9/11 Truth Movement Gaining Scientific Credibility

reply to post by seethelight


Personally, i don't want to 'convert' you or anyone else.

I wouldn't mind if you didn't make sweeping statements and pose stupid questions, that a 10 year old could reason through though!

Like; "and how did the demo team know exactly where the planes would hit, and start the demo from that point"...are you kidding?!

You had the intelligence to ask the question, but you expect us to believe you cannot form an answer to it yourself?

It's simple, if you apply non-partisan logic. In other words, look at the problem without bias.

OK..a 100 story building is wired for demolition, from the bottom upwards. Let's assume the main trigger wiring is in the buildings riser shaft(s)..a aeroplane crashes into the 67th, 68th, 69th and 70th floors.
The damage would include all trigger wiring destroyed in the 67, 68, 69 and 70th floors, and all floors above would now be out of the demo 'loop'.

Can you see what might happen next?

The demo is executed, and the charges are triggered up till the point the plane impacted.

Now, you tell me...exactly where, in this ' hypothetical scenario' did the demo engineers HAVE to have ANY knowledge of where the plane would hit the building, in order for them to carry out the demo of the building? Hmm?

If you're going to ask rhetorical question to support your views, you'd be better off thinking about them for...oh i don't know..3 or 4 seconds before typing them up, 'cos if the answer is as obvious as the one above, you end up looking a bit...short-sighted.

Originally posted by dereks
Except the whole plane was in those bits, why do you expect to find the plane intact after hitting the Pentagon?

The "truthers' are getting sillier by the day!

[edit on 27/2/10 by dereks]

Dereks, can you back anything you say up? Do you just say things for the sake of points or being read online? Why do you defend a story you have no evidence for? I am honestly asking for a source to this information. Where did you find that an entire plane was recovered in bits? Please help me out here. I want to know as much as you do.

Originally posted by seethelight
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!


This is why claiming to know the real secret truth behind 9/11 is self-destructive.

Which is right, crazy theory with no evidence A, or crazy theory with no evidence B?

You mean like claiming to know it was a group of middle eastern hijackers? You claim to know the truth while most "truthers" are just asking for a better investigation.

Looks like you just hung yourself with your own words there buddy.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
As a 9-11 truther I feel insulted by your last paragraph. If we are not willing examine various theories, some more credible than others, than how can we ever determine what likely happened?

These various theories such as hologram planes, no planes at the WTC, and "pods", have been examined years ago, found to be false, and as such, anyone still peddling false information would be peddling disinformation. And 9/11 truthers don't peddle disinformation. Therefore if you believe in or peddle these crackpot theories that have been debunked years ago, then you're not considered a 9/11 truther. So you may continue to feel insulted. I have no sympathy for those that choose to remain unresearched.

There isn't a single 9/11 research organization that endorses or accepts these crackpot theories, so let it go.

Gaining credibility?

Any scientist who looks at 9-11 honestly and can say that the official story fits with science such as physics and logic, odds, economics, politics, etc.

is being dishonest.

Originally posted by CRASHPROJECT
reply to post by _BoneZ_

Thanks for the thread, it got me off the bench and in the game.

I know I'm on a conspiracy site, so I'll admit it, I'm paranoid. I can't shake the feeling some of these people that champion the os work for the government.

Do you think there are funds available in the Pentagon budget for such endeavours? They have a workman like ethic to their misinforming. I bet there's a thread on it.

I would like to share a video that may enlighten those unemployed hardcore believers in the os. I can see this video being shown to the jury, a Professor in Physics explaining how a 4-ton girder cannot be ejected 2 football fields away using the os narrative.

That big piece on the right which is headed for the American Express building 600 feet away, seems to be comprised of ten or twenty or more of the 4-ton outer wall sections, still connected together. Therefore it is 40 or 80 or more tons of structural steel hurled away from WTC1. That would take tremendous force, and this section came from the upper floors where the top-down explosive demolition was initiated.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5b62bca8b49.jpg[/atsimg]

Each outer wall section weighs 4 tons. What force accelerated the heavy structural steel sections to 70 mph with enough inertia imparted to travel through the air for two football fields?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/96adaf72aee9.jpg[/atsimg]

It took immense explosive power to hurl that heavy piece two football fields away into WFC3. Simple common sense informs us this was not caused by a gravity collapse. Pulverized and powdered concrete and office furniture and drywall are not exerting that amount of force on heavy structural steel in all directions from both towers.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2106c2b2203a.jpg[/atsimg]

Yes these faithful 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY defenders are dedicated to stopping us in our tracks. They have not the slightest interest in exposing the real truth. They prefer to hide it inside a web of confusion and lies.

