MOST Americans open to alternative explanations to 9/11

And your point is wrong on both counts.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=332863

 

Name them...Name the families.

 

A lot of them have signed Gage's petition. Read his website. I'm sure you'll find some names there.

 

"9/11 Contradictions: When Did Cheney Enter the Underground Bunker?

By David Ray Griffin
Global Research, April 24, 2008"

Oops.

 

Name them then.....show me that it's any more than a couple dozen families out of the 2974 other families

 

Several points about WTC7 should be stated.

1. The total collapse took over 18 seconds. This includes the buckle of column 79 and the internal progressive collapse prior to the facade falling.

2. One point on the facade of the building, during stage 2 of the final collapse, accelerated for 2.25 seconds at free fall, and in fact moments faster than free fall. This is due to two main factors;
(a). Facade's net resistance was overcome for 2.25 seconds due to the fact that;
(b). the internal structure already collapsing pulled of the facade down with it, causes it to accelerate at a faster rate.

3. Only one part of the facades collapse was at this speed. Other portions collapsed slower.

4. After the 2.25 seconds, there is a significant decrease in acceleration as the remainder of the building begins to give resistance. This does not occur in controlled demolitions.

5. No one was surprised when WTC7 fell as the fire fighters and police had been suspecting it would since at least 3pm that day.

6. NIST FAQ deals with the controlled demolition claims, including thermite, and determined it is impossible.

7. WTC7 has been explained for years, and no matter how much conspiracy theorists continue to banter on. Anyone who wants an in depth look at why it collapsed should look up Chris Mohr's rebuttals of AE911's Blueprint for Truth.

 

That is a link to the Global Research news site. The particular article you linked was written by Dr David Ray Griffin. I do not know whether I linked that particular article, but if I did then yes, it was written by Dr David Ray Griffin.

Not oops. Just more ridiculous lies and deflection on your part. I've posted over a dozen links on this thread, and nearly every one of which has been to professional news organisations.

First, you did not produce any evidence for your initial claim, which is that I had linked Professor Jones's work on this thread. Do you think showing a link to an article I did not even know had been written by Griffin validates a separate claim you made about Jones?? It doesn't. You're still a liar.

I have provided various professional news sources such as ABC and CBS throughout my posts on this thread, yet you have ignored every one of them. You simply refuse to acknowledge information you have no chance of discrediting, and then insinuate we somehow cannot trust a man who is an academic and a scholar (Griffin) for reasons you have not and will not share with us, simply because your entire purpose is to derail this thread.

It is of absolutely no significance whether I have linked Dr Griffin or Dr Jones, so your very mentioning of it is a complete digression from the topic. It is your intention to flamebait, derail, lie and change the subject to deviate from the result of the initial conversation you had with me in which you were proven to be lying when you claimed Mineta had been talking about UA93. You were provided with links to ABC, CBS, USA Today and various other sources which confirmed that you were wrong, and your response was to make a snide remark about my referencing people I have not referenced, despite you being categorically unable to disprove them, and despite them being accredited academic experts in their respective fields.

You were proven wrong, you could not accept it, and that is why you are still here telling lies about it two days later.

 

Obviously anybody who has actually seen WTC7 collapse knows that this is false. The North Tower collapsed in fifteen seconds, and it was more than twice as tall. Here is a nicely prepared video of WTC 7 collapsing, which some thoughtful person has placed alongside a confirmed demolition:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwFAnP7_RtY

Count the seconds. There very clearly are considerably fewer than 18 of them, so your claim is yet another lie. I understand the basic laws of physics, so I know precisely why all three towers must have been controlled demolitions, but I am not an expert in controlled demolition. At times like this I look to people who are.

Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko, upon seeing WTC 7 collapse on video:-

“This is a controlled demolition carried out by a team of experts.”

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/23/dutch-demolition-expert-danny-jowenko-dies-in-car-crash/

Danny Jowenko died in suspicious circumstances shortly after videos of him making this type of comment surfaced on the internet.

 

Back to topic, if "most" americans are open to alternative explanations of 9/11, based on the survey of less than 1,200 people.. then why is nothing being done about it?

 

Well, I believe I explained that right at the very beginning of the thread. At least, I gave my own personal opinion about it. I do not believe the premise is correct, and of those that do understand just quite how preposterously false and contrary to reason the official explanation is, they are usually drowned out by people with no interest in discovering the truth of the event or its perpetrators, but who just want to ceaselessly bicker about nothing. That, in synthesis with fear about possible repercussions (think Jowenko), and a literal smorgasbord of counterpropaganda being released by Israeli Intelligence (The Weizmann Institute of Science being a good example) has resulted in a static situation where the truth gets lots in a million different arguments about non-important details. Some as stupid as grammar and word semantics.

