9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

reply to post by LogiosHermes27


It's sad and disturbing that you called it sad and disturbing without even addressing a single piece of evidence.

Cool video of Bill Maher though, it was very entertaining to hear him bash conspiracy theorists also without addressing any evidence that backs up a controlled demolition. A video full of people describing that the "terrorists" were behind the attacks and not addressing any evidence whatsoever is very convincing, it totally debunks the 2 hour film that shatters the official explanation.

reply to post by TupacShakur


reply to post by LogiosHermes27 It's sad and disturbing that you called it sad and disturbing without even addressing a single piece of evidence. Cool video of Bill Maher though, it was very entertaining to hear him bash conspiracy theorists also without addressing any evidence that backs up a controlled demolition. edit on 13-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post.
edit on 13-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post


'And' put a video showing the tragedy at several different angles...

Someone else in denial has made a 2nd account!

9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

One of the finest and most detailed examinations I have yet seen. But beyond that, there really is a very basic and undeniable foundation here for distrusting the 9.11 OS...

In the history of airliners crashing, there has never been a single instance when the engines; prop or jet, have been disintegrated to a point of being unrecognizable.

Case in point - 28 July 1945 - A B-25 bomber that crashes headlong into the Empire State Building.
Account: history1900s.about.com...

One of the plane's engines penetrated the side of that structure and ended up in an elevator shaft!

Reverse thrust and at the Pentagon, there is no representation of the two massive jet engines, much less an impact area on the Pentagon itself.

Regardless of what you believe about structural steel and WTC 7... jet engines are just as survivable as the old cast iron piston jobs. They don't disintegrate and don't simply go to the same place as lost socks and old Bic lighters. They would have hit the same place as the wings... which also found a way to avoid making a statement in Washington.

In my opinion, we allow ourselves to be rerouted to NY and the twin towers because the real single truth we have is in the Pentagon. As in... what did not happen there.

Focus. This is the linchpin of the whole sordid affair. A large airliner did not crash into the pentagon. By itself, this is provable beyond a doubt in so many ways that doesn't require anything more than current understanding of physics and the structures of air frames and their power plants.

The OS at the Pentagon is simply impossible. It couldn't have happened the way as we are told with the results being as they were.

...

reply to post by TupacShakur


S&F,

Expect the opposition...

Obama staffer wants 'cognitive infiltration' of 9/11 conspiracy groups
rawstory.com

By Daniel Tencer

In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated "cognitive infiltration" of groups that advocate "conspiracy theories" like the ones surrounding 9/11.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures," in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The original link in that thread is no longer working, however Cryptogon still has it up,
along with Sunsteins paper.

How funny, its entitled Conspiracy Theories...
papers.ssrn.com...

reply to post by burntheships


Oh I know all about Cass Sunstein and the dis-info efforts. I've long suspected that a handful of members on this website are dis-info agents, some of the more prominent debunkers that I only see in 9/11 threads backing the official story, and whose past 800 posts are limited to the 9/11 boards.

Also, notice the OSers that posted on their freshly made accounts a few pages back? It makes you think....

reply to post by TupacShakur


Ah, well you being seasoned, I pretty much figured you were aware,
sometimes its just a nice addition to the S&F, add something to keep the
Original Story believers on thier toes.

reply to post by burntheships


Yeah people sometimes say things like "Do you actually think the government would pay people to post on conspiracy websites?"

My response: "Yes."

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by burntheships

 

Yeah people sometimes say things like "Do you actually think the government would pay people to post on conspiracy websites?"

My response: "Yes."

Imo the shills come in a complete 9/11 package, pilot, fireman, explosives expert, military, structural engineer, scientist, anyone with an IQ above 0 know that real people in any of those walks of life whom debate 9/11, do so because they do not believe the OS.

Has ANYBODY actually successfully come out to disprove the science provided by AE911truth in the video you posted in the OP??

I don't just mean ATS, I mean the entire web or professional industry, I mean...surely the people who are against this new science have SOMETHING to fall back on.

reply to post by eLPresidente

Has ANYBODY actually successfully come out to disprove the science provided by AE911truth in the video you posted in the OP??

I don't just mean ATS, I mean the entire web or professional industry, I mean...surely the people who are against this new science have SOMETHING to fall back on.

In this thread? Absolutely not, the attempts at "debunking" have been laughable.

In the entire professional industry? As far as I know, no.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Has ANYBODY actually successfully come out to disprove the science provided by AE911truth in the video you posted in the OP??

I don't just mean ATS, I mean the entire web or professional industry, I mean...surely the people who are against this new science have SOMETHING to fall back on.

In this thread? Absolutely not, the attempts at "debunking" have been laughable.

In the entire professional industry? As far as I know, no.

edit on 13-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

See what you think of the fellow who made this website:

ae911truth.info...

It's compiled by one guy, but on the About page, he mentions a paper done by a fellow (an engineer) by the name of Ryan Mackey...

