This thread has been edited for disparaging other members.
Kindly direct comments at the Topic, not at each other.

soufie
Site Moderator

You know as well as I do that you lifted this quote from an article promoting Farmer's book. I was there and I remember your post, so please do not misrepresent what I said any further-it is dishonest. The quotes were merged to provide controversial copy for the back cover. It is a common sales technique where hyperbole is generated by merging quotes to create copy that entices the target audience to buy it. Have you read Farmer's book yet? If so, could you please place the merged quotes in context, for they are obviously not in their original state. I've asked this in three threads and you fail to even acknowledge the question, let alone attempt to answer it.




Well, I'm not sorry I'm not American as I live in a fantastic country with a high standard of living, an excellent education system and wide access to various media. The poll doesn't reflect popular opinion in that it is limited to those that frequent a CT site.



I see this little snippet of ad hominem wasn't edited by the mod. I call Bullsh*t on that as I have presented considerably more source material on 9/11 while on this site, than any truther ever could, so save the insults. Your poll is not evidence, as it is a logical fallacy, as I pointed out on page one, and I choose to ignore it as it is irrelevant as a result of the flawed logic and its obvious target audience, and that is an educated opinion. If you choose to dismiss it, I would not be surprised.



I could care less about you either, but this does not prove you know public opinion and the rest of this quote is just unsubstantiated speculation on your part. Congratulations, btw, your spelling has improved incredibly.

so,all non-Americans are Idiots then?
Will you kindly tell us then what happened,including all the Technology behind it!
I simply can't take a Lawyer's babble on technical matters!
Farmer might be a good Lawyer,but he definitely is making for a lousy Engineer!
And the constant use of CT-Sites doesn't increase the Credibility of the Truthers either!
Besides,I thought you called this Discussion closed!
How come you reopened it again?
Teenzy Weenzy doubt after all?

How about we take a poll with Boeing engineers and structural engineers and see what percent think it's an inside job?

TWO STRUCTURAL EXPERTS TESTIFY THAT 911 TWIN TOWERS WERE BLOWN UP
This man was fired for asking questions about the official scientific computer simulated evidence for 9-11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PZghnS3n3E

yep,that's why they collapsed from the Top Down!

What makes you think they collapsed from the top down? Once the structure below the "top" gave way, yes, the rest of it had to come down.

watch your Videos!
Or are we going to go through the same tired CT-Stuff for the nth-Time again!
You really can warm up Potluck so many times you know!

Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)
by Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf

never happened!

MATHEMATICS OF 9/11: THE LAWS OF PHYSICS PROVES IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB
9/11 Research: Robert Podolski (Physicist, Engineer) – Doesn’t Believe the NIST Collapse Theory….As a matter of fact, he says it’s mathematically impossible!

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/45487

MIT physicist/engineer Jeff King gives his thorough analysis of the WTC collapses on 9/11 and concludes that explosive controlled demolition is the only scientifically explainable hypothesis.

Free-Falling Bodies
Simple Physics Reveals The Big Lie
The “Collapse” Theory Fails Reality Check
You can also check out this article for more proof that the twin towers were imploded from the inside: It’s official, 9/11 was a government controlled operation


******

9/11 Pseudo-Science: A US Foreign Policy Built on Fraud


http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/10/911-pseudo-science-a-us-foreign-policy-built-on-fraud/


The official explanation from The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on how WTC 7 fell states that fires alone brought down this building.[1] Now, in science, all explanations must be backed up with valid scientific observations. These observations can be readily observable facts or the results of verified and replicated experiments. If there are no supporting observations for an explanation, that explanation is based purely on faith, not science. Attempting to portray such pseudo-science as science is fraud.

To support the official hypothesis that fire brought down WTC 7, NIST spent $22 million to develop a computer model they hoped would model the collapse and support their hypothesis. In fact, this computer model is the sole piece of evidence they have to support their hypothesis. Computer modelling is a valid form of scientific experiment provided that the simulation replicates the actual event it is supposed to model and the simulation can be independently verified.[2] If, however, you create a computer simulation of a phenomenon in order to explain something about that phenomena but your model looks little like what you are supposed to be modelling, you have a big problem. Your model is not reproducing reality and therefore any additional information the model uncovers cannot reliably be attributed to the actual phenomena.

