic detail

Shouldn't that read.... "We Think we know what happened on 9-11, in excruciatingly graphic detail" ?

There is too much evidence missing to determine fully one way or another what happened on 9/11

Listening to technical specialists who know things is being BSed only to the true CT. That's because that is the calling cry of the true CT when being presented with incontrovertible evidence...evidence he has no hope of understanding because it required a college degree in special fields to grasp.

It is by listening to various technical specialist's who know thing's that lead's me to my conclusion or/and my belief's

Why does being BSed to have anything to do with CT's ? do You like when people BS You ? does anyone else ? No? I thought not

You do NOT have to be a CT to hate BS or being BSed to....

And as has been explained, it's all available to you. It doesn't require someone to explain it to you., it's required that you read, and study. Understanding it will show you everything you need to know. No coloration, no attitude.

It's long been over, and long been understood.

And who has been doing the explaining ? government or some one that is being paid by the government ? that to me is biased

IF the government had anything to do with 9/11, do You not think it would be beneficial for an independent inquiry ? do You not think that there would be a risk of unfair prejudice in the evidence ?

"It's long been over, and long been understood." You got half right, it has long been over, however it has not "long been understood" if it was there would not be such debate's like this, and there would not be people that are questioning the event's of 9/11, and they would definitely not spend as long as some people have on 9/11, if it was "long been understood"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Raptor.

How can the statement "the towers fell because of jetfuel and gravity" be considered a fact if bodies were vaporized and so much heat was generated that it took a few months for the heat to finally dissipate?

How can the statement "there was a 757 at Shanksville" be true when so many people and so many pictures that day showed there was no Boeing in that field?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can the statement "there was a 757 at Shanksville" be true when so many people and so many pictures that day showed there was no Boeing in that field?

But, those people confirmed that the crash site was that of United 93. Listen to one of those who was involved, who just happen to be a person you used as a reference.

At Flight 93 site, investigators recall what happened that day

SHANKSVILLE, Pa. - FBI Special Agent John Larsen spent most of the two weeks after 9/11 on his knees in an old coal field, wearing a hazmat suit, rooting through the pulverized remains of United Flight 93.

Larsen, who spoke at a panel discussion at the Flight 93 National Memorial on Sunday, remembers arriving from Chicago just after Sept. 11, 2001, looking down from the hillside above the crash site into a blackened crater and saying, "Where's the plane?"

Working around the clock, Larsen and hundreds of other investigators braved sharp-edged aircraft debris and pools of fuel oil and other toxic materials in their effort to determine who and what brought down the Boeing 757.

Their efforts yielded tons of material: the critical data and voice recorders that established the chronology of bone-chilling events on the plane, and some human remains that brought a measure of solace to families of the 40 passengers and crew who lost their lives.

Buried in the silt, 300 yards away, was a key piece of evidence that helped tie the crash to the larger 9/11 terrorist plot: one of the metal shanks used to hijack the plane, along with the burned remnants of a passport clearly picturing one of the hijackers.

http://articles.phil...urgh-fbi-office

You deliberately took statements out of context for the purpose of pushing your deceptive routine, which has now been placed high on a pedestal for all to see.

Don't forget this photo in my post to you that you somehow overlooked. Do you see anything resembling a Tu-154?

_46062465_007652620-1.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’ve requested on at least two previous occasions that you review the complaint of U.S. attorney James Gourley regarding the publishing rules at JEM. Here is an excerpt so perhaps you can see favouritism granted to the official theory’s 'golden engineer' and bias the truth movement must face: -

Okay. And? Exactly how am I supposed to differentiate between 'bias' applied to Gourley because he's a truther and bias applied to Gourley because his work doesn't meet the standards of this journal? Exactly how have you differentiated those two? There isn't a lot of information on this 'episode' beyond truther sites. Wasn't this a 'comment' or a letter to the journal, not an actual peer-reviewed paper?

