I came across an article this morning that was published in Esquire. It's called "Disproving 9 of the Biggest 9/11 Conspiracy Theories". As you read into the article, the sources used for "disproving" anything other than the OCT are Popular Mechanics (mostly), BBC, NIST, the FBI, the 9/11 Commission and Snopes. The documentary "Loose Change" is referenced but there is no specific reference to any expert site (AE9/11, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Consensus 9/11, etc.) other than the characterization that "Most of them are weird, and some are almost comical". http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a48389/9-11-conspiracy-theories/
They know that the real investigators have proved that it was an inside job beyond the shadow of a doubt so all they can do is pretend that their research doesn't exist and hope people never come across it. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456423&p=1066183060#post1066183060 They know that once people have seen the real proof, there's nothing they can do to make them think it wasn't an inside job.
Why do you keep posting your previously debunked threads from political forum? I am curious about your education.. Do you have any background in architecture, heavy construction, structural design, physics?
Link to where they've been debunked and we can talk about whether they've really been debunked. No but there are experts who explain why it could only have been an inside job. ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH (full unreleased version) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-V1CiuGMJo Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMEHc14IWf4 The other side has tripped up too many times. Example: In this clip the representative from NIST is playing dumb about the pools of molten steel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg Common sense says it was an inside job.
That's because A&E911truth are not expert sites but are in fact comical and zany. The evidence simply proves all of your theories false.
anyone who accept 9-11 Truth is a "real investigator". anyone who rejects 9-11 Truth is a fake investigator. ...or so they say.
You should know AE9/11 refuses to consider any core structure except the one presented by the official story. The plans they use have been photoshopped. Twenty percent of the sheets have bizarre anomalies in the revision tables and the title blocks are done freehand in pencil.
AE9/11 continues to ignore the fact of those pixelated anomalies and the free handed title block in pencil while being totally unable to come up with one image from 9/11 showing a steel framed core exposed. This while knowing the NYCLU complained to Bloomberg about Guiliani taking ALL of the WTC files from the NYC department of buildings in December of 2001. http://algoxy.com/psych/guiliani.wtc.documents.html
The people who put this video together are real investigators. September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M This is a little unclear. What exactly do you mean. There's only one core structure. https://www.google.es/#q=twin+towers+core+structure&gws_rd=cr I must be missing something. I don't remember seeing those plans in the above video. They pretty much proved that the buildings fell by controlled demolition without those plans. Have you watched the video? Start watching at the 2:40:21 time mark. There's plenty of other proof too. Watch the part about the Pentagon security video analysis which starts at the 2:13:36 time mark. It proves it was an inside job all by itself which renders your plan argument moot.
I wonder how they coordinated the two plane strikes with the demolition? So the CIA sacrificed four planes and crews, 19 innocent Muslims plus the casualties in the Pentagon and WTC for . . . ?
It's pretty clear that the planes that hit the towers were not the airliners. Was the 9-11 Attack the 2001 Version of "Operation Northwoods"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIoK9wvJyyU The government obviously benefited from the attacks. http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=lithium http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=iraq+oil&x=13&y=15 http://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-s...in-march-us-dollar-crisis-on-the-horizon/1937
Op Northwoods never intended to kill anybody and it was never implemented so no it was certainly not. As for the uncertified vids posted by annonymous sources if there is anything there the. Please quote, cite and link to the origional source to ensure I'm not viewing erronous information thanks.
This happens with every major incident. But the cockeyed ideas are not proven. No kiddies, Elvis is not living among us. - - - Updated - - - When the first engineering reports came out, i studied them extensively. These people with their inside job claims simply do did not do the research. Others planted ideas and those were accepted. It's all bunk.
I am pretty certain that is flowing aluminum. Consider what an airplane is. Essentially it is a tube. A thin walled tube. To the tube are attached on a super strong center piece, the wings. Wings are also thin containers. They may look solid, but when they slam into a building, the thin tubes simply melt and almost vanish. As engineers report on the hot insides of the buildings, once the floors lost integrity due to the heat, them falling was virtually predictable. The particular form of structure that were the two trade centers really contributed to them falling. It was very unique. Such sky scrapers had never been built in the past. I doubt they will repeat those experiments.
Well the guy who claims he saw the melting of girders on 9/11 I'm sure believes the girders were not made of aluminum. Perhaps you know better. [video=youtube;syXpA6B85Ek]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syXpA6B85Ek[/video]
Due to the amount of heat, and the very large amount of the metal aluminum in the wreckage, given the melting temp of both Al and Steel, 1221 degrees F for Aluminum vs 2750 degrees F for Steel, it makes a super case the flowing metal is aluminum from the airplane. There were hundreds of tons of aluminum that had to escape someplace. Now, I spent some years working with various metals when I owned a machine shop. I machined and welded various metals. It gives a good feel for metals the layman lacks.
From engineering reports I have studied, the temps did not reach the melting point of steel. But they exceeded the temperature of aluminum. Bear in mind what an airplane is. Think of it as a thick soda can which has plenty of surface and not much thickness. Those steel beams in the building bent. The only reason for the collapse was the extreme amount of tons above the breaking points. Take a hammer you own. First try to simply set it down gently. You will never drive a nail when you set it down on a nail gently. But apply enormous force, and the nail easily goes in. I happen to have studied the reports by engineers they prepared months following the crashes. We have photo proof airplanes hit all the buildings. We have had this discussed even in the past months. Those who believe in explosions never set off explosions but for some odd reason forget how long it takes to prep a building to demolition yet assume somehow people managed to sneak in high explosives with no security noticing. I don't buy it. The man in charge of building security was a former high ranking FBI agent and of course his security department had all kinds of monitors and knew who came and left the buildings. The former FBI agent was very hot to get Bin Laden but left the FBI early but got a job he died on, 9/11
If one could assign a ratio to the amount of steel present compared to the amount of aluminum present at WTC, what would be your guess as to that ratio?
None of that changes the fact that the eyewitness (Astaneh) claims and later re-iterated and clarified that he saw the melting of girders on 9/11. None of that changes the fact that girders are made of steel, not aluminum. None of that changes the fact that there are numerous corroborating eyewitness accounts of seeing molten steel on 9/11. None of that changes the fact that not one of these accounts claim to have seen molten aluminum on 9/11. And if you're trying to contradict/refute/deny what these many eyewitnesses saw on 9/11, you have absolutely no standing to do so legitimately. Unless and until proven otherwise, all the corroborating eyewitness claims stand as true. [video=youtube;nqJSDn5dgJc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc[/video]
