National Geographic program called Inside 911

gee that reminds me of someone else i know. at least griffin bothers to tell people who his sources are. he doesn't make outrageous and unsubstantiated claims in the middle of a debate then run away when he's called on them. anyway, griffin's job isn't to create an alternative theory, his job is to reveal the official conspiracy theory for the ridiculous fairy story it is. and that fairy story is something even someone with your debating skills and cunning can't defend pointbreak, not when it's logically tested. if we want an alternative theory we'll have to have a proper enquiry for that. coming soon.

 

You'll be in a for a big disappointment then James. The 9/11 truth movement will describe itself as a growing movement forever, yet it will never grow to amount to anything. In that way it is like the anti globalisation movement. It is a fringe group and will forever remain a fringe group. From inside the echo chamber, you can't see that.

I'm sorry that it will probably take you years to realise it, but that's how it is.

 

when your opponent offers u his pity u know u've won the argument

 

Really? I heard that when your opponent proclaims his own victory, its proof he's lost.

 

know what? i like debating you (when u bother to turn up)

 

So I'm watching this program right now, and it is basically going over stories of people getting out just in time, and talking about how debris was falling, just going over what they saw. They don't go into detail about the actual collapse, except "the steel weakened in the ferocious heat" nice try.
I went in with my open mind as usual but this just seems bogus to my gut.
Wait, mine's on A&E.
And there's this guy "He said the building's coming down, and I said no way, and didn't believe [it until the roof came in]I kept hearing boom boom boom explosions"

 

At what would be the correct sound the top 26 floors of a 110 story building, weighing hundreds of tons, collapsing through the bottom 84 floors one by one in rapid succession?

Also, there are numerous engineering studies which accept the theory that the steel was weakened by the heat. In fact the majority of structural engineers in the world must be part of the conspiracy given the number of studies which accept the "official version". Of course this pales in comparison with the shreiking of conspiracy theorists.

 

How can you claim that the majority of structural engineers agree with the official story...let me see some backing of this...there was a millionaire who put out ads on TV saying he would give 100,000 dollars to anyone who could prove the official story, or for anyone who could prove that those buldings collapsed just from fire and not an explosion...why didn't this majority of structural engineers apply for this and win that money?

Edit: By the way here is a transcript of the man handing out this reward to anyone who could prove the official story w/o a doubt...http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1013

 

Because he's the judge. And what is the standard - beyond any conceivable infinitesimal doubt? I could offer you a million dollars to prove the sky is blue and then reject every piece of evidence you put forward. Whoopeee that proves a lot.

Try JOM: The Member Journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

This 152 page book published by MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/Towers%20Lost%20&%20Beyond.pdf

The Civil Engineering Faculty of the University of Syney

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

and the Australian Institute of Building Surveyers

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/AIBS_2002_wtc.pdf

Dozens of articles collected by iCivilEngineer.com

http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php

Gregory Fenves, a professor of Civil Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/11/collapse_background/?sid=1047658

The American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics

http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/

The National Institute of Standards and Technology

http://www.continuitycentral.com/news01832.htm

Scientific American

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21

Etc etc.

 

I would think the 86 floors would be able to hold 26 more, that's only 25% of the whole tower. And if it did fall, it wouldn't have happened so fast, I would think.
But hey, I'm no physicist.
But I do play jenga.
And I know if you take a tile out of the top levels of the jenga tower, the whole thing won't fall on itself.
Okay, maybe stupid, but just a thought when I was watching the show last night. Every witness they had was saying how they couldn't believe the towers falling. When they explained that the walls buckled outward, they could have shown slow-mo footage of this happening, but they cut away very fast. In other videos I have seen that claim explosions, they show and pinpoint each burst of smoke popping down the side of the tower in succession. Maybe forensic evidense would help to know how the towers really fell. Oh, wait, they shipped all the wreckage to China and melted it before any real investigation could happen. Sounds a tad fishy.
Peace.

 

Oh, wait, they shipped all the wreckage to China and melted it before any real investigation could happen. Sounds a tad fishy.
Peace.

 

Okay, that was a large generalization.

 

I can't say I'm disappointed, its not as if I thought you were going to read all of those links - or even one of them, for that matter. What would be the point of reading all that analysis by actual engineers when you can provide your own expert testimony based on jenga block analysis?

 

keep up the good work PB, if it wernt for you an matthew this shit would go unchecked, sad to say most of these people think they can "solve" or "prove" something with nothing more than links to a site,rather than getting off there ass'es to do something.the 1's i like the most are the 1's who are after the truth "even if it means to tell a lie to do it"

 

Most of the footage shot of the actual planes hitting the buildings were from people's video cameras. There are always a LOT of people visiting New York and they take a lot of pictures and video.

It was planes. It was not missles, bombs or anything else. I am not even going to argue with insanity. I have a degree in Psychology, and one of the first things you are told in Abnormal Psych is: "You cannot argue with delusion or psychosis or paranoia, don't even try."

So I won't. Freakin jenga blocks.....OMG......

 

the pancake theory works on the assumption that the central core of the wtc, which consisted of over 40 vertical supports running the entire height of the building, acted as a kind of spindle, much like old fashioned lp records on an automatic stacker in a phonograph falling down the spindle to the turntable below. the spindle, that is the 40 odd vertical steel supports must remian standing for the duration for the pancake theory to be credible. no spindle, then no nice neat 'in its own footprint' collapse, the pancake theory goes.

when the wtc collapsed there was nothing, and i repeat, nothing left standing. so what happened to the 40 something verticle supports, where did they go? if u read the official 9/11 commission report they make the outrageous claim that the core of the wtc was hollow when in fact it is a well known fact that is wasn't hollow at all.

that's one reason why the commission report cannot be trusted and a new investigatrion must be called now.

