Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)

[GrowRebel]

Here is a little backgroun on one of the authors of your "proof."

You call this proof? It doesn't discredit the science that was used. Nor does it discredits their credentials. You can't seem to read ...

He was disturbed that it appeared to have a political viewpoint, though he said he would continue to work with the group.

I highly doubt he would continue to work with the group if he didn't believe the science involved.

And then there is Steven M Jones also of BYU. Jones was a founder of 911 scholars for truth. Here is what BYU thinks of Jones' theories.


On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave. [19] The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and the concern that perhaps it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review.

Being put on paid leave doesn't sound like much of a punishment, I which I could get paid leave from work. Man ... get paid and free to do what ever I liked ... now that's a punishment I could use! This doesn't discredited Jones ... it's probably an indication of government pressure ... BYU may receive government funding.

You see GR, it looks like your sources are a house of cards and the house is falling down.

Only to the disinformationalist/deniers ... nothing new there ... and not a problem.

Now let us look at your article "Missing Jolt: A simple refutation of the NIST..."

Here is the other so called journal where this is published. It is another "open access" journal.

That's your proof? Because it's an "open access journal" how lame is that?

Look who is the Editor - why it's our old friend Steven Jones! Looks like all your sources come from a guy who was booted from BYU for being a nut.

That's just your imagination going wild again ... being put on paid leave doesn't sound like getting booting for being a nut ... in your delusional mind I can see it ... but for most of us ... not

Is this what you are calling "proof"?

Yes it is ... and I don't see you disputing the evidence in the paper ... your only hope seem to be to discredit the author some how ... to bad it doesn't work. Come back when you can dispute the evidence presented in the papers and videos I post ... you won't though ... know why? ... cause you can't!

Here is a little FYI. Legitimate academic, science or trade journals are not likely to be open source journals because the Editors of legitimate journals have standards that they maintain.

Says the denier who has been unable to dispute the facts and evidence present in this thread.

Being published in a real journal is not something anyone can do.

Oh you mean like Richard Gage?
I posted this way back on page 147 post #1470
[FONT=&quot]Richard Gage article on 9/11 WTC contolled demolitions appears in WorldArchitectureNews.com[/FONT]
So this blows your pet theory of trying to discredit the messenger.

I have been formally trained in writing journal acceptable material

Oh how wonderful ... you get a cookie!

and I have been trained to know which sources are legit and which are not. Your sources are not legitimate sources.

Oh yeah ... I can tell by your post you are an authority ...

Journal of 9/11 Studies

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Publisher: Journal of 9/11 Studies


Current Issue: Volume 1 June 2006

Date: 27 June 2006

Another failed attempt to discredit ... if only you could discredit the material ... too bad ... so sad.

Hey rick guess what? People STILL want a real investigation into 911.

 

[maxamus1]

i guess Purdue university is stupid.

can i see your source please?


https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/256322-pot-makes-you-stupid.html

if you were to watch any airplane crash. where the wing hit another plain or the ground, the wing would come off. the wings are meant to hold the weight of the fuel or whatever is attached to them, also to hold the plaine up. they are not designed for impact.

 

[RickWhite]

Hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man GrowRebel you are a hoot. Tell me something honestly - how old are you and what do you do for a living? I'm betting you are a kid living at home.

Dude, be man enough to admit when you have lost.

Arguing with GR is like trying to get past the Black Knight. What a tool.

I can only laugh at him at this point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

 

[RickWhite]

if you were to watch any airplane crash. where the wing hit another plain or the ground, the wing would come off. the wings are meant to hold the weight of the fuel or whatever is attached to them, also to hold the plaine up. they are not designed for impact.

Neither is a deer; ever see what one does to a car Copernicus?

 

[CrackerJax]

The wing would do whatever the physics of any particular crash dictate. How many planes do you know which have flown into large skyscrapers at over 500 mph?

Think it through. Heck, merely reading Grow Rebel's posts should let you know ur backing the loon side of the issue.

In most plane crashes...they DUMP the fuel if they can.... this one was loaded ...part of the plan.

In most plane crashes, the pilots are trying to come in as SLOW as they are able to do.... 9/11 the pilots were PEDAL to the METAL....


Think it through... use ur logic....and step away from the nuts.

