9-11….. Startling New Evidence of a Conspiracy

[rightwinger]

Let's do an experiment

Take a hundred story skyscraper and fly a jet airline into it and see if it causes the building to collapse

Then, take an identical hundred story skyscraper and fly a jet airline into it to see if the results are repeatable.

Wait a minute....we did that

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Just thinking

No skyscraper has ever survived a direct hit from a jetliner

How many times has that happened?? Did you watch the film? What are you guys so afraid of? Finding out that Republicans were involved??

 

[psikeyhackr]

Let's do an experiment

Take a hundred story skyscraper and fly a jet airline into it and see if it causes the building to collapse

Then, take an identical hundred story skyscraper and fly a jet airline into it to see if the results are repeatable.

Wait a minute....we did that

It should not be difficult to get accurate data on an experiment. So it should not be difficult to get accurate data on the amount of steel and concrete on each level of the buildings.

But wait, the NIST can write a 10,000 page report without specifying the amount of concrete in the buildings. But they did it for the steel, though not the distribution.

Americans are so hilarious with their general incompetence t science.

psik

 

[MisterBeale]

Let's do an experiment

Take a hundred story skyscraper and fly a jet airline into it and see if it causes the building to collapse

Then, take an identical hundred story skyscraper and fly a jet airline into it to see if the results are repeatable.

Wait a minute....we did that

 

[PredFan]

Note: I am aware of the fact that there are several other open treads on 9-11 However, they have long been dormant since shortly after they was started earlier this year. In addition, none of them feature the film that I recently discovered. This is different. This is compelling and worth a look!

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/

It is long. Over an hour. But if you just watch the first 10 or 15 minutes, you will certainly get the idea.

Now let me be clear, I was never a conspiracy theorists. I did not consider myself a 9-11 truther and I’m yet 100% convinced that we have been lied to. However, I am leaning in that direction.

The basic premise of the film is that the two planes alone did not bring the three building, WTC 1,2, and 7 down – that the collapses were caused, at least aided, by “controlled demolitions. Indeed, no plane had hit WTC 7! It is alleged that there was deliberate destruction of evidence, explosions not caused by the planes, and a symmetrical collapse of all three buildings consistent with a controlled demolition.

The film is narrated by Richard Gaga of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of 2,300 professionals who are demanding an independent investigation, and features a long succession of architects, engineers, various other scientists all of whom are quite credible. It also features eye witnesses who saw and heard things that are not explained and can’t be explained by the official version of what happened.

There is no dirt to be found on this organization. They are credible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

Here is the official site: http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/928-nists-wtc-7-reports-filled-with-fantasy-fiction-and-fraud-pt1.html

It is interesting to note that while it’s alleged that the plot was much wider than the hijackers, the report specifically avoids pointing any fingers or speculating on motive so as not to distract from the forensic evidence.

The film that you are about to see was published in the Free Thought Project http://thefreethoughtproject.com/

You will see that while the stories that they publish are provocative and under-reported in the main stream media, it is not “fake news” or conspiracy theories from the fringes of reality

Now to be fair, I am not without my doubts. We know that planes actually did hit the towers and that they were controlled by terrorists. But were there additional terrorists on the ground who planted explosives in all three building? Would that have even been possible? And, if they were expert enough to plant the bombs so strategically as to bring the buildings down, why did they bother to hijack planes?

Another possibility that some entity other than the terrorists- such as the Bush Administration- planted the bombs. Did they know about the plot ( as some have previously alleged ) and, rather than stopping it, planted to explosives to make certain of the outcome. Farfetched? I don’t know.

That brings me to the authors and publishers of the study and documentary. As I said Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, appear to be highly credible. However, here is a site that says that it is all bunk. You can decide for yourself.

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Now not being a scientist, I will not attempt to argue the conflicting scientific theories (although I do find the evidence for a controlled demolition very compelling) . However, they also attack the credibility and credentials of the chief author of the study Professor Steven E. Jones:

To be clear, let me restate the test which makes a real scientific paper. It has to be published in a respected scientific journal. As an example, The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is a well respected scientific journal. The peer review process is tough and precise. The reviewers are well respected in their fields of expertise. The Journal of the American Chemical Society is another which Jones can submit his papers. There are many well respected journals which have an impact in the scientific community. Bentham, where Jones has submitted his latest paper, is the Wiki of Journals. They have been criticized in the past for passing "gibberish".

