911: Let Einsteins Be Praised, Hitlers be Damned.

Hello. My name is Alex. I am professional computer scientist, trained in complex concepts including math, physics, logic. I spend my time and life analyzing complex technical problems and correcting them. Because of this, I consider myself a diagnostic logician. I make the call on what the problem is, and how to fix it. Then I fix it.
The problem with the 9/11 Comision Report it refuses evidence again and again. It is obvious, with the state of the government, that it has been, in one word, falsified. It certainly was not vetted by any independent study, and is pretty much the opposite of what would happen in a fair academic setting.

As you know, government is politics, not science. In fact they are opposites. In politics, you pose and present in order to find the most favorable public opinion. In academics, the most favorable opinion of the subject is irrelevant, since facts, not anyone’s single opinion, is king. As they say: on the question of morality, science is blind.
Albert Einstein considered his biggest social failure as a consequence of his formulas: the atomic bomb. When Einstein’s formulas predicted incredible atomic power stored in every single atom, he did not ever consider that, not if, but when this energy is released in enough quantity, it can easily destroy all of civilization. To everyone’s horror, such devices are ready to arm in hundreds and thousands of places across our delicate globe.
My biggest failure as a moral man would be to let this government not allow a scientific investigate to occur. Please join me in my quest to set the record straight on a great many affairs. First, let us begin with the smoking bazooka that was left behind at the scene of 9/11: molten nano thermic materials.
This is a fancy name for very tiny, hot, chemically reactive substances. Basically, dust that is able to ignite. Yes, this was found in every sample that the government didn’t want you to know about. The 9/11 Report fails to analyze materials at ground 0.
In fact, the opposite of analysis occurs. Materials are hauled off to foreign countries and smelted into refined metal. Evidence destruction or economics? No, it was a good move, economically. But, forensically the absolute worst.
The samples were not analyzed at all. They were thrown out! What kind of crime investigation is this? Don’t they want to know what was loaded onto the plane that caused two indestructible towers to be demolished?
Yes, it was demolition. If done by plane, fire, or placed explosives, it was a demolition.
Let me say it to you so you feel the pain of the people that were lost:
Something demolished buildings with people inside. This is exactly, one-hundred percnt like intentionally demolishing a building while it was still occupied. It is something so hideous, Hitler would be praise this mass execution method if he were alive.
So, I cannot, as a living person, allow this to continue without discovering why building were demolished, because planes did not do this. Let me explain, once and for all, why.
We are talking about a structure so sturdy, it was designed to withstand multiple airplane strikes. If you were to try to bring just one of those buildings down, you would have to land a plane at ground level. Why? Because the only way to destroy an entire building is from the bottom up, not top down.
A building doesn’t at all collapse onto itself even if it were hit at the base. The simple physics is that, if the building were to be toppled by an airplane strike so violent that it starts to tip, it might fall over. But there is no chance of it collapsing in a demolition fashion!
This would take, perhaps, one hundred aircraft. Think about it. You would have to hit about every ten floors from about each side, then start cutting deeper into the building towards the center. This would destroy the hell out of it and make it come down.
Let me say one final thing and then move onto the smoking bazooka shell of the smoking bazooka. THE BUILDING WAS BUILT TO WITHSTAND AN AIRCRAFT STRIKE, PERIOD. Bottom line: the plane, while it did strike the building, was not the factor that brought down the building. Whatever material that did this, was INSIDE THE PLANE.
OR. Or. Or…
It was ALREADY INSIDE THE BUILDING.
Now, the smoking bazooka shell: Building 7. No plane hit it. It is a complete mystery. The only conclusion is that there was something explosive inside each of those buildings, and it was missed.
We need to start right now and petition our supposed leaders and them to get an independent study of the entire scene, over again, as soon as humanly possible. Enough time has been lost, but witnesses and evidence abound.
Get congress to fund two independent studies, not ONE, and let science finally claim its proper role as a true branch of ethics.
Let Einsteins be praised, Hitlers be damned.

 

Omg. Ok dude. This was funny. I enjoyed reading this. I especially loved the "building 7 is a total mystery with no explanation". Ummm no. There IS a complete explanation. Your just to dead set on your own bias to even so much as attempt to look at it.

 

Please solve this problem: What is the force that would be required for one of the towers to "fall over" if that force was applied to the very top of the building, and how would the building's structure distribute the load of that force to the point of failure that initiates the "toppling" motion you describe.

A general understanding of the concept you're talking about is really all I ask, not precise figures. Just a mathematical model of the forces involved in a building that size "falling over"

When you supply that, we can discuss the rest of your post.

 

Hello Alex, I am new here too.

A very thoughtful post, and I agree completely. Assuming one has an iota of curiosity, and an equal measure of intellectual honesty, and that one has studied the facts and evidence, the only possible conclusion is that the official version of events is impossible.

Very well put, your reference to the scientific method and analytical processes.

We were all tricked and deceived that day. Some understand that today, and some do not.

 

The proof that it was an inside job is irrefutable.

Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXA-enq65ng

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=348380&p=1063729867#post1063729867

 

Truthers thrive on poor grammar and ambiguous language.

The pilots that flew the aircraft that crashed on 9/11 can't speak because they are dead.

The pilot Scott is referring to is a pilot that has trouble understanding how someone could fly a passenger aircraft unsafely. And by unsafely we're talking a rate of descent of around 30 miles an hour.

