GLASNOST
Gold Member
Government is compromised ... Life turned to shitCore was compromised.....Building collapsed
Science
Politics
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Government is compromised ... Life turned to shitCore was compromised.....Building collapsed
Science
If the Ivory Tower Had Collapsed Instead, the Twin Towers Would Still Be StandingMessage to Truthers and anyone who sympathizes.
Look, you want to say that powerful sources brought down the towers for their own agenda, fine. Pick your sinister entity; Bush, the military industrial complex, the Illuminati, whatever. Pick your motive, financial ruination of the US, war for profit, whatever. But why pick an impossible or at least highly unlikely route to get there?
Just say (insert your evil entity here) wanted to get the US into a war against Islamic Terror groups because (insert the nefarious motive here), so they financed, trained and organized OBL and a group of terrorists to hijack some planes and fly them into the towers?
That scenario would be MUCH harder to debunk than the controlled demolition scenario, or the fake airplane scenario, or the missile scenario.
This is an amazing, and eye opening film that may well change everything that you thought you knew or that you believed about what happened on 9.11.01.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/physics-study-911-controlled-demolition/
That’s it folks! Have at it .Don’t troll me bro. I’m just the messenger!
I appreciate that you had the integrity to post a source - Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage - that totally debunks your Europhysics News article which promotes the same, old, 9/11 CT replete with the same old, thoroughly discredited CTBS the "Truthers" have been spewing for over a decade. I found that article far more compelling.
To wit:
1) There is nothing "Startling" or "New" as your thread title claims, unless you first heard about the 9/11/2001 attack yesterday.
2) Europhysics News is not connected to the peer-reviewed Europhysics Journal (which is an actual scientific journal) but rather just a magazine that did not conclude anything but rather published the "work" of established (and discredited) "Truthers." The mysterious reclassification of an online news rag to credible scientific journal is typical of how some must play fast and loose with the truth in a lame attempt to fool the next generation of gullible foil-hatters.
3) Europhysics News did include a disclaimer in which they admitted to be publishing the authors' unscientific "speculation" and added that "the content of the article is the responsibility of the authors." Oh. In other words, they were simply spurring Internet traffic to their site.
4) When contacted for comment Europhysics News responded by confirming that their magazine is not peer-reviewed and that the article contains ‘speculative’ claims.
5) It is certainly your right to post the same old 9/11 CTBS that has been destroyed both here and everywhere else but to claim it is new and improved is, once again, just playing fast and loose with the truth.
6) The authors are all members of, or affiliated with 9/11 ‘truther’ movements and the debunker goes on to note:
"This is essentially the equivalent of asking a group of creationists, who also happen to be scientists, whether there is any evidence for intelligent design. A qualification a good scientist does not make. The ‘evidence’ these authors presented is the usual collection of debunked tropes which didn’t take long to be debunked yet again (again again).
There is nothing new here whatsoever. Europhysics News have published a pseudoscientific article of previously debunked 9/11 tropes to coincide with the 15th anniversary of the atrocity in a cynical attempt to maximise their publication’s exposure. This has then been miss-sold as a scientific journal by media and commentators alike."
.
The plane penetrated to the coreI'm not trying to do anything but use sense.Nice try but WTC was not built that way
In that case it would require a complete cross-section to be destroyed before anything (but a side chunk) to fall off of it.It did not have a box like frame like an Erector Set
It had an inner core with floors added like a stack of records
So, in your imagination, you have considered a stack of records, right? And in your imagination you have thought what would happen if you slammed something into its' SIDE ..... and that would cause the whole stack to fall straight down.That is why it pancaked as those stacks collapsed on the floor below
Sorry, but if it had a core then it would be more like a tree than anything else and would WITHOUT DOUBT fall over like a tree. You said "core", it's your own word. If the core were cut through by a force from its' side (as is the case) then the section above the slice would topple over to one side. If the whole structure were to be weakened from this "core" then it might fall straight down around the "core" but leave the core itself standing. Thanks for playing, but you lose in either case.
...What is the bias of truthers other than a pursuit of the truth?
In addition, this paper from the December 2001 issue of JOM, — the member journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society , — is in full agreement with the Jones group on this point. ( That the fire alone was insufficient to melt of weaken the structure to the point of failure) They too appear to be legitimate and highly credible...Steven Jones assertion that the fire could not have been hot enough to melt or cause failure of the steel was backed up by the unimpeachable Minerals, Metals & Materials Society...
On the official version’s side……..
