100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
ive never studied physics...or engineering...but i was a counter terrorism student and even they (the lecturer's) were saying the war was over oil...and the next ones will be over water :-) looking forward to that shi*t I think that is correct to a point, but it is more complicated than that. I think Bush wanted to finish the job his dad left unfinished in Iraq. I think our military industrial complex needed some business. I think Bush really did think we would be welcomed as heroes for getting rid of the dictator. etc. If it was for oil, we could have taken it. We didn't get any. The war for water could be much worse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the record, I do think that we were pushed into this war by baby bush wanting to avenge daddy; but I don't think for one second that the damage caused to the world trade center was inflicted by us on purpose. There are too many legitimate and scientific explanations for this stuff.
Maybe this whole thing was a farce, but I do not doubt that the WTC was hit by airliners. The truthers (not belittling people, just an easy way to identify them) make up things that don't hold water. Everything...........every question they posed has been answered. Not anyone's fault you refuse to accept the answer given. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the record, I do think that we were pushed into this war by baby bush wanting to avenge daddy; but I don't think for one second that the damage caused to the world trade center was inflicted by us on purpose. There are too many legitimate and scientific explanations for this stuff. Maybe this whole thing was a farce, but I do not doubt that the WTC was hit by airliners. The truthers (not belittling people, just an easy way to identify them) make up things that don't hold water. Everything...........every question they posed has been answered. Not anyone's fault you refuse to accept the answer given. Simply answering a question does not always mean that the answer is acceptable or believable. Have you ever observed how politicians "answer" questions?   |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineers and scientist aren't politicians though... you actually think that people haven't slipped up in all these years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineers and scientist aren't politicians though... I'm not so sure about that. Still, an answer is not always acceptable or convincing. ....you actually think that people haven't slipped up in all these years? I don't understand the second part of your question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineers and scientists are not always right, and they are not always in agreement.
They are not to be worshiped, even though I've met some who thought otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineers and scientists are not always right, and they are not always in agreement. They are not to be worshiped, even though I've met some who thought otherwise. Yes but they have published documents on it, and universities have dont experiments and published them as well. I see no PUBLISHED documents for any of your theories. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ive never studied physics...or engineering...but i was a counter terrorism student and even they (the lecturer's) were saying the war was over oil...and the next ones will be over water :-) looking forward to that shi*t I think that is correct to a point, but it is more complicated than that. I think Bush wanted to finish the job his dad left unfinished in Iraq. I think our military industrial complex needed some business. I think Bush really did think we would be welcomed as heroes for getting rid of the dictator. etc. If it was for oil, we could have taken it. We didn't get any. The war for water could be much worse. our couter-terrorism lecturer's seemed to make it just that simple...they werent even focusing on the war now...the wars over water is what they were gearing us up for...which i found interesting...the other thing i found interesting is that Al Qaida comes from the american judcial system's attempts to actually run this thru their legal system...it dosnt actually exist as a collective (lor at least it didnt at the time i was studying) which ifind amaziing...since around that time they "discovered" the evidence they needed to justfy going into iraq when film crews filmed troops breaking into a store room filled with al quaida posters...it was like a porn den...all nice and neatly there for the crews to film...and yet that link has never fully been established AND THE TERM AL QUAIDA COMES FROM THE GOOD OL USA! ...*cough* inside job *cough* since this is the major extent of my professional knowledge in this area this is all i have to say...peace out |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bestinshow
on
Fri 04/20/12 01:41 AM
|
|
Engineers and scientists are not always right, and they are not always in agreement. They are not to be worshiped, even though I've met some who thought otherwise. Yes but they have published documents on it, and universities have dont experiments and published them as well. I see no PUBLISHED documents for any of your theories. The first author of this recent paper1, Niels H. Harrit, is an Associate Professor of the University of Copenhagen's Chemistry Department. An expert in nano-chemistry, he gave the below interview to Denmark's TV 2 News, one of the country's two most respected television channels, on April 6, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o Danish scientist, Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust (with English subtitles) - Enderlein79, April 10, 2009 Here is a transcript of the above interview (English translation): Interviewer: International researchers have found traces of explosives among the World Trade Center rubble. A new scientific article concludes that impacts from the two hijacked aircraft did