Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax ! FINALLY!

Tico, why have they removed this page from the official website ?

click on the cached link below :

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tx3UDhWYg2EJ:www.yesvirginia.org/About_Us/NewsArticle.aspx%3Fnewsid%3D377++yesvirginia+newsid%3D377&hl=en

This thread is rubbish and not worth consideration.

Beating your head against a brick wall has entertainment value.

I still make the assertion that no explosives residues were monitored on the EPA monitors which were installed the very day of the collapse.
We all saw the buildings on tv and how their collapse was propogated. Each one started at the place where the planes hit and thats a visible fact.
You dont have to melt steel , merely soften it (like a blacksmith does in a furnace) Once steel gets red hot it "creeps". Itll bend at its points of insertion. Thats exactly what the beams did and it only took one floor lift.

We talked about DC also in another thread (the claim was that there was no plane) Well on the SCience network station last week, they had a piece on the Pentagon and guess what. They actually had a single frame showing the trail end of a plane halfway into the building. This was from one of the security cameras. It was just one or two frames (resolution isnt great on security cameras). But there it was.

The self appointed investigators see a chance to make some of their 15 minutes last longer and maybe make some money. the forensic evidence is too overwhelming.

Add to that fact that we all saw the planes crash into the building and I personally knew one old couple from Lubec Maine who were on one of the planes.
This thread is rubbish and not worth consideration.

farmerman wrote:

I still make the assertion that no explosives residues were monitored on the EPA monitors which were installed the very day of the collapse.
We all saw the buildings on tv and how their collapse was propogated. Each one started at the place where the planes hit and thats a visible fact.
You dont have to melt steel , merely soften it (like a blacksmith does in a furnace) Once steel gets red hot it "creeps". Itll bend at its points of insertion. Thats exactly what the beams did and it only took one floor lift.

We talked about DC also in another thread (the claim was that there was no plane) Well on the SCience network station last week, they had a piece on the Pentagon and guess what. They actually had a single frame showing the trail end of a plane halfway into the building. This was from one of the security cameras. It was just one or two frames (resolution isnt great on security cameras). But there it was.

The self appointed investigators see a chance to make some of their 15 minutes last longer and maybe make some money. the forensic evidence is too overwhelming.

Add to that fact that we all saw the planes crash into the building and I personally knew one old couple from Lubec Maine who were on one of the planes.
This thread is rubbish and not worth consideration.

farmerman, Your D.C. story is total bullsh!t. All the damage to the pentagon is completely inconsistant with a Boeing 757 travaling 530 mph and weighing 100 tons.

The hole in the pentagon from the wreck was aprox. 16 ft wide. Do you know how wide a Boeing 757 is? not to mention their are two 6 ton titanium jet engines on the wings.

What happen to the wings? They didn't hit the building. The wreckage is not on the lawn.

Who knows where your freinds from Maine went but they weren't in what hit the pentagon.

Big Plane, Small Holes

CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

I'm particularly interested in your link to the article you posted:

Magginkat wrote:

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
Mon Jan 30, 11:37 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/

It's a link to Yahoo's News site, but I don't find that "news article" there. In fact, I can only find the article in two places on the Net: emediawire.com, and disinfo.com (which points to the emediawire.com article). Now, emediawire.com appears to be a press release outlet, and it appears to me that all that's going on here is James H. Fetzer, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota Duluth -- and part time investigator of conspiracy theories, including Who Really Shot JFK? -- has signed up there, and posted this "press release" on that site. (Referring to himself as a "distinguished scholar" was a nice touch, btw.)

So my question is, what's with your attempt to lend this spurious press release legitimacy by attaching the news.yahoo.com link, to make it appear as if this was a story put out by a legitimate news wire?

Yep, I'm lying, along with the families of those on the plane, along with the firefighters on the scene, along with the eye witnesses that saw the plane hit the building, along with Boeing (they must be lying about the dimensions of their planes), along with air traffic controllers, crash investigators and all the other hundreds of folks who were on the site. Please tell me how you would get all of those people to go along with a conspiracy.

Magginkat wrote:

I guess the truth was becoming too much for the Bushie crowd in the old Bush Aftermath thread. Apparently the author 'locked' it to prevent the posting of further truths! Perhaps to prevent the posting of this:

As the "author" of the "old Bush Aftermath" thread, I'm at a loss to figure out what power you think I wield over whether that thread is locked or not. I'm not sure why it's locked, but I just feel terrible that you aren't able to spam it up as you would like. It has been locked in the past, usually when visiting leftists such as yourself demonstrate a lack of ability to communicate civilly.

I'm particularly interested in your link to the article you posted:

Magginkat wrote:

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
Mon Jan 30, 11:37 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/

It's a link to Yahoo's News site, but I don't find that "news article" there. In fact, I can only find the article in two places on the Net: emediawire.com, and disinfo.com (which points to the emediawire.com article). Now, emediawire.com appears to be a press release outlet, and it appears to me that all that's going on here is James H. Fetzer, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota Duluth -- and part time investigator of conspiracy theories, including Who Really Shot JFK? -- has signed up there, and posted this "press release" on that site. (Referring to himself as a "distinguished scholar" was a nice touch, btw.)

So my question is, what's with your attempt to lend this spurious press release legitimacy by attaching the news.yahoo.com link, to make it appear as if this was a story put out by a legitimate news wire?