but how could they have planted the explosives??

farfromglorified · August 2006

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

I am undecided...but in defence...he has had many reference to academics just as schooled as anyone involved...some very very intelligent people support his views...as does the other side....

Yes, there are some very well educated dentists, theologists, solar energy experts, journalists, lecturers, pilots, peace activists, economists, and environmental health experts he can point to.

RockinInCanada · August 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes, there are some very well educated dentists, theologists, solar energy experts, journalists, lecturers, pilots, peace activists, economists, and environmental health experts he can point to.

You forgot to add structural engineers....I have spoken to regarded professional Ph.D structural engineer (and I will not say his name for his sakes) that says without a doubt he believes explosives were used....both are theories....both have intelligence backing both sides....it comes down to what answers you want to hear really....like i said I am stuck in the middle of the two extremes...I dont believe the official story cause when in my recent memory has the government EVER been forthright with any sort of information (blacked out info. proves that too me)...but the detail of the other extreme would require a high amount of secrecy that something should have been leaked out already to prove it...right now I believe the US knew what was coming and either ignored it as not good enough info. or let it happen for political gain...which one I am unsure....but it is my opinon and I can at least have that...

farfromglorified · August 2006

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

You forgot to add structural engineers....I have spoken to regarded professional Ph.D structural engineer (and I will not say his name for his sakes) that says without a doubt he believes explosives were used....

And what does this "regarded professional Ph.D" use as evidence? Is he also a Jenga fan?

both are theories....both have intelligence backing both sides....it comes down to what answers you want to hear really....like i said I am stuck in the middle of the two extremes...I dont believe the official story cause when in my recent memory has the government EVER been forthright with any sort of information (blacked out info. proves that too me)...but the detail of the other extreme would require a high amount of secrecy that something should have been leaked out already to prove it...right now I believe the US knew what was coming and either ignored it as not good enough info. or let it happen for political gain...which one I am unsure....but it is my opinon and I can at least have that...

What many here continue to ignore is that I want to hear that the government did it. No one on this board has more disdain for the government than I do.

It isn't about what you want to hear. It's about what conclusions are supported by the entire body of available evidence.

RockinInCanada · August 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

And what does this "regarded professional Ph.D" use as evidence? Is he also a Jenga fan?

What many hear continue to ignore is that I want to hear that the government did it. No one on this board has more disdain for the government than I do.

It isn't about what you want to hear. It's about what conclusions are supported by the entire body of available evidence.

Thats insulting to someone of his intelligence....as evidence he uses may aspects an extensive background in material science, building stresses and constructon, heating/MP's of the structural steel, force of impact, jet fuel characteristics, the evidence of the building falling...etc. Many things...how does this discredit him? I think it does not.

Side-Note:

The best theory I have heard is that actual planes never hit the WTC's and that some sort of holographic imaging was being used...now that was a good one...to cover up the actual explosion...WOW

Enjoy that one.....

jeffbr · August 2006

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Side-Note:

The best theory I have heard is that actual planes never hit the WTC's and that some sort of holographic imaging was being used...now that was a good one...to cover up the actual explosion...WOW Enjoy that one.....

I'm sure the video evidence is on youtube already.

farfromglorified · August 2006

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Thats insulting to someone of his intelligence....as evidence he uses may aspects an extensive background in material science, building stresses and constructon, heating/MP's of the structural steel, force of impact, jet fuel characteristics, the evidence of the building falling...etc. Many things...how does this discredit him? I think it does not.

Strange that in his evidence for explosives being used that he does not mention explosives.

The best theory I have heard is that actual planes never hit the WTC's and that some sort of holographic imaging was being used...now that was a good one...to cover up the actual explosion...WOW Enjoy that one.....

I did enjoy it. Holographs typically don't have families and friends though.

RockinInCanada · August 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Strange that in his evidence for explosives being used that he does not mention explosives.

I did enjoy it. Holographs typically don't have families and friends though.

That would fall under the etc. part of my list...sorry thought that would be a given!

Yes that has been my favorite theory bar none....a good laugh....

onelongsong · August 2006

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Thats insulting to someone of his intelligence....as evidence he uses may aspects an extensive background in material science, building stresses and constructon, heating/MP's of the structural steel, force of impact, jet fuel characteristics, the evidence of the building falling...etc. Many things...how does this discredit him? I think it does not.

Side-Note:

The best theory I have heard is that actual planes never hit the WTC's and that some sort of holographic imaging was being used...now that was a good one...to cover up the actual explosion...WOW Enjoy that one.....

you hit the nail on the head and i bet no one catches it.
we have a group of people here who couldn't build a dog house; arguing material science; metalurgy; building stress; sulfur content of jet fuel; flow rates of liquid; etc; and trying to legitimize their conclusions.