 

The pilot that flew the planes on 9/11 are DEAD...Period,

 

Pilots spend all of their careers trying NOT to crash,yet truthers are amazed that the hijackers flew the planes flew the planes the way they did,intending to crash.


And what's more they are taken in by pilots who can't fathom flying an aircraft unsafely,especially an airliner.

Too much red in the books for that.

 

You're trying to mislead the viewers who don't take the time to watch the video. In the video he says he'd flown the same planes months before 9/11. It's very clear that he wasn't saying he'd flown the planes on 9/11.

You knew that as you were making that misleading post.

 

So what if he flew the exact same planes MONTHS before???? Why the hell does that matter?

 

Funny. You posted this headline: "Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out!" and then accuse me of trying to mislead people. I'm not talking about the pilot's language. I'm talking about your language. You posted it, and if you had an issue with it you could have changed or clarified it. You could have said, Pilot who flew the type of aircraft that crashed on 9/11, or pilot with experience in the aircraft that crashed..etc. You did not. Since you accuse me of trying to mislead people who didn't watch the video, was that your intent?

My point was quite clear, as I prefaced the post with my premise:

It was your poor grammar I put in question, and I was pointing out how that poor grammar tends to mislead people. Especially when the intent is to lead people to a specific (erroneous) conclusion. I find it quite ironic that truthers are sticklers for precise language when it benefits them and eschew precise language when it does not.

Oh and..

http://www.911myths.com/images/7/73/Another_Expert.pdf

and

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

Show that the pilot in your video is wrong as well.

 

That matters because it speaks directly to the experience and credibility of the person making the statement, a pilot who knows from his life experiences in the airline business that the official story is a complete fabrication and impossible.

Who better to believe? George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld? Maybe Colin Powell?

 

The government can always find experts willing to lie. Whenever there's a big controversy, there's a mountain of experts on both sides of the issue saying opposite things.

Scientists at the Rand Corporation say that depleted uranium is safe.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm

There are other scientists who say the opposite.
https://www.google.es/search?q=depleted uranium&tbs=vid:1&gws_rd=ssl


There are doctors on both sides of the vaccine controversy.

Silent Epidemic; The Untold Story of Vaccines Movie dire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1m3TjokVU4
(1:36:40 time mark)


This scientist says there's a lot of fraud in science.

Global Nuclear Coverup an interview with Leuren Moret
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buosgl6J3Kw
(30:00 time mark)


Here's a scientists who say that it's impossible to get something published in a science journal if it goes against the official version.

Origins of Man Bonus Evidence II Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
(00:16 time mark)


Just finding some experts who support the government version isn't proof that the government version is true as experts can sell out and lie.


Anyway, there's a mountain of other proof of an inside job.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=348380&p=1063729867#post1063729867

I always post the title of the videos I post in case the link goes dead. This way the viewers can do a search on it and find it.

 

Please choose 1 of the pilot's "lies" so we can discuss.

This is your excuse for spreading misleading information?

 

I have no background in this field so I can't opine. All a layman can do is listen to what the experts say and it can be muddling when two groups of experts say opposite things. Tell us why you simply believe the ones that back the official version.

Luckily, there's a lot of inside job proof that's pretty basic that one doesn't have to be an expert to understand.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=348380&p=1063729867#post1063729867

 

Since when has that ever stopped you before?

 

posting title that someone else chose is not spreading misleading information. The information is not contained in a '1 liner' title, but in the content itself. the idea of claiming that a title is misleading 'information' just because someone feels that could have been named differently is absurd.

 

what distribution?
thats a lot of (*)(*)(*)(*)in work and I dont believe you could afford to pay my salary.

 

Did you create a sock puppet to post here? Because that's frowned upon. Otherwise, I'm quite sure I did not ask you to do a single thing.

Besides, what's the going rate for pretending to be a lawyer these days? From what I hear it's not all that lucrative. Or have you changed pretend careers?

 

the biggest problem is that it takes so many years for private citizens to piece meal everything together that the perps have plenty of time to bury the evidence while flooding the internet with posers whose only purpose is to create doubt in favor of the gubmint. Thankfully people are wising up to these tactics!

 

hey you are the one who wanted someone to calculate what it took to push over one of the towers and I merely wanted you to clarify a few things starting with distribution since there are several approaches to that problem. If your question was private then I suggest that you email that person privately, otherwise last time I checked this is called a discussion forum and forums are open to everyone. If it was simply rhetoric thats fine too. As far as pretend is concerned I'm not sure, but there are plenty of posers on the boards that you can ask that question. Last I heard the going rate for posing was around .25 to .30 per post.

 

Depleted uranium is safe.

The scientists complaining about not being published are simply proven wrong by other scientists.

You cannot explain how thousands can cover up a lie the size of 911

 

Btw, I find it odd, if not extremely interesting that you would ask a question like that. What possible reason would you have to think that I would have to create a sock puppet to post here?

 

So does that mean you would be a willing test subject and we could grind a few pounds into nano sized particles [to insure they lodge in your mitochondria] and you would be willing to consume it all over the course of the next year?

 

Is that how you test if something is safe? Sounds like cave man science to me. I guess your also afraid of aluminium and lead and mercury too. Though if you regularly go around eating that because you think it's safe that might explain a few things.