|
Post by lucky4u on Feb 25, 2014 4:33:08 GMT -5
Russia Today is a horrible source...That guy sounds like he is just reading off an script. Lol wut? Controlled demolitions collapse, they just don't explode like a giant bomb in the air... "The US government still has yet to what initiated these collapses" Outright lie number one. Paint chips. Lie number #2 A building has never been hit by a fully fueled and loaded 747 either. With that logic, a 747 hitting a building being a first, as it never happened before, the plane couldn't have hit the building? Fail truth er on Russia Today is fail. Conspiracy theorists - A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions ... en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conspiracy_theory Those people were questioning the official story,as told by the Government and officials, and believed coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions .... Conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists, it doesn't matter if you change your silly titles around. Ok you make sense... Now make me believe a handful of Sand Farmers did this.... what a joke you are.... next thing your going to tell us is Bin Laden is running around with a bag of sand making Laptops...
|
|
psion
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by psion on Feb 25, 2014 4:44:44 GMT -5
Sorry, but that's not true. I've seen hundreds of different theories claimed as FACT. I've seen contradictory evidence claimed as PROOF.
In fact, this thread isn't asking for a new investigation, it's asking me to believe a THEORY as TRUTH. Stop pretending you guys are asking for a investigation.
You're claiming you've already completed the investigation and you have uncovered the TRUTH. So you don't need an investigation if you already know the TRUTH, do you?
|
|
|
Post by davinci on Feb 25, 2014 5:07:53 GMT -5
I would remind all of you the Russia Today is not trustworthy. This is what happens when you're desperate to prove a point, not get an investigation. If you want an investigation, ALL you need are questions.
|
|
|
Post by ikillosama on Feb 25, 2014 5:34:00 GMT -5
Another Faither so annoted that someone would question his faith he's willing to ignore me.
People interested in the truth don't IGNORE contradictory evidence, they explain it.
How many Faithers just click ignore when thing get too confusing.
And by the way, I call you Faithers because you're basing your believe, not on facts, but on your faith.
I BELIEVE this happened, now I just have to prove it.
That's faith friend, not logic.
And like I've been saying, if you guys REALLY only want an investigation, you need QUESTIONS, not ANSWERS.
|
|
|
Post by mranderson on Feb 25, 2014 5:58:40 GMT -5
these did...didn't they Outright lie number one. Really...the NIST stopped investigation when the IMPACT area was ..."poised to collapse...there is NO explanation from NIST on the systematic destruction below the impact floors
Paint chips with UNEXPLODED nano chemicals on the back
Lie number #2
BOTH towers kept the SAME, CONSISTENT ...near-free-fall-speed ignoring the different asymmetrical damage for the EXACT SAME results.
However, WTC7 DID fall at a rate EQUIVALENT to the acceleration of gravity...it fell as fast as an object falls..'through the AIR'..from a sporadic office fire.
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
[NCSTAR1A-3.2] "The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"
-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity. This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.
A building has never been hit by a fully fueled and loaded 747 either. With that logic, a 747 hitting a building being a first, as it never happened before, the plane couldn't have hit the building?
and neither were the airliners that hit the towers...NOT fully fueled, NOT filled to capability,and not much different from the airliners Skillings used to base their testing on,(airliner impacts), when they build the towers
Conspiracy theorists - A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions ...en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conspiracy_theory
Those people were questioning the official story,as told by the Government and officials, and believed coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions .... Conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists, it doesn't matter if you change your silly titles around.
lol...so, WHO were the "conspiracy theorists", who were standing before Congress a year and a half AFTER 9-11, to DEMAND an investigation on the murder of 3000 people..because the Gov. was doing NOTHING...
Were there college kids there looking to make a movie?
Was there a radical radio host there to instigate 9-11 was an inside job?
|
|
|
Post by msapple on Feb 25, 2014 7:29:50 GMT -5
Bush an his mates must be #ting themselves! anybody seen any of them lately? "O" they'v probably split to Denver for more reasons than this!
|
|
|
Post by ikillosama on Feb 25, 2014 7:47:52 GMT -5
What a Buffoon you are...."evidence" lol....what .."EVIDENCE", does the "official HYPOTHESIS' have? they IGNORE the testing results of the steel...average temp reached in the steel was 450F. UL proved NO floor assemblies collapsed from the heat or fires present.
denial of explosives or accelerants, was done through 'OPINION'...NOT testing..there were NO testing performed to eliminate the possabilities of explosives or accelerants contributing to the collapse. So...any other crime in this country, MUST test for explosives and accelerants...it's part of the investigation....what makes NIST exempt?
(NFPA 921: "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations" is the national fire code published by The National Fire Protection Association. This is standard for fire and explosion investigations. It clearly states that if there is a crime scene that involves fire, tests must be conducted to determine whether residues from any pyrotechnic or incendiary material can be found.)
NIST HYPOTHESIS is wholly based on a "top block" pushing the remaining structure below through itself...lol...and.....where is the block?
WTC7 DID fall as fast as if YOU were to fall through the air....lol...how does it do that when NIST claims that "fire can't be seen from the windows...but the facade IS ATTACHED to the perimeter vertical support....what agent affects EVERY perimeter vertical support, at the SAME time, to get the EVEN descent we all see....
when the kink forms the ENTIRE building evenly descends...with NO internal support resisting...at t=4.0s of the collapse, the entire building is falling around 60MPH....how does that happen?
|
|
|
Post by ikillosama on Feb 25, 2014 7:48:10 GMT -5
peer review...
where was the NIST peer review?
in a peer-review, you release your HYPOTHESIS, and ALL the data used to get to those conclusions...
NIST didn't do that, and YOU have the balls to try and discredit by saying .."no peer review so it doesn't count...lol
"WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualization,"
“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.” Parker, Dave. New Civil Engineer
even after all these years, still NO release
where is Bazants rebutal on the "No Jolt" paper done aver a year ago?
Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
This, 01-21-09, paper, points out 'critical' flaws in Bazant/NIST hypothesis that there has to be a 'jolt, 'force', in order to overcome the lower sections.. This paper also points out, Bazant was off by a factor of ten in his calculation of the stiffness of the columns, with his 71 GN/m estimate, This error overestimate the potential amplifying effect of the jolt he claims occurred
the actual column cross sections, is approximately 7.1 GN/m.
pretty big difference when you look at the BIG picture...don't cha think?
|
|
|
Post by purplehazeleyes on Feb 25, 2014 7:55:19 GMT -5
Good work and truth movement! Truth will rise from dust and wake up - but is it too late? ... Its never too late!
|
|
|
Post by stolenpony on Feb 25, 2014 8:26:55 GMT -5
Going by your own definition, what exactly is the "official story"? A conspiracy theory.
|
|