One editor resigned after learning Jones paper passed their review. It seems the reviewers are told of the paper AFTER they are passed! Amazing!

Though Jones may have found the perfect home for his latest attempt at peer-review, it is far from a respected scientific journal. Will Jones ever publish in a "respected scientific journal"? Do they want legitimacy or a talking points?

So where does that leave us? Deep into more uncertainty. Jones was published in Europhysics News which appears to be highly credible and widely respected:

https://billlawrenceonline.com/europhysics-news-trutherism/

Europhysics News Trutherism — Trutherism, the belief that Al-Qaeda terrorists were not entirely behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, received a boost, Aug. 24, in the latest issue of Europhysics News which carries an article claiming that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition.

The magazine is published by the prestigious European Physical Society.

The authors of the piece are Steven Jones, a former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University; Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada; Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer; and Ted Walter, who holds master of public policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

The authors cite, among other things, the lack of heat to melt, or adequately weaken, the girders to cause the collapse.

Melted girders was widely reported as a reason immediately after the attack. This was quickly understood to be impossible, however. In fact, it was even being noted that things didn’t get hot enough to cause enough loss of structural strength.

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.

However, even here there is dissention:

The authors Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, however, don’t feel the need to deny what was before everyone’s eyes. Their article points out that temperature along the 18-meter long joists was certainly not uniform and that given the thermal expansion of steel, a 300 F temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses hence causing distortions resulting in buckling failures

Jones et al makes the point that fire never collapsed a skyscraper before 9/11 and has yet to bring one down since.

The rebuttal to this is that jet aircraft have never been flown into skyscrapers before or since. Further, a fire, while not collapsing a skyscraper, did make One Meridan Plaza in Philadelphia unstable enough to cause its demolition.

Again, I’m not going to attempt to evaluate the science. I am just presenting what has been said. I’m not trying to sell anything here. My intention is to stimulate discussion, elicit opinions, and to get a sense of how people, in general are leaning.

Finally, the is https://www.gspellchecker.com/2016/09/debunking-conspiracies-spread-some-truth-on-the-anniversary-of-911/#more-4482

This is apparently an Atheistic leaning site and as such, I, an atheist, give a certain amount of credibility to. They support the “conventional or main stream explanation for 9-11 and reject the conspiracy- controlled demolition theory and provide a link to the aforementioned . http://www.debunking911.com/index.html. I'm just not completely convinced, but as I said, leaning towards a conspiracy.

That’s it folks! Have at it .Don’t troll me bro. I’m just the messenger!

"Controlled demolition"

Didn't need to read any more or watch the film. A controlled demolition did not and could not have occurred. That has already been debunked. How old is that film?

 

[rightwinger]

Just thinking

No skyscraper has ever survived a direct hit from a jetliner

How many times has that happened?? Did you watch the film? What are you guys so afraid of? Finding out that Republicans were involved??

It has happened twice with identical results

Show me a skyscraper hit by a jet airline that didn't collapse

Looks like you lose

 

[rightwinger]

Let's do an experiment

Take a hundred story skyscraper and fly a jet airline into it and see if it causes the building to collapse

Then, take an identical hundred story skyscraper and fly a jet airline into it to see if the results are repeatable.

Wait a minute....we did that

?

 

[rightwinger]

Let's do an experiment

Take a hundred story skyscraper and fly a jet airline into it and see if it causes the building to collapse

Then, take an identical hundred story skyscraper and fly a jet airline into it to see if the results are repeatable.

Wait a minute....we did that

It should not be difficult to get accurate data on an experiment. So it should not be difficult to get accurate data on the amount of steel and concrete on each level of the buildings.

But wait, the NIST can write a 10,000 page report without specifying the amount of concrete in the buildings. But they did it for the steel, though not the distribution.

Americans are so hilarious with their general incompetence t science.

psik

Show me where a 100 story skyscraper has ever been taken down with a controlled demo with no detectable explosions

 

[westwall]

Just thinking

No skyscraper has ever survived a direct hit from a jetliner

How many times has that happened?? Did you watch the film? What are you guys so afraid of? Finding out that Republicans were involved??

There is one common thread among all of you "truthers" not one of you has the slightest clue about science, or engineering. None.

 

[PredFan]

Let's do an experiment

Take a hundred story skyscraper and fly a jet airline into it and see if it causes the building to collapse

Then, take an identical hundred story skyscraper and fly a jet airline into it to see if the results are repeatable.

