Mathematician to Refute Official Theory of WTC Destruction at Upcoming Conference

[the other mike]

So prove it was cut like that on 9.11. The photo you posted was taken some 6 weeks later.

It will be included in the Grand Jury .
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence - 911Truth.Org %

 

[the other mike]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Time for a reality break.

On this week's episode of 9/11 Free Fall, host Andy Steele is joined by German mathematician Ansgar Schneider to discuss the paper he will be presenting at the annual conference of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering in New York this September, which refutes the official theory of the Twin Towers’ total destruction developed by engineer Zdeněk Bažant.

We invite you to listen on SoundCloud or YouTube.

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/539-mathematician-to-refute-official-theory-of-wtc-destruction-at-upcoming-conference

"One mathematician"

Well then, it will be easier for the rest of the global scientific community to figure out who to laugh at.

 

[Faun]

"It's common sense--3 skyscrapers each damaged in very different ways --do not all collapse straight down in the exact same way. "

They didn't all fall in the same way. The Twin towers fell from the top, down, from above the point above impact, pancaking as it came down. Building 7 fell from the inside first, then from the bottom, as the entire structure went down.

But I understand -- truthers have their own version of reality.

They all fell in their own footprint.
Making your statement even less valid.

But they fell in different fashions. In stark contrast to the claim they "all collapse straight down in the exact same way."

They didn't. That's either an outright lie or it's blind devotion to a lost cause.

Do you care enough to provide the ample video evidence that's out there, or no?

Sure... compare the image above of building 7 falling (the entire facade of the building falling at once) ... with the tower collapsing, which started above the impacted area and mushroomed down...

"It's common sense--3 skyscrapers each damaged in very different ways --do not all collapse straight down in the exact same way. "

They didn't all fall in the same way. The Twin towers fell from the top, down, from above the point above impact, pancaking as it came down. Building 7 fell from the inside first, then from the bottom, as the entire structure went down.

But I understand -- truthers have their own version of reality.

They all fell in their own footprint.
Making your statement even less valid.

But they fell in different fashions. In stark contrast to the claim they "all collapse straight down in the exact same way."

They didn't. That's either an outright lie or it's blind devotion to a lost cause.

The footage clearly collaborates my description.

Only to people demented enough to be a trufer.

This building did not collapse....

... the "exact same way" as this one did...

Both look like controlled demolitions.

Really? They do?

Here are some actual controlled demolitions .... notice how loud the explosions are ... notice how visible the explosions are before the buildings fall. 9.11 was nothing like these other than the building fell straight down into their own footprint.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No explosives needed.

They would be to make the building fall into its own footprint....especially three buildings.
Common sense tells you the structure will fall towards the area most damaged.

You don't think it fell properly?

Sure...if it was a controlled demolition.

How should they have fallen, without explosives?

I've said it a dozon times on this board....towards the area where the most destruction occurred,which is obviously where the plane originally hit.
To have three building fall in their own footprint is suspect at the very least.....without a controlled demolition.
There are plenty of videos out there where a controlled demo failed,and guess what,it was everywhere but in their own footprint.

It didn't fall toward the impact point?

 

[Marion Morrison]

They all fell in their own footprint.
Making your statement even less valid.

But they fell in different fashions. In stark contrast to the claim they "all collapse straight down in the exact same way."

They didn't. That's either an outright lie or it's blind devotion to a lost cause.

Do you care enough to provide the ample video evidence that's out there, or no?

Sure... compare the image above of building 7 falling (the entire facade of the building falling at once) ... with the tower collapsing, which started above the impacted area and mushroomed down...

They all fell in their own footprint.
Making your statement even less valid.

But they fell in different fashions. In stark contrast to the claim they "all collapse straight down in the exact same way."

They didn't. That's either an outright lie or it's blind devotion to a lost cause.

The footage clearly collaborates my description.

Only to people demented enough to be a trufer.

This building did not collapse....

... the "exact same way" as this one did...

Both look like controlled demolitions.

Really? They do?

Here are some actual controlled demolitions .... notice how loud the explosions are ... notice how visible the explosions are before the buildings fall. 9.11 was nothing like these other than the building fell straight down into their own footprint.

It was exactly like that, yet more professional, STFU, leftist faggot.

 

[Faun]

So prove it was cut like that on 9.11. The photo you posted was taken some 6 weeks later.

It will be included in the Grand Jury .
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence - 911Truth.Org %

LOLOL

So you can't prove it.

Thanks for confirming what I already knew.

 

[the other mike]

It was molten aluminum from the aircraft bodies. My God, you have no clue on this topic except for spouting all the previously dismissed conspiracy theories.

liar
Molten STEEL Flowed Under Ground Zero for Months After 9/11 | Washington's Blog

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nope. Office fires don't. Since that was not an office fire, what is your fucking point?

What's your point ? I made mine.
Are you saying they were not normal office fires because jet fuel was involved ?

Not to mention building 7 where no jet fuel was involved.

You don't think jet fuel did not rain down on that building as the plane was being ripped apart by the impact? What started the fires, dumbass?