 

[maxamus1]

yes i have seen what one will do to a car. also deer's have ligaments muscles that keep their body intact. a plane dose not.

 

[maxamus1]

The wing would do whatever the physics of any particular crash dictate. How many planes do you know which have flown into large skyscrapers at over 500 mph?

Think it through. Heck, merely reading Grow Rebel's posts should let you know ur backing the loon side of the issue.


lol, you can't control how others prsent them selves.

In most plane crashes...they DUMP the fuel if they can.... this one was loaded ...part of the plan.

In most plane crashes, the pilots are trying to come in as SLOW as they are able to do.... 9/11 the pilots were PEDAL to the METAL....


Think it through... use ur logic....and step away from the nuts.

now to get to the point yes you are right about getting rid of the fuel and such. however the wings would have separated at time of impact. even if they were full of fuel. witch makes it hard to believe about the extra fuel burning. there was a big explosion at time of impact that carried through to the other side. witch would have taken a lot of fuel. also the faster the plane is going the harder the impact the more pressure the plane has to endure.

 

[CrackerJax]

You cannot say with certainty what the wings would have done...... only scientific modeling can answer that but probably not with 100% accuracy.... but within REASON.

This has never happened before and no one has ever devised a defense of it either. Let's just face some facts:

Clinton weakened our intelligence operations globally. They were never THAT accurate, especially in the Arab world. When the Russians set off their first nuke, it was a COMPLETE SURPRISE to Truman. He thought they would never figure it out.... honestly.
So, weakened information gathering coupled with an ingenious and awesome plan... let's be honest...it was a great idea...if ur a nutjob terrorist. Planes are not designed to be that strong....lightness is the goal. That jetfuel was the kicker. The ace in the hole.

Did the terrorists KNOW that the towers would fall? Probably not.... but they knew the carnage and SYMBOLISM would be MASSIVE. The towers dropping was icing on the cake.... but not necessary.

In the end, it was a brilliantly simple attack which took advantage of our weaknesses.

You have to give them their due..... Al Queda won that round. But we got up before the next bell didn't we? We sure did..... and then all hell broke loose.

We hit them in Agfghanistan and pinned it down while we took care of an old nemesis and then told Osama & Al Queda to BRING IT to Iraq!! They did...even Osama called it the Central Front.
We paid Al Queda back for their treachery. This isn't about finding out exactly which individual did this or that... it's the organization which needs to be defeated... not any one person. It's the idea that you can go around killing innocent ppl in cowardly ways, and get a benefit from it.

The plan worked....plain and simple...at least up till now. Obama seems willing to let it all slip through his fingers.... after all of the cost in blood and funds... he is letting all go....as if that's the answer.... it is not. You may quit fighting, but if the other side doesn't quit.... ur in trouble. that is the danger Obama brings us now. They think we're quitters...weak. That is all they need.

 

[GrowRebel]

Hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Man GrowRebel you are a hoot. Tell me something honestly - how old are you and what do you do for a living? I'm betting you are a kid living at home.

Are you?

Dude, be man enough to admit when you have lost.

If I have ... I will ... but since you have been unable to dispute any of the evidence posted other than posting bogus reports ... it's save to say I haven't lost anything.

Arguing with GR is like trying to get past the Black Knight. What a tool.

Says the deniers that can't handle that folks simply want a real investigation ... awww...

I can only laugh at him at this point.

Me too ... cause you keep saying that ... you must be in hysterics by now.

Hey rick ... guess what? ... people STILL want a real investigation into 911 ... and will not stop until they get it.

Now on to the 911 news ...

Danish Prime Minister Knew WTC Would Collapse
During a recent interview on Danish television, the former Prime Minister of Denmark admitted that he received a message 5 to 10 minutes beforehand telling him that the south tower of the World Trade Center was going to collapse, prompting questions as to why the victims and rescue personnel inside the building didn’t get the same warning.

The OEM Issued a WTC Collapse Warning
Why didn't the 9/11 Commission mention this?

Obama Renews Bush's 9/11 State of Emergency
On September 10th, President Obama reinstituted the national State of Emergency first declared by George W. Bush on September 14, 2001 by placing the following language in the Federal Register.
The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2009, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat.
... and "we the people" are the terrorists as far as the elite in government are concerned.