Wait a minute....we did that

It should not be difficult to get accurate data on an experiment. So it should not be difficult to get accurate data on the amount of steel and concrete on each level of the buildings.

But wait, the NIST can write a 10,000 page report without specifying the amount of concrete in the buildings. But they did it for the steel, though not the distribution.

Americans are so hilarious with their general incompetence t science.

psik

Why do any experiment at all? It's not rocket science; two planes rammed two towers, they fell. Not hard.

 

[gipper]

Clearly 9/11 was a conspiracy. A bunch of dumb Muslims who had never flown jumbo jets couldn't have done it alone. And where was our Air Force which had plenty of time to intercept,but didn't. And of course, burning jet fuel can't melt steel.

Government always sucks.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Just thinking

No skyscraper has ever survived a direct hit from a jetliner

How many times has that happened?? Did you watch the film? What are you guys so afraid of? Finding out that Republicans were involved??

It has happened twice with identical results

Show me a skyscraper hit by a jet airline that didn't collapse

Looks like you lose

Show me a skyscraper that was hit by a jet airliner besides the WTC

 

[MisterBeale]

Note: I am aware of the fact that there are several other open treads on 9-11 However, they have long been dormant since shortly after they was started earlier this year. In addition, none of them feature the film that I recently discovered. This is different. This is compelling and worth a look!

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/

It is long. Over an hour. But if you just watch the first 10 or 15 minutes, you will certainly get the idea.

Now let me be clear, I was never a conspiracy theorists. I did not consider myself a 9-11 truther and I’m yet 100% convinced that we have been lied to. However, I am leaning in that direction.

The basic premise of the film is that the two planes alone did not bring the three building, WTC 1,2, and 7 down – that the collapses were caused, at least aided, by “controlled demolitions. Indeed, no plane had hit WTC 7! It is alleged that there was deliberate destruction of evidence, explosions not caused by the planes, and a symmetrical collapse of all three buildings consistent with a controlled demolition.

The film is narrated by Richard Gaga of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of 2,300 professionals who are demanding an independent investigation, and features a long succession of architects, engineers, various other scientists all of whom are quite credible. It also features eye witnesses who saw and heard things that are not explained and can’t be explained by the official version of what happened.

There is no dirt to be found on this organization. They are credible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

Here is the official site: http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/928-nists-wtc-7-reports-filled-with-fantasy-fiction-and-fraud-pt1.html

It is interesting to note that while it’s alleged that the plot was much wider than the hijackers, the report specifically avoids pointing any fingers or speculating on motive so as not to distract from the forensic evidence.

The film that you are about to see was published in the Free Thought Project http://thefreethoughtproject.com/

You will see that while the stories that they publish are provocative and under-reported in the main stream media, it is not “fake news” or conspiracy theories from the fringes of reality

Now to be fair, I am not without my doubts. We know that planes actually did hit the towers and that they were controlled by terrorists. But were there additional terrorists on the ground who planted explosives in all three building? Would that have even been possible? And, if they were expert enough to plant the bombs so strategically as to bring the buildings down, why did they bother to hijack planes?

Another possibility that some entity other than the terrorists- such as the Bush Administration- planted the bombs. Did they know about the plot ( as some have previously alleged ) and, rather than stopping it, planted to explosives to make certain of the outcome. Farfetched? I don’t know.

That brings me to the authors and publishers of the study and documentary. As I said Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, appear to be highly credible. However, here is a site that says that it is all bunk. You can decide for yourself.

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Now not being a scientist, I will not attempt to argue the conflicting scientific theories (although I do find the evidence for a controlled demolition very compelling) . However, they also attack the credibility and credentials of the chief author of the study Professor Steven E. Jones:

To be clear, let me restate the test which makes a real scientific paper. It has to be published in a respected scientific journal. As an example, The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is a well respected scientific journal. The peer review process is tough and precise. The reviewers are well respected in their fields of expertise. The Journal of the American Chemical Society is another which Jones can submit his papers. There are many well respected journals which have an impact in the scientific community. Bentham, where Jones has submitted his latest paper, is the Wiki of Journals. They have been criticized in the past for passing "gibberish".

One editor resigned after learning Jones paper passed their review. It seems the reviewers are told of the paper AFTER they are passed! Amazing!

Though Jones may have found the perfect home for his latest attempt at peer-review, it is far from a respected scientific journal. Will Jones ever publish in a "respected scientific journal"? Do they want legitimacy or a talking points?

