He works for NASA.... and?Just read that entire paper Wobs
Ryan Mackey...he works for NASA, was on his way to a meeting at Boeing on 9/11. I expect nothing else from that kind of man who's also quoting/citing Christopher Hitchens and that utter **** Charlie Veitch. Working for the government and a huge corporation? That big old revolving door spinning fast, he must have been assigned the position of chief "debunker"?
So I'm sure you'll have no bother showing how wrong anything it asserts is, along with evidence to back up your claims.I'm not sure what kind of paper this was, who it was for etc but if it was supposed to be formal it's a disgrace, and utterly insulting to anyone who doesn't believe everything they are told, full of his own personal insults and anger. It was nothing more than a bitter diatribe aimed at anyone who doesn't toe the officially line over what did happen, and his stance is no better than a die-hard "twoofer"
Why include it? Its hardly a big conspiracy in terms of popularity compared with many other CTs. He simply used a sample of different theories to compare 9/11 with.Why did he omit 7/7 from his bogus statistical analysis?
So you admit that there was no need for any kind of CD. Well done.(I'm sure that flying 2 planes into these towers would have been more than enough of a reason for the wars we saw, could have put out the fires and patched them up nicely?
But I still don't believe the science that says why they "collapsed" the way they did, and especially not WTC7....)
LOL.What I did find very interesting within the paper was this:
"Experts consistently claim that 70% or more of face-to-face communication is not contained in the
words themselves. Over the Internet, most communication is typed, and the written word seems
inherently more formal. It also has an obvious flattening effect on discussion, by which I mean things
like sarcasm, figures of speech, analogies, and simple mistakes are either lost or misinterpreted with
distressing frequency. The closest typical Internet analogue to a group discussion is the discussion
forum, but even here discussions often become lectures, and disagreements tend toward debates. We
simply react to written communication differently"
This is very true of course, and why so much meaning gets lost etc, and why the likes of Joe-90 ends up getting a hard time!!!(I'll be next...!)
There are no energy weapons (space based or otherwise) that can do such things.
But the collapse of WTC1&2&7 did occur according to well known principles connected with fire. There are plenty of photos showing deformation prior to collapse, of floors within the two towers in a state of collapse prior to the main collapse(s)
and WTC7 was well predicted.
Non-existant technology really have a hard time of it don't they. There they are, busy not existing, when some twoofer comes along and wraps a whole theory around them without even saying please.
There are no energy weapons (space based or otherwise) that can do such things.
Standard nameThe term "twoofer" is pretty childish lets face it, down to name calling at the playground level.
Her own website is mostly from 2005-2006, with a bit in 2007. She is simply recycling her own ideas.You claim that there has been no new evidence brought to the table since 2006? I thought that Andrew Johnson and Judy Woods were doing exactly that.
No. Video online is something I am seldom able to watch.Have you watched the recent programmes I linked to?
No, she is crazy, and to say she cherry picks and twists information such as interpretting photos to suit her needs is an understatement. While we can laugh at people for a while owing to their determination to make a fool of themselves in public, these people make the wolrd a worse place. Pseudo-science benefits no one other than those few who profit from it.She wants nothing to do with CD assumptions and guesswork, and I'd say that she is probably far more qualified than either you or I to do the analysis from what restricted records/evidence there is to work with.
ProjectionTo dismiss DFEW's outright harks back to flat earth mentality
I already have in the other thread (page 14 and 16 of the thread)I seriously would like to see them, if you have any links or stuff please put them up- but this doesn't explain the pathetic seismic record of these two colossal buildings collapsing, and the non existant one from building 7.
The BBC made a mistake in a breaking news story. Not the first and not the last time it has/will happen.and WTC7 was well predicted.
Yes, everyone knew that was coming down, it was so obvious really with a couple of wee fires smouldering away, the BBC even knew it was down before it dropped....
Burnt out vehicles? Who'd of thought? I bet you're wondering where that source of fire came from huh? And several blocks away? The debris field was wide (it was an uncontrolled collapse afterall), but also, there were many vehicles moved after the event to help clear the area of debris.So what of these burned out car parks several blocks away, cars with their engine bays obliterated that could not have possibly been burned in a conventional way by what was going down in the WTC complex? (radiation/conduction/convection?)
