Are conspiracy theories destroying democracy?

[The Truth]

I had all the Tin Foil Hatters on ignore until this thread and it made me take them off to see what they were going on about, they are going back there.

Can I suggest everyone puts them on ignore, trying to debate with them is only making their mental stae worse.

Poor souls, lost.

A man of his word!

 

[The Truth]

Any chance you could post another animated gif with a real airliner hitting a real skyscraper so I can judge how the building should have reacted?

You wont be able to see it, he's on your ignore list....come to think of it, so am I!?

 

[symyjym]

How about taking some time out to listen to these actual experts with qualifications?! These are engineers and architects all of whom have designed and been involved with building skyscrapers and large buildings. These are not nutters or kids .. these are respected specialists.

Yep all ten of the structrual engineers in this video.

Look, 80% of Americans believe in God.

Two videos here, not for you Goldsone, hybrid x or The Truth, this is for the benefit of the readers of the thread to get a balanced view.

First is a controlled demolition and the explosions involved.



Second is explaining that the WTC towers did not fall at freefall speed, only the building parts that fell AWAY from the building fell at freefall and the rest of the building could not be seen behind the cloud of dust. However the video below explains the non freefall of the building well.

 

[The Truth]

Look, 80% of Americans believe in God.

What's that supposed to mean and prove?

 

[Hillian1]

You wont be able to see it, he's on your ignore list....come to think of it, so am I!?

Sake, I just took you off ignore to see if you'd answered my post only to find another example of your paranoia, and he is on ignore but when someone quotes an ignored user it shows in their post.

Or can I read your thoughts?

Either way, care to substantiate the gif with another one showing how a skyscraper should behave when hit by an airliner, or do we just have to believe you with no proof at all?

 

[symyjym]

By the way I have just spoken to an architect mate of mine on the phone and he says that the towers would have collapsed from the plane impact with destroying all the fire proofing, followed by extreme heat from the fire to weaken steel, not melt, and undermine the structural integrity would have been followed by the towers collapsing.

If the planes hit the top floors of the towers there would have been no collapse, however the lower down that the planes hit would ensure that they would have done. An example is the second tower which was hit was the first to fall. This was becasue it was hit lower down than the first tower hit, and under the extra weight it was holding above, was the reason why it collapsed first.

My friend does not work for any American organisation and is not part of any cover up. This is my firsthand information from a qualified professional.

 

[Goldstone76]

Yep all ten of the structrual engineers in this video.

Look, 80% of Americans believe in God.

Two videos here, not for you Goldsone, hybrid x or The Truth, this is for the benefit of the readers of the thread to get a balanced view.

First is a controlled demolition and the explosions involved.



Second is explaining that the WTC towers did not fall at freefall speed, only the building parts that fell AWAY from the building fell at freefall and the rest of the building could not be seen behind the cloud of dust. However the video below explains the non freefall of the building well.

Your first video shows a controlled demolition using explosives. Thermite was used for the main demolition as has been proved in the following link http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Many explosions were heard before the collapse as per my previous post. Theres plenty of witness and video evidence of that fact.

Your second is video does show what happened but its narrative is wrong. Heres another version which is more logical and far more scientific. A fire collapse (which has never happened as it did on 9/11) has never happened prior to or since in the manner it happened on that day if you go by the official account. When a structure collapses in a symmetrical fashion THERE MUST BE RESISTANCE to the pressure from metal and materials which none of the Towers or Building 7 shows.

The 78th-84th floor of the South Tower was hit first. There were 110 stories and 107 floors. So the plane struck 3/4 of the way up.. Regardless of the Twin Towers.. Building 7 had fires which were not the cause of its collapse. At a press conference in Nov 2008 Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated (correctly) that it was impossible for Building 7 to have collapsed at free fall acceleration due to resistance from the steel structure below. The problem was that its easy to measure the acceleration of the collapse so the when the NIST final report was released a month later they were forced to admit in it that the building fell in free fall for 2.25 seconds. They have since completely refused to explain how. This is one of hundreds of problems with the official investigations. Acknowledging that the official story is impossible is frightening but our politicians are still making decisions today based on a false flag operation from a decade ago.