Politics is about plausibility, not truth, and as long as the true perpetrators can keep raising enough reasonable doubt in the minds of Americans that they were the culprits, they will continue to roam free after murdering 3,000 of you in cold blood. There is another famous poll which was conducted by a respected German institute not so long ago, in which from the sample tested, 90 percent claimed they did not believe the official 9/11 story. This is a matter which most of the free world has already settled upon as a truth (that 9/11 was a false flag), but of course the only population it is necessary to convince otherwise is the American population.

 

Right, so most people think 9/11 was done by the government but they just wont do anything about it. Sounds legit...

 

Number 5 is interesting, I think. You claim something much different than what the leader here claims. You guys may want to compare notes and get together, go over your bullet points. Seems you have a disagreement.

 

Just when pertinent information seems to want to come out via discussion, it gets deleted. Why bother having this forum at all? Discussion is so very limited, monitored and confined. It's such a waste.

 

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Only insults, personal attacks and responses to those were deleted. (Stay on topic.)

 

Your video starts in the middle of the fall of building 7.

 

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<Every single contention on that list is demonstrably false.

No it didn't. Clearly, no it didn't. The total collapse of WTC 7 was measured by Professor Jones at around 6.6 seconds. The video I posted above shows how fast it collapses. A collapse begins when the roof begins to move downwards. Stop lying.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7_051122.html

Point B breaks the laws of physics. When falling objects encounter resistance greater than themselves, they do not "accelerate at a faster rate". They certainly do not accelerate at free fall speed, because that implies there is nothing but air between the falling mass and the ground, rather than hundreds of thousands of tons of resistant steel and concrete.

Of no relevance even if true. This is just a simple manipulation of language. When poster says "slower", he actually means "Ridiculously fast. Faster than could ever be expected given the structural resistance of a steel and concrete building".

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<< When Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko watched a video of WTC 7 collapse, his exact words were: "This is controlled demolition. Without a doubt. A team of experts did this." Professional demolitions do not necessarily mean free fall acceleration from point A to point B >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

There is at least one eye-witness who escaped WTC 7 after it was evacuated by police and he claims to have crawled over dead bodies through a lobby in which a bomb had gone off. I have stored on my hard drive, over one hundred statements from firefighters and emergency medical personnel which either report phenomena consistent with a controlled demolition, a demolition itself, or bombs planted in the towers. >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<about what the firefighters said. Seven minutes before the South Tower collapsed, Battalion Chief Palmer heard a report of only two isolated pockets of fire, capable of being extinguished with two hoses. Your assertions are not simply false -- they are outright ridiculous.

False. The only way NIST could rule out the presence of thermite or explosives would be by testing for thermite and explosives. NIST did neither of these things and therefore it is outright false to claim it is impossible for something to be there which they did not bother to look for. Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagn University examined the WTC dust after NIST, and found definite evidence that thermite incendiaries had been used. Therefore, again, what you are saying is untrue to the point that it is utterly absurd.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

NIST is quite simply not a credible source of information and this is provable. Initially, the head of the NIST investigation publicly endorsed the Bush "pancake theory" of collapse. The latest NIST FAQ however to which you are referring, outright claims it does not support this theory, and thus NIST has publicly contradicted itself. The alternative, of course, was to keep peddling a theory which clearly and demonstrably is contrary to the most basic laws of physics.

I'm not even going to bother with the last one, >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

 

It is provable. David Chandler explains NIST's intentional cover-up of the facts in this video.

[video=youtube;CpAp8eCEqNA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA[/video]

 

Yes, Chandler is a smart man. I've a lot of respect for that guy. I think I accidentally deleted my own edit though, so let me reiterate that Shyam Sunder, head of the NIST investigation, has been caught lying on numerous occasions.

1) He originally backed the Bush Administration's "pancake theory", yet the NIST FAQ now discredits this theory.

2) He claimed there were no explosions in the towers, which is contrary to a literal stack of eye-witness evidence.

3) He initially released a public statement which read, "&#8220;The NIST team found no evidence that explosives were involved in the collapse."

This was before he made it clear to the public that the NIST team did not look for any evidence that explosives were involved in the collapse.

 

Go start a WTC7 thread.

 

You say it is a lie

 

It isn't a matter of opinion. What you said was ridiculous.

 

those who think they need to look into building 7 should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbPpK-oWdYc

- - - Updated - - -

no what i said was that the video starts after the collapse which is true....and ironic something the truth movement is allergic to.

 

No, that's another lie. You said it started halfway through the collapse. The video below me proves you're lying about both claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo

 

It's a slo-mo version of the original clip. Shows the precise point that the roof begins to descend downwards.

 

9-11 was not an inside job.

The 9-11 Truth Movement has lost the war.

Its time to move on.