Word abonnee en neem Beursduivel Premium
Rode planeet als pijlen grid met hoorntjes Beursduivel

Koffiekamer Terug naar discussie overzicht

Architects and Engineers for Truth - TU Delft

313 Posts
Pagina: «« 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 16 »» | Laatste | Omlaag ↓
  1. forum rang 10 DeZwarteRidder 18 april 2015 15:48
    Silverstein's Quote:

    "I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

    -Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

    -Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

    Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

    "In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

    He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

    "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

    www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
  2. [verwijderd] 18 april 2015 15:49
    quote:

    pcrs7 schreef op 18 april 2015 15:44:

    [...]
    Dus je blijft jezelf herhalen omdat je vast zit in je eigen verhaal?
    Als het weerlegt is, moet je er niet over blijven zeuren. Dat zeg ik.

  3. forum rang 10 DeZwarteRidder 18 april 2015 15:54
    This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, I suspect there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make "a hole 20 stories tall".

    Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

    Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

    Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

    Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

    www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
  4. [verwijderd] 18 april 2015 15:54
    quote:

    whammy schreef op 18 april 2015 15:01:

    [...]
    In bijlage artikelen en foto's van flight 77 op het Pentagon. Wat mij opvalt zijn de telefoongesprekken van Renee May (crewmember) met haar moeder en Barbara Olsen ( passagier) echtgenote van Ted Olson was advocaat generaal van de US overheid.
    Volgens kenners kunnen er op die hoogte geen telefoongesprekken gevoerd en/of er kwam geen verbinding tot stand?
    p.s. voor mij blijft 9/11 een groot?. Het lijkt zo ongelofelijk onwaarschijnlijk, 2x om extra klemtoon te leggen. Als het waar mocht zijn dat moeten bij die actie vele mensen betrokken zijn geweest waarvan niets uitlekt naar welke media dan ook of heb ik een afslag gemist?
    www.google.nl/search?q=flight+77&...
    Het is heel bizar en ongelofelijk.

    Maar de lezing van de overheid is minstens net zo bizar.
    In mijn ogen misschien zelfs nog wel vreemder...
    youtu.be/yuC_4mGTs98?t=8s

    Cheney gave STAND DOWN ORDER
    youtu.be/QlM8Sui6-X0
  5. pcrs7 18 april 2015 15:56
    quote:

    KidBackInTown schreef op 18 april 2015 14:47:

    [...]

    Niet alleen het staal is magisch, ook de magische brandweer wist tot op de seconde exact wanneer het staal het zou gaan begeven.
    Maar iedereen werd verslagen door de onafhankelijke nieuwsjagers van de BBC die het al 20 minuten van te voren wisten te melden. Petje af ;-)
    Ze hadden natuurlijk al van te voren met een computer model geklooid waaruit precies bleek dat alles op precies hetzelfde moment in stof zou veranderen 6 uur wat minuten en wat seconden nadat de brand begon.

    Ook een mooie verdediging als je dit soort vraagtekens zet bij de officiële verklaring: Alles is al debunked op de debunking sites. Ik heb de link al vele keren gepost.
  6. [verwijderd] 18 april 2015 15:59
    quote:

    pcrs7 schreef op 18 april 2015 15:56:

    [...]
    Ze hadden natuurlijk al van te voren met een computer model geklooid waaruit precies bleek dat alles op precies hetzelfde moment in stof zou veranderen 6 uur wat minuten en wat seconden nadat de brand begon.

    Ook een mooie verdediging als je dit soort vraagtekens zet bij de officiële verklaring: Alles is al debunked op de debunking sites. Ik heb de link al vele keren gepost.

    Het wantrouwen zit bij jou wel erg diep.

    Heb je echt op een TU gestudeerd?
  7. pcrs7 18 april 2015 16:00
    Dreamon, connectie met een basisstation op die hoogte is inderdaad zeer onwaarschijnlijk. De basisstations zijn niet gebouwd op die afstanden en hebben geen antennes die gain omhoog hebben, omdat daar heen klanten zitten.
    Vandaar ook dat de vliegmaatschappijen in flight satellliet systemen hebben geïnstalleerd.
    Het is ook nogal vreemd dat iemand zijn moeder belt en dat niet zegt: hoi mam, dit is Frits, maar zijn achternaam noemt. Wie noemt nu zijn achternaam als hij zijn moeder belt?