Here it is:

sites.google.com...

To explain, it is Ryan Mackey critiquing 18 critiques made by David Griffin about NIST's report, proving them to be all baseless. It also basically supports the official story overall. Now, as Truthers, I hope you all are obligated to read this paper, as it was written by an engineer, not some armchair physicist like me or many other users on this site.

reply to post by Varemia


IMO his explanation as to how WTC7 achieved free-fall is terrible and completely lacks any description as to how all structural resistance was suddenly and symmetrically reduced to nothing.

I brought up controlled demolition on another forum and all they could do was call it stupid and ignorant, I challenged them all to disprove the science but nobody dares, said some things were questionable but its still stupid and completely ignores arguing the facts directly.

You could have just posted the video, instead of replicating all of the information in the video...most of it verbatim.

I believed they were brought down by demolition for a LONG time. However, I've seen a few websites and read a few things that changed my mind about them. But then again, I consider myself having a VERY open mind. There are lots of thing that don't add up about the events of 9/11, but the buildings collapsing (except 7) aren't an issue for me.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious


There is such a massive hole in your understanding of how the towers were engineered. If you actually believe what you've just written it's no wonder you believe such crazy things about the collapse of the towers. Another examle of the insanely aggressive and hugely misinformed nature of so many truthers. Pretty scary really.

It should be scary ...

Your not being arguementative, or have any arguements at all. You're just sitting behind an official stupidity, given by people like GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. Notorious liars, from Mai Lai and people who are responsible for mutilations beyond any reason.

Your not just being stupid, your asking for a world war. And such behaviour isn't acceptable ... we want our money back. We want our lives back, and we want these cases to be solved. The twin towers represented the world trade center ... they weren't an american thing, they were a far greater issue. It has had precursions beyond your little territorial backwash. This is no longer just a local issue ... and unless you've been sleeping at the helm. People are getting more and more pissed off, all over the globe.

reply to post by bjarneorn


I don't have the energy to explain all the incorrect information you are saying about the engineering design of the towers, but if you go look at wiki or the equivalent you should be able to figure out what I'm talking about.Should.

Put it like this... you're so wildly ignorant you shouldn't be talking about this ... to anyone...

It's not my job to teach you about engineering, but if you say such insane nonsense expect me and others to call you out.

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
reply to post by Varemia

 

IMO his explanation as to how WTC7 achieved free-fall is terrible and completely lacks any description as to how all structural resistance was suddenly and symmetrically reduced to nothing.

No one is asking for your opinion, but to argue the facts and explain these.

The site you pointed to, discusses basic parameters, without making an arguement. Nobody is argueing wether velocity is acceleration, or wether speed is distance. That is argueing semantics, and has absolutely no relevance on the case. Nor is putting up pictures of buckling exteriors, an arguementation for the case. But an ignornat and repetetive fallacy. The exterior will of-course buckle, because the supporting columns which are on the inside of the building, are no longer there. Free fall speeds, can only and here is the whole issue, can ONLY be achieved if there is no resistance.

You think the lower part of the building would not make a resistance to the falling down of the upper floors? thinking this, is idiotic beyond belief. Argueing it, is not an acceptable arguement ... it's just repeating fallacy and stupidity over and over again. Claiming knowledge of physics issues, without actually knowing what these issues are. What is velocity? even a child should know it's mass times acceleration, in this case gravity. Nobody is argueing speed ... and speed and velocity are NOT the same thing. One is a derivative of the other. Mathematically speaking.

It doesn't matter how tall a building is, any floor is built to hold up the upper floors, times a factor. Any upper floor falling on it, will fall with the gravitation force accelerating it, and when the velocity is reached ... the mass it has produced, or the equivalent mass produced ... is not enough to make the building fall apart. Each and every floor, is built to hold that up. And then some. And then times some more ... so if it fell, it would meet so much resistance on its way, that it would never be able to reach anywhere close to free fall speed.

Unless the building is built, to collapse when above a certain stress point. This is always a possibility, but it is the ONLY possibility, if there is no controlled demolition.

The derivative of this, is that the collapse is not due to the planes.

This page kinda turned me away from the demolition theory. Check it out. I would normally ask people to have an open mind, and that actually should be the NORM, unfortunately, the internet creates a bunch of egos that refuse to ever change their mind, because for some reason that indicates the person is wrong...but whatever. Pretty childish in my opinion. Check it out: www.tms.org...

reply to post by bjarneorn


This coming from a guy with no knowledge of engineering.

[rolls eyes]

Listen, use google, learn a bit about the design of these buildings and maybe you'll understand why so few experts agree with anything you're claiming...

... basically, after that whole steel core nonsense you posted I have to assume you are completely clueless.

reply to post by bjarneorn


I just re-read this.

You REALLY are just talking BS. Load isn't designed on a per-floor basis at all. That is such silly nonsense.

Strike two man... you REALLY are completelty clueless about structural engineering.