Why don't people want to know the truth about 9/11?

[eots]

so would you of preferred he drop a little steel and concrete box on a big concrete and steel box ?...and if he did...what would you expect to happen ?

Yep!

Or, at least fly a scale model 757 full speed, fully loaded with fuel and lil' pasengers, light it on fire until BIG BOXES structure is fully weakened, and then drop LIL' BOX on BIG BOX.

C'mon eots, you have to know that video and demonstration if fuckin' laughable, and proves absolutely nothing.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is a gullible fool.

do you really think if you a cup of kerosene on a concrete and steel box that it would weaken considerable ?...I dont

 

[Wicked Jester]

so would you of preferred he drop a little steel and concrete box on a big concrete and steel box ?...and if he did...what would you expect to happen ?

Yep!

Or, at least fly a scale model 757 full speed, fully loaded with fuel and lil' pasengers, light it on fire until BIG BOXES structure is fully weakened, and then drop LIL' BOX on BIG BOX.

C'mon eots, you have to know that video and demonstration if fuckin' laughable, and proves absolutely nothing.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is a gullible fool.

do you really think if you a cup of kerosene on a concrete and steel box that it would weaken considerable ?...I dont

Yes, after a fully loaded, fully fueled 757 rams into it full speed, and the fires continue to burn red hot for an hour and a half.

Again, that video and demonstration are friggin' ridiculous.

And the fact that someone who claims to know about physics posted it, makes it beyond laughable, to friggin' hysterical.

 

[BrianH]

He sure cant.these OCTA'S like Brian and wicked,dont get it that to accept the governments version of events,you got to ignore the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years.they obviously slept through juniour high science classes.

I'm not accepting the government's version. I think they knew more than they let on. Do I think they did it? lol. No. This conspiracy has been debunked over and over again by top engineers. (You'll say they are government hired engineers--typical)

can you name any of these top engineers

Just off the top of my head :Keith Steffen from Cambridge University in the UK.

 

[eots]

Yep!

Or, at least fly a scale model 757 full speed, fully loaded with fuel and lil' pasengers, light it on fire until BIG BOXES structure is fully weakened, and then drop LIL' BOX on BIG BOX.

C'mon eots, you have to know that video and demonstration if fuckin' laughable, and proves absolutely nothing.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is a gullible fool.

do you really think if you a cup of kerosene on a concrete and steel box that it would weaken considerable ?...I dont

Yes, after a fully loaded, fully fueled 757 rams into it full speed, and the fires continue to burn red hot for an hour and a half.

Again, that video and demonstration are friggin' ridiculous.

And the fact that someone who claims to know about physics posted it, makes it beyond laughable, to friggin' hysterical.

WELL IF IT WAS SCALE IT WOULD MORE LIKE A FLAMING DART....Whats really funny is how these hacks pretend like the NIST explanation is "common sense" when it took them years and state of the art super computers to come up with these highly improbable collapse sequences as an "explanation"

 

[PhysicsExist]

www.MilitaryOfficersfor911TRUTH.org
Scientists for 9/11 Truth
Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » FF 911 Truth
Scholars For 9/11 Truth
Pilots For 9/11 Truth
AE911Truth.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth

 

[eots]

I'm not accepting the government's version. I think they knew more than they let on. Do I think they did it? lol. No. This conspiracy has been debunked over and over again by top engineers. (You'll say they are government hired engineers--typical)

can you name any of these top engineers

Just off the top of my head :Keith Steffen from Cambridge University in the UK.

I am pretty sure he is not an engineer..he is that global warming fraud guy isn't he ?

 

[BrianH]

can you name any of these top engineers

Just off the top of my head :Keith Steffen from Cambridge University in the UK.

I am pretty sure he is not an engineer..he is that global warming fraud guy isn't he ?

??? He's a (or was) a Senior lecturer in Structural Engineering at Cambridge...haven't heard of the global warming thing...

 

[eots]

maybe it is similar names or he wrote papers on both...I will try and find out if it is the same fellow

 

[eots]

no this guy was William not Kieth same last name...but I cold not find your guys paper or statement do you have a link ?

 

[BrianH]

no this guy was William not Kieth same last name...but I cold not find your guys paper or statement do you have a link ?

9/11 - Dr Keith Seffen's paper - "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis"

I think it has a link to his actual paper on here.

 

[eots]

no this guy was William not Kieth same last name...but I cold not find your guys paper or statement do you have a link ?

9/11 - Dr Keith Seffen's paper - "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis"

I think it has a link to his actual paper on here.

well one important point is his theory is in contradiction with the NIST and and hardly seems conclusive furthermore considering his proposed experiments it seems ironic that Cages boxes are considered laughable


it would be interesting to see a computer simulation of the collapse described for the towers by this model - I am sure it would look most unlike what was actually seen.