    Reactie zal wel weer zijn: uitgebreid gedebunked op de debunking sites en je ben te idioot om mee in discussie te gaan en je zit natuurlijk vast in je eigen belachelijke theorie die is gebaseerd op veronderstellingen.
  8. [verwijderd] 18 april 2015 16:05
    quote:

    pcrs7 schreef op 18 april 2015 16:00:

    Dreamon, connectie met een basisstation op die hoogte is inderdaad zeer onwaarschijnlijk. De basisstations zijn niet gebouwd op die afstanden en hebben geen antennes die gain omhoog hebben, omdat daar heen klanten zitten.
    Vandaar ook dat de vliegmaatschappijen in flight satellliet systemen hebben geïnstalleerd.
    Het is ook nogal vreemd dat iemand zijn moeder belt en dat niet zegt: hoi mam, dit is Frits, maar zijn achternaam noemt. Wie noemt nu zijn achternaam als hij zijn moeder belt?

    Reactie zal wel weer zijn: uitgebreid gedebunked op de debunking sites en je ben te idioot om mee in discussie te gaan en je zit natuurlijk vast in je eigen belachelijke theorie die is gebaseerd op veronderstellingen.

    Weet jij veel hoe je reageert als je op het punt staat te sterven.

    Ik snap werkelijk niet waarom je alles wantrouwt wat je niet begrijpt.

    Maar kom eens met bewijs die al jouw veronderstellingen onderbouwen.
  9. [verwijderd] 18 april 2015 16:14
    quote:

    pcrs7 schreef op 17 april 2015 23:18:

    hee moderator, wel berichten van mij weghalen, maar niet die korte beledigingen van A5.
    Goed bezig knul.
    Beledigingen van Turnpike en A5 blijven op de één of andere manier altijd staan.
    Ik blijf het opmerkelijk vinden.

  10. [verwijderd] 18 april 2015 16:16
    quote:

    Dream*On schreef op 18 april 2015 16:14:

    [...]
    Beledigingen van Turnpike en A5 blijven op de één of andere manier altijd staan.
    Ik blijf het opmerkelijk vinden.

    Het is een samenzwering!
  11. [verwijderd] 18 april 2015 16:17
    quote:

    nobahamas schreef op 18 april 2015 00:40:

    Eenieder die op zoek is naar de waarheid zou niet direct moeten geloven wat hem door de de media als waarheid wordt gepresenteerd.
    Eigen onderzoek is essentieel.
    Neem alle beschikbare data tot je, en blijf nadenken.
    Feiten zijn feiten, en beoordeel die op waarde.
    Iedere getuigenis van een professional kun je toetsen, en toets deze getuigenis bij andere professionals binnen het specialisme.
    Is er een brede consensis van deze getuigenis, dan is de getuigenis dicht bij de waarheid.

    Wanneer 1300 constructeurs en ingenieurs beamen dat WTC7 niet kan instorten door brand, of door de inslag van een groot vliegtuig, dan neem ik dat voor waarheid aan.
    En wanneer een ander "high-rise" building instort wat niet geraakt is door enig projectiel, omdat er twee kamers in brand staan van drie bij zes meter, dan verlies ik mijn geloof in "de waarheid"
    AB

    (Hoe bepaalde werelden soms met elkaar verweven zijn....)
  12. pcrs7 18 april 2015 16:24
    quote:

    Turnpike schreef op 18 april 2015 16:16:

    [...]
    Het is een samenzwering!
    Slaven hebben een goede neus voor brown nosing van machthebbers. Dat zit inmiddels ingebakken in de genen. Het sprookje van de nieuwe kleding van de keizer gaat hier al over. Je ziet de waarheid recht voor je ogen, maar iedereen ontkent het. De machthebber is naakt, maar iedereen roept dat de kleding prachtig is.
    Dat is veiliger. Een soort zelfcensuur.
    Heel oud.
  13. [verwijderd] 18 april 2015 16:30
    quote:

    pcrs7 schreef op 18 april 2015 16:24:

    [...]
    Slaven hebben een goede neus voor brown nosing van machthebbers. Dat zit inmiddels ingebakken in de genen. Het sprookje van de nieuwe kleding van de keizer gaat hier al over. Je ziet de waarheid recht voor je ogen, maar iedereen ontkent het. De machthebber is naakt, maar iedereen roept dat de kleding prachtig is.
    Dat is veiliger. Een soort zelfcensuur.
    Heel oud.
    Ik denk dat je de intelligentie van mensen in de huidige tijd onderschat.

    Maar ja, jouw leidende gedachte is alles te wantrouwen want je niet begrijpt, en dan zoek je een houvast.....

    Maar heb je echt op een TU gestudeerd? Kan het nauwelijks geloven. Waar is het dan verkeerd gegaan?
  14. [verwijderd] 18 april 2015 18:35
    Dick Cheney Ordered Norad Stand Down
    youtu.be/e27HPOiAYPQ?t=2m55s
    911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/...

    georgewashington.blogspot.nl/2008/03/...

    NORAD, responsible for intercepting errant aircraft over the U.S., has a standard operating procedure for scrambling planes for interception which takes less than 15 minutes

    They did this successfully (on time) 129 times in 2000 and and 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001.