not cause the collapses in 2001. We turn our attention to 9/11: the major attack in New York. Apparently the two airplane impacts did not cause the towers to collapse, according to a newly published scientific article. Researchers found nano-thermite explosive in the rubble, that cannot have come from the planes. They believe several tonnes of explosives were placed in the buildings in advance. Niels Harrit, you and eight other researchers conclude in this article, that it was nano-thermite that caused these buildings to collapse. http://bigeye.com/nanothermite.htm The first author of this recent paper1, Niels H. Harrit, is an Associate Professor of the University of Copenhagen's Chemistry Department. An expert in nano-chemistry, he gave the below interview to Denmark's TV 2 News, one of the country's two most respected television channels, on April 6, 2009: What responses has your article received around the world? It is completely new knowledge for me. Harrit: It was only published last Friday. So it is too early to say. But the article may not be as groundbreaking as you think. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world, have long known that the three buildings were demolished. This has been crystal clear. Our research is just the last nail in the coffin. This is not the "smoking gun"--it is the "loaded gun." Each day, thousands of people realize that the WTC was demolished. That is something unstoppable. http://bigeye.com/nanothermite.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineers and scientists are not always right, and they are not always in agreement. They are not to be worshiped, even though I've met some who thought otherwise. Yes but they have published documents on it, and universities have dont experiments and published them as well. I see no PUBLISHED documents for any of your theories. The first author of this recent paper1, Niels H. Harrit, is an Associate Professor of the University of Copenhagen's Chemistry Department. An expert in nano-chemistry, he gave the below interview to Denmark's TV 2 News, one of the country's two most respected television channels, on April 6, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o Danish scientist, Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust (with English subtitles) - Enderlein79, April 10, 2009 Here is a transcript of the above interview (English translation): Interviewer: International researchers have found traces of explosives among the World Trade Center rubble. A new scientific article concludes that impacts from the two hijacked aircraft did not cause the collapses in 2001. We turn our attention to 9/11: the major attack in New York. Apparently the two airplane impacts did not cause the towers to collapse, according to a newly published scientific article. Researchers found nano-thermite explosive in the rubble, that cannot have come from the planes. They believe several tonnes of explosives were placed in the buildings in advance. Niels Harrit, you and eight other researchers conclude in this article, that it was nano-thermite that caused these buildings to collapse. http://bigeye.com/nanothermite.htm The first author of this recent paper1, Niels H. Harrit, is an Associate Professor of the University of Copenhagen's Chemistry Department. An expert in nano-chemistry, he gave the below interview to Denmark's TV 2 News, one of the country's two most respected television channels, on April 6, 2009: What responses has your article received around the world? It is completely new knowledge for me. Harrit: It was only published last Friday. So it is too early to say. But the article may not be as groundbreaking as you think. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world, have long known that the three buildings were demolished. This has been crystal clear. Our research is just the last nail in the coffin. This is not the "smoking gun"--it is the "loaded gun." Each day, thousands of people realize that the WTC was demolished. That is something unstoppable. http://bigeye.com/nanothermite.htm This again? If you read the actual "report", which I am positive you didn't, it clearly states that "These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere' REMINDED... It doesn't say that it actually... WAS. Not to mention that the samples they analyzed came from people living quite a distance from the towers and they didn't turn over the material until 6 years after 9-11-2001.. There is no credibility in samples that the "scientists" can't prove came from the WTC. They can't prove that those samples weren't tampered with or as I just typed... Even came from NYC.. If you were charged with a crime and the prosecutor says we are introducing forensic evidence that was given to us 6 years after the crime by people that we can't prove where they got it or if it was tampered with. All we know is that it reminds us of another sample we might have seen, so it should be considered definitive evidence of guilt.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineers and scientists are not always right, and they are not always in agreement. They are not to be worshiped, even though I've met some who thought otherwise. Yes but they have published documents on it, and universities have dont experiments and published them as well. I see no PUBLISHED documents for any of your theories. The first author of this recent paper1, Niels H. Harrit, is an Associate Professor of the University of Copenhagen's Chemistry Department. An expert in nano-chemistry, he gave the below interview to Denmark's TV 2 News, one of the country's two most respected television channels, on April 6, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o Danish scientist, Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust (with English subtitles) - Enderlein79, April 10, 2009 Here is a transcript of the above interview (English translation): Interviewer: International researchers have found traces of explosives among the World Trade Center