"I did wonder what real situation this model would in fact model. Two ideas have come to mind. A vertical stack of empty Coke-cans crushed by dropping a brick - provided those lateral instabilities were dealt with somehow. You can then calculate the downward speed of the brick crushing the tins.
Another is the Kung Fu exhibition stunt where somebody punches down through a stack of roof tiles. You can probably estimate the maximum number broken for various amounts of available continuous punch-force. Maybe not the most useful idea…"

Dr Seffen's acknowledgements -

"The author is extremely grateful to two anonymous referees for insightful and supporting comments."


Sorry not impressed....are you ?

 

[BrianH]

no this guy was William not Kieth same last name...but I cold not find your guys paper or statement do you have a link ?

9/11 - Dr Keith Seffen's paper - "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis"

I think it has a link to his actual paper on here.

well one important point is his theory is in contradiction with the NIST and and hardly seems conclusive furthermore considering his proposed experiments it seems ironic that Cages boxes are considered laughable


t would be interesting to see a computer simulation of the collapse described for the towers by this model - I am sure it would look most unlike what was actually seen.

I did wonder what real situation this model would in fact model. Two ideas have come to mind. A vertical stack of empty Coke-cans crushed by dropping a brick - provided those lateral instabilities were dealt with somehow. You can then calculate the downward speed of the brick crushing the tins.
Another is the Kung Fu exhibition stunt where somebody punches down through a stack of roof tiles. You can probably estimate the maximum number broken for various amounts of available continuous punch-force. Maybe not the most useful idea…

Dr Seffen's acknowledgements -

"The author is extremely grateful to two anonymous referees for insightful and supporting comments."


Sorry not impressed....are you ?

I didn't expect you to be. He makes sense to me. It's going to be impossible to convince you otherwise. Nothing against you personally, but I've noticed that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have a tendency to refute credible experts and/or discredit most engineers who disagree with them. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

The 9/11 conspiracy believers act similar to the AGW theorist. They like to throw out scholarly journals to "prove" their point, but then discredit other scholarly journals that refute their point...as if for some reason their scholarly journals are more correct than anyone else.

Once again, not a personal attack on you. You seem to provide plenty of "evidence" that supports the opinion you have. Certainly better than blindly believing.

 

[PhysicsExist]

9/11 - Dr Keith Seffen's paper - "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis"

I think it has a link to his actual paper on here.

well one important point is his theory is in contradiction with the NIST and and hardly seems conclusive furthermore considering his proposed experiments it seems ironic that Cages boxes are considered laughable


t would be interesting to see a computer simulation of the collapse described for the towers by this model - I am sure it would look most unlike what was actually seen.

I did wonder what real situation this model would in fact model. Two ideas have come to mind. A vertical stack of empty Coke-cans crushed by dropping a brick - provided those lateral instabilities were dealt with somehow. You can then calculate the downward speed of the brick crushing the tins.
Another is the Kung Fu exhibition stunt where somebody punches down through a stack of roof tiles. You can probably estimate the maximum number broken for various amounts of available continuous punch-force. Maybe not the most useful idea…

Dr Seffen's acknowledgements -

"The author is extremely grateful to two anonymous referees for insightful and supporting comments."


Sorry not impressed....are you ?

I didn't expect you to be. He makes sense to me. It's going to be impossible to convince you otherwise. Nothing against you personally, but I've noticed that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have a tendency to refute credible experts and/or discredit most engineers who disagree with them. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

The 9/11 conspiracy believers act similar to the AGW theorist. They like to throw out scholarly journals to "prove" their point, but then discredit other scholarly journals that refute their point...as if for some reason their scholarly journals are more correct than anyone else.

Once again, not a personal attack on you. You seem to provide plenty of "evidence" that supports the opinion you have. Certainly better than blindly believing.

OVER 1,450+ CERTIFIED ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS AND COUNTING AGREE 9/11 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. THIS ISNT DEBATABLE. BASIC PHYSICS PROVE IT.
AE911Truth.org

 

[SFC Ollie]

well one important point is his theory is in contradiction with the nist and and hardly seems conclusive furthermore considering his proposed experiments it seems ironic that cages boxes are considered laughable


t would be interesting to see a computer simulation of the collapse described for the towers by this model - i am sure it would look most unlike what was actually seen.

I did wonder what real situation this model would in fact model. Two ideas have come to mind. a vertical stack of empty coke-cans crushed by dropping a brick - provided those lateral instabilities were dealt with somehow. You can then calculate the downward speed of the brick crushing the tins.
another is the kung fu exhibition stunt where somebody punches down through a stack of roof tiles. You can probably estimate the maximum number broken for various amounts of available continuous punch-force. maybe not the most useful idea…

dr seffen's acknowledgements -

"the author is extremely grateful to two anonymous referees for insightful and supporting comments."


sorry not impressed....are you ?

i didn't expect you to be. He makes sense to me. It's going to be impossible to convince you otherwise. Nothing against you personally, but i've noticed that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have a tendency to refute credible experts and/or discredit most engineers who disagree with them. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

The 9/11 conspiracy believers act similar to the agw theorist. They like to throw out scholarly journals to "prove" their point, but then discredit other scholarly journals that refute their point...as if for some reason their scholarly journals are more correct than anyone else.