RockinInCanada · August 2006

onelongsong wrote:

you hit the nail on the head and i bet no one catches it.
we have a group of people here who couldn't build a dog house; arguing material science; metalurgy; building stress; sulfur content of jet fuel; flow rates of liquid; etc; and trying to legitimize their conclusions.

Funny cause that is what the official version uses to though...you have to use science to find the true answer.....and couldn't build a dog house...the man has designed buildings he hardly is just a guy behind a paper...

El_Kabong · August 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Just because someone "doesn't care about ppl dying" doesn't mean they're orchestrating death on 9/11. Do you understand this?

if someone a serial killer says something like i may have a chance w/ john's wife if only he was dead, then he ends up dead...some ppl would see that as motive

It's o

farfromglorified wrote:

bvious to me that he's had second thoughts. I mean, he did orchestrate the Bay of Pigs so he doesn't care about ppl dying. Therefore, he orchestrated 9/11.

difference being 9/11 has been exploited to further an agenda. certain ppl stated they needed 'a catalyzing event like a new pearl harbor' to happen in order for them to fulfill htese agendas...then they take steps that help the event take place.

so, you have a group saying they want a, b and c to happen but only if d happens first can they do it. then yuo have these same ppl doing things that help d happen...then they exploit d so they can carry out a, b and c.

again, both are theories, yours just has a governmental stamp on it. you are so tied up in being right you can not concede this. you can point to physics professors who say the official story makes sense, i can point to those who say the opposite. you can point to engineers who say it's possible, i can point to those who say the opposite. you dont believe it, fine, don't. but when yours is just as provable as mine don't act as if yours is the holy truth

boxwine_in_hell · August 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Isn't it obvious that the explosive planters parachuted down from Stealth fighters and then self-desctructed when they had finished their work?

That's funny

onelongsong · August 2006

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Funny cause that is what the official version uses to though...you have to use science to find the true answer.....and couldn't build a dog house...the man has designed buildings he hardly is just a guy behind a paper...

WOHA! i was referring to the people on this board not being able to build a dog house and debating subjects they don't have educated knowledge of.

El_Kabong · August 2006

onelongsong wrote:

i can tell you why it fell straight down and prove it with an experiment you can perform yourself. but it's really not worth my time. people have their minds made up. nothing will change that. building are built differently so your comparison doesn't make sense. it's like saying building x in CA didn't fall because of the earthquake because the building next to it didn't fall. it must have been explosives.
and so what if it was explosives? the result is the same. if you don't believe the confessions of those responsible than what will you believe? some people have such boring lives that they come up with these wild theories and try to promote them.

only 3 steel frame buildings to fall in history all fell on the same day and all were owned by a single person, that casts doubt.

how did building 7 fall?

boxwine_in_hell · August 2006

El_Kabong wrote:

only 3 steel frame buildings to fall in history all fell on the same day and all were owned by a single person, that casts doubt.

how did building 7 fall?

It was that group of German dudes from Die Hard. They got mixed up and thought it was another Die Hard sequel.

El_Kabong · August 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes, there are some very well educated dentists, theologists, solar energy experts, journalists, lecturers, pilots, peace activists, economists, and environmental health experts he can point to.

and ppl like these...

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
Full Members

Tracy Blevins (FM)
Bioengineering, Rice University

Robert M. Bowman (FM)
Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions

Robert S. Boyer (FM)
Philosophy; Mathematics; Computer Science; University of Texas, Austin

Andreas von Buelow (FM)
Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years

Ted Elden (FM)
Architect, Communicator

Derrick P. Grimmer (FM)
Physics, Alternative energy

David Griscom (FM)
Physics of optical materials, Materials science and engineering, Author/co-author of nearly 200 publications

Andrew Johnson (FM)
Physics, Computer Science, Software Engineering

Steven Jones (FM)
Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum

Jean-Pierre Petit (FM)
Aeronautics, astrophysics, engineering

Morgan Reynolds (FM)
Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis

Judy Wood (FM)
Civil and Structural Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, Materials Engineering Science, Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University

Gregory M. Zeigler (FM)
Philosophy, Intelligence, Counterintelligence, Military intelligence

Associate Members

Victoria Ashley (AM)
Architecture and physiological psychology, 911research.wtc7.net

Frank Carmen (AM)
Physics Ph.D., BYU

Muhammad Columbo (AM)
Graduate Engineer electronics wide industrial experience

Eric Douglas (AM)
New York City architect Chair of the Independent Peer Review Committe for the NIST WTC Reports at nistreview.org

Dominic Dudzik (AM)
Physics simulations, Electrical engineering

Brian Duncan (AM)
Fire Protection Engineering; Art and Creative Director; The Flywire

Scott Fenton (AM)
Physics, Chemistry, Information Technology

Joel Ferrell (AM)
Pilot, Aeronautical engineer, physics911.net/spine.htm

Robert Fritzius (AM)
Electrical Engineering, Radar and telecommunications

Alex L. Funk (AM)
Electronic engineering, Research and development

Patrick Gallagher (AM)
Mechanical engineer

Michael Gass (AM)
Air Force Explosive Ordnance, Disposal Specialist, Bomb disposal technician

