Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[Patriot911]

why don't you speak for yourself instead of your imaginary everyone ?

I have to agree with patriot. I would guess that I have watched at least 200 and probably up to 300 hours of video presented by conspiracy theorists. I doubt I will sit and watch another one anytime soon unless there's a really good reason for it. Like something new......

We understand you can't comprehend much anyways, and can't make any sense of the information, just stick to your TV and your indoctrinated habits, no big loss.

So why post videos if it is only for the fucked in the head indoctrinated truthtards? You stupid ***** don't even realize just how irrelevant you've become.

 

[Patriot911]

YouTube - ‪9/11: INTERCEPTED - Full Film‬‏

How about just telling us what relevant points you are trying to make instead of making everyone watch yet another 40+ minute lameassed film full of errors, lies and bullshit.

why don't you speak for yourself instead of your imaginary everyone ?

Figures. You can't even figure out what relevant points you believe anymore. Not surprised. That is why you've been reduced to one liners and posting shitty videos that make you lot look like the total douchebags you are.

 

[eots]

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve (ret) – Former Chief of the Army’s Controlled HUMINT (Human Intelligence) Program, overseeing Army Intelligence and Security Command’s global controlled HUMINT efforts. A former member of the Able Danger data mining program that targeted Al Qaeda’s global structure. Former Commander of Special Troops Battalion, 9th Theater Support Command. Awarded the Bronze Star for bravery. Fellow, Center for Advanced Defense Studies. 23-year military intelligence career.

Personal endorsement of a New Investigation into 9/11 as described in the New York City Ballot Initiative: NYC 911 Ballot Initiative - NYC 911 Ballot Initiative

 

[Rationalist1016]

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve (ret) – Former Chief of the Army’s Controlled HUMINT (Human Intelligence) Program, overseeing Army Intelligence and Security Command’s global controlled HUMINT efforts. A former member of the Able Danger data mining program that targeted Al Qaeda’s global structure. Former Commander of Special Troops Battalion, 9th Theater Support Command. Awarded the Bronze Star for bravery. Fellow, Center for Advanced Defense Studies. 23-year military intelligence career.

Personal endorsement of a New Investigation into 9/11 as described in the New York City Ballot Initiative: NYC 911 Ballot Initiative - NYC 911 Ballot Initiative

I can believe that those people would be in favor of backing that petition. It is presented as a rational inquiry regarding the governments knowledge of the threats before hand and the extent that they were covering there asses for failing us afterword. When a logical approach to the issue is taken, it is bound to gain the attention of people who might make a difference.
But a movement loses it's credibility when they start petitioning to re-investigate based on half-cock claims, opinions and implausible theories.

 

[eots]

Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.


Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[Patriot911]

Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.


Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has them and some are far more foul than others.

So we're suppose to believe the off the cuff opinion of some professor who only looked at the videos over the NIST and their detailed analysis. So how does the professor explain the complete lack of evidence of a "professional demolition"? You would think a professor would understand that you can't judge an event by a video and have to look at ALL the evidence. Otherwise you just end up a hated truthtard.

 

[Gamolon]

Have you ever seen a CD, and how there is a very slight delay just before the entire structure collapses? This appears to be quite normal.

Really? Quite normal?

Tell you what. You show me a demolition video where ALL the supporting columns are blown at the same time to remove ALL resistance and it shows a delay before the upper assembly starts to fall at free fall.

Let's see the study you are basing this claim on. According to you and your cohorts, when there is NO RESISTANCE, free fall ensues.

Look you are the one saying it isn't possible perhaps you should be the one doing the looking. You have a lot of questions that can be answered satifactorily by researching material yourself, and yes that would include the particulars of the theory you are against.
I have looked at the NIST report and found what the researchers are talking about and it makes sense to me and others.
I have provided links to their work, proof to justify what they say, and the evidence they use to back it up as well.

You insist on disparaging the researchers, and that is your what you try to use to dismiss their work. Why don't you concentrate on the lack of detail NIST leaves out in their work? Concentrate on what is being presented instead.
True absolute Free fall can only really happen in a vacuum. Everything has to at least over come the resistance provided by air, as the linked article I provided you explains. Still the buildings came down with an admitted rate of near free fall, with no explanations as to what removed the resistance.
That's the problem you don't want to address and resort to character assassination instead.