Not acceptable, Like I've said before this was not in the heat of the WTC 1+2 incidents, a good 7 hrs later.The BBC made a mistake in a breaking news story. Not the first and not the last time it has/will happen.
There has to come a time when you need to step back and realise that the official 9/11(and 7/7) account is crammed full of lies..
Why don't you ask the people who actually recorded the seismic records for their take on it?
So, like the CCTV footage(or lack of it) no one will release it in raw format for analysis?!?Although these data(WTC) seem to be corrupted by unknown filters and a complicit Lamont-Doherty(Columbia University) will not release the raw data, a seismic reading similar to the Seattle Kingdome would be impossible if the twin towers were destroyed by conventional means (bottom up) because much greater weight would have slammed into a much smaller chunk of land and therefore would have shaken the ground far more than the Kingdome did. Each tower’s collapse should have registered at least four on the Richter scale given two orders of magnitude difference between the twin towers and Kingdome dimensions. The apparent fact that the Richter reading peaked at 2.3 and the disturbance lasted only 8 seconds indicates an extraordinary high-energy weapon was used top-down to preserve the bathtub(structure to keep out the Hudson River below the WTC complex) and surrounding structures. And where are the data from the other recording stations shown (in Figure 35)? Are they being withheld?
Well 'ull isn't the best place for t'internet (and not the cheapest!), but that's another story. Like I said I seldom have access to online video (for a variety of reasons). However, I got to see a bit last night. From memory, she mentioned that the end of the wings are quite thin, and would have not been able to penentrate the steel structure. This has an element of truth in it, but what was dishonest was that she then showed a picture of the hole made by the plane and give the impression that the whole of the plane penetrated the steel. This large picture clearly showes that this is not the case (note the right hand side), and she also fails to mention that the building was clad in aluminium, which was of course damaged by the wing tips. Look at the image below and you'll see she is wrong:Why don't you watch the programmes, then we can continue this endless(like the War on Terror!) debate? I've read all your links at least do the same!(does 'ull have broadband yet?!!?)
The only car park image I have is from her own website. There are a few cars that are close together that are burnt, but the rest are covered in dust. The fire could have come from jet fuel as it continued out the other side of the tower and down, or a building collapse could have spread flying burning debris in that area. Without more info its difficult to say either way, but there is certainly nothing suspicious about it.The burnt out cars I refer to were in car parks and the whole area was scorched, wasn't them placing burnt out wrecks there for convenience, and they were several blocks well away from the WTC complex and any debris fields.
What a suprise. The fact that it was a raging fire, and the trusses were seen to be failing, and even the police pilot noted deformation of the outer structure makes no difference to your view on this.Those photos you claim showing the sag/deformation of the trusses are nonsense with regards to proving the towers pancaked- there's still no way a tower that high could collapse in that ridiculously short time with the "pancake" effect, and leave so little behind.
It was a breaking news story, and the BBC has a reputation for being bad at them. Nothing new.Not acceptable, Like I've said before this was not in the heat of the WTC 1+2 incidents, a good 7 hrs later.The BBC made a mistake in a breaking news story. Not the first and not the last time it has/will happen.
I'm glad you mentioned 7/7 in that context, as they did make a huge gaff on that day. Hours after the explosions were went off, they were still saying it was a power surge on the undergound, even though other news sources were reporting it as a bomb.I mean, what would you be saying if some BBC robot reading an autocue on 7/7 had announced a bomb going off on the bus at Tavistock Square 20 mins before it actually did...?(no, let me get it, you'd wait for the official investigation to conclude and believe whatever was in it 100% because you're a good citizen, god bless the Queen and all that... )
Still waiting for any evidence for anything you say is true.There has to come a time when you need to step back and realise that the official 9/11(and 7/7) account is crammed full of lies. With 9/11, take a bigger look at the geo-politics and precedents for decades before and you'll be able to join the dots easily enough.
Doesn't mean you're crackers to do this, just that bit wiser than the average drones in our society I reckon.