Is it Science or Honesty that NIST Lacks?

The degree to which NIST has apparently tried to hide the 8 stories of free fall drop can be seen in the care taken to hide it on the NIST WTC webpage[2]. On that webpage, among items pertaining to WTC7, the link to the press release for the final report is listed first. This press release[3] lists a number of changes between the final report, and the draft final report issued earlier for public comments. Surprisingly, or maybe dishonestly would be a better choice of word, free fall is not even mentioned.


Oct 22, Richard Gage, AIA, will speak to Sacramento Chapter, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

On October 22, Richard Gage, AIA, will speak to the Sacramento Chapter of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). This will be a very important event, being the first time the evidence for controlled demolition at the World Trade Center will be presented to an audience of aerospace professionals. The title of Mr. Gage's talk is "Analysis of WTC Failure Modes." The event will be held at the California Aerospace Museum at McClellan, CA. (Photo is the large display of the museum's logo at the entrance to the museum grounds.) Dinner begins at 6:30 p.m., with the talk at 7:00 p.m. Call 916-643-3192 for information.


Here's an oldie but goodie ...
Tommy Chong_on the Alex Jones Show:9/11 was an inside job p1

[youtube]f2SLq08HMb4&feature=player_profilepage[/youtube]




An open letter to Justice Edward Lehner on denying 9/11 justice

After showing what, in retrospect, seems to have been perhaps a feigned interest in weighing both sides’ arguments in the hearing, your somewhat short decision gives no indication that you seriously considered the petitioners’ memorandum of law or the “will of the people” it represented. You did not acknowledge the need for a new investigation, knowing full well New York City has never had, in any way, shape or form, its own independent investigation of the events of that awful day, that catastrophic day, on which the greatest crime on American soil was committed, right here in New York City, in fact not far from your courtroom.
Moreover, your rejection of the ballot initiative in effect agrees with and supports the City of New York’s callous dismissal of this investigation request as “irrelevant.” Irrelevant to what: the interests of the victims’ families and their quest for answers and justice; the citizenry as a whole’s interest in who and how a massive US intelligence organization, the military’s NORAD system, the multiple warnings from nations around the world to the Oval Office of a precipitous event like 9/11 were about to occur? All were ignored, dismissed, and somehow everyone was found asleep at the wheel in New York City and Washington, D.C., when and where the principal damage occurred.

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/russia-today-new-911-inquiryRussia Today: New 9/11 inquiry squashed
Webmaster commentary:
we do not need a new 9-11 investigation. We know the government is lying and that is all we need to know. Now we must decide what to do about it.
Everything else is just window-dressing.

 

[NorthwestBuds]

GR you need to put the crack pipe down and step away from your computer. You come off like a raving maniac here. Now you are hysterically claiming people want a real investigation and using Tommy Chong as your proof?

 

[maxamus1]

ok we'll go this route. first if the FBI,CIA, ect ect ect. can not git accurate in-tell we do not need them. second we should not be in this war, plain and simple. we should have went over and bombed who ever was involved and been over and done with it. now we are just saving face and getting innocent kids killed, so someone can make a fortune off of it. was it a good plan yes but i say they had help with it from someone here in the US.

 

[CrackerJax]

CLINTON INTEL....keep it straight.

You can't pick ur wars... who told you you could.. You go where you have the advantage. We had every LEGAL right to hit Saddam 50 times over. he broke so many parts of his peace agreement after desert storm.... ppl were wondering why Clinton allowed our pilots to receive fire from Saddam at all!!?? That right there was a LEGAL trigger to go in.... Clinton simply wavered....like he did on every foreign policy issue.
Again, telegraphing weakness to dictators and despots NEVER WORKS!

We are doing it again.... when the arabs see these nut job Truthers saying Al Queda didn't do it.... they think we're getting soft in the head. they may be right.

This is exactly the kind of candy arse attitude which brought on 9/11.

We have a candy arse in the white house right now!

We will pay.... mark my words. You can't wish ur enemies away, and you can't buy them off.

 

[maxamus1]

i can see you truly dislike clinton but it goes beyond him. i don't care if it was al-queda or not even though i think it was. we are doing nothing more then playing game and have been for the last five or six years now.