So where does that leave us? Deep into more uncertainty. Jones was published in Europhysics News which appears to be highly credible and widely respected:

https://billlawrenceonline.com/europhysics-news-trutherism/

Europhysics News Trutherism — Trutherism, the belief that Al-Qaeda terrorists were not entirely behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, received a boost, Aug. 24, in the latest issue of Europhysics News which carries an article claiming that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition.

The magazine is published by the prestigious European Physical Society.

The authors of the piece are Steven Jones, a former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University; Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada; Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer; and Ted Walter, who holds master of public policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

The authors cite, among other things, the lack of heat to melt, or adequately weaken, the girders to cause the collapse.

Melted girders was widely reported as a reason immediately after the attack. This was quickly understood to be impossible, however. In fact, it was even being noted that things didn’t get hot enough to cause enough loss of structural strength.

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.

However, even here there is dissention:

The authors Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, however, don’t feel the need to deny what was before everyone’s eyes. Their article points out that temperature along the 18-meter long joists was certainly not uniform and that given the thermal expansion of steel, a 300 F temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses hence causing distortions resulting in buckling failures

Jones et al makes the point that fire never collapsed a skyscraper before 9/11 and has yet to bring one down since.

The rebuttal to this is that jet aircraft have never been flown into skyscrapers before or since. Further, a fire, while not collapsing a skyscraper, did make One Meridan Plaza in Philadelphia unstable enough to cause its demolition.

Again, I’m not going to attempt to evaluate the science. I am just presenting what has been said. I’m not trying to sell anything here. My intention is to stimulate discussion, elicit opinions, and to get a sense of how people, in general are leaning.

Finally, the is https://www.gspellchecker.com/2016/09/debunking-conspiracies-spread-some-truth-on-the-anniversary-of-911/#more-4482

This is apparently an Atheistic leaning site and as such, I, an atheist, give a certain amount of credibility to. They support the “conventional or main stream explanation for 9-11 and reject the conspiracy- controlled demolition theory and provide a link to the aforementioned . http://www.debunking911.com/index.html. I'm just not completely convinced, but as I said, leaning towards a conspiracy.

That’s it folks! Have at it .Don’t troll me bro. I’m just the messenger!

"Controlled demolition"

Didn't need to read any more or watch the film. A controlled demolition did not and could not have occurred. That has already been debunked. How old is that film?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Note: I am aware of the fact that there are several other open treads on 9-11 However, they have long been dormant since shortly after they was started earlier this year. In addition, none of them feature the film that I recently discovered. This is different. This is compelling and worth a look!

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/

It is long. Over an hour. But if you just watch the first 10 or 15 minutes, you will certainly get the idea.

Now let me be clear, I was never a conspiracy theorists. I did not consider myself a 9-11 truther and I’m yet 100% convinced that we have been lied to. However, I am leaning in that direction.

The basic premise of the film is that the two planes alone did not bring the three building, WTC 1,2, and 7 down – that the collapses were caused, at least aided, by “controlled demolitions. Indeed, no plane had hit WTC 7! It is alleged that there was deliberate destruction of evidence, explosions not caused by the planes, and a symmetrical collapse of all three buildings consistent with a controlled demolition.

The film is narrated by Richard Gaga of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of 2,300 professionals who are demanding an independent investigation, and features a long succession of architects, engineers, various other scientists all of whom are quite credible. It also features eye witnesses who saw and heard things that are not explained and can’t be explained by the official version of what happened.

There is no dirt to be found on this organization. They are credible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

Here is the official site: http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/928-nists-wtc-7-reports-filled-with-fantasy-fiction-and-fraud-pt1.html

It is interesting to note that while it’s alleged that the plot was much wider than the hijackers, the report specifically avoids pointing any fingers or speculating on motive so as not to distract from the forensic evidence.

The film that you are about to see was published in the Free Thought Project http://thefreethoughtproject.com/

You will see that while the stories that they publish are provocative and under-reported in the main stream media, it is not “fake news” or conspiracy theories from the fringes of reality

Now to be fair, I am not without my doubts. We know that planes actually did hit the towers and that they were controlled by terrorists. But were there additional terrorists on the ground who planted explosives in all three building? Would that have even been possible? And, if they were expert enough to plant the bombs so strategically as to bring the buildings down, why did they bother to hijack planes?

