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

This is what i'm lookin at right now.

The symmetrical collapse and speed collapse of WTC7. Which was not hit by a plane.

Lamont seisemic data

This is the data from Won Kim that was scrunched up into a 10 second sweep by whovere it was gave Jones the seismic data. As you can see(or not) the normal 40 second sweeps show that theres no reports or explosions before the buildings collapsed. The amplitude builds as the building collapses

This was used in the Pop mechanics data , which was a true sweep of the stations pens. Also, notice how quiet it was from the palisades station before the buildings collapsed, all spurious traffic noise and work relatred seismic reports just stopped and there was a natural harmonic that occurs from local tides etc

Hummmmm, I see.

I'M going to be a damn expert in geophysics by the time this thing is over.

"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not," said Morgan Reynolds. If nothing else that is amazing. A first, second and third. I wonder how long before number 4 happens. Maybe never.

Not at all amazing and no skyscraper has been subjected to both that kind of an impact plus the superheated jet airplane fuel (they were fully fueled). The only thing that is burning here are the straws grasped like a Gila monster on its prey.

Lightwizard, sure it's amazing. Not to you but to many, many others.

Many, many others. Exactly how many? 2% of the population?

Lightwiz, how do you explain this about the fire from some "experts"? Is there a counter argument? SJ: - at Underwriter's Laboratory, manager, and he wrote a letter to Frank Gayle at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, and he said; look we've built these models of the Trade Center towers; we've performed fire endurance tests and the models do not collapse. I mean, ya know, he goes through some arguments regarding the temperature required to cause the warping and creep to get actual collapse, and he said we're just not getting with the fires - whether it's jet fuel, which burns off fairly quickly, and then office materials, paper, furnature and so on burning - well, we're just not getting the temperatures to cause the models to collapse. And so he said it's very unlikely that the buildings, the World Trade Center buildings, collapsed due to fire, and damage. That combination is just not going to do it.

AJ: And by the way, we're talking about temperatures thousands of degrees lower in many cases. For those that don't know; people think of jet fuel - ooh jets - it must be really explosive. No, they actually - it's much weaker and burns a lot lower than gasoline. It's very close to kerosene.

SJ: Right. It is close to kerosene. That's right Alex. And of course paper fires - you can imagine, a lot of us have been camping, we burn fires, you can use paper, it burns a bit hotter than wood, but you don't see your steel pan melting or warping too badly, usually. (Laughs) And so - but the point of this is they built actual models, as requested by NIST, at Underwriters Labratory, and they didn't collapse. And Kevin then became a whistle blower as he wrote this letter; he said it just doesn't add up, and let me quote from NIST the final NIST report on this subject. But anyway, it's the courage of people like Kevin Ryan that I decided, you know, I've got to look at this too. It's a very serious scientific objection to the fire based theory. But let me quote from the NIST report if I can and this is in my paper, and it's on page 141 of the final NIST report on the collapse of the towers, and it says: "NIST contracted with Underwriters Labratories incorporated to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers. All four test specimen sustained the maximum designed load for approximately two hours without collapsing. [And so they go on] These results established that this type of assembly [they're talking about the assembly in the towers] was capable of sustaining a large gravity load without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of fires in any given location on September 11." So in other words they're admitting that the models, just like Kevin Ryan said, the models do not collapse, and so -

AJ: So this isn't just our opinion -

SJ: No no -

AJ: This is being scientifically tested by the major dominant international company that underwrites these hundred-million dollar structures -

SJ: Right

I've gone through Underwriter Lab tests on many electrical products. A bigger bunch of dolts I have never had the displeasure in dealing with. Pick some other experts.

Lightwizard, wow. I didn't think you could answer that. You seem to simply accept the story put out by the dolts in the Bushie administration. Champion dolts. The government agencies dont even agree with themselves. "Now FEMA had the decency to say; look, this hypothesis - they call it the best hypothesis, it's the only one they looked at, really, which is fire caused collapse of building seven - has only a low probability of occurance. I quote that in my paper also, it's FEMA, so to their credit they admit: We don't understand - and they say, they say that; we don't understand. But what they should do as good scientists is say; now, what other hypothesis might apply?" The burdon of proof is on the government and FEMA says the government theory on building 7 "has only a low probability of occurance". My personal theory is that more testing and investigation is needed.

Dolts all around us? Isn't that a picture of humanity. No, I don't except all of what the administration has offered regarding the tragedy -- for instance that there would be no significant pollution that would manifest itself in people getting sick from the debris. Not true. I repeat: there many non-governmental studies, especially the NOVA special, that debunks these "experts" claims. There is no burden of proof for something that is so ridiculous that only the terminally gullible would swallow it, that small percentage of conspiracy theorists that will invent something else if this doesn't float.

There's enough bad crap this administration has done to feed off of for years. Trying to manufacture theories from conflicting, flimsy evidence is not going to cut the mustard. You can go right ahead and fill your head with this nonsense. I'm no buying it.

BTW, try putting Kerosene in your gas tank and see what happens.

(Just don't do it anywhere near my house).

lightwizard, imo only the terminally gullible would believe the alleged hijackers were even capable of flying and navigating those airliners and making 3 direct hits after training on Cessnas for a couple weeks. And despite the "coincidence" that there was a training exercise held on 911 that was meant to determine our preparedness for just such an attack by airliners Bushie and Condi told us time and again no one could have imagined an attack by airliners. It's getting caught in such humungous lies as that that makes everything the Bushies say questionable. And to top it off that exrcise has been used as an excuse for why there was no scramble.

so , do you favor "wire guided" planes crashing into buildibgs (since we cant avoid the fact that the planes did crash into the buildings) OR are you more disposed to , lessee
1cutter charges blew up the WTC 1 and 2

2 A guided missle flew into the Pentagon

3 flight 93 was shot down

There are so many lines of "facts" that need to coincide to have the conspiracy theories be true, not the least of which is to have all of the eyewitnesses and passengers and story maker-uppers get their facts staright and be kept quiet.
Are there an unusually large amount of professional hits on people so that they dont change their stories.


All this and more is being believed by a bunch of people who need to depend on such crap so that their lives have meaning and substance.

When you learn how to read a seismograph lemme know and Ill show you where youre all wet.

They're coming.....................They're coming.......................No place to hide, no place to run.














I think that I will make myself a tuna sandwich!

I'll take one,on whole wheat,please.
And could you add some extra pickle to mine?
I would appreciate it....

Why would you want to be a tuna sandwich?

farmerman, "wire guided" planes? Wow. Do those exist? Is it even possible to fly great big airliners by remote control?

The FAA does it all the time for crash testing,and the military has them now...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/393328929.cms