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

a reply to: Salander

Were is your proof.

a reply to: Salander

No airliner struck the WTC .....??

sites.google.com...

Slat control unit from Boeing 767

Fuselage piece from American 11

sites.google.com...

Can see other pieces of Aircraft recovered from WTC that day

sites.google.com...

I suppose you will just hand wave anything which does not meet you fantasy ........

a reply to: firerescue

At least one Boeing struck the towers mate, but it wasn't an airliner carrying passengers, it wasn't UA175.

originally posted by: Salander
it wasn't UA175.

How do you explain the DNA and remains from passengers on that flight that were recovered at the WTC? or do you just ignore it as you know it destroys your silly conspiracy theory!

a reply to: hellobruce

Why won't you DOCUMENT the DNA and remains from pax on that flight that were recovered at WTC?

Probably because you cannot.

If that DNA and remains from pax were discovered by Bernie Kerik, the same crook that "discovered" the passport belonging to Atta, that would make it just as bogus.

originally posted by: Salander
Why won't you DOCUMENT the DNA and remains from pax on that flight that were recovered at WTC?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.carabinieri.it...
dna-view.com...
www.forensicmag.com...
www.promega.com...
www.ncjrs.gov...
grantome.com...
science.sciencemag.org...
www.hartnell.edu...
books.google.com.au... d=0ahUKEwjt2M-T--PNAhVHG5QKHZPLAOU4ChDoAQheMAk#v=onepage&q=wtc%20dna&f=false

a reply to: Salander


Well, first off it was Satam Al Suqami's passport. And second, it was found by a civilian in the street among other debris from the airliner.

a reply to: hellobruce

I went to 6 of your links. They all described procedures and methodology for DNA sample matching. The only airliner mentioned was Swissair 111.

You have not provided any documentation connecting the supposed passengers of UA175 or AA11 with any of the DNA samples collected, and I'm not surprised because it was not UA175 or AA11 that struck the towers.

From hand-written notes from an article I read years ago from the NYC Coroner's Office, it seems that 19906 human remains were recovered. Of that, 293 intact bodies were found. Of the 19906 recovered, 1401 people were identified, 673 by DNA alone.

200 of those samples belonged to the same person, meaning that one individual was blown into 200 different pieces.

The story did not mention anything about airline passengers, and you have not proved that airline passengers were specifically identified.

a reply to: wmd_2008

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

I said I worked for an Aerospace company on aircraft instruments. Are you trying to say I don't? How much money would you like to put on it that I lied?

I think I prefer listening to Richard Gage's organization of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing facts about the complete destruction of all three World Trade Center high-rises on September 11, 2001.

The Evidence

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: hellobruce

I went to 6 of your links. They all described procedures and methodology for DNA sample matching. The only airliner mentioned was Swissair 111.

You have not provided any documentation connecting the supposed passengers of UA175 or AA11 with any of the DNA samples collected, and I'm not surprised because it was not UA175 or AA11 that struck the towers.

From hand-written notes from an article I read years ago from the NYC Coroner's Office, it seems that 19906 human remains were recovered. Of that, 293 intact bodies were found. Of the 19906 recovered, 1401 people were identified, 673 by DNA alone.



200 of those samples belonged to the same person, meaning that one individual was blown into 200 different pieces.

The story did not mention anything about airline passengers, and you have not proved that airline passengers were specifically identified.

At least he tried to put up some DNA evidence this time. LOL. I guess he was hoping you woudn't bother to click on the links to see he really has nothing.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

What are these articles about?
www.express.co.uk...

mobile.nytimes.com...

www.toledoblade.com...



en.m.wikipedia.org...



en.m.wikipedia.org...



sites.google.com...

originally posted by: Doctor Smith


I said I worked for an Aerospace company on aircraft instruments. Are you trying to say I don't? How much money would you like to put on it that I lied?

I think I prefer listening to Richard Gage's organization of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing facts about the complete destruction of all three World Trade Center high-rises on September 11, 2001.

The Evidence

CONFIRMED YOU NO NOTHING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION yes or no

a reply to: wmd_2008

I don't assemble structures for a living. Almost every male in my family have built houses though. My brother in law owns a construction company. So I can't say I know nothing about construction. I'm not not interested in that type of work.

I've taken and aced and applied subjects like physics, math, electronics, pneumatics, hydraulics, mechanical, electrical fundamentals etc etc. So I have a good idea what loads a building could take.

Do you forge all the steel you use? D you know what that takes? All the pieces you assemble into a building you made right? Oh. You only assemble it.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Funny you never used the words engineering, metallurgy, structural, destructive / none destructive testing, stress / strain, building codes, drafting / technical drawings, ground preparation, fasteners / bolting, demolition / pyrotechnics, concrete / masinory, chemical fires, structure fires, welding, structural failure, scientific method, forensic science / evidence collection, production / building / fabrication experience...............

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: wmd_2008

I don't assemble structures for a living. Almost every male in my family have built houses though. My brother in law owns a construction company. So I can't say I know nothing about construction. I'm not not interested in that type of work.

I've taken and aced and applied subjects like physics, math, electronics, pneumatics, hydraulics, mechanical, electrical fundamentals etc etc. So I have a good idea what loads a building could take.

Do you forge all the steel you use? D you know what that takes? All the pieces you assemble into a building you made right? Oh. You only assemble it.

All my subjects at secondary school were engineering/science based maths, technical drawing then engineering drawing, physics & applied mechanics (more advanced version of physics) then higher physics and engineering science (a more advanced version of higher physics) then working in the drawing/design office for a structural steelwork company and doing a civil engineering course at the same time.

Then I got into technical sales/testing for construction materials (intumescent fire protection products & fixings and other products) tool box talks on site & seminars to architects & engineers.

So YOU'RE correct I DO HAVE a good idea of what a structure can take

a reply to: Doctor Smith

I think I prefer listening to Richard Gage's organization of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods

Look at the bios of those so called experts.
You will change your mind about ae911.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Doctor Smith

I think I prefer listening to Richard Gage's organization of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods

Look at the bios of those so called experts.
You will change your mind about ae911.

Look at the building 7 perfect demo implosion. And you should be able to figure it out. Anyone who believes it was some external damage and fire is in denial. Not right in the head.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Got it. The members of FDNY who stood at the base of WTC 7 and decided that it was going to fall based on the severe damage it suffered are not right in the head.

Here is an idea....go tell those Firemen your ideas. I promise we will send flowers to your hospital room.....

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Aegis tried to get out of paying the claim for WTC 7.
Here is the document that outlines their opinion on fire collapse with building design flaws before a court of law. No proof the owner used controlled demolition. See if you can debunk the modeling of the Aegis case and please tell use why they wouldn't pursue controlled Demo. Especially if it was all the owner's doing for WTC 7?

Document name:
Aegis - Nordenson Expert Report 2.pdf

Link:
www.metabunk.org...

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Doctor Smith

I think I prefer listening to Richard Gage's organization of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods

Look at the bios of those so called experts.

You will change your mind about ae911.

If you look at the bios and records of those who brought us 911, you will quickly realize that you've been deceived by a group practiced at the art of deception. You will quickly realize you have been tricked.