Once again, not a personal attack on you. You seem to provide plenty of "evidence" that supports the opinion you have. Certainly better than blindly believing.

over 1,450+ certified architects and engineers and counting agree 9/11 was a controlled demolition. This isnt debatable. Basic physics prove it.
ae911truth.org

ssdd​

 

[DiveCon]

well one important point is his theory is in contradiction with the NIST and and hardly seems conclusive furthermore considering his proposed experiments it seems ironic that Cages boxes are considered laughable


t would be interesting to see a computer simulation of the collapse described for the towers by this model - I am sure it would look most unlike what was actually seen.

I did wonder what real situation this model would in fact model. Two ideas have come to mind. A vertical stack of empty Coke-cans crushed by dropping a brick - provided those lateral instabilities were dealt with somehow. You can then calculate the downward speed of the brick crushing the tins.
Another is the Kung Fu exhibition stunt where somebody punches down through a stack of roof tiles. You can probably estimate the maximum number broken for various amounts of available continuous punch-force. Maybe not the most useful idea…

Dr Seffen's acknowledgements -

"The author is extremely grateful to two anonymous referees for insightful and supporting comments."


Sorry not impressed....are you ?

I didn't expect you to be. He makes sense to me. It's going to be impossible to convince you otherwise. Nothing against you personally, but I've noticed that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have a tendency to refute credible experts and/or discredit most engineers who disagree with them. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

The 9/11 conspiracy believers act similar to the AGW theorist. They like to throw out scholarly journals to "prove" their point, but then discredit other scholarly journals that refute their point...as if for some reason their scholarly journals are more correct than anyone else.

Once again, not a personal attack on you. You seem to provide plenty of "evidence" that supports the opinion you have. Certainly better than blindly believing.

OVER 1,450+ CERTIFIED ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS AND COUNTING AGREE 9/11 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. THIS ISNT DEBATABLE. BASIC PHYSICS PROVE IT.
AE911Truth.org

which is about 0.01% of all of them
let me know when you get to 1%
not that it will change the facts, but it will be more significant

 

[SFC Ollie]

I didn't expect you to be. He makes sense to me. It's going to be impossible to convince you otherwise. Nothing against you personally, but I've noticed that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have a tendency to refute credible experts and/or discredit most engineers who disagree with them. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

The 9/11 conspiracy believers act similar to the AGW theorist. They like to throw out scholarly journals to "prove" their point, but then discredit other scholarly journals that refute their point...as if for some reason their scholarly journals are more correct than anyone else.

Once again, not a personal attack on you. You seem to provide plenty of "evidence" that supports the opinion you have. Certainly better than blindly believing.

OVER 1,450+ CERTIFIED ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS AND COUNTING AGREE 9/11 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. THIS ISNT DEBATABLE. BASIC PHYSICS PROVE IT.
AE911Truth.org

which is about 0.01% of all of them
let me know when you get to 1%
not that it will change the facts, but it will be more significant

Actually it will simply be a bit less insignificant.

 

[DiveCon]

OVER 1,450+ CERTIFIED ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS AND COUNTING AGREE 9/11 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. THIS ISNT DEBATABLE. BASIC PHYSICS PROVE IT.
AE911Truth.org

which is about 0.01% of all of them
let me know when you get to 1%
not that it will change the facts, but it will be more significant

Actually it will simply be a bit less insignificant.

true

 

[PhysicsExist]

 

[SFC Ollie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1WurLaoImE

This guy simply passes on all the misinformation that none of you have yet to prove as fact. It's all conjecture. And much of it has been disproved. However at least it hasn't been posted 10 times, earlier this week.

 

[eots]

I didn't expect you to be. He makes sense to me. It's going to be impossible to convince you otherwise. Nothing against you personally, but I've noticed that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have a tendency to refute credible experts and/or discredit most engineers who disagree with them. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

The 9/11 conspiracy believers act similar to the AGW theorist. They like to throw out scholarly journals to "prove" their point, but then discredit other scholarly journals that refute their point...as if for some reason their scholarly journals are more correct than anyone else.

Once again, not a personal attack on you. You seem to provide plenty of "evidence" that supports the opinion you have. Certainly better than blindly believing.

OVER 1,450+ CERTIFIED ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS AND COUNTING AGREE 9/11 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. THIS ISNT DEBATABLE. BASIC PHYSICS PROVE IT.
AE911Truth.org

which is about 0.01% of all of them
let me know when you get to 1%
not that it will change the facts, but it will be more significant

so how many people signed off on the NIST report...what % of engineers do you think they represent...lol