And is it true this was 4 years ago? Is your story that in this amount of time the only reason that he hasn't made more headway spreading his sound scientific reasoning is because almost everyone in the engineering/mechanics world is unfairly biased against truthers?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't that read.... "We Think we know what happened on 9-11, in excruciatingly graphic detail" ?

No actually, through proper scientific and engineering investigations, we DO KNOW what hapened on 9-11-01 in excruciating detail.

Quite franly, killing terrorists is alot more worthy a thing to work on than trying to convince people who won't understand that relative simplicity.

I know it's a tough one without being an engineer, or having gratuated with a scientific curriculum , but it's true, and...

It's not the most difficult thing to understand in the world.

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No actually, through proper scientific and engineering investigations, we DO KNOW what hapened on 9-11-01 in excruciating detail.

Quite franly, killing terrorists is alot more worthy a thing to work on than trying to convince people who won't understand that relative simplicity.

I know it's a tough one without being an engineer, or having gratuated with a scientific curriculum , but it's true, and...

It's not the most difficult thing to understand in the world.

Eactly.

It is fine for people to question the realities of that day. Not everyone understands structural engineering, aerodynamics, crash dynamics, etc.

The fact is, most people who do not understand it and cannot explain it using the any measure of their education, common sense, and reason, are those who generally would like to throw down the Conspiracy card.

As far as reopening the case to allow a independant inquiry, how much would it cost to provide the man power to redeliver all that evidence YET AGAIN? I really don't mind independant inquiry but not at the cost of tax dollars.

If the CT camp would like to provide the money, then feel free.

And if the CT's are proven wrong, would they also claim the evidence provided to them was altered in any way shape or form?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eactly.

It is fine for people to question the realities of that day. Not everyone understands structural engineering, aerodynamics, crash dynamics, etc.

The fact is, most people who do not understand it and cannot explain it using the any measure of their education, common sense, and reason, are those who generally would like to throw down the Conspiracy card.

As far as reopening the case to allow a independant inquiry, how much would it cost to provide the man power to redeliver all that evidence YET AGAIN? I really don't mind independant inquiry but not at the cost of tax dollars.

If the CT camp would like to provide the money, then feel free.

And if the CT's are proven wrong, would they also claim the evidence provided to them was altered in any way shape or form?

Yep, there is no way to appease these people. They demand a new inquiry, but if one were conducted and found nothing of substance, they'd just cry conspiracy yet again. It would be a complete waste of resources.

Besides, virtually all of their claims have been adequately addressed. All that remains are a handful of ambiguities that will never be fully answered because the data to answer them isn't available and it never will be. That doesn't stop them though, they just keep rallying on about the same points that have already been refuted anyway. No additional investigation will cure that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as reopening the case to allow a independant inquiry, how much would it cost to provide the man power to redeliver all that evidence YET AGAIN? I really don't mind independant inquiry but not at the cost of tax dollars.

If the CT camp would like to provide the money, then feel free.

And if the CT's are proven wrong, would they also claim the evidence provided to them was altered in any way shape or form?

That is exactly what would happen. They made a big deal over nothing in regards to video images at the Pentagon, and still made a big deal over the videos of American 11 and United 175. They will no doubt make up excuses and we have their own track record to go on.

Yep, there is no way to appease these people. They demand a new inquiry, but if one were conducted and found nothing of substance, they'd just cry conspiracy yet again. It would be a complete waste of resources.

Besides, virtually all of their claims have been adequately addressed. All that remains are a handful of ambiguities that will never be fully answered because the data to answer them isn't available and it never will be. That doesn't stop them though, they just keep rallying on about the same points that have already been refuted anyway. No additional investigation will cure that.

You've got that right! They will probably create another conspiracy over the results of a new investigation. They are not interested in facts and evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like all that Roswell crap again ! LoL That was a great line that an actual ATC guy made,And Did we re-open all the Roswell cases? No ! 9/11/01 was exactly what it was !Lets move on ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.