Trillion Dollar Conspiracy... 9/11 Mounting Evidence...

originally posted by: cheery1

I believe YOU ARE making a difference, let me tell you why..

The Truth movement is dead, but it's nice to stop by every once in a wile and spit on the grave.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: cheery1

I believe YOU ARE making a difference, let me tell you why..

The Truth movement is dead, but it's nice to stop by every once in a wile and spit on the grave.

What? After all of the 9/11 posts over the years and still 10 pages of replies to the OP and you say the truth movement is dead? ##snipped##

The official story broke down with the dancing Israelis. Arrested and released....nah!

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: CharlesT


What? After all of the 9/11 posts over the years and still 10 pages of replies to the OP and you say the truth movement is dead? [snipped]

Because you don't exist in the real world. I have been aware of the truth movement since 2007 and since that time I have never met a truther in real life. Never. The closest I have come to one is, I saw "911 inside job" written on sidewalk in Kings Cross Australia. Thats it, nothing else. When I turn off my computer you don't exist.

NOTICE!!!!!

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY... ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ

**POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ**

Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny.

You are responsible for your own posts....those who cannot be civil will face consequences.

edit on Sun Nov 30 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I removed this off topic post. Syx.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: CharlesT


What? After all of the 9/11 posts over the years and still 10 pages of replies to the OP and you say the truth movement is dead? [snipped]

Because you don't exist in the real world. I have been aware of the truth movement since 2007 and since that time I have never met a truther in real life. Never. The closest I have come to one is, I saw "911 inside job" written on sidewalk in Kings Cross Australia. Thats it, nothing else. When I turn off my computer you don't exist.

I would estimate that most if not all of the on-site construction industry in the area I am in believe 9/11 was BS in some way or another. Different trades often work in talking distance making small talk inevitable. 9/11 is an easy conversation starter.

You offered your hearsay, so there is mine.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
I would estimate that most if not all of the on-site construction industry in the area I am in believe 9/11 was BS in some way or another.

Thats nice. Do you think you could get one of them to join up here and put all their facts together into coherent description of what they think happened that day ? Or maybe you could give it a shot.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
I would estimate that most if not all of the on-site construction industry in the area I am in believe 9/11 was BS in some way or another.

Thats nice. Do you think you could get one of them to join up here and put all their facts together into coherent description of what they think happened that day ? Or maybe you could give it a shot.

The OS can't do that.

a reply to: olaru12

And the "dancing" Israeli story breaks down when you get the full story on the ladies testimony. The Israelis did not show up until after the first jet hit. In other words, like hundreds of thousands in New York that day, after the first jet hit, they stopped and watched and took video/pictures.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

From what I can find, Mr. Ross is sketchy at best. His "paper" was never published and therefore not subject to peer review. He hides on his blog and will not get into open debate with true qualified experts.

This simulation done by Purdue, I take with a little more credibility than Mr. Ross.

Mete Sozen, Purdue's Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering and a principal investigator on the simulation project, says the researchers worked for years and used the best computing resources available to recreate the event.

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

Source Purdue University

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?

Until one of these CT "experts" writes a peer reviewed paper and publishes it, I will stick with the idea that the damage AND fire caused by a 757 hitting the WTC caused the buildings to collapse.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: ForteanOrg

From what I can find, Mr. Ross is sketchy at best. His "paper" was never published and therefore not subject to peer review. He hides on his blog and will not get into open debate with true qualified experts.

This simulation done by Purdue, I take with a little more credibility than Mr. Ross.

Mete Sozen, Purdue's Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering and a principal investigator on the simulation project, says the researchers worked for years and used the best computing resources available to recreate the event.

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

Source Purdue University

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?

Until one of these CT "experts" writes a peer reviewed paper and publishes it, I will stick with the idea that the damage AND fire caused by a 757 hitting the WTC caused the buildings to collapse.

Peer review is equal to status quo.