 

[the other mike]

So prove it was cut like that on 9.11. The photo you posted was taken some 6 weeks later.

It will be included in the Grand Jury .
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence - 911Truth.Org %

LOLOL

So you can't prove it.

Thanks for confirming what I already knew.

I learned from Vince and Seth to be careful what I say.

 

[Faun]

But they fell in different fashions. In stark contrast to the claim they "all collapse straight down in the exact same way."

They didn't. That's either an outright lie or it's blind devotion to a lost cause.

Do you care enough to provide the ample video evidence that's out there, or no?

Sure... compare the image above of building 7 falling (the entire facade of the building falling at once) ... with the tower collapsing, which started above the impacted area and mushroomed down...

But they fell in different fashions. In stark contrast to the claim they "all collapse straight down in the exact same way."

They didn't. That's either an outright lie or it's blind devotion to a lost cause.

The footage clearly collaborates my description.

Only to people demented enough to be a trufer.

This building did not collapse....

... the "exact same way" as this one did...

Both look like controlled demolitions.

Really? They do?

Here are some actual controlled demolitions .... notice how loud the explosions are ... notice how visible the explosions are before the buildings fall. 9.11 was nothing like these other than the building fell straight down into their own footprint.

It was exactly like that, yet more professional, STFU, leftist faggot.

Great, show me all the explosions like all of the controlled demolitions. Play the sound of explosives going off like in actual controlled demolitions...

 

[Faun]

Fuck you, Faun.

 

[rightwinger]

Scientists say that jet aircraft flying into the WTC caused them to fall

 

[Faun]

So prove it was cut like that on 9.11. The photo you posted was taken some 6 weeks later.

It will be included in the Grand Jury .
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence - 911Truth.Org %

LOLOL

So you can't prove it.

Thanks for confirming what I already knew.

I learned from Vince and Seth to be careful what I say.

I see, so you're completely batshit crazy.

Explains it all.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It was molten aluminum from the aircraft bodies. My God, you have no clue on this topic except for spouting all the previously dismissed conspiracy theories.

liar
Molten STEEL Flowed Under Ground Zero for Months After 9/11 | Washington's Blog

Let me explain something to you, dumbass! Your links are not reputable. They go to conspiracy theorists websites that have no basis in fact. That is why you are so easily dismissed.

First, you say that steel won't melt in a fire and then claim that it was so hot that steel beams were melting long after the cleanup had begun? Which is it?

You are so stupid you can't even keep your own idiotic theories from disproving each other!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If you knew anything about fires, you wouldn't make such stupid statements.

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/442-witnesses-of-molten-metal-at-ground-zero

It was molten aluminum from the aircraft bodies. My God, you have no clue on this topic except for spouting all the previously dismissed conspiracy theories.

They would be to make the building fall into its own footprint....especially three buildings.
Common sense tells you the structure will fall towards the area most damaged.

You don't think it fell properly?

Sure...if it was a controlled demolition.

How should they have fallen, without explosives?

I've said it a dozon times on this board....towards the area where the most destruction occurred,which is obviously where the plane originally hit.
To have three building fall in their own footprint is suspect at the very least.....without a controlled demolition.
There are plenty of videos out there where a controlled demo failed,and guess what,it was everywhere but in their own footprint.

It didn't fall toward the impact point?

Obviously not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who thinks an "office fire" cut those columns? DURR.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

They all fell in their own footprint.
Making your statement even less valid.

But they fell in different fashions. In stark contrast to the claim they "all collapse straight down in the exact same way."

They didn't. That's either an outright lie or it's blind devotion to a lost cause.

Do you care enough to provide the ample video evidence that's out there, or no?

Sure... compare the image above of building 7 falling (the entire facade of the building falling at once) ... with the tower collapsing, which started above the impacted area and mushroomed down...

They all fell in their own footprint.
Making your statement even less valid.

But they fell in different fashions. In stark contrast to the claim they "all collapse straight down in the exact same way."

They didn't. That's either an outright lie or it's blind devotion to a lost cause.

The footage clearly collaborates my description.

Only to people demented enough to be a trufer.

This building did not collapse....

... the "exact same way" as this one did...

Both look like controlled demolitions.

Really? They do?

Here are some actual controlled demolitions .... notice how loud the explosions are ... notice how visible the explosions are before the buildings fall. 9.11 was nothing like these other than the building fell straight down into their own footprint.

LOL....look how close the mics were.

 

[Marion Morrison]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you knew anything about fires, you wouldn't make such stupid statements.

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/442-witnesses-of-molten-metal-at-ground-zero

It was molten aluminum from the aircraft bodies. My God, you have no clue on this topic except for spouting all the previously dismissed conspiracy theories.

You don't think it fell properly?

Sure...if it was a controlled demolition.

How should they have fallen, without explosives?

I've said it a dozon times on this board....towards the area where the most destruction occurred,which is obviously where the plane originally hit.
To have three building fall in their own footprint is suspect at the very least.....without a controlled demolition.
There are plenty of videos out there where a controlled demo failed,and guess what,it was everywhere but in their own footprint.

It didn't fall toward the impact point?

Obviously not.

Show me.