Yes there is room for criticism of Steven Jones and his study was not peer reviewed.
It seems farfetched that the buildings could have been rigged with explosive without the perpetrators being seen or the explosives being detected.
How could an attack from the ground be coordinated with the hijackings, especially if it was an entity apart from Al Qaeda ?
You might have noticed that for the most part, I'm not disagreeing with you. The difference between us is that I'm trying to have a balanced view of it and see all sides, while you are heavily invested in debunking the truthers totally. Why is that. You and the others who want so badly to prove the official version seem to be running scared of any other possibility. White you accuse the truthers of cherry picking, it seems as though that is exactly what you're doing....What is the bias of truthers other than a pursuit of the truth?
That is an interesting question and I have noticed a myriad of often conflicting agendas within the "Truther" Movement but what makes you think they are in "pursuit of the truth?" Because they say so?
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former 9/11 CT royalty The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind
In addition, this paper from the December 2001 issue of JOM, — the member journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society , — is in full agreement with the Jones group on this point. ( That the fire alone was insufficient to melt of weaken the structure to the point of failure) They too appear to be legitimate and highly credible...Steven Jones assertion that the fire could not have been hot enough to melt or cause failure of the steel was backed up by the unimpeachable Minerals, Metals & Materials Society...
My prob with "Truthers" is their penchant for cherry-picking and otherwise playing fast and loose with the truth. For instance, there was no evidence of "molten steel" and according to that article:
"However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse."
In other words, your source did not cast doubt or aspersions on the official study but actually confirms it.
On the official version’s side……..
Yes there is room for criticism of Steven Jones and his study was not peer reviewed.
It seems farfetched that the buildings could have been rigged with explosive without the perpetrators being seen or the explosives being detected.
How could an attack from the ground be coordinated with the hijackings, especially if it was an entity apart from Al Qaeda ?
Before you dive down that rabbit hole you should know that some never return to reality ... MrBeale and LARam (formerly 9/11InsideJob) are two prime examples.
You admit that the rigging of CD charges "seems farfetched" (and it is) but beyond that please consider that those charges would have had to survive the impact of the passengers jets followed by hours of very hot and chaotic fires. The idea isn't just "farfetched," it's absurd and when the "coordination" of the hijackings is thrown in, it's absolutely ridiculous.
And why has Prof Jones failed to get peer-review after more than a decade of espousing the same old discredited CTBS?
Finally, there is nothing "new" or "startling" about Jones's claims so why, if you are not just another CT loon in search of some attention, would you title your thread as such?
You might have noticed that for the most part, I'm not disagreeing with you. The difference between us is that I'm trying to have a balanced view of it and see all sides, while you are heavily invested in debunking the truthers totally. Why is that. You and the others who want so badly to prove the official version seem to be running scared of any other possibility. White you accuse the truthers of cherry picking, it seems as though that is exactly what you're doing....What is the bias of truthers other than a pursuit of the truth?
That is an interesting question and I have noticed a myriad of often conflicting agendas within the "Truther" Movement but what makes you think they are in "pursuit of the truth?" Because they say so?
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former 9/11 CT royalty The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind
In addition, this paper from the December 2001 issue of JOM, — the member journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society , — is in full agreement with the Jones group on this point. ( That the fire alone was insufficient to melt of weaken the structure to the point of failure) They too appear to be legitimate and highly credible...Steven Jones assertion that the fire could not have been hot enough to melt or cause failure of the steel was backed up by the unimpeachable Minerals, Metals & Materials Society...
My prob with "Truthers" is their penchant for cherry-picking and otherwise playing fast and loose with the truth. For instance, there was no evidence of "molten steel" and according to that article:
"However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse."
In other words, your source did not cast doubt or aspersions on the official study but actually confirms it.
On the official version’s side……..
Yes there is room for criticism of Steven Jones and his study was not peer reviewed.
It seems farfetched that the buildings could have been rigged with explosive without the perpetrators being seen or the explosives being detected.
How could an attack from the ground be coordinated with the hijackings, especially if it was an entity apart from Al Qaeda ?
Before you dive down that rabbit hole you should know that some never return to reality ... MrBeale and LARam (formerly 9/11InsideJob) are two prime examples.
You admit that the rigging of CD charges "seems farfetched" (and it is) but beyond that please consider that those charges would have had to survive the impact of the passengers jets followed by hours of very hot and chaotic fires. The idea isn't just "farfetched," it's absurd and when the "coordination" of the hijackings is thrown in, it's absolutely ridiculous.