***

the question has been asked why then, if a controlled demolition caused the collapse of the world trade centre, why are so many supportive reports and experts around the place willing to give credence to the official fantasy? morgan o reynolds, a former high ranking official of the bush administration has a theory:

FORMER BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL
CHALLENGES GOVERNMENT VERSION OF 9/11
By Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press

Ridiculed and abused by the controlled press, independent 9/11 researchers have found a powerful ally in Morgan O. Reynolds, a former official in the Bush administration. Since Reynolds, professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor (2001-2002), published his article on June 9 entitled "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" the evidence that the twin towers and WTC 7 were demolished by explosives can no longer be ignored by the mainstream media.

John Daly of United Press International (UPI) broached the controversial subject on June 13 when he reported that Reynolds said the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the twin towers and WTC 7. Daly's article, published on The Washington Times website, did not appear in the newspaper.

"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," Reynolds said. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either."

As former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, Reynolds' comments carry substantial weight. As Reynolds told American Free Press, which has challenged the official version from the beginning, "Credentials matter."

While AFP has encouraged academics and engineers to examine the evidence from 9/11 and speak out, very few are willing to criticize the government's version.

"One of the most appalling things about the fascist state," Reynolds told AFP, "is that the physical scientists and engineers have less freedom to pursue the truth than the social scientists and those in the humanities."

"They are less free," Reynolds said, because physical scientists, engineers, and academics are usually in some way dependent on the government or military. "They practice self censorship," he said.

Reynolds, whose articles are published on LewRockwell.com, has written several articles critical of the official version since early 2004, but it is his latest article in which he supports the theory that the WTC towers were demolished by explosives which has had the greatest effect.

"One fact is irrefutable," Reynolds told AFP. "Those buildings were blown up.

"The pancake theory is ridiculous," he said. "I'm like the kid in The Emperor's New Clothes," he added. "Somebody's got to step up and say something."

Reynolds told AFP that he wrote his June 9 article after reading an article in The American Professional Constructor, the journal of the Alexandria, Va.-based American Institute of Constructors, which supported the official version that a fire-induced gravity collapse brought down the three WTC towers.

The article, which supports the official version that the fires in the towers caused a "pancake collapse" to occur, was originally written in the spring of 2003 by April Pruett, an undergraduate student of construction management at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville. Pruett's paper was subsequently edited and submitted for publication in the fall of 2004 by Mag Malek, an Egyptian-born assistant professor she studied under. Pruett was unaware that her paper had been published.

Dismissing the "pancake collapse" theory, Reynolds wrote: "I find this theory just about as satisfying as the fantastic conspiracy theory that 19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan caused 9/11.

"The government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms, but its blinkered narrowness and lack of breadth is the paramount defect unshared by its principal scientific rival – controlled demolition," Reynolds wrote. "Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapses of WTC 1 (North Tower), WTC 2 (South Tower), and the much-overlooked collapse of the 47-story WTC building 7 at 5:21 pm on that fateful day.

"This whole profession is off track," Reynolds told AFP about the construction industry's acceptance of the official version, "How can they maintain this giant lie?"

In response to the controversial article from a professor emeritus, Dr. Robert M. Gates, president of Texas A&M University, issued a statement on June 15: "The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.”

Gates is a 27-year veteran at the CIA who served as Director of Central Intelligence from November 6, 1991 until January 20, 1993, having been appointed by President George H.W. Bush. Gates had previously served as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence from 1986 until 1989, and as Assistant to the President [Bush] and Deputy National Security Adviser at the White House from January 20, 1989 to November 6, 1991.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=73210

 

Do you actually expect me to believe this made up on the spot theory over dozens of engineering studies running into the hundreds of pages carried out by professionals all over the world? How many of my links did you look at? Let me guess - ZERO!

And for that matter I don't value the expertise of a labour deparment economist when it comes to civil engineering either.

 

it's not an on the spot theory THAT is the official theory: the pancake theory. that is the (current) explanation of how the wtc buildings collapsed. ridiculous, isn't it? yet the pancake theory purports to explain how three skyscrapers collapsed in free fall in their own footprints from the alleged effects of fires the plane crashes caused (although in the case of building 7 there was no plane crash, only fire, so there's not even structural damage to explain building 7, unless you consider that it was a controlled demolition).

i'm not making it up folks. this is the fantasy they are asking us to believe. even pointbreak doesn't believe it!

 

LOL

I said something stupid.

Infact, it was half a joke. You all know I was dead serious and that was my proof, I mean I thought I'd win you guys over with that jenga thing.
But I do think you should watch this movie about planes and missiles or whatever hit it. Especially on the first plane at the towers and the pentagon things seem extremely sketchy. At least Maggie got to tell us all about her psychology degree; she sure is special.

Maybe you can use your psychology degree to find the plane here:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
or here
http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/eyewitness-accounts-flight77.htm. Hey, seriously though, good job with that ish.

and this http://question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Loose%20Change%20-%20A%20Documentary%20on%20911%20Part%201.wmv

you may not want to argue with psychosis but these are some damn good questions
peace

 

Says who? Jeff Rense? Alex Jones? James G?

It amazes me how readily people swallow the assumptions which conspiracy websites feed them.