Is this how it works? You make a claim, I question it and ask you to provide me the sources on which you base your claim, and then you turn around and tell me I need to find them??

Look hotshot. YOU made the claim that there is a slight delay before an object starts to fall at free fall speed and made mention of it being normal in controlled demolitions.

YOU need to provide the sources used for making this claim. That's how it works. So where are they?

 

[Gamolon]

You on the other hand have not provided any indisputable evidence or proof that NIST is correct,

Let's turn this around Mr. Jones. Where is YOUR proof and evidence that Niels Harritt's claim that nano-thermite was used to bring down the towers is correct? I mean, let's use the same type of thiking you are applying to NIST. As an example, see below about your thought process.

1. An event happened. NIST says the buildings collapsed and explain how it was possible. You want proof hat NIST is correct.

Yet,

2. An event happened. Harritt says nano-thermite was used in a demolition of the towers and explains how. You except it as is and demand no proof that Harritt is correct.

Why the double standard?

SO, Mr. Jones.

Why the double standard?

 

[Gamolon]

IMO Gage is more of a spokesman for A&E. I read the work of many of the members, and feel they make valid points, to which NIST has not responded. Though Gage has credentials in building construction, and he makes valid observations about the NIST flaws.

Valid observations huh?

Let's discuss his "valid" observations. You continually try and show NIST's mistakes and how they invalidate their theory.

Answer a few questions about Gage's research will you? Since you consider him to make "valid" observations of the NIST flaws.

1. Here is a quote from Gage.


If anyone finds errors in my math below, please point it out.

Can you tell me how Gage got 400,000 cubic yards of concrete? Tell you what. You tell me how many cubic yards of concrete were contained above ground between both towers. See if you come up with 400,000 cubic yards.

My math. 208' x 208' x 4" = 12979.2 cubic feet. MINUS the core area of 3471.3 (87' x 137' x 4") cubic feet gives us 9507.9 cubic feet or 352.122 cubic yards of 4" concrete per floor. So 220 (floors) x 352.122 = 77466.84 cubic yards of concrete above ground in BOTH towers. That's 322533.16 cubic yards off!

2.Another quote from Gage.

Why were virtually no floors found at the base of either Twin Tower? There were originally 110 floors – each of them one acre in size. What explains the disappearance of 220 acres of four-inch thick concrete and steel decking?

220 acres of 4" thick concrete and steel decking? Really? Was he aware the the core of the towers had elevators in them? The core of each tower was 87' x 133'. That makes each floor about .7275 acres, which gives us 160 acres, not 220. How did he mess up by 60 acres in his calculation?

3. Gage says that WTC7's facade came down in 6.6 seconds. Can you explain how he came up with that time frame? What video did he use to come up with this since there is no video showing the facade AFTER it disappeared behind the building. Compare Gage's 6.6 seconds for complete collapse to Chandler's video. Interesting isn't it? Chandler kind of makes Gag'es time frame a little impossible?

Could you post a link of the article you are getting your quotes from?That would be where I would want to start.

No answer yet?

 

[Rationalist1016]

Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.


Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

These people definitely have the credentials to say what they are saying. But it still seems to be their "opinion". Granted, it's the opinion of well educated people in the correct field, but have they done the research? Have they down any scientific models to test their opinion? Have they spoken with any of the researchers that were involved in the investigation?
As for the buildings, I read a lot of "looked like a controlled demolition" or "the building didn't behave like one would expect". All great observations, but where is the PROOF to back up their claims? I don't think you can compare these events to "normal situations". Just as with the plane crashes, I read a lot of "as with other plane crashes" or "when a plane crashes you usually find.....". These were not usual plane crashes. In a usual plane crash there is a failure by the plane or by the pilot. And the pilot is trying to minimize the damage of an impact to save their lives. These crashes where just the opposite, the pilot was trying to cause maximum damage.
So, like I said, these people have the credentials to speak to these issues, but until they have the proof that the other researchers are wrong, their "opinions" are no better than mine or yours.

 

[SFC Ollie]

why don't you speak for yourself instead of your imaginary everyone ?