    Yet, on September 11th, they failed to do their job 4 times in a single day:
  15. pcrs7 18 april 2015 19:05
    quote:

    Turnpike schreef op 18 april 2015 16:30:

    [...]

    1.Ik denk dat je de intelligentie van mensen in de huidige tijd onderschat.

    2.Maar ja, jouw leidende gedachte is alles te wantrouwen want je niet begrijpt, en dan zoek je een houvast.....

    3.Maar heb je echt op een TU gestudeerd? Kan het nauwelijks geloven. Waar is het dan verkeerd gegaan?
    Vertaald:
    1. Ik onderschat jou intelligentie
    2. Je wantrouwt alles wat je niet begrijpt

    3. Je lijkt te denken dat de TUDelft een toegangsportaal is tot een conformistische old boys network van ja knikkers.
    Je leert er gelukkig ook nog wat wetenschappelijk nadenken.
    En dan stort wtc7 niet opeens zonder weerstand in na 5 uur branden, overal gelijk in dezelfde seconde. Fijn dat ze dit soort sprekers op de TUDelft nog een gehoor geven. Kennelijk heeft het overheidsgeld ze nog niet helemaal tot intellectuele commissars gemaakt.
  16. forum rang 10 DeZwarteRidder 18 april 2015 19:05
    Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

    The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

    The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

    "As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

    www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/
    24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____

    [Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
    WTC collapse theory.]

    "The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"

    www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disaster...

    The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.

    www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d...

    From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
    www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097...

    On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
    The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

    pg 6/74

    The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.

    The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.

    The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
    steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
    pg 15/74

    The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]

    pg 16/74

    Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings

    pg 17/74

    Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
    discoloration and buckling steel.

    pg. 21/74

    www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
  17. forum rang 10 DeZwarteRidder 18 april 2015 19:20
    Update:

    Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7" points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.

    www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11...

    Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse.

    9/11 demolition theory challenged
    An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

    The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

    One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

    The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.

    Resistance to collapse

    Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

    Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.

    In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.

    "The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.

    Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

    His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

    This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

    He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.

    The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.

    This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

    Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.

    Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.

    news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/69...

    Dr. Keith A. Seffen

    www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/

    Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...

    For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...

    "Walter P. Murphy Professor of

    Civil Engineering and Materials Science

    Northwestern University
  18. forum rang 10 DeZwarteRidder 18 april 2015 19:22
    Letter to the Editor
    Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

    April 09, 2006

    Dear Editor,

    After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

    I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

    The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

    Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

    D. Allan Firmage

    Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

    www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/...
  19. forum rang 10 DeZwarteRidder 18 april 2015 19:24
    Massive Conspiracy

    All the people who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off...

    -The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did. Yet all of them and the people below are helping him cover up the largest mass murder in US history... Some of them like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil have come out for less.

    -The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most, if not all, of them. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples’ statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.) We have uncovered the myth about a gag order imposed on all fire fighters. Only 9/11 conspiracy sites say this. ONE person who sued Bush for not taking action before the event is ordered by the court not to speak to the media about the case. This is not imposing a gag order on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim. They are lying to cover up this mass murder by the government or the building owner. Why? They don't even know...

    Conspiracy theorists bring up an article in Fire House magazine which says the fire department wanted to stop the steel from being sold in order to test the fire proofing and other non-bomb/controlled demolition related investigations. They twist the article’s context to make it seem like the firefighters questioned the idea that fire brought down the towers.

    fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Displ...
    OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=
    25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

    fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Displ...
    SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026

    Many of these men and women come from the military, yet we are to believe they are so afraid they rather die in the government’s next mass murder than come out and expose this.

    -The courts for imposing a gag order [SEE above]

    -The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...

    -The NYC port Authority who lost personnel. Motive?

    -All the people in the Pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly trucked in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? Again, no answer...

    -The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who would rather have investigations of the decisions which led to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: Whenever killing someone, pay off the relative. They won’t say anything.]

    -The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like the BBC and Al Jazeera. Why? No answer here either...

    -The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.

    -Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.

    www.popularmechanics.com/science/defe...

    -PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.

    www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

    -Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent organization doesn't have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called "Conspiracy". In fact, the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history. Some suggest only a handful can do the job but that's simply impossible. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team of structural engineers and so on. There are hundreds involved in this investigation and every team has to work with other teams using the same evidence and specifications.

    -NY Governor Pataki because he sold steel from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.

    -The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to China before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the firefighters.

    -EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context, then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? The answer they give is that the engineers don't know about Jones’ work. So in all this time no one has e-mailed Jones' work to any structural engineer?

    -Structure Magazine who published a report saying the collapse of WTC 7 may have been due to one column failing.

    -The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. (Like me) They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why? No clue...

    -The CIA

    -The FBI

    -FEMA

    -The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorists say is impossible is possible.