They are internet defense attorneys dedicated to defending their career criminal clients with NO ethical limits on their tactics and to hell with the truth. Like any good repeat offender defense attorney, they know their client is guilty as hell, and their sole objective is to keep that truth from the jury.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4b786c05ff6c.jpg[/atsimg]

Just look at those piles of 4-ton exterior wall sections lying next to WFC3 almost 600 feet away from WTC1. Both towers collapsed straight down, with the outer wall sections hurled in all directions, and the remnants of the destroyed massive core sections toppling at the end of the collapse.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/12aad2082430.jpg[/atsimg]

www.nytimes.com...
www.smh.com.au...
www.newsweek.com...

enough said?

reply to post by spikey


This sounds logical on its face, but it's not.

Why not just blow the buildings up and blame AQ?

What's the point of flying planes into them and then creating special wiring (demos are sequentially wired so that the timing isn't left up to chance... there's not a way to say, only explode up to this point in traditional demo) so that you can give the appearance that planes caused the buildings to collapse?

Why would you do that?

And even if you did all of that, for some reason, you'd still need closely timed explosions (10ths a second apart) to take them down.

There would still need to hundreds of them and they would still all move air (and thus make some sound) and the destruction would also be visible (even without a flash).

No one reported anything like this.

NO ONE.

If you blew up the column, starting at the bottom, but waited 20 mins between explosions, the whole thing would've collapsed from the bottom.

if you did them all like a traditional demo, the whole building would've fallen at once, so no top down collapse.

If you blew the top and let it collapse, then all the anti-pancakers will say you're full of #.

There's no scenario in which planted explosion can satisfy all the Faither claims and describe what the videos show and the witnesses said.

Originally posted by seethelight
Russia Today is NOT a credible source.

So 1/10th of 1% of the worlds engineers think 9/11 was a demo, that isn't actually very impressive.

Statistically, that means NO engineers do, because most surveys/studies have a margin of error of AT LEAST 1%.

So less than a 10th of that is meaningless.

Russia Today = Fail
Statistically insignificant number of engineers = fail

And on and on...

Russia Today is NOT a credible source. I knew you would say something like that! Ill have you know man RT news has one of the biggest rating in Asia, thats millions! it go's out in many languages!

reply to post by conar


Some good reading, but no info that suggest controlled demo.

Two of them clearly state AQ was responsible and the third presents no alternative explanation, just says that maybe more questions should be asked, without using torture.

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


By your logic, FOX NEWS is trustworthy.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by baboo
Dereks, you need to be more specific as to exactly what evidence is being ignored.

Evidence like this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... that shows how a 757 hit the Pentagon, and the damage it caused....

Why do you believe no evidence of thermate has been found?

Because no evidence has been shown that proved thermite was found, also how was it placed in the buildings with no one noticing?

Why do you think it is obvious that the Pentagon was hit by a plane.

as i said, have a look at www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm really interested in both sides of this issue.

if you were interested in both sides why havent you looked at www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why havent you look at the evidence produced in court of 757 parts during Zacarias Moussaoui's trial?

Excellent! Thanks for your reference to the ATS article. Here are my thoughts on its contents.
1. The auther states that the body of the aircraft was small enough to make a 16' diameter hole in the Pentagon. That is possible. The problem I have is that he convenienctly failed to reference the close clearance of the bottom of the hole to the ground. If you look at the pictures he supplies you'll see that below the 10-12' diameter hull of the plane are the 8-10' diameter engines, which, if flying close to the ground should have left sizeable gouges in the turf. There were none. Also, if you look at pictures of the Pentagon prior to the collapse of the floors above the hole you'll see no damage on the building sections to the side of the hole. You would expect this damage which would be created by the wings. The windows in these sections of the building are still intact.

2. The author shows pictures of various parts of the plane and then makes the attempt to create the idea that these planes are so very light that there would be on debris. Well, look at he specs he himself provided and you'll see this plane weights nearly 130 tons. This amount of material will not 'vaporize'. Also, the picutures of the rotor, strut, and any other pictures need to be authenticated to prove they indeed were at the site and not padded into the evidence.

3. The fact that Purdue U. has done a study means little until it is shown who funded the study. Purdue U has been staunchly defending the OS from the start which makes me wonder what ties they have to the gov't. I have an engineering degree and so attended one of these major university engineering schools. They can make mistakes and are subject to political pressure.

4. The fact that witnesses claim the plane impacted the building is the weakest evidence since witnesses have also testified that the plane veered and flew over the Pentagon. This was presented on a televised investigation.

Let me know which of these points you need links for and I'll provide it.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by baboo]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Here is an interview from Russia Today with Jesse Richard of TVNewsLies.org. Jesse says that he once believed the official version, just as I and most everyone else have. But the evidence against the official version is damning and overwhelming:

Unlike many of the "debunkers" here and elsewhere, Jesse has taken the time to examine the official version of 9/11 and examine the claims of the 9/11 truth movement. What he didn't do was allow his denial to get the best of him when he read sites like "9/11 Myths".

NIST has not released any computer models to the public to support their theories of what happened on 9/11. In essence, those who believe the official account are taking the word of agencies such as NIST with zero proof other than their word.