rubble. A new scientific article concludes that impacts from the two hijacked aircraft did not cause the collapses in 2001. We turn our attention to 9/11: the major attack in New York. Apparently the two airplane impacts did not cause the towers to collapse, according to a newly published scientific article. Researchers found nano-thermite explosive in the rubble, that cannot have come from the planes. They believe several tonnes of explosives were placed in the buildings in advance. Niels Harrit, you and eight other researchers conclude in this article, that it was nano-thermite that caused these buildings to collapse. http://bigeye.com/nanothermite.htm The first author of this recent paper1, Niels H. Harrit, is an Associate Professor of the University of Copenhagen's Chemistry Department. An expert in nano-chemistry, he gave the below interview to Denmark's TV 2 News, one of the country's two most respected television channels, on April 6, 2009: What responses has your article received around the world? It is completely new knowledge for me. Harrit: It was only published last Friday. So it is too early to say. But the article may not be as groundbreaking as you think. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world, have long known that the three buildings were demolished. This has been crystal clear. Our research is just the last nail in the coffin. This is not the "smoking gun"--it is the "loaded gun." Each day, thousands of people realize that the WTC was demolished. That is something unstoppable. http://bigeye.com/nanothermite.htm OMG, not more nanothermite!  While the twin towers were burning high resolution cameras were focused on the building from many angles. The cameras showed the columns rotating just before failure. The columns would not rotate under any form of demolition charge. As the trusses holding up the floors heated, the steel softened. The trusses began to sag. The steel members that were straight became curved as the steel sagged. The bottom (tension) members stretched, getting longer. The top chords of the trusses (in compression) got shorter. The sagging and curvature of the trusses are attached to the columns at their ends so as the trusses sagged, the columns rotated. When the rotation met the EXACT amount of rotation mathematically calculated to cause column failure, the columns buckled. As one fell it transferred it's load to the adjacent column causing it to instantly buckle because all the trusses were bridged together and acted as a unit. This failure was observed in the videos and proves to every knowledgeable person how the failure occurred and proves absolutely with no chance of error that NO EXPLOSIVES OR DEMOLITION HEAT CHARGES WERE USED. It also matches the math models of failure, the Forensics of failure, the anticipated structural load analysis, physics, and material science that need NO video to explain the failure. Why are you unable to find anything out about this? It was provided by the ASCE and it is discussed in detail by many real technical papers on the subject. Do you realize that a chemist doesn't know much, if anything, about structural engineering? There was a lot of dust available to sample and it has been sampled by real laboratories with no axes to grind. Finding some of the ingredients in thermite but expected to be found in other items in the building does not mean thermite was found. What is your real agenda here? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An interview isn't a publication. A scientific journal is different. Saying something looks like something else isn't scientific either. With no chain of evidence and knowing exactly where the source material came from and having that documented from WTC to the lab where tested also wouldn't hold up. So again I say publications that hold up to scrutiny. I mean if you had money you could publish anything yourself. Whether a journal would publish it and whether it holds up to scrutiny is a main point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 04/20/12 10:56 AM
|
|
Engineers and scientists are not always right, and they are not always in agreement. They are not to be worshiped, even though I've met some who thought otherwise. Yes but they have published documents on it, and universities have dont experiments and published them as well. I see no PUBLISHED documents for any of your theories. I have said this before, I don't have any theories. But I see no published documents on your theories either. But then that depends on what you want to define as "published." An Internet article or blog is considered "published." To people in the scientific community "published" has to mean in some scientific journal that THEY APPROVE OF. DUH. Its a good ol' boys club. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineers and scientists are not always right, and they are not always in agreement. They are not to be worshiped, even though I've met some who thought otherwise. Yes but they have published documents on it, and universities have dont experiments and published them as well. I see no PUBLISHED documents for any of your theories. I have said this before, I don't have any theories. But I see no published documents on your theories either. But then that depends on what you want to define as "published." An Internet article or blog is considered "published." To people in the scientific community "published" has to mean in some scientific journal that THEY APPROVE OF. DUH. Its a good ol' boys club. I see you have never read one... not that it would matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 04/20/12 11:11 AM
|
|