Another possibility that some entity other than the terrorists- such as the Bush Administration- planted the bombs. Did they know about the plot ( as some have previously alleged ) and, rather than stopping it, planted to explosives to make certain of the outcome. Farfetched? I don’t know.

That brings me to the authors and publishers of the study and documentary. As I said Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, appear to be highly credible. However, here is a site that says that it is all bunk. You can decide for yourself.

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Now not being a scientist, I will not attempt to argue the conflicting scientific theories (although I do find the evidence for a controlled demolition very compelling) . However, they also attack the credibility and credentials of the chief author of the study Professor Steven E. Jones:

To be clear, let me restate the test which makes a real scientific paper. It has to be published in a respected scientific journal. As an example, The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is a well respected scientific journal. The peer review process is tough and precise. The reviewers are well respected in their fields of expertise. The Journal of the American Chemical Society is another which Jones can submit his papers. There are many well respected journals which have an impact in the scientific community. Bentham, where Jones has submitted his latest paper, is the Wiki of Journals. They have been criticized in the past for passing "gibberish".

One editor resigned after learning Jones paper passed their review. It seems the reviewers are told of the paper AFTER they are passed! Amazing!

Though Jones may have found the perfect home for his latest attempt at peer-review, it is far from a respected scientific journal. Will Jones ever publish in a "respected scientific journal"? Do they want legitimacy or a talking points?

So where does that leave us? Deep into more uncertainty. Jones was published in Europhysics News which appears to be highly credible and widely respected:

https://billlawrenceonline.com/europhysics-news-trutherism/

Europhysics News Trutherism — Trutherism, the belief that Al-Qaeda terrorists were not entirely behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, received a boost, Aug. 24, in the latest issue of Europhysics News which carries an article claiming that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition.

The magazine is published by the prestigious European Physical Society.

The authors of the piece are Steven Jones, a former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University; Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada; Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer; and Ted Walter, who holds master of public policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

The authors cite, among other things, the lack of heat to melt, or adequately weaken, the girders to cause the collapse.

Melted girders was widely reported as a reason immediately after the attack. This was quickly understood to be impossible, however. In fact, it was even being noted that things didn’t get hot enough to cause enough loss of structural strength.

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.

However, even here there is dissention:

The authors Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, however, don’t feel the need to deny what was before everyone’s eyes. Their article points out that temperature along the 18-meter long joists was certainly not uniform and that given the thermal expansion of steel, a 300 F temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses hence causing distortions resulting in buckling failures

Jones et al makes the point that fire never collapsed a skyscraper before 9/11 and has yet to bring one down since.

The rebuttal to this is that jet aircraft have never been flown into skyscrapers before or since. Further, a fire, while not collapsing a skyscraper, did make One Meridan Plaza in Philadelphia unstable enough to cause its demolition.

Again, I’m not going to attempt to evaluate the science. I am just presenting what has been said. I’m not trying to sell anything here. My intention is to stimulate discussion, elicit opinions, and to get a sense of how people, in general are leaning.

Finally, the is https://www.gspellchecker.com/2016/09/debunking-conspiracies-spread-some-truth-on-the-anniversary-of-911/#more-4482

This is apparently an Atheistic leaning site and as such, I, an atheist, give a certain amount of credibility to. They support the “conventional or main stream explanation for 9-11 and reject the conspiracy- controlled demolition theory and provide a link to the aforementioned . http://www.debunking911.com/index.html. I'm just not completely convinced, but as I said, leaning towards a conspiracy.

That’s it folks! Have at it .Don’t troll me bro. I’m just the messenger!

"Controlled demolition"


Didn't need to read any more or watch the film. A controlled demolition did not and could not have occurred. That has already been debunked. How old is that film?

Controlled demolition"
debunked? that is the funniest lie this stupid fuck troll has EVER told.

this folks is coming from a stupid fuck troll who belives in magic bullets and goes around telling everybody the other biggest lie ever invented by the government in their history,that oswald shot JFK ignoring all the evidence and facts that there were multiple shooters and ignoring that there was never any evidence against oswald as well oh and not only THAT,he runs off with his tail between his legs and puts you on ignore if you prove to him oswald was innocent and there were multiple shooters involved.