    -NORAD

    -The FAA who saw planes which conspiracy theorists say never existed.

    -The Silverstein Group who they say got together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money.
  20. forum rang 10 DeZwarteRidder 18 april 2015 19:25
    2)
    -Silverstein's Insurance Company who didn't question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein. Why? Conspiracy Theorists say the insurance company just wants to pass on the bill to the public but they already fought Silverstein in a number of law suits concerning the amount.

    -American Airlines (Pentagon)

    -United Airlines (Pentagon)

    -Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes

    -Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology

    -Installers of the remote control devices in the planes (Pentagon)

    -Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)

    -Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.

    -Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings

    -People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover

    -Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)

    -Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)

    -People who detonated the buildings"

    -anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.

    Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed. Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involve, the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long. Absurd...

    Update:

    A common excuse for no one coming out who was part of this so called 9/11 conspiracy is they fear death. If you analyze the argument carefully you realize they are debunking themselves. Why would even people in the military be more fearful of exposing this than the common conspiracy theorists behind a computer monitor? Either they don't believe what they're saying or they actually think they are more fearless than the thousands of others who would have had to be "in on it". As if people in the CIA or FBI couldn't figure out how to get the message out if they wanted to without exposing who they are. People, dates, places, memos and other evidence could easily be disseminated to the public without exposing who they are. The only reason they claim the people are paralyzed with fear is because they have too in order for the conspiracy story to work.

    Noam Chomsky on 9/11 Conspiracy theories



    Update:

    More from Noam Chomsky

    "...I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission."

    "I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments."

    "...I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11."

    "I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state."

    blog.zmag.org/node/2779
313 Posts
Pagina: «« 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 16 »» | Laatste |Omhoog ↑

Neem deel aan de discussie

Word nu gratis lid van Beursduivel.be

Al abonnee? Log in

Direct naar Forum

Zoek alfabetisch op forum

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
Forum # Topics # Posts
Aalberts 465 6.840
AB InBev 2 5.282
Abionyx Pharma 2 29
Ablynx 43 13.356
ABN AMRO 1.579 46.092
ABO-Group 1 18
Acacia Pharma 9 24.692
Accell Group 151 4.129
Accentis 2 253
Accsys Technologies 22 8.871
ACCSYS TECHNOLOGIES PLC 218 11.686
Ackermans & van Haaren 1 160
ADMA Biologics 1 31
Adomos 1 126
AdUX 2 457
Adyen 13 16.146
Aedifica 2 828
Aegon 3.257 320.010
AFC Ajax 537 7.010
Affimed NV 2 5.736
ageas 5.843 109.775
Agfa-Gevaert 13 1.854
Ahold 3.536 73.977
Air France - KLM 1.024 34.302
Airspray 511 1.258
Akka Technologies 1 18
AkzoNobel 466 12.682
Alfen 12 16.002
Allfunds Group 3 1.122
Almunda Professionals (vh Novisource) 651 4.246
Alpha Pro Tech 1 17
Alphabet Inc. 1 324
Altice 106 51.196
Alumexx ((Voorheen Phelix (voorheen Inverko)) 8.484 114.756
AM 228 684
Amarin Corporation 1 133
Amerikaanse aandelen 3.819 240.164
AMG 965 125.588
AMS 3 73
Amsterdam Commodities 303 6.512
AMT Holding 199 7.047
Anavex Life Sciences Corp 2 382
Antonov 22.632 153.605
Aperam 91 14.105
Apollo Alternative Assets 1 17
Apple 5 313
Arcadis 251 8.613
Arcelor Mittal 2.023 318.576
Archos 1 1
Arcona Property Fund 1 266
arGEN-X 15 9.094
Aroundtown SA 1 175
Arrowhead Research 5 9.249
Ascencio 1 20
ASIT biotech 2 697
ASMI 4.107 37.534
ASML 1.762 76.480
ASR Nederland 18 4.117
ATAI Life Sciences 1 7
Atenor Group 1 322
Athlon Group 121 176
Atrium European Real Estate 2 199
Auplata 1 55
Avantium 29 10.626
Axsome Therapeutics 1 177
Azelis Group 1 49
Azerion 7 2.657

Macro & Bedrijfsagenda

  1. 22 april

    1. NL investeringen februari
    2. SAP Q1-cijfers
    3. NL consumentenvertrouwen april
    4. NL prijzen bestaande koopwoningen maart
    5. ING jaarvergadering
    6. VS Chicago Fed-index maart
    7. EU consumentenvertrouwen april (voorlopig)
  2. 23 april

    1. Japan samengestelde inkoopmanagersindex april
    2. Novartis Q1-cijfers
    3. Renault Q1-cijfers
de volitaliteit verwacht indicator betekend: Market moving event/hoge(re) volatiliteit verwacht