An interview isn't a publication. A scientific journal is different. Saying something looks like something else isn't scientific either. With no chain of evidence and knowing exactly where the source material came from and having that documented from WTC to the lab where tested also wouldn't hold up. So again I say publications that hold up to scrutiny. I mean if you had money you could publish anything yourself. Whether a journal would publish it and whether it holds up to scrutiny is a main point. Chaster, the members of NIST were barely taken on a "tour." It was completely supervised. They were not allowed to strike out on their own and investigate anything. Their investigation was completely controlled and directed by FEMA. They were told what to investigate and what not to investigate. THE Fema-ASCE Report The first investigation into the destruction of the WTC was headed by FEMA. This is an agency of the federal government. FEMA is 'the Federal Emergency Management Agency.' FEMA is an agency of the BUSH-Cheney administration. ASCE's report was carried out on behalf of, and under the limits imposed by FEMA as well as other federal agencies. The seriousness of this fact was revealed when ASCE investigators told the House Committee on Science that they did not even have the authority "to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled." Statement by Fire Engineering Magazine reveal that no real investigation was allowed. Moreover, even if the FEMA and ASCE personnel themselves, as thinking individuals, rejected the administrations claim, according to which the airplane impacts and resulting fires sufficed to bring down all three buildings, they could not have published a FEMA-ASCE report challenging that claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineers and scientists are not always right, and they are not always in agreement. They are not to be worshiped, even though I've met some who thought otherwise. Yes but they have published documents on it, and universities have dont experiments and published them as well. I see no PUBLISHED documents for any of your theories. I have said this before, I don't have any theories. But I see no published documents on your theories either. But then that depends on what you want to define as "published." An Internet article or blog is considered "published." To people in the scientific community "published" has to mean in some scientific journal that THEY APPROVE OF. DUH. Its a good ol' boys club. I see you have never read one... not that it would matter. I have read the FEMA-ASCE report, and the 9/11 commission report. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineers and scientists are not always right, and they are not always in agreement. They are not to be worshiped, even though I've met some who thought otherwise. Yes but they have published documents on it, and universities have dont experiments and published them as well. I see no PUBLISHED documents for any of your theories. I have said this before, I don't have any theories. But I see no published documents on your theories either. But then that depends on what you want to define as "published." An Internet article or blog is considered "published." To people in the scientific community "published" has to mean in some scientific journal that THEY APPROVE OF. DUH. Its a good ol' boys club. I see you have never read one... not that it would matter. I have read the FEMA-ASCE report, and the 9/11 commission report. FEMA doesn't actually do science. They just hire people to do it. Why don't you specifically give your version of what exact aspects of the ASCE version are wrong? The ASCE has certainly published where the "truther" version and why. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will address why the NIST investigation is wrong in the other thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineers and scientists are not always right, and they are not always in agreement. They are not to be worshiped, even though I've met some who thought otherwise. Yes but they have published documents on it, and universities have dont experiments and published them as well. I see no PUBLISHED documents for any of your theories. I have said this before, I don't have any theories. But I see no published documents on your theories either. But then that depends on what you want to define as "published." An Internet article or blog is considered "published." To people in the scientific community "published" has to mean in some scientific journal that THEY APPROVE OF. DUH. Its a good ol' boys club. I see you have never read one... not that it would matter. I have read the FEMA-ASCE report, and the 9/11 commission report. reading it and understanding the science behind it are two different things... your science is a bit different from the physics that is taught in schools. if you cannot understand how concrete turns to dust, or what heat does to metal, then you can read all these things a million times and it won't do you any good.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineers and scientists are not always right, and they are not always in agreement. They are not to be worshiped, even though I've met some who thought otherwise. Yes but they have published documents on it, and universities have dont experiments and published them as well. I see no PUBLISHED documents for any of your theories. I have said this before, I don't have any theories. But I see no published documents on your theories either. But then that depends on what you want to define as "published." An Internet article or blog is considered "published." To people in the scientific community "published" has to mean in some scientific journal that THEY APPROVE OF. DUH. Its a good ol' boys club. I see you have never read one... not that it would matter. I have read the FEMA-ASCE report, and the 9/11 commission report. reading it and understanding the science behind it are two different things... your science is a bit different from the physics that is taught in schools. if you cannot understand how concrete turns to dust, or what heat does to metal, then you can read all these things a million times and it won't do you any good.... I understand what I read just fine. I'm sick you you people telling me what I don't understand. You are the ones who do not understand. |
|
|
|
|