 

[One Love]

First is a controlled demolition and the explosions involved.

Bloody loud explosions. If it was controlled demolition surely everyone near would have heard the explosions.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

My friend does not work for any American organisation and is not part of any cover up. This is my firsthand information from a qualified professional.

Who hasn't been involved in any way, shape, or form with the buildings themselves, any of the rubble remaining or anything. He is qualified to talk about theories, like the rest of us. Personally, I think his theory is total codswallop. But it might be the truth. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[Norman Potting]

You may wish to buy the book (make sure you do it through the Amazon icon or Bozza will sort you out) or you may just wish to be entertained by the reviews of it on Amazon, particularly the ones that ranked it low. This link should take you straight to it.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Voodoo-Hist...istory/dp/009947896X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

 

[symyjym]

Your first video shows a controlled demolition using explosives. Thermite was used for the main demolition...............

Bollards, in your last video Prof Jones says there were explosives used.

Your second is video does show what happened but its narrative is wrong.

Bollards it's a perfectly good narrative.

By the way I have just spoken to an architect mate of mine on the phone and he says that the towers would have collapsed from the plane impact with destroying all the fire proofing, followed by extreme heat from the fire to weaken steel, not melt, and undermine the structural integrity would have been followed by the towers collapsing.

If the planes hit the top floors of the towers there would have been no collapse, however the lower down that the planes hit would ensure that they would have done. An example is the second tower which was hit was the first to fall. This was becasue it was hit lower down than the first tower hit, and under the extra weight it was holding above, was the reason why it collapsed first.

My friend does not work for any American organisation and is not part of any cover up. This is my firsthand information from a qualified professional.

Sorry but I have no doubt that a friend of mine who I've know for almost 30 years and who has been a qualified architect for 25 years would be telling me the truth.

As you admitted previously you HAVE NOT looked to discuss this face to face with any local construction industry expert, and you simply disregard this as a logical approach by saying you don't have to.

 

[One Love]

Thermite was used for the main demolition as has been proved in the following link http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Now if you want a more scientific evaluation of just some of the problems with the Jones/Harrit/Roberts paper, try this for starters;

Jones investigates only the red and gray chips and not the entire sample. He has a limited sample size. The chips have a laminar nature which suggests a coating or adhesive but he rules out paint by comparing the effect of MEK on some unknown paint and comparing it to the effect on the red chips. This is either incompetence or scientific misconduct and fraud.
He sees that there is an organic fraction but does not analyze it. He uses DSC to measure exotherms but does it in a stream of air so he cannot tell the difference between a reaction and plain combustion of components but claims thermitic reaction. His EDAX shows silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in the same areas of the particle but he ignores this congruency; aluminosilicates are clays and are often fillers in paints and coatings. He does not extract a larger sample of the red and gray chips with a more agressive solvent, such as hot DMF or DMF-DMSO which would allow analysis of individual components.

His conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data. JREF
Jones, Harrit, and Roberts have not submitted their paper, with samples, to independent labs for verification. They have not completed the discovery process by scheduling a presentation of their findings to a group of qualified scientists and allowing for educated debate and evaluation of their findings in the public sphere. Their paper was published in a journal that has questionable academic credentials, and was even cited as offering publication of a non-sense paper written by a computer. Harrit himself has connections to one of the peer reviewers used by the publishing house, who has subsequently resigned as a peer reviewer from that house. The editor in chief of the publishing house quit after she was told about the paper saying that the paper had no merit and shouldn’t have been published by her journal. She also said that the paper was published without her knowledge and seems to have been published for purely “political reasons”.

Many explosions were heard before the collapse as per my previous post. Theres plenty of witness and video evidence of that fact.