And why has Prof Jones failed to get peer-review after more than a decade of espousing the same old discredited CTBS?
Finally, there is nothing "new" or "startling" about Jones's claims so why, if you are not just another CT loon in search of some attention, would you title your thread as such?
Another Reason This Theory Was Planted by the EstablishmentI'm not convinced at all it was our govt. However, I TOTALLY support an independent investigation. I don't trust our govt and I damn sure don't trust bush
Exclusive photos the 9-11 commission does not want you to see
Flat Earth Comes to Ground ZeroYou might have noticed that for the most part, I'm not disagreeing with you. The difference between us is that I'm trying to have a balanced view of it and see all sides, while you are heavily invested in debunking the truthers totally. Why is that? You and the others who want so badly to prove the official version seem to be running scared of any other possibility. White you accuse the truthers of cherry picking, it seems as though that is exactly what you're doing....What is the bias of truthers other than a pursuit of the truth?
That is an interesting question and I have noticed a myriad of often conflicting agendas within the "Truther" Movement but what makes you think they are in "pursuit of the truth?" Because they say so?
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former 9/11 CT royalty The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind
In addition, this paper from the December 2001 issue of JOM, — the member journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society , — is in full agreement with the Jones group on this point. ( That the fire alone was insufficient to melt of weaken the structure to the point of failure) They too appear to be legitimate and highly credible...Steven Jones assertion that the fire could not have been hot enough to melt or cause failure of the steel was backed up by the unimpeachable Minerals, Metals & Materials Society...
My prob with "Truthers" is their penchant for cherry-picking and otherwise playing fast and loose with the truth. For instance, there was no evidence of "molten steel" and according to that article:
"However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse."
In other words, your source did not cast doubt or aspersions on the official study but actually confirms it.
On the official version’s side……..
Yes there is room for criticism of Steven Jones and his study was not peer reviewed.
It seems farfetched that the buildings could have been rigged with explosive without the perpetrators being seen or the explosives being detected.
How could an attack from the ground be coordinated with the hijackings, especially if it was an entity apart from Al Qaeda ?
Before you dive down that rabbit hole you should know that some never return to reality ... MrBeale and LARam (formerly 9/11InsideJob) are two prime examples.
You admit that the rigging of CD charges "seems farfetched" (and it is) but beyond that please consider that those charges would have had to survive the impact of the passengers jets followed by hours of very hot and chaotic fires. The idea isn't just "farfetched," it's absurd and when the "coordination" of the hijackings is thrown in, it's absolutely ridiculous.
And why has Prof Jones failed to get peer-review after more than a decade of espousing the same old discredited CTBS?
Finally, there is nothing "new" or "startling" about Jones's claims so why, if you are not just another CT loon in search of some attention, would you title your thread as such?
I'm not convinced at all it was our govt. However, I TOTALLY support an independent investigation. I don't trust our govt and I damn sure don't trust bush
I'm not convinced at all it was our govt. However, I TOTALLY support an independent investigation. I don't trust our govt and I damn sure don't trust bush
well then you obviously have never seen either of these two videos nor read this book i see.
..It was a joint CIA/mossad operation.These two videos and this book have never been debunked.the government has failed miserably to debunk them.If you want to learn the truth all you got to do is take the time out of your schedule-three hours worth both times and watch both videos.
The author of this book has begged congress to debate him out in the open on CNN.they wont,they are cowardly and corrupt and know it is the truth so they wont debate him out in the open.
I'm not convinced at all it was our govt. However, I TOTALLY support an independent investigation. I don't trust our govt and I damn sure don't trust bush
well then you obviously have never seen either of these two videos nor read this book i see.
..It was a joint CIA/mossad operation.These two videos and this book have never been debunked.the government has failed miserably to debunk them.If you want to learn the truth all you got to do is take the time out of your schedule-three hours worth both times and watch both videos.
The author of this book has begged congress to debate him out in the open on CNN.they wont,they are cowardly and corrupt and know it is the truth so they wont debate him out in the open.
the fact our government paid shill and resident troll rightwinger posted a smiley is all the proof in the world it is indeed the truth,thats all he does when he cant counter facts that prove him wrong is post smileys in defeat.
I'm not convinced at all it was our govt. However, I TOTALLY support an independent investigation. I don't trust our govt and I damn sure don't trust bush
well then you obviously have never seen either of these two videos nor read this book i see.