He gets angry that you prove him wrong,and he will then put you on ignore since he knows you took him to school. dont believe me? so much for the credibility of this stupid fuck lying troll who has NEVER watched a video on 9/11 and runs off EVERYTIME you ask him to look at the evidence same as he does on JFK.


so because of that, the proof is in the pudding that if THIS lying troll says it has been debunked that it was a controlled demolition,that it WAS a controllled demolition indeed.thanks to his rants.

he will never read any of your links you post that have been posted on this thread as well as never watch any videos. he also wont admit he slept through junior high school science classes as well of course.did you expect any differently?

oh and notice how the trolllboy ADMITTED he did not watch the video or read any links? he NEVER does.he runs off each time he is losing a debate and then calls you names.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[MisterBeale]

Clearly 9/11 was a conspiracy. A bunch of dumb Muslims who had never flown jumbo jets couldn't have done it alone. And where was our Air Force which had plenty of time to intercept,but didn't. And of course, burning jet fuel can't melt steel.

Government always sucks.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Note: I am aware of the fact that there are several other open treads on 9-11 However, they have long been dormant since shortly after they was started earlier this year. In addition, none of them feature the film that I recently discovered. This is different. This is compelling and worth a look!

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/

It is long. Over an hour. But if you just watch the first 10 or 15 minutes, you will certainly get the idea.

Now let me be clear, I was never a conspiracy theorists. I did not consider myself a 9-11 truther and I’m yet 100% convinced that we have been lied to. However, I am leaning in that direction.

The basic premise of the film is that the two planes alone did not bring the three building, WTC 1,2, and 7 down – that the collapses were caused, at least aided, by “controlled demolitions. Indeed, no plane had hit WTC 7! It is alleged that there was deliberate destruction of evidence, explosions not caused by the planes, and a symmetrical collapse of all three buildings consistent with a controlled demolition.

The film is narrated by Richard Gaga of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of 2,300 professionals who are demanding an independent investigation, and features a long succession of architects, engineers, various other scientists all of whom are quite credible. It also features eye witnesses who saw and heard things that are not explained and can’t be explained by the official version of what happened.

There is no dirt to be found on this organization. They are credible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

Here is the official site: http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/928-nists-wtc-7-reports-filled-with-fantasy-fiction-and-fraud-pt1.html

It is interesting to note that while it’s alleged that the plot was much wider than the hijackers, the report specifically avoids pointing any fingers or speculating on motive so as not to distract from the forensic evidence.

The film that you are about to see was published in the Free Thought Project http://thefreethoughtproject.com/

You will see that while the stories that they publish are provocative and under-reported in the main stream media, it is not “fake news” or conspiracy theories from the fringes of reality

Now to be fair, I am not without my doubts. We know that planes actually did hit the towers and that they were controlled by terrorists. But were there additional terrorists on the ground who planted explosives in all three building? Would that have even been possible? And, if they were expert enough to plant the bombs so strategically as to bring the buildings down, why did they bother to hijack planes?

Another possibility that some entity other than the terrorists- such as the Bush Administration- planted the bombs. Did they know about the plot ( as some have previously alleged ) and, rather than stopping it, planted to explosives to make certain of the outcome. Farfetched? I don’t know.

That brings me to the authors and publishers of the study and documentary. As I said Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, appear to be highly credible. However, here is a site that says that it is all bunk. You can decide for yourself.

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Now not being a scientist, I will not attempt to argue the conflicting scientific theories (although I do find the evidence for a controlled demolition very compelling) . However, they also attack the credibility and credentials of the chief author of the study Professor Steven E. Jones:

To be clear, let me restate the test which makes a real scientific paper. It has to be published in a respected scientific journal. As an example, The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is a well respected scientific journal. The peer review process is tough and precise. The reviewers are well respected in their fields of expertise. The Journal of the American Chemical Society is another which Jones can submit his papers. There are many well respected journals which have an impact in the scientific community. Bentham, where Jones has submitted his latest paper, is the Wiki of Journals. They have been criticized in the past for passing "gibberish".

One editor resigned after learning Jones paper passed their review. It seems the reviewers are told of the paper AFTER they are passed! Amazing!

Though Jones may have found the perfect home for his latest attempt at peer-review, it is far from a respected scientific journal. Will Jones ever publish in a "respected scientific journal"? Do they want legitimacy or a talking points?

So where does that leave us? Deep into more uncertainty. Jones was published in Europhysics News which appears to be highly credible and widely respected:

https://billlawrenceonline.com/europhysics-news-trutherism/

Europhysics News Trutherism — Trutherism, the belief that Al-Qaeda terrorists were not entirely behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, received a boost, Aug. 24, in the latest issue of Europhysics News which carries an article claiming that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition.