Surely it should be heard in ALL of them and very loud.

I can't be bothered with the rest, it was just the thermite "proof" was getting on my nerves.

 

[Goldstone76]

Bollards




Bollards




Sorry but I have no doubt that a friend of mine who I've know for almost 30 years and who has been a qualified architect for 25 years would be telling me the truth.

As you admitted previously you HAVE NOT looked to discuss this face to face with any local construction industry expert, and you simply disregard this as a logical approach by saying you don't have to.

Ive spoken about this to many people including architects.
There is more than enough evidence to suggest there are flaws in the official version and thats my whole point. If you feel the official version is truth then thats fine. But to swallow the official version because governnents dont lie is farcical. History oftens proves that lies are more often than not told.

 

[One Love]

But to swallow the official version because governnents dont lie is farcical.

Excuse me! Who has said that they do that?

 

[Goldstone76]

Now if you want a more scientific evaluation of just some of the problems with the Jones/Harrit/Roberts paper, try this for starters;

Jones investigates only the red and gray chips and not the entire sample. He has a limited sample size. The chips have a laminar nature which suggests a coating or adhesive but he rules out paint by comparing the effect of MEK on some unknown paint and comparing it to the effect on the red chips. This is either incompetence or scientific misconduct and fraud.
He sees that there is an organic fraction but does not analyze it. He uses DSC to measure exotherms but does it in a stream of air so he cannot tell the difference between a reaction and plain combustion of components but claims thermitic reaction. His EDAX shows silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in the same areas of the particle but he ignores this congruency; aluminosilicates are clays and are often fillers in paints and coatings. He does not extract a larger sample of the red and gray chips with a more agressive solvent, such as hot DMF or DMF-DMSO which would allow analysis of individual components.

His conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data. JREF
Jones, Harrit, and Roberts have not submitted their paper, with samples, to independent labs for verification. They have not completed the discovery process by scheduling a presentation of their findings to a group of qualified scientists and allowing for educated debate and evaluation of their findings in the public sphere. Their paper was published in a journal that has questionable academic credentials, and was even cited as offering publication of a non-sense paper written by a computer. Harrit himself has connections to one of the peer reviewers used by the publishing house, who has subsequently resigned as a peer reviewer from that house. The editor in chief of the publishing house quit after she was told about the paper saying that the paper had no merit and shouldn’t have been published by her journal. She also said that the paper was published without her knowledge and seems to have been published for purely “political reasons”.




Surely it should be heard in ALL of them and very loud.

I can't be bothered with the rest, it was just the thermite "proof" was getting on my nerves.

I guess you havent heard of dissinformation and smear campaigns. The security services are very good at that! And they have been doing it for a very long time. The fact that the official investigations were flawed and didnt even take into account key witness statements doesnt bother you. The call from family an expert groups for an independent and non biased investgation which has to date been denied doesnt bother you. The fact that there is a movement requesting the release of classified documents and video tape doesnt raise any suspicions for you? So all is nicely wrapped up and tickety boo then??

 

[Goldstone76]

Excuse me! Who has said that they do that?

Was there a conspiracy on 9/11 by the government to suppress the truth of what happened? Do you beleive that governments always tell the truth?

 

[symyjym]

Was there a conspiracy on 9/11 by the government to suppress the truth of what happened? Do you beleive that governments always tell the truth?

What a stupid question

 

[Goldstone76]

What a stupid question

Its written in plain English.. only 2 questions requiring either a yes or no answer per question. I do feel however that you will answer no for question 2 though ;-)

 

[The Truth]

Well do you?

 

[jakarta]

Was there a conspiracy on 9/11 by the government to suppress the truth of what happened? Do you beleive that governments always tell the truth?

No and No.

By the way I would put a BIT more credence on your ramblings if they were not so full of grammatical and spelling errors (e.g. beleive)

Just saying like.