It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Upcoming Sydney Conference to Demonstrate the Three Building Collapses on 9/11 Were a Controlled Dem

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I know this is a bit old, but this is on the front page of the 911 truth site: www.911truth.org...

Upcoming Sydney Conference to Demonstrate the Three Building Collapses on 9/11 Were a Controlled Demolition






Sydney, Australia, September 14, 2009 - Truth Action Australia and 911oz.com will host the international conference The Hard Evidence to critically examine the three building collapses in New York on September 11, 2001. The official explanation of these building collapses 1, 2 and 7 of the World Trade Center Complex have been attributed primarily to fire damage causing a "global collapse" which independent scientific research has found an entirely insufficient explanation. A group of architects and engineers, approaching one thousand members, is demanding a new investigation of these building collapses based on hard physical evidence, witness testimony, video evidence and strict structural analysis using the original blueprints.


A conference like this will probably not be covered by the media. anyone in the aussie area should attend this and bring back information.

these guys need to keep fighting the ignorance in the OS.

they need to keep asking questions, and demanding answers.




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Yahooooooo!!!! More foreign morons to demonstrate their ignorance. I am curious, have they built a couple buildings just so they can crash airplanes into them? Or are they just going to stand at a podium and rehash conspiracy theories that have been debunked? (my favorite is the yoyo who claimed in all seriousness that no airplane could have damaged the towers enough to fall....because the meteorite that crashed through the North Tower in the movie "Armaggedeon" didnt cause the tower to fall..so how could an airplane)

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I find it hard not to laugh about your post but then I realize how ignorant it is. Are you on ATS or some CNN forum?

Anywho, always a good step in the right direction. With any luck someone will be able to provide some videos of the information and display they provide.

Anything to open more eyes is good in my book.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


And aren't you a bright one, to be calling these engineers and scientists morons. How absurd is that?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I should be in sydney November 14 & 15th and I would love to show up and laugh at Richard Gage and Steven Jones. But I dont want to pay them 60 AU$ at the door just for the pleasure of laughing at them. I will probably show up outside just because I've never seen a twoofer in real life.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


I've worked with engineers for over 20 years and I've seen them make plenty of stupid mistakes when it comes to their jobs. Mistakes that have cost lives and resources. Blind faith in an engineer is a bad thing.

They can be incredibly book smart, but not have a lick of common sense.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


You're right, it is ignorant for someone to stand at a podium and proclaim that it is impossible that the towers collapsed.....because the guys who designed them, said they designed them to withstand an airliner impact. And the guy who thought the movie was real life....he is pretty ignorant, as is the other gentleman who said all the structural steel had been removed from the towers which is why they fell so easily.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
I will probably show up outside just because I've never seen a twoofer in real life.


So you have never been to the United States, or you usually just don't venture out of your basement?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
They can be incredibly book smart, but not have a lick of common sense.


Kind of like someone who hears about how they were so many war games and federal exercises coinciding with 9/11 and even pertaining to the very things that happened that day, and then writes them all off as a massive coincidence. Actually there is a word for that and I believe it's called "naive."



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



I've worked with engineers for over 20 years and I've seen them make plenty of stupid mistakes when it comes to their jobs. Mistakes that have cost lives and resources. Blind faith in an engineer is a bad thing.

They can be incredibly book smart, but not have a lick of common sense.



926 architectural and engineering professionals
and 5116 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.


www.ae911truth.org...

So, in your 20 years of working with engineers none of them have common sense. Only NIST who can’t keep up with their lies are the only engineers that you believe in. I don’t see anyone in here agreeing with you.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



Yahooooooo!!!! More foreign morons to demonstrate their ignorance.


Still back at the name calling and insults, do you ever have anything to contribute to any topic beside your hatred of people who refuse to believe in your delusional fantasies.


Or are they just going to stand at a podium and rehash conspiracy theories that have been debunked? (my favorite is the yoyo who claimed in all seriousness that no airplane could have damaged the towers enough to fall....because the meteorite that crashed through the North Tower in the movie "Armaggedeon" didnt cause the tower to fall..so how could an airplane)


Yeah, I like the one with the witness that came out of the WTC when the basement were blown up and they had their skin hanging off their bodies and the funny thing about all this was the WTC were still standing. Yeah, I like how the marble artwork and the elevators doors in the lobby were blown to pieces while the WTC were still standing. Yeah, I like how the impact hole in the WTC was so hot that it melted all the steel to cause the WTC to just fall down but, then we have this wonderful woman standing in this gaping hole wearing white dress slack waving a white hanky and not a scratch on her and her clothing was clean as a whistle. So, where was this super duper heat? Because it sure wasn’t in the impact area.

These issue are facts and if these are some of the facts then they contradict the OS don’t you agree?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


I've worked with engineers for over 20 years and I've seen them make plenty of stupid mistakes when it comes to their jobs. Mistakes that have cost lives and resources. Blind faith in an engineer is a bad thing.

They can be incredibly book smart, but not have a lick of common sense.


So... you're saying that all 926 of the architects and engineers who signed the petition are wrong and have no common sense? I just want to be clear on that.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Next time you cross a bridge, fly in an aircraft, or use the lift in a high rise building, thank an engineer that you are still alive.

Engineering is based on hundreds of years of accumulated practical knowledge, and applied theory to back up that practical experience.