 

[Keenly]

The wing would do whatever the physics of any particular crash dictate. How many planes do you know which have flown into large skyscrapers at over 500 mph?

if you want to incorporate speed into this, it completely invalidates the pentagon plane crash, as the turn he made before crashing into the pentagon at the speed he was going is impossible



however, if you take the word speed out of your question, we are left with this


http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htm



B-52 Bomber crashes into the empire state building


BUT IT DID NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO COLLAPSING

Too late the pilot of the U.S. Army B-25 bomber with three men aboard, saw the Empire State Building loom up before his eyes. At 300 miles per hour, he plunged through the 34th Street side of the building wreaking havoc. The major portion of the wreckage penetrated the 78th floor. An engine hurtled down an elevator shaft igniting a furious fire in the basement. Parts of the motor and landing gear tore through the entire building landing on top of a 13-story ediface across the street and igniting a second conflagration.
With legs held down by two newsmen, photographer Ernie Sisto crawled out on a harrowing ledge and took the historic photo. It ran on page oneof the New York Times.

 

[Keenly]

CLINTON INTEL....keep it straight.

You can't pick ur wars... who told you you could.. You go where you have the advantage. We had every LEGAL right to hit Saddam 50 times over. he broke so many parts of his peace agreement after desert storm.... ppl were wondering why Clinton allowed our pilots to receive fire from Saddam at all!!?? That right there was a LEGAL trigger to go in.... Clinton simply wavered....like he did on every foreign policy issue.
Again, telegraphing weakness to dictators and despots NEVER WORKS!

We are doing it again.... when the arabs see these nut job Truthers saying Al Queda didn't do it.... they think we're getting soft in the head. they may be right.

This is exactly the kind of candy arse attitude which brought on 9/11.

We have a candy arse in the white house right now!

We will pay.... mark my words. You can't wish ur enemies away, and you can't buy them off.

who put saddam into his position of power?

 

[CrackerJax]

Keenly... ur out of ur depth.

 

[wyteboi]

Keenly... ur out of ur depth.

no keen pays attention and takes notes when necessary.........and dont believe everything that is told to him.


CJ you dont even care about 911...FACT , so why do you keep posting dumb shit ? Rick makes a post and you agree......nothing more , nothing less... you just agree . At least rick trys to do his own research on the topic .... you have done NONE. All you have is clinton and how bad he was..... Thats old this is CURRENT!

 

[wyteboi]

so tell me rick.....cj, tell me what you think will happen if we pull EVERY single troop out and just call it as we "lost"? Do you really think "we will pay" you really think they will think we are "weak" and just come and pull off another 9/11? Did you see how happy al quada was when they ran the U.S out of a place they were getting ready to leave anyways? THAT was a victory to them, so if we just leave them alone do you think they will have giant victory party and blow us all up.........or just pull another 911? you are the ones who are "weak".. its obvious you believe everything the news tell you. And it is VERY obvious that obama has NO intentions of "pulling out" or even reducing troop numbers so why call him "weak" ? If bush or clinton were faced with the decision of putting 40,000 more troops in gani , then they would do the same............excactly what they are told to do. The general says we need 40,000 more and the democrats dont want anymore , so just meet in the middle and send 20,000 more. Thats just what they do, If you think the president fights these wars and makes all the decisions then you are just plain ignorant. and CJ if you think they attacked the US just becuase clinton was "weak" then you are the most ignorant. You have a lot of hatred in you cj ...eh ? I dont hate anyone so thats WHY my opinion will outlast yours all day.
i dont need any comments with hatred in them , just a plain answer...or a fuck you will be fine too

 

[wyteboi]

who put saddam into his position of power?

THE US ... thats a fact. i thought we all agreed on that one?

 

[wyteboi]

why didnt the empire state building even budge? It did exactly what the designers of the WTC said it would do , "its just like poking a pencil through a net"

one more question... What is SO much different from the design to handle the impact AND JET FUEL of a 707 and a actual 767 hitting the buildings? and IF you can show me the significant difference THEN explain why BOTH buildings fell ? And it just so happens a THIRD building fell in the EXACT same fashion?
you can watch controlled demo's all day long and you wont see "perfection" like that in ANY 3 in a row.