Degrees and phd´s usually never mean a thing its experince and reading and studying

I think you'll find that the talented and highly qualified scientists and engineers do plenty of reading and studying. It's their field; they know what they are talking about. The talented and highly qualified structural engineers do this for a living, the 9/11 CT guys are torn to bits by the experts.

What really blew your cover Martin(not having done any research)is that you mentioned money and profit

Alex Jones makes no money,

Everything goes back into the company

You should do a search, we have discussed this on the forum numerous times, and posted numerous links exposing the stupidity of the theories.

If Magic and I have to do it all again we’ll go nuts.

I like it Pointy, I can sense a whole new novel on the horizon.

The RomKan empire, yes, after decades of slavery by their reptilian oppressors, they are finally set free. The servants, lowly thralls, become the masters.

I'll get started straight away.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=2 -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/ -  

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4278874.html -  

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Civil_Engineers - of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Architects - Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Mechanical_Engineers - of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE - of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Chemical_Engineers - of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Aeronautics_and_Astronautics - of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?

So, Icke adopts your new world order nonsense and you suddenly ignore the shape shifting rubbish that you admit there was no evidence for, and now believe all he says, despite his previous duplicity.

Very logical.

I dont want to change minds, i want minds to change them selves and stop being so damn gullble through government owned media. I was prepared for denial and aggression when I posted the first post, but man you english have really been conditioned! I like you all, but wake up and smell the coffee!

We haven’t been conditioned at all, we are intelligent free thinking individuals that aren't prepared to label ALL experts in structural engineering as 'got at' or 'intimidated' by the government. We are also capable of looking at the known facts, including the official explanation, and deciding for our selves if that interpretation is logical and feasible.

We are also capable of looking at the CT theories and deciding for ourselves if it is plausible or not.

Now, please answer Richards’s post, the one you avoided. Here it is again...

Exactly, why destroy the financial capital of your country and kill thousands of your own citizens just to start a war that could have been done so far far far far far far far far easier and just as effectively just by faking an attack on a foreign embassy or military installation or even planting WMDs. Occam's razor seems to be a concept that CT nuts have to work very hard to circumvent.

Yes I have countered their facts in several posts above.

No you haven't!

Post each one from the site with your counter argument.

I really dont see what his shapeshifting theories have to do with 9/11?

As clearly explained above... You now believe his new world order nonsense despite his previous duplicity in regard to his 'the queen is a shape shifter nonsense.

You are prepared to believe the words of a known con man who made such ridiculous claims. That clearly demonstrates your lack of logic and the ease in which believe despite exaggerated and nonsensical claims.

Icke also claimed he was Jesus reborn once, and this is the man you believe.

Now please answer Richards post...

Exactly, why destroy the financial capital of your country and kill thousands of your own citizens just to start a war that could have been done so far far far far far far far far easier and just as effectively just by faking an attack on a foreign embassy or military installation or even planting WMDs. Occam's razor seems to be a concept that CT nuts have to work very hard to circumvent.

All their facts have already been disproven I am not going to spend 4-5 hours reading what they say is proof. You already know that i wont do that.

Then how can we counter your ideas? Likewise you don't expect us to sort through the internet plucking out 9/11 CT's and countering them do you? So where do we go from here? Absolutely nowhere, how can we debate if you won't post your specific disagreements with the official account.

There is no way that 3 skysrubbishers designed to withstand multiple hits by large passanger aircraft would fall into their own footprint at freefall speed due to minimal fires from jetfuel, one of wich was not even hit by a plane.

Here you go, it was actually 15.28 for the South Tower. 22.02 for the North. 9 seconds is garbage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=related -  

I can see why you don't want to post your arguments specifically.

But how can you explain the domes on the bottom of the aircraft that were clearly explosives strapped to it??!!

Yeah Ive seen his debunking vids before, nice try but none of them prove anything.

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground. Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns. Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

The idiocy of the Thermite theory.

 

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm - http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

 

The sound of a skysrubbisher falling will make a lot of noise for more than 9 seconds.

You really have a thing for Icke.

You admire him not me.

I dont care if he wares ladies underware or eats children.

Exactly, and you trust his words despite the fact he fed the idiots in society with stories about shape shifting reptiles and told everyone he was Jesus.

Why do you think he did that? It wasn't for fun, it was to con people. And you openly admit that you believe the words of a con man in regard to the new world order. If he lied about shape shifting aliens and about being Jesus, doesn’t your common sense tell you that there's a very good chance he's lying about the new world order.