I would suggest to those that believe the official version of 9/11 to actually take the time to take a look again at what little evidence is presented by the official version of events, and what the 9/11 truth movement offers in way of evidence. And by "take the time", I don't simply mean a couple hours or a day. There's alot of information to look over, take in, and understand.

Lastly, while looking at what the 9/11 truth movement offers in way of evidence, "mini nukes", no planes at the WTC, "pods", and other such nonsense are not supported by the greater 9/11 truth movement, nor acknowledged by the professional research organizations within the 9/11 truth movement as credible theories.

First of all-Why are you guys even posting this? 9\11 has been proven to be an inside job for a LONG time now-with facts facts facts,you cannot argue with facts. What planet do you guys live on?

THERE IS NO MYTH.THERE IS NO THEORY-THE FACT IS PROVEN. END OF STORY.

if you cant take facts for an answer,then you probably can see why we human beings are so dangerous. We are the trash of the galaxy.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by baboo
Here Dereks, here's a start for you to consider...
Thermate in the WTC...

www.youtube.com...

have a look at ronmossad.blogspot.com... and funny how they couldnt get their paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, they published in a journal without peer review, that will accept anything as long as you pay $800....
and
ronmossad.blogspot.com...

[edit on 28/2/10 by dereks]

The fact that they could not get their article published can be interpreted for either side Dereks. An amazing amount of international and domestic political pressure can be applied to control information. Do I know this is the case? No, but neither to you know that it is not the case.
After seeing the nonsense that Popular Science and NIST have put out nothing really amazes me as far as to what lengths usually respected bodies will go to to aid and abet the establishment.
The fact that the article would not be published can be interpreted as a means of controlling evidence.
I suggest you actually read or watch what the professor discovered.

look at 0:36

Originally posted by Archirvion

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Here is an interview from Russia Today with Jesse Richard of TVNewsLies.org. Jesse says that he once believed the official version, just as I and most everyone else have. But the evidence against the official version is damning and overwhelming:

Unlike many of the "debunkers" here and elsewhere, Jesse has taken the time to examine the official version of 9/11 and examine the claims of the 9/11 truth movement. What he didn't do was allow his denial to get the best of him when he read sites like "9/11 Myths".

NIST has not released any computer models to the public to support their theories of what happened on 9/11. In essence, those who believe the official account are taking the word of agencies such as NIST with zero proof other than their word.

I would suggest to those that believe the official version of 9/11 to actually take the time to take a look again at what little evidence is presented by the official version of events, and what the 9/11 truth movement offers in way of evidence. And by "take the time", I don't simply mean a couple hours or a day. There's alot of information to look over, take in, and understand.

Lastly, while looking at what the 9/11 truth movement offers in way of evidence, "mini nukes", no planes at the WTC, "pods", and other such nonsense are not supported by the greater 9/11 truth movement, nor acknowledged by the professional research organizations within the 9/11 truth movement as credible theories.

First of all-Why are you guys even posting this? 9\11 has been proven to be an inside job for a LONG time now-with facts facts facts,you cannot argue with facts. What planet do you guys live on?

THERE IS NO MYTH.THERE IS NO THEORY-THE FACT IS PROVEN. END OF STORY.

if you cant take facts for an answer,then you probably can see why we human beings are so dangerous. We are the trash of the galaxy.

The reason I post and believe it is important to convince others is that the entire arena of world politics has changed as a result of this event. Wars have been started and our rights have been assaulted. It is of the utmost importance that we wake up the American population to what is happening while we still have the capability.
All of us are in this together. This is our country. The politicians work for us. It's time we remind them of these truths. We need a united front to be as effective as possible. This truth movement is not meant to divide us it is meant to unite us and bring our government back under control by the people.

reply to post by baboo


The old, the entire TPTB are conspiring argument, based on nothing but faith.

9/11 Truth Movement Gaining Scientific Credibility

I have skimmed through the several pages of this thread. Where's the beef? some fringe group in Russia comes out and screams "внутри занятости" (inside job) and you guys jump all over it.

Since 9/11 there have been roughly 75 PEER REVIEWED papers published that support the facts of the day. Not a single scientist on the planet has had a single paper published in a reputable journal that goes against the findings of NIST. Please refrain from the Steven Jones joke of a paper published in the vanity journal, you should ALL know that he paid to get it published.

Where is the credibility? What "credible" scientist has stood by their assertions of a controlled demolition with a properly reviewed "scientific" paper. I started a thread about A/E 911 truth epic failure at their press conference last week. If the scientific community thought Gage was in the least bit credible...don't you think at least ONE reputable media outlet would have attended...or at least reported on this?

[edit on 28-2-2010 by ImAPepper]

reply to post by baboo


Yes please, can you link me to the witnesses who saw the plane veer and fly over the Pentagon. Thanks.

reply to post by ImAPepper


Prepare to be attacked.