I have to agree with patriot. I would guess that I have watched at least 200 and probably up to 300 hours of video presented by conspiracy theorists. I doubt I will sit and watch another one anytime soon unless there's a really good reason for it. Like something new......

We understand you can't comprehend much anyways, and can't make any sense of the information, just stick to your TV and your indoctrinated habits, no big loss.

Other than an occasional movie and the morning news I don't do TV...

As far as indoctrinated, I've been called worse. If you want to see worse, just take a look in the nearest mirror.

 

[Patriot911]

Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.


Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

These people definitely have the credentials to say what they are saying. But it still seems to be their "opinion". Granted, it's the opinion of well educated people in the correct field, but have they done the research? Have they down any scientific models to test their opinion? Have they spoken with any of the researchers that were involved in the investigation?
As for the buildings, I read a lot of "looked like a controlled demolition" or "the building didn't behave like one would expect". All great observations, but where is the PROOF to back up their claims? I don't think you can compare these events to "normal situations". Just as with the plane crashes, I read a lot of "as with other plane crashes" or "when a plane crashes you usually find.....". These were not usual plane crashes. In a usual plane crash there is a failure by the plane or by the pilot. And the pilot is trying to minimize the damage of an impact to save their lives. These crashes where just the opposite, the pilot was trying to cause maximum damage.
So, like I said, these people have the credentials to speak to these issues, but until they have the proof that the other researchers are wrong, their "opinions" are no better than mine or yours.

The professor admitted to only looking at the videos and this was before the NIST report came out that details the evidence and theory.

What I want to know is what kind of professor of engineering would make a claim based on a video without wanting to look at the structure involved and getting a detailed accounting of what happened.

 

[eots]

Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.


Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

These people definitely have the credentials to say what they are saying. But it still seems to be their "opinion". Granted, it's the opinion of well educated people in the correct field, but have they done the research? Have they down any scientific models to test their opinion? Have they spoken with any of the researchers that were involved in the investigation?
As for the buildings, I read a lot of "looked like a controlled demolition" or "the building didn't behave like one would expect". All great observations, but where is the PROOF to back up their claims? I don't think you can compare these events to "normal situations". Just as with the plane crashes, I read a lot of "as with other plane crashes" or "when a plane crashes you usually find.....". These were not usual plane crashes. In a usual plane crash there is a failure by the plane or by the pilot. And the pilot is trying to minimize the damage of an impact to save their lives. These crashes where just the opposite, the pilot was trying to cause maximum damage.
So, like I said, these people have the credentials to speak to these issues, but until they have the proof that the other researchers are wrong, their "opinions" are no better than mine or yours.

The professor admitted to only looking at the videos and this was before the NIST report came out that details the evidence and theory.

What I want to know is what kind of professor of engineering would make a claim based on a video without wanting to look at the structure involved and getting a detailed accounting of what happened.

the structure involved ??? huh ?

 

[eots]

Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering – Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965 - 1978. Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 - 1990. Testified more than 50 times before Congress on technology, science, and environmental issues. Former Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, National Governors Association. Dr. Hirschhorn has been a consultant to industrial and chemical companies, DOE laboratories, state governments, and public interest organizations. Co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention at Friends Of the Article V Convention. Member, Board of Directors, National Foundation for Environmental Education. Member, Board of Directors, Sustainability Now! Author of more than 150 papers, articles, guest editorials, and book chapters on environmental science and technology



"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.

They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official “investigations” have really been cover-up operations.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[Mr. Jones]

But a movement loses it's credibility when they start petitioning to re-investigate based on half-cock claims, opinions and implausible theories.

How are they losing credibility, when they are simply pointing out the "half-cock claims, opinions and implausible theories" that the USG and their agencies claim?
Remember the research done by these people have backing in the form of physical, technical, analytical and circumstantial evidence. Far more than any unprejudiced person needs to understand far beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, that the USG case is fatally flawed, as well as the investigation and theory the NIST report is based on.
FWIW, looking at the the whole OCT and not just analyzing the NIST reports, some of the theories involve and Israeli connection when political associations and connections are taken into account, but that is debate for another thread.
All research suggests NIST theory is flawed and not to be trusted as indisputable, nor scientifically sound.