Rodger Herbst (AM)
777 and 787 Aeronautics, Flight Controls and Simulation Engineering

Eric Hermanson (AM)
Engineering Physics, Nuclear Engineering, Software Architect

Nick Hull (AM)
Particle Physics

Kent Knudson (AM)
Systems Engineering

Paul Landis (AM)
Industrial engineering, Author of "A Real 9/11 Commission"

Spero Larres (AM)
Physics and Mathematics, Rutgers University

Michael Lovingier (AM)
Structural/Environmental Engineering

Michael Maguire (AM)
Mechanical engineering, Aeronatutical engineering

David Masdon (AM)
Electrical Engineering

Brad Mayeux (AM)
RF Engineering, 911review.org

Peter Meyer (AM)
Computational physics

Dennis "galen" Mitrzyk (AM)
Physics and math, Business administration

Aidan Monaghan (AM)
Electronics engineering, explosive911analysis.com

Jeff Moskin (AM)
Private pilot, Electronics engineer, Certified flight instructor

Ted Muga (AM)
Naval aviator; Commercial pilot; Structural engineering

Nicholas Newton (AM)
Astrophysics, Simulation Models

Gordon Ross (AM)
Mechanical engineering, Production engineering

Kevin Ryan (AM)
Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories

Michael Schmidt (AM)
Project engineer, Project manager, Highway construction

Paul Smith (AM)
Electronics engineer

Tom Spellman (AM)
Civil engineering, architecture, non-profits, activism

Judson Witham (AM)
Civil Rights Laws
High Rise/Mid Rise/Low Rise Construction/demolition

Ken Wrenn (AM)
Civil engineer

i'll spare you the student members list...

El_Kabong · August 2006

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

It was that group of German dudes from Die Hard. They got mixed up and thought it was another Die Hard sequel.

does that mean you can't answer how it fell straight down at free fall speed?

onelongsong · August 2006

El_Kabong wrote:

only 3 steel frame buildings to fall in history all fell on the same day and all were owned by a single person, that casts doubt.

how did building 7 fall?

el; only 3 buildings fell in history from metal fatigue due to fire? you don't believe that do you? it's actually common when you consider it's happened in many plane crashes. as i said earlier; i can heat metal and bend or melt it. i can take a piece of rain gutter; configure it to match the buildings airflow; dump a cup or two of gas into it; light it and melt the gutter.
i've also heard many times that "the fire was so intense it melted the metal framework" (refering to other building fires). a controlled implosion would bring the building straight down but it would take a lot of engineering; tons of explosives; access to building plans; etc.
the biggest argument is: if you have explosives; why tip your hand with the plane attack? i'd use it for a different target i couldn't get explosives into. using the element of surprise. if the perpetrators aren't smart enough to figure that out; they're not smart enough to implode a building.
also; if the government did it; why did they target the pentagon and possibly the whitehouse?

onelongsong · August 2006

El_Kabong wrote:

does that mean you can't answer how it fell straight down at free fall speed?

i can and did but you won't accept it.

El_Kabong · August 2006

onelongsong wrote:

el; only 3 buildings fell in history from metal fatigue due to fire? you don't believe that do you? it's actually common when you consider it's happened in many plane crashes. as i said earlier; i can heat metal and bend or melt it. i can take a piece of rain gutter; configure it to match the buildings airflow; dump a cup or two of gas into it; light it and melt the gutter.
i've also heard many times that "the fire was so intense it melted the metal framework" (refering to other building fires). a controlled implosion would bring the building straight down but it would take a lot of engineering; tons of explosives; access to building plans; etc.
the biggest argument is: if you have explosives; why tip your hand with the plane attack? i'd use it for a different target i couldn't get explosives into. using the element of surprise. if the perpetrators aren't smart enough to figure that out; they're not smart enough to implode a building.
also; if the government did it; why did they target the pentagon and possibly the whitehouse?

perhaps you can cite some other steel framed buildings that collapsed from fire?

wouldn't the owner of the buildings (a single person who went to court to get the insurance payment instead of rebuilding) have those blueprints??

if only explsoives were used it would open far too many questions as to how they got them in. hijacked planes crashing into them doesn't require this.

you can SAY the white house was targeted, but how do you come to this conclusion? b/c youwere told it?

the pentagon was hit in the area that was being renovated, very few ppl died and the overwhelming majority manual workers

farfromglorified · August 2006

El_Kabong wrote:

and ppl like these...

.....

i'll spare you the student members list...

Don't spare yourself the research of these names. Here's just one:

Judy Wood (FM)
Civil and Structural Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, Materials Engineering Science, Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University

Judy Wood's "relevant" studies center around the stresses of dentistry.

but how could they have planted the explosives??

Comments

Categories