I just think its great that he has moved on from being jesus and writing about reptiles to more serious issues.

you're not reading the links I'm giving you are you?

When and where did I say anything about beliving him?
 Putting words in other peoples mouth is really
unnecessary and low. I dont know your real age but thats not very mature behaviour man

Sorry MAN, are you saying his definition of the new world order is not yours? If it is, and as you said above you 'love Mr Icke and his theories', then what does that say about your choice of individuals to admire? Do you believe what he says about the new world order?

When and where did I say anything about beliving him?

Kamakazi, you said "And that they designed them to withstand 707´s, multiple hits infact"

Thanks

How exactly did they rig the buildings without anyone noticing...?

Cop this lot nut cases!

 

I find this very irritating that I have to cut and paste from the links I gave you. If you had read them I wouldn’t have to bother.

 

* Why has there never been an indipendant investigation of 9/11? Only a government funded one on a shoestring budget? The greatest crime in US history got app. 3 million dollars

 

Why would they need one? The vast majority of sane individuals can understand the logic of the official report. Only you and your conspiracy fanatics claim it was the greatest crime in US history.

 

The purpose of the official report was to investigate the cause, and recommend improvements [if required] so that such an eventuality resulted in less loss of life in the future, NOT to pander to conspiracy theory not cases. Why would they spend millions of tax payer’s money when logic says it all?

 

If you had listen to the audio link I gave you, you would also have heard how improvements to the structure of future buildings have been recommended, and how the point was made that it was impossible to fully protect such a building from such a high energy impact.

 

* Why was the crime scene whisked away without any investigation?

 

Proof? Links? Not hearsay and speculation.

 

* Why did the vice president gain complete control over NORAD a month before the attacks?

 

Proof? Links? Not hearsay and speculation.

 

* Why is there just a tiny hole in the pentagon where a 757 crashed in to it and no debrie      from a 757 visible on the lawn or in the impact hole. And no bodies.

 

If you expect bodies after such a massive impact and such huge kinetic energy you are insane.

 

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6## - Computer simulations confirmed the findings. Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

*It is standard practice since the 50´s to intercept and then shot down aircraft who do not respond and who invade restricted airspace. No aircraft intercepted any of the planes on 9/11. not even after the first tower was hit.

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3## - computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes. Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.   *It is standard practice since the 50´s to intercept and then shot down aircraft     FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3## - monitor airspace over the continent.

* Why did building 7 collapse from minimal controlable fires?

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time." WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

* Why does Larry silverstein  say that they decided to demolish building 7 when such a demolishon takes weeks to prepare?

A quick dirty demolition in an emergency is easy. On the other hand done in accordance with proper procedure it takes time, there was no time.

Likewise, to prepare the twin towers for controlled demolition would have taken a very long time, while people were still using the building. Miles of det cable would have to be laid an a multitude of workers would have to be on site. Don’t you think someone would have noticed?

* Why did dozens of experienced firefighters, police and others claim to have heard loud explosions right before and during the collpses of the towers?

They were the windows blowing out due to the massive compression inside the building. beams snapping etc, etc. Take a look at a real demolition and you can see the diferance.

* How could these hijackers fly real passanger aircraft when they could hardly master a cessna and had never even been in a 757/767 cockpit?

Easily! They had some flight training and any idiot can switch off an autopilot and point the aircraft at a building. I’ve just got my daughter to do it in the sim, and she has zero experience. Just as easy in real life, requires no training at all. You should know that if you are a flight sim fan.

* Why is Osama bin laden not a suspect for the attacks according to the FBI and CIA when he is the posterchild behind the attacks in the mainstream media?

* Why were both towers pulverized with no recognizable structures left at all if they simply collapsed due to structural failure. What are the odds that three skysrubbishers for the first time in history collapse due to fire and all three fall in to their own foot print without toppling over at all like any other building?

Of course they would be pulverised falling from such height, with such mass, the energy involved is terrific.  It has already been explained to you why they fell as they did. You obviously can’t grasp it. And NO it was not the first time a building has fallen this way as a result of fire.

·          And most importantly of all questions imo, On 9/11 AND 7/7 the intelligence comunity and military held exercises involving the exact same locations, the same scenarios at the same time. According to software used by incurance companies the likelyhood of all these paramaters coinsiding are something like a billion to 1.

Proof? Links? Not biased sources like your CT web sites.