University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No it shows I don't appreciate fools

No, I'd say it shows you're are just another extremely ill-mannered poster of which there are quite a few on this forum. And just who are you to decide who the "fools" are?

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No it shows I don't appreciate fools

No one can tell that based on your words though. How about sticking to the topic for a change? Or don't post at all!

First and only Reminder.

Proceed with Caution:


Concerning The 9/11 Conspiracies Forum on AboveTopSecret.com - UPDATED!IMPORTANT: STRICT RULES

Within the 9/11 Conspiracies forum, the Terms and Conditions will be strictly enforced, along with the following additions:

Name Calling: Tossing around indiscriminate name calling such as "OSer," "Shill," "Troll," "Truther," and all the other related nonsense will not be tolerated. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Personal Attacks: Taking focus off the subject matter and toward each other will not be tolerated in any form. You will experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Thread Derailment: Posting of any irreverent or ridiculous information that disrupts the flow of productive discussion will not be tolerated. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Trolling: The repeated posting of content that supports any specific position, without interacting with members regarding that position will be considered Trolling in the 9/11 Forum. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

NM

a reply to: samkent

There are only a small handful of people with expertise that are saying conspiracy. Compared with the hundreds of thousands of experts around the world who believe the OS.

Oh great. Why don't you show us a link to a list of experts who agree with the OS? Like the links I showed.

Crickets chirping.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


I have said MANY times on here UNLIKE most of the truthers on here I have worked in the construction industry for 30+ years starting in the design/drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company so when the armchair experts pipe up with their FLAWED understanding of how things work it gives me a good

I have worked on everything from one off houses/bridge projects/ structures in chemical/nuclear plants/multi storey office/apartment buildings even hydro electric schemes. I have spent many a day on the side or roof of a building hundreds of feet up discussing technical applications with site agents/architects/engineers.

I don't have to repeat parrot fashion something I have read on another conspiracy site or what some youtube IDIOT thinks happened.

Unlike these people I have had access to REAL technical information not flawed claims watching low res consumer video footage.

a reply to: Doctor Smith


Well may be if we ever meet you can ask me one of your technical questions.

Some of US do









Others pretend they know what they are talking about that's YOU!

a reply to: wmd_2008

I don't see any skyscrapers in your pictures. The second from the bottom looks like the steel is bolted into bricks and could collapse if any significant weight is supported by it.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Cant identify STONEWORK from brick and of course steelwork is designed to support expected load. Thats supports under a road there was 10 supports on each side.

The second picture thats a support platform on a bridge some of which were over a 140 feet above a river and designed to work in the cracked concrete zone of the structure.

Your nieve assumptions show YOU dont have a clue about construction.

Can't expect much from a person that doesn't understand why a symmetric building built to maximize space wouldn't fall like a solid asymmetric tree cut at the trunk.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Cant identify STONEWORK from brick

and of course steelwork is designed to support expected load. Thats supports under a road there was 10 supports on each side.

The second picture thats a support platform on a bridge some of which were over a 140 feet above a river and designed to work in the cracked concrete zone of the structure.

Your nieve assumptions show YOU dont have a clue about construction.

Even if it is stone instead of brick who cares? Depending on the type of stone it's probably stronger than brick but still the weak link. Not a large steel frame building so it's irrelevant.

Here's something that you two might be able learn from little grass hoppers.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

You really need to stop with the pseudoscience of youtube. Sorry 911 conspiracists have polluted and overpopulated the internet seeking fame by pushing their lies and making it hard to find academic research. MIT and other universities/ organizations have scientifically back fire causing the building collapses. Yet, it's never mentioned.

Debunk this. The government was in on it with the UFOs. Which government? Back story, the UFOs need the help of the government to find a lost Stargate in the Middle East. The UFOs brainwashed the pilots and programmed them to fly. To hide the use of alien technology, a nuclear desentigration device using accelerated fission decay, dimensional radiation transference was used to make the steel plastic deform to make it look like a fire. Why no trace of radiation. A third alien device was added to WTC 7 because the building was ugly. After the fact, the government/UFOs realized to their disbelief, the average person didn't understand critical temperature of steel. To covere up the alien devices, the government started using explosive / free fall disinformationalists to dumb down the collapse to the lie the public would believe.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

The point is, conspiracists can creste narratives faster than they can be debunked.

And you didn't debunk the alien "nuclear desentigration device using accelerated fission decay, dimensional radiation transference was used to make the steel plastic deform to make it look like a fire".

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Let's see. Explosives debunked, then thermite. Thermite debunked, then nukes. Nukes debunked, then missiles. Missiles debunked, then lasers. Lasers debunked, then energy waves. Like I stated. Strange the conspiracists narratives are gravitating to some form of energy weakened the WTC structures?

a reply to: neutronflux

The debunking you mention was long ago debunked. There is no evidence to support the official story. The 911 Commission was a joke and everybody knew it, they talked about it in public. Some of us were paying attention, and some were not. The coverup is blatant, involving all branches of government.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

ARCHITECTS Don't do structural calculations neither do chemical or mechanical engineers or many orhers that ae 911 for the thruth members.

If fact architects are structural engineers best customers something you would know if you are in the trade.

originally posted by: Salander
There is no evidence to support the official story.

The official Story states 4 planes were hijacked, one hit the Pentagon, 2 hit WTC 1 & 2 and the 4th one crashed. The damage and unchecked fires to WTC 1 & 2 resulted in their collapse, and when they collapsed they severely damaged or destroyed several other buildings.

So you claim there is no evidence for the planes being hijacked, no evidence for planes hitting WTC 1 & 2, no evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon and no evidence for one crashing...

a reply to: hellobruce

No Bruce.

I'm saying there is no proof the airliners were hijacked.

I'm saying there was no airliner in Pennsylvania or at the Pentagon, and that the airplane that struck the North Tower is an unknown, and that the airplane that struck the South Tower was not UA175, but some sort of drone.