The magazine is published by the prestigious European Physical Society.

The authors of the piece are Steven Jones, a former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University; Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada; Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer; and Ted Walter, who holds master of public policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

The authors cite, among other things, the lack of heat to melt, or adequately weaken, the girders to cause the collapse.

Melted girders was widely reported as a reason immediately after the attack. This was quickly understood to be impossible, however. In fact, it was even being noted that things didn’t get hot enough to cause enough loss of structural strength.

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.

However, even here there is dissention:

The authors Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, however, don’t feel the need to deny what was before everyone’s eyes. Their article points out that temperature along the 18-meter long joists was certainly not uniform and that given the thermal expansion of steel, a 300 F temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses hence causing distortions resulting in buckling failures

Jones et al makes the point that fire never collapsed a skyscraper before 9/11 and has yet to bring one down since.

The rebuttal to this is that jet aircraft have never been flown into skyscrapers before or since. Further, a fire, while not collapsing a skyscraper, did make One Meridan Plaza in Philadelphia unstable enough to cause its demolition.

Again, I’m not going to attempt to evaluate the science. I am just presenting what has been said. I’m not trying to sell anything here. My intention is to stimulate discussion, elicit opinions, and to get a sense of how people, in general are leaning.

Finally, the is https://www.gspellchecker.com/2016/09/debunking-conspiracies-spread-some-truth-on-the-anniversary-of-911/#more-4482

This is apparently an Atheistic leaning site and as such, I, an atheist, give a certain amount of credibility to. They support the “conventional or main stream explanation for 9-11 and reject the conspiracy- controlled demolition theory and provide a link to the aforementioned . http://www.debunking911.com/index.html. I'm just not completely convinced, but as I said, leaning towards a conspiracy.

That’s it folks! Have at it .Don’t troll me bro. I’m just the messenger!

"Controlled demolition"

Didn't need to read any more or watch the film. A controlled demolition did not and could not have occurred. That has already been debunked. How old is that film?

remember beal,you are trying to reason with a kid who belives in magic bullets and incredibly after all this time,STILL thinks oswald was the lone assassin and no conspiracy existed.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Clearly 9/11 was a conspiracy. A bunch of dumb Muslims who had never flown jumbo jets couldn't have done it alone. And where was our Air Force which had plenty of time to intercept,but didn't. And of course, burning jet fuel can't melt steel.

Government always sucks.

its only truth seekers of course who will watch it,trolls like predfan run off with their tail between their legs each time.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Note: I am aware of the fact that there are several other open treads on 9-11 However, they have long been dormant since shortly after they was started earlier this year. In addition, none of them feature the film that I recently discovered. This is different. This is compelling and worth a look!

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/

It is long. Over an hour. But if you just watch the first 10 or 15 minutes, you will certainly get the idea.

Now let me be clear, I was never a conspiracy theorists. I did not consider myself a 9-11 truther and I’m yet 100% convinced that we have been lied to. However, I am leaning in that direction.

The basic premise of the film is that the two planes alone did not bring the three building, WTC 1,2, and 7 down – that the collapses were caused, at least aided, by “controlled demolitions. Indeed, no plane had hit WTC 7! It is alleged that there was deliberate destruction of evidence, explosions not caused by the planes, and a symmetrical collapse of all three buildings consistent with a controlled demolition.

The film is narrated by Richard Gaga of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of 2,300 professionals who are demanding an independent investigation, and features a long succession of architects, engineers, various other scientists all of whom are quite credible. It also features eye witnesses who saw and heard things that are not explained and can’t be explained by the official version of what happened.

There is no dirt to be found on this organization. They are credible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

Here is the official site: http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/928-nists-wtc-7-reports-filled-with-fantasy-fiction-and-fraud-pt1.html

It is interesting to note that while it’s alleged that the plot was much wider than the hijackers, the report specifically avoids pointing any fingers or speculating on motive so as not to distract from the forensic evidence.

The film that you are about to see was published in the Free Thought Project http://thefreethoughtproject.com/

You will see that while the stories that they publish are provocative and under-reported in the main stream media, it is not “fake news” or conspiracy theories from the fringes of reality

Now to be fair, I am not without my doubts. We know that planes actually did hit the towers and that they were controlled by terrorists. But were there additional terrorists on the ground who planted explosives in all three building? Would that have even been possible? And, if they were expert enough to plant the bombs so strategically as to bring the buildings down, why did they bother to hijack planes?