Sure, many engineers wear odd socks, have some rather strange personalities, and food stains on their ties, but that does not make them all total fools.

Never underestimate what an experienced bunch of engineers and architects can conclude from the forensic evidence of some horrific structural failure.
That is what those guys do..

If you really want to know what happened during 9/11, hang George W Bush on a hook for twelve hours, zap him with some voltage, then water board him.
That would all be perfectly o/k, because it is not torture.

[edit on 11/10/2009 by Silver Shadow]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Bosko
 


Im saying a lot of them are basing their beliefs on faulty assumptions. And a bunch of them are a lack of common sense.


But, here is a research project for you. See how many of the original WTC engineers/architects (that are still alive) are on that list. Pretty sure you arent going to find any.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Silver Shadow
 





Next time you cross a bridge, fly in an aircraft,


Like the Tacoma Narrows bridge or the Airbus' that have poorly designed vertical stabilizers?




Engineering is based on hundreds of years of accumulated practical knowledge, and applied theory to back up that practical experience.


Yes, hundreds of years. You think maybe that knowledge base has changed over the centuries? Maybe assumptions that were held to be true a thousand or even fifty years ago are now known NOT to be true?




Sure, many engineers wear odd socks, have some rather strange personalities, and food stains on their ties, but that does not make them all total fools


No one said they were all total fools. I said blind faith in engineers is a bad thing, because there are times some of them show a distinct lack of common sense. Im pretty sure that Leslie Robertson wishes there had been some load bearing walls in the towers other than the core and external wall.




Never underestimate what an experienced bunch of engineers and architects can conclude from the forensic evidence of some horrific structural failure.


And we did have a bunch of engineers/architects investigate the WTC.




If you really want to know what happened during 9/11, hang George W Bush on a hook for twelve hours, zap him with some voltage, then water board him


Wow, such hatred.....besides, we already know what happened. We were attacked by terrorists.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


We all know that you're already convinced that OBL did it just like the MSM was saying as it was still happening. Just trying to force your opinion down our throats isn't going to change anybody's mind, so I'm not sure why you even bother responding in the way you do. Do you really want to get into the nitty gritty of the issues we have with the technical reports? Because I know you usually just dismiss it all out of hand.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Im not sure why you keep responding to me..if I'm such a pain.

However, which "nitty-gritty" details would you like to discuss? Before I dismiss them out of hand, of course....



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


We could start with NIST's hypothesized failure mechanism for the trusses. That was the summation of their entire technical investigation of why the WTC Towers collapsed, the grand conclusion of everything the ASCE and FEMA had handed over to them. They didn't provide evidence for the hypothesis. They didn't try to recreate the shearing stresses induced by sagging from heat, even though they did have megawatt burners and did various tests on replicas of the WTC Tower truss set-ups. That's reason #1 for another technical investigation. NIST also could produce no evidence whatsoever that the heat and temperatures required for their theoretical mechanism were ever present in the WTC Towers, which means no evidence of so much steel being heated to 600-700C in the limited amount of time and while the fires were building up and dying down in different places. That's further reason to cast doubt on the credibility of the same report. And then add to that the fact that they started with their conclusion, a priori, 'the planes and fires did it and we just have to figure out how that could have been possible', and also assumed that the global collapse was "inevitable" based on very, very limited data, and their biased assumptions that the planes and fires were all that had to do with anything. They did not analyze or otherwise attempt to explain the mode of destruction for ~99% of the actual physical destruction to the buildings, never looked for evidence of explosives or eutectics or anything of that nature, and just all around produced a holier report than swiss cheese.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
There is going to be a program on French tv on the 28th October about 9/11. This site is going to put up a translation sometime after the program is shown :

world911truth.org...




You have until October 28 to learn French because French TV France 2’s “L’objet du scandale” with Guillaume Durand will air a historic debate over the official version of the 9/11 events.

On one side: 4 people with the hard task to defend the official version. On the other side, Jean-Marie Bigard, Mathieu Kassovitz, Éric Laurent and special guest Niels Harrit will tell France and the world why they don’t support the official theory and why they find it disturbing.

This is already a victory for the Bigard/Kassovitz camp who challenged the French media to organize a fair debate over 9/11 after being vilified by many French journalists because of their positions on 9/11. They have been called many names and even received death threats. But no serious journalist was able to challenge them on their positions and to seriously make a case against them based on facts. Now will be their chance, and like Bigard mentions in the below video, “good luck to them.”

This is also a victory for the 9/11 truth movement because the official US government conspiracy theory is supposedly not debatable. That’s what Bush said. That’s also what Obama said many times. The very fact of having a real open public debate, wherever that is, proves that the subject is debatable. And it needs to be debatable. The day we stop debating important topics is the day we surrender freedom.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
But I dont want to pay them 60 AU$ at the door just for the pleasure of laughing at them.

Then go to the Melbourne date instead.



Melbourne
Featuring: Richard Gage (AIA), Paul Mason (Structural Engineer), John Bursill (Aircraft Engineer)
When: Tuesday, 17th of November
Where: Victorian Trades Hall (New Council Chamber), Lygon Street on the corner of Victoria Street, Carlton South
Time: 7pm till 10pm (Please be a little early)
Cost: Free - $10 Donation suggested (covering the costs)


It's significantly less than $60 to attend the Melbourne event.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join