Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:29 pm Post Subject: 911 - Strong evidence from reputable sources
Interesting to read the following article which spells out very simply some glaring anomalies with regards to the 911 incident, many which have been covered several times over on the Internet etc. With the clout of some well respected experts and scholars this information may turn the heads of some die hard patriots.
Quote:
They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 266
Location: Christchurch
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:07 am Post Subject:
carus,
you bet. i remember reading an article by one of the world's leading professors of civil engineering (i believe he was at new mexico university of mining and technology) going into explicit detail about how these buildings could not have possibly fallen in that manner.. and this was just a few days after the trajedy.
one would expect in a "freedom loving democracy" that these experts would be taken seriously and given a pulpit. this was not farther from the reality. he somehow just 'disappeared" the article was pulled from an internet site, and that was that.
Could be a case of safety in numbers for this group. Just in case the web page disappears, here are the main points from the article:
Quote:
Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:
* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?
* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?
* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?
* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?
* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?
Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.
They call themselves "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T) and some of the members names are as follows; Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow.
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 1002
Location: Wellington NZ
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 3:48 pm Post Subject: Do your own 9-11 video analysis
Ive spent hours over the last few years studying videos of the crime. I downloaded most of them P2P.
This link has dozens of clips to download free so you can look over them very carefully. Some videos are revealing of the explosives used to drop the towers.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:54 am Post Subject:
Hi all,
Here's a link to an Mp3 of the excellent lecture BYU Physics Professor Steven E. Jones gave at UVSC on February 1st. It's about a 60 MB file, you can right click an 'save as' to download it or click on it to stream it...
This lecture is very worth-while listening to, these guys (Scholars for 911 Truth) mean business. While you are listening to the lecture, you can also view the slides from the PowerPoint presentation used by Prof Jones
Quote:
Prof. Jones compiled his PowerPoint presentation for educational purposes under the 'fair use' umbrella. In that spirit, I'm providing these for all the people who never got to see this event. There are 73 slides, I'll group them in 10's, and the last set in 13.
Note: This link will take you to the first 10 slides, to view the remainder scroll down the page to comment no 87 and there you will find the links to the other 63.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:51 pm Post Subject:
Hi all,
Below is a link to a Dutch Doco on 911, not the sort of thing they get to see in the US. As evidenced by the previous posts, it's all becoming rather main stream, Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow are not your 'normal' conspiracy theorist... Interesting times ahead. :shock:
Quote:
9/11 Special - Dutch Television Documentary
“Was 9/11 more than just an attack? Could the Bush administration have had anything to gain from the attack? Two prominent European politicians, Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow, express their serious doubts about the official version of the 9/11 story.”
Two former Government Ministers have grave doubts about what Americans call "the war on terrorism"
Michael Meacher - MP - Former UK Government Minister. "The war on terror is bogus"
Andreas Von Bulow, Former German Secretary Of Defense "The official story is so inadequate and far fetched that there must be a different one"
Excellent links posted above. I have just come across a review of the speech given by Dr. Steven Jones as on the MP3 link above, which I have partially listened to so far. This (from Dr Jones) is certainly the most information I have heard to date about the WTC-7 tower. Very detailed and factual information to consider. The review had an interesting summation of the audience:
Quote:
The audience Wednesday night was definitely not the usual suspects of progressive professors and pierced and tattooed activists and students who regularly gather to share criticism of the President, although there were a few of those, too. Mostly, they looked like a cross-section of average middle-Americans. But by the end of the evening, it is no exaggeration to say that most had become political radicals, not of the left and the right, but of the right and the wrong.