 

[Mr. Jones]

These people definitely have the credentials to say what they are saying. But it still seems to be their "opinion". Granted, it's the opinion of well educated people in the correct field, but have they done the research? Have they down any scientific models to test their opinion? Have they spoken with any of the researchers that were involved in the investigation?
As for the buildings, I read a lot of "looked like a controlled demolition" or "the building didn't behave like one would expect". All great observations, but where is the PROOF to back up their claims? I don't think you can compare these events to "normal situations". Just as with the plane crashes, I read a lot of "as with other plane crashes" or "when a plane crashes you usually find.....". These were not usual plane crashes. In a usual plane crash there is a failure by the plane or by the pilot. And the pilot is trying to minimize the damage of an impact to save their lives. These crashes where just the opposite, the pilot was trying to cause maximum damage.
So, like I said, these people have the credentials to speak to these issues, but until they have the proof that the other researchers are wrong, their "opinions" are no better than mine or yours.

The professor admitted to only looking at the videos and this was before the NIST report came out that details the evidence and theory.

What I want to know is what kind of professor of engineering would make a claim based on a video without wanting to look at the structure involved and getting a detailed accounting of what happened.

the structure involved ??? huh ?

Isn't that precisely what NIST and their engineers claimed they did?
All the while leaving out or ignoring other details, data, fudging the data, exaggerating the data, and making the data that led to their conclusions unavailable?

 

[Mr. Jones]

I have to agree with patriot. I would guess that I have watched at least 200 and probably up to 300 hours of video presented by conspiracy theorists. I doubt I will sit and watch another one anytime soon unless there's a really good reason for it. Like something new......

We understand you can't comprehend much anyways, and can't make any sense of the information, just stick to your TV and your indoctrinated habits, no big loss.

Other than an occasional movie and the morning news I don't do TV...

As far as indoctrinated, I've been called worse. If you want to see worse, just take a look in the nearest mirror.

You are an example of an indoctrinated closed mind, that fails to grasp many things that are clear to others because of it, all the while moving the goal posts in debates, while nitpicking details of the side you oppose, along with questioning their credibility and character and totally avoiding the same rules of scrutiny you use, when it comes to the side you defend.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Nist did not explain how it was was possible

Exactly! And NIST is supposed to be the "official" authority that is tax payer funded. They made the assertion, and have to explain how they came to their conclusions. They didn't. So again I ask anyone to post any indisputable evidence from NIST, on the buildings demise, with explanations on why they say the buildings offered only "minimal resistance" and fell at "essentially free fall rates".

What a dumbass!!! Eots gets his ass handed to him for making a retarded claim that is blatantly false, and you chime in with EXACTLY!!!! That's what happens when you have your head up eots' ass.

It's true NIST did not explain how many things about the collapse were possible.

 

[eots]

The professor admitted to only looking at the videos and this was before the NIST report came out that details the evidence and theory.

What I want to know is what kind of professor of engineering would make a claim based on a video without wanting to look at the structure involved and getting a detailed accounting of what happened.

the structure involved ??? huh ?

Isn't that precisely what NIST and their engineers claimed they did?
All the while leaving out or ignoring other details, data, fudging the data, exaggerating the data, and making the data that led to their conclusions unavailable?

yes. other than a unverified, first time ever computer simulation, that is all the evidence they have to support the NIST theory

 

[SFC Ollie]

Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering – Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965 - 1978. Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 - 1990. Testified more than 50 times before Congress on technology, science, and environmental issues. Former Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, National Governors Association. Dr. Hirschhorn has been a consultant to industrial and chemical companies, DOE laboratories, state governments, and public interest organizations. Co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention at Friends Of the Article V Convention. Member, Board of Directors, National Foundation for Environmental Education. Member, Board of Directors, Sustainability Now! Author of more than 150 papers, articles, guest editorials, and book chapters on environmental science and technology



"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.

They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official “investigations” have really been cover-up operations.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

Quotes from your link:

Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11

[T]he debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. (Yet they found engine parts, wheels, and the black boxes)

Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds (wrong)

It is clear that the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were brought down in a contrived and controlled demolition from within. ( It is clear that there is no physical evidence to back up this statement)

Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."

"Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack." If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these "explosive tenants" could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building "without having anyone notice." (Really?)


I could continue with this for hours, but real life calls and I must go for an hour or two.... Enjoy......