Consider the following example. Suppose a computer model of a plane crash is constructed that shows the plane flying straight down instead of corkscrewing as it did in reality. Because this model does not model an important characteristic of the event, the model constitutes a failed or non-replicated experiment, and thus any other information gleaned from the model would not constitute valid scientific evidence to support an explanation as to how that plane actually fell.

Likewise, NIST’s WTC 7 model shows a longer fall time, no eight-story period of free fall, and massive deformations that are not seen in the actual video footage of the WTC 7 fall.[3] So NIST’s model does not replicate reality and is therefore not a valid scientific experiment. Because the model is not a valid experiment, none of its results count as supporting evidence. So NIST, contrary to their pronouncements, has no scientific evidence at all to support their hypothesis as to how WTC 7 came down. Claiming to have scientific supporting evidence when none actually exists is misrepresentation. It is outright fraud.

To make matters worse, the data their WTC 7 computer model is based on is unavailable to independent researchers. It is unavailable because NIST refuses to release it. NIST has stated that releasing the data “might jeopardize public safety”.[4] The NIST experiment therefore cannot be independently verified or validated. So NIST’s only evidence for their hypothesis, their computer model, violates both scientific principles for computer modelling and is therefore scientifically irrelevant. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the official hypothesis for WTC 7′s fall.

For the Twin Towers, NIST’s entire analysis is strangely limited only to collapse initiation.[5] So for WTC 1 and WTC 2, they did not even attempt to provide any evidence at all that the collapses were due to fire. Even if their evidence for collapse initiation was valid, they have absolutely no scientific evidence that those initial events led to global collapse of the buildings. Any pompous pseudo-skeptics who claim that the NIST report contains evidence that fire brought down the towers then commit the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc logical fallacy.[6] This argument states that simply because one event preceded the other, the first event caused the second event. You can’t say a preceding event caused another event unless you rule out all other possible factors that might have caused the event. NIST’s hypothesis that fire brought the twin towers down then is also based wholly on faith and illogic, not science.

Is there evidence that supports an alternative hypothesis to the official story of the WTC falls? There is actually considerable evidence supporting the hypothesis that all three buildings came down due to controlled demolition. All we need, though, is one piece of evidence to best the official story. The rapid fall times of all three buildings currently are only explainable by the use of some form of controlled demolition. As noted above, there is absolutely no evidence available that fire alone can cause the near-simultaneous damage required to cause such rapid falls. The largely symmetrical descents are also currently only explainable by controlled demolition. No valid experiments have ever been conducted to show that buildings can fall due to the effects of such office fires while exhibiting such rapid symmetrical descents. The entire history of observations resulting from controlled demolition of large buildings however, supports the idea that the WTC buildings could have come down by controlled demolition.

NIST and every large mainstream self-proclaimed “skeptic” organization, including The James Randi Foundation,[7] Skeptic Magazine,[8] Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, CSICOP[9] and CFI[10] unquestioningly support the official 9/11 story. This support includes support for the official story of the WTC 7 fall and the fall of the Twin Towers. When “skeptic” organizations, organizations claiming to support science and critical thinking, support an explanation, it implies that they regard this explanation as valid and science-based. However, as shown above, the official story of all three building falls in fact has no scientific evidence whatsoever to support it. When organizations claiming to support science and critical thinking reject outright the only available scientific explanation and instead champion a wholly unscientific explanation supported only by bad science, they are guilty of gross misrepresentation. They are guilty of fraud.

...the official story of all three building falls in fact has no scientific evidence whatsoever to support it. When organizations claiming to support science and critical thinking reject outright the only available scientific explanation and instead champion a wholly unscientific explanation supported only by bad science, they are guilty of gross misrepresentation. They are guilty of fraud.

yep,by about 600'000pounds of Explosives each!
Good luck placing them without being observed!
Doubt if you have any Idea what it entails to place 300tons of Cutting-Charges without making an unholy mess!
Your good Perfesser is sorely mistaken,or has taken money from the wrong side!
You all keep on repeating those same old Debunked CTs ad infinitum!
Bring on something new for Pete's sage,like a Space-Weapon or maybe a Tesla-Deathray or something,because those othe¨r Conspiracy-Theories just don't and can't cut the Mustard

Having control of the Security company for many weeks before the event, there was plenty of time and easy means to place the explosives.

I can see,you have never been in a Structure slated to be taken down by Explosives!

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne]

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."



The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. [NY Newsday]

2+2=15!!