Another possibility that some entity other than the terrorists- such as the Bush Administration- planted the bombs. Did they know about the plot ( as some have previously alleged ) and, rather than stopping it, planted to explosives to make certain of the outcome. Farfetched? I don’t know.

That brings me to the authors and publishers of the study and documentary. As I said Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, appear to be highly credible. However, here is a site that says that it is all bunk. You can decide for yourself.

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Now not being a scientist, I will not attempt to argue the conflicting scientific theories (although I do find the evidence for a controlled demolition very compelling) . However, they also attack the credibility and credentials of the chief author of the study Professor Steven E. Jones:

To be clear, let me restate the test which makes a real scientific paper. It has to be published in a respected scientific journal. As an example, The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is a well respected scientific journal. The peer review process is tough and precise. The reviewers are well respected in their fields of expertise. The Journal of the American Chemical Society is another which Jones can submit his papers. There are many well respected journals which have an impact in the scientific community. Bentham, where Jones has submitted his latest paper, is the Wiki of Journals. They have been criticized in the past for passing "gibberish".

One editor resigned after learning Jones paper passed their review. It seems the reviewers are told of the paper AFTER they are passed! Amazing!

Though Jones may have found the perfect home for his latest attempt at peer-review, it is far from a respected scientific journal. Will Jones ever publish in a "respected scientific journal"? Do they want legitimacy or a talking points?

So where does that leave us? Deep into more uncertainty. Jones was published in Europhysics News which appears to be highly credible and widely respected:

https://billlawrenceonline.com/europhysics-news-trutherism/

Europhysics News Trutherism — Trutherism, the belief that Al-Qaeda terrorists were not entirely behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, received a boost, Aug. 24, in the latest issue of Europhysics News which carries an article claiming that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition.

The magazine is published by the prestigious European Physical Society.

The authors of the piece are Steven Jones, a former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University; Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada; Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer; and Ted Walter, who holds master of public policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

The authors cite, among other things, the lack of heat to melt, or adequately weaken, the girders to cause the collapse.

Melted girders was widely reported as a reason immediately after the attack. This was quickly understood to be impossible, however. In fact, it was even being noted that things didn’t get hot enough to cause enough loss of structural strength.

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.

However, even here there is dissention:

The authors Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, however, don’t feel the need to deny what was before everyone’s eyes. Their article points out that temperature along the 18-meter long joists was certainly not uniform and that given the thermal expansion of steel, a 300 F temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses hence causing distortions resulting in buckling failures

Jones et al makes the point that fire never collapsed a skyscraper before 9/11 and has yet to bring one down since.

The rebuttal to this is that jet aircraft have never been flown into skyscrapers before or since. Further, a fire, while not collapsing a skyscraper, did make One Meridan Plaza in Philadelphia unstable enough to cause its demolition.

Again, I’m not going to attempt to evaluate the science. I am just presenting what has been said. I’m not trying to sell anything here. My intention is to stimulate discussion, elicit opinions, and to get a sense of how people, in general are leaning.

Finally, the is https://www.gspellchecker.com/2016/09/debunking-conspiracies-spread-some-truth-on-the-anniversary-of-911/#more-4482

This is apparently an Atheistic leaning site and as such, I, an atheist, give a certain amount of credibility to. They support the “conventional or main stream explanation for 9-11 and reject the conspiracy- controlled demolition theory and provide a link to the aforementioned . http://www.debunking911.com/index.html. I'm just not completely convinced, but as I said, leaning towards a conspiracy.

That’s it folks! Have at it .Don’t troll me bro. I’m just the messenger!

The Jihad Approves of Your Message

The way you dismiss the possibility that the secondary explosions were set by Muslims is illogical. That is a typical rhetorical trick being taught by modern Sophists--pretend to cover all bases but actually give only lip service to ones you are afraid to go into deeply.

 

[Freewill]

Screw the conspiracies.

Why hasn't any engineering school done a physical or virtual model of the north tower collapse in 15 years?

It only took 4 months to build a 50 foot model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge to duplicate the oscillations in a wind tunnel.

Just simulate the north tower and remove 5 stories, 91 through 95, and drop the top 15 stories onto lower 90. If it comes nowhere near complete collapse then...

Are we supposed to take 100 year climate simulations seriously if they can't do a 30 second collapse simulation?

Millions of people in the nation that put men on the Moon and carry smart phones can't handle simple physics. LOL

psik