..It was a joint CIA/mossad operation.These two videos and this book have never been debunked.the government has failed miserably to debunk them.If you want to learn the truth all you got to do is take the time out of your schedule-three hours worth both times and watch both videos.
The author of this book has begged congress to debate him out in the open on CNN.they wont,they are cowardly and corrupt and know it is the truth so they wont debate him out in the open.
the fact our government paid shill and resident troll rightwinger posted a smiley is all the proof in the world it is indeed the truth,thats all he does when he cant counter facts that prove him wrong is post smileys in defeat.
I've got tickets to the Rams/49er game in St Louis next weekend
Want to meet me?
I didn't say that the truth was half way between. It either was or was not a conspiracy. It either did or did not involve others besides the hijackers. I am saying that the evidence for the official version being false is mixed. I demonstrated how that's true.Flat Earth Comes to Ground ZeroYou might have noticed that for the most part, I'm not disagreeing with you. The difference between us is that I'm trying to have a balanced view of it and see all sides, while you are heavily invested in debunking the truthers totally. Why is that? You and the others who want so badly to prove the official version seem to be running scared of any other possibility. White you accuse the truthers of cherry picking, it seems as though that is exactly what you're doing....What is the bias of truthers other than a pursuit of the truth?
That is an interesting question and I have noticed a myriad of often conflicting agendas within the "Truther" Movement but what makes you think they are in "pursuit of the truth?" Because they say so?
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former 9/11 CT royalty The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind
In addition, this paper from the December 2001 issue of JOM, — the member journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society , — is in full agreement with the Jones group on this point. ( That the fire alone was insufficient to melt of weaken the structure to the point of failure) They too appear to be legitimate and highly credible...Steven Jones assertion that the fire could not have been hot enough to melt or cause failure of the steel was backed up by the unimpeachable Minerals, Metals & Materials Society...
My prob with "Truthers" is their penchant for cherry-picking and otherwise playing fast and loose with the truth. For instance, there was no evidence of "molten steel" and according to that article:
"However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse."
In other words, your source did not cast doubt or aspersions on the official study but actually confirms it.
On the official version’s side……..
Yes there is room for criticism of Steven Jones and his study was not peer reviewed.
It seems farfetched that the buildings could have been rigged with explosive without the perpetrators being seen or the explosives being detected.
How could an attack from the ground be coordinated with the hijackings, especially if it was an entity apart from Al Qaeda ?
Before you dive down that rabbit hole you should know that some never return to reality ... MrBeale and LARam (formerly 9/11InsideJob) are two prime examples.
You admit that the rigging of CD charges "seems farfetched" (and it is) but beyond that please consider that those charges would have had to survive the impact of the passengers jets followed by hours of very hot and chaotic fires. The idea isn't just "farfetched," it's absurd and when the "coordination" of the hijackings is thrown in, it's absolutely ridiculous.
And why has Prof Jones failed to get peer-review after more than a decade of espousing the same old discredited CTBS?
Finally, there is nothing "new" or "startling" about Jones's claims so why, if you are not just another CT loon in search of some attention, would you title your thread as such?
You're not being logical when you claim that the objective position is halfway between. This is a case where one side is completely wrong and should be rejected from all consideration. This planted wild goose chase lets the shallow conformists in "Intelligence" get away with their lack of deep knowledge, such as that on February 21, 1973, the Israelis shot down an off-course Libyan airliner because they had found out that the terrorists planned on hijacking one and using it as a bomb to kill thousands by crashing it into a large building.
I'm not convinced at all it was our govt. However, I TOTALLY support an independent investigation. I don't trust our govt and I damn sure don't trust bush
well then you obviously have never seen either of these two videos nor read this book i see.
..It was a joint CIA/mossad operation.These two videos and this book have never been debunked.the government has failed miserably to debunk them.If you want to learn the truth all you got to do is take the time out of your schedule-three hours worth both times and watch both videos.
The author of this book has begged congress to debate him out in the open on CNN.they wont,they are cowardly and corrupt and know it is the truth so they wont debate him out in the open.
the fact our government paid shill and resident troll rightwinger posted a smiley is all the proof in the world it is indeed the truth,thats all he does when he cant counter facts that prove him wrong is post smileys in defeat.
I've got tickets to the Rams/49er game in St Louis next weekend
Want to meet me?
The St Louis Rams are having an awful season. St Louis fired their coach, Jeff Fisher.
I wonder who St Louis will hire for their coach next year?