Do you really think an educational institute is going to publish a paper that goes against status quo? And remain "respectable"? The media, that sold the 9/11 lie, would make that institute look like a nut house and it would make funding difficult for said institute. 9/11 research for the OS has nothing to do with science or truth, it is about career survival.

Read the NIST report if you think it is about science. It was an opinion with opinion based data and many disclosers of limited liability. Read it.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Ummm, I have, and there is much lacking in it. That is why I have posted THIS link numerous times.

It takes a non biased look at ALL of this.

It was an opinion with opinion based data and many disclosers of limited liability.

That can be said for all the CT collapse theories. All I want is PROOF. I am open to truth, and I am NOT convinced of what our government did or did not know. But these off the wall theories of explosives, energy weapons, thermite, no planes, missiles, mini nukes, underground nukes etc...., require a little more than youtube videos by "experts". At least for me to believe.

You can believe what you want, and have your own level of proof required, I don't have a problem with that.

I am just trying to share the facts as I see them.

Just trying to deny ignorance.
Peace
Steve


.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Ummm, I have, and there is much lacking in it. That is why I have posted THIS link numerous times.

It takes a non biased look at ALL of this.

It was an opinion with opinion based data and many disclosers of limited liability.

That can be said for all the CT collapse theories. All I want is PROOF. I am open to truth, and I am NOT convinced of what our government did or did not know. But these off the wall theories of explosives, energy weapons, thermite, no planes, missiles, mini nukes, underground nukes etc...., require a little more than youtube videos by "experts". At least for me to believe.

You can believe what you want, and have your own level of proof required, I don't have a problem with that.

I am just trying to share the facts as I see them.

Just trying to deny ignorance.
Peace
Steve


.

I agree with not following off the wall theories or any theory. I stick to simply calling BS to the official theory and point out observations. Then let the OSers flip out about it as though the OS is peer reviewed. Readers can tell who is genuine and who is talking out the back side. There is no proof to any theory since any information has been gagged and tagged classified. If someone did have information that could incriminate anyone inside the Bush administration or the various agencies and came forward with it. That person would be in jail for disclosing classified info or not complying with a gag order.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Do you really think an educational institute is going to publish a paper that goes against status quo?

They obviously do, otherwise science would never advance.

And remain "respectable"?

Of course! New science needs strong proof, but when a paper is written that introduces new theories, all it needs to do is present strong evidence that stands up against inquiry and testing.

It happens all the time.

9/11 research for the OS has nothing to do with science or truth, it is about career survival.

Wrong.

Read the NIST report if you think it is about science. It was an opinion with opinion based data and many disclosers of limited liability. Read it.

Of course it has disclaimers.

Their analysis was done with the best tools and info available, but it is not a guarantee that they are 100% correct.

For instance, the NIST report on WTC1 states that the ext column pull in was the first visible sign of global collapse, and so that was the initiating event. However, they also mention that core columns were at their absolute maximum load capacity in the moments before visible movement, and that core column buckling may have been the initating factor. But they weren't sure of that and so they don't hypothesize it.

However, there have been examinations of extremely high res videos that suggest that indeed, the core columns buckled a few moments prior to the ext columns visibly being pulled in, so that has a higher probability now.

But, what does it change?

Impact and fire damage caused the collapse.

The end.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: olaru12

And the "dancing" Israeli story breaks down when you get the full story on the ladies testimony. The Israelis did not show up until after the first jet hit. In other words, like hundreds of thousands in New York that day, after the first jet hit, they stopped and watched and took video/pictures.

And danced and high fived each other. Makes perfect sense watching people die.


You do realize of course that making these types of lame excuses; actually helps the CT crowd? Perhaps that's actually your intention....good job!

OSers know it all apparently...

Maybe they can tell us what was in the 28 redacted pages of the inquiry...




We "truthers" patiently await your vast knowledge regarding such....



Tick
Tock
Tick
Tock