"Nightly between 23rd August and 3rd September 2001, between 3-5am, parking garage cameras filmed 3 or 4 suspicious minivan trucks, this evidence all allegedly captured on CCTV over two weeks."

Why is this statement ambiguous?

If something is recorded on CCTV like a number of minivans, then just count how many there are. Either it is 3, or it is 4 - which is it?

"3 or 4" sounds very vague. Thats the kind of thing you say when you witness something.
But it isn' the kind of thing people say when they can review video tapes.

Also, there is evidence of some suspicious terrorists getting on the planes.
Why isn't any of this information mentioned in the article? It doesn't sounds very un-biased.

9/11 was an inside job.

It's only flip floppers and establishment headed people who can't seem to see with their own two eyes. The official story is a joke, and if that's what you believe, you seriously aren't paying enough attention to the world.

You can name any idea and there will be a small number of people who believe in it.

Even in this day and age, there are people who still believe that the earth is flat.
Visit any mental hospital and you will find people who believe all sorts of things

Anyone who believes in a God and believes in 9/11 being an inside job should be ignored and denied a platform because they are clearly incapable of rational thought and susceptible to leaps of fantasy based on zero facts and wishful thinking because they are unable to cope with reality.

Rational thought is in the majority which is overwhelming in regard to 9/11 NOT being an inside job. Everyone knows it was terrorists. The same brand of terrorists who have done the 10,000s of other terrorist attacks over the years.

"Everyone knows it was terrorists. The same brand of terrorists who have done the 10,000s of other terrorist attacks over the years."

Even the BBC has an article pointing out that most the "terror attacks" in the USA are organised by the state:

"It has become one of the most familiar news stories in the United States - the arrest of a terror suspect, usually a young Muslim man, following a sting operation by the FBI.

Dozens of alleged terrorists have been put behind bars in this way since 9/11, in operations involving FBI agents or informers posing as Islamist extremists.

In some cases, the suspects have been supplied with money, transport and realistic weapons.

Earlier this month, a 29-year-old Moroccan, Amine El Khalifi, was arrested apparently en route to Capitol Hill with what he thought was a suicide bomb and a Mac-10 automatic weapon.

Everyone else involved in the alleged plot to commit mass murder at the heart of the US government appears to have been an FBI agent posing as a member of al-Qaeda."

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17160690

This is the nature of the "War on Terror", no doubt something like it happened on 9/11.

>> Earlier this month, a 29-year-old Moroccan, Amine El Khalifi, was arrested apparently en route to Capitol Hill with what he thought was a suicide bomb and a Mac-10 automatic weapon.
Everyone else involved in the alleged plot to commit mass murder at the heart of the US government appears to have been an FBI agent posing as a member of al-Qaeda."

When I said 10,000s - I meant REAL terrorist attacks where real people died.
Granted, I probably exaggerate the number (see below)

I think you are thinking of honey-trap law-enforcement operations where there isn't actually an attack but rather a motivation to plot an attack (which is ultimately foiled). Its called giving people enough rope to hang themselves as the other poster says.

Ignore the rightwing nature of the site, but it does actually have a very concise record of terrorist attacks by followers of Islam. Pretty easy to spot-check some of them against the news archives to see it is genuine data. 18,518 attacks since 9/11 and counting. Its all there as facts which can be checked against other sources.
 http://thereligionofpeace.com/

please explain to me how the twin towers fell down like that..... it was not because of the aeroplanes, so what was it????
how did the structural supports of the twin towers become sheered so cleanly and precisely?
how come the plane that hit the pentagon disappeared?
please explain to me!

'Anyone who believes in a God and believes in 9/11 being an inside job should be ignored and denied a platform because they are clearly incapable of rational thought and susceptible to leaps of fantasy based on zero facts and wishful thinking because they are unable to cope with reality'

hahaha, relating GOD to 9/11? that's a sly one there...
The fact that a lot of people believe in a mythical being, and the FACT that the majority of people who do research of their own standing, not relying on information just handed to them, believe it was an inside job.

There are countless things which point towards 9/11 being an inside job, wannabe intellectuals like you sound to be, are very good at criticising other people, but severley lack any ability to back up their 'rational thought'. I bet you use the same rational thought when you pay taxes? aha

One of the most prominent things is Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth.

Thousands of architects and engineers saying, wow, hold up....

BUT NO! CONSPIRASEEY FEERIST STUFF.

IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE, DIDN'T READ THAT!, DIDN'T READ THAT!

haha.

rational versus irrational
03.03.2012 21:53
Anyone who believes in a God and believes in 9/11 being an inside job should be ignored and denied a platform because they are clearly incapable of rational thought and susceptible to leaps of fantasy based on zero facts and wishful thinking because they are unable to cope with reality.
Dave



Dave,

Please point to reliable evidence that Al Qaida and Bin Laden had anything to do with 911. I am not taking about unsubstantiated claims by politicians and the media.

Google it yourself lazy. Look at the government sources of information on it.
Any other sources of info on this subject are based on pure heresay.

Apparently Newton's Laws are 'irrational' acording to the pro empire trolling twit.

In their WTC7 pre publcation press conference NIST said that the building fell with a constant velocity and that that was consistent with their model of the collapse

A few months later at the WTC7 report release conference NIST said that the building fell for 2,25 sec with an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s and that this was consistent with their model.

The model hadn't changed.

Yeah that's rational isn't it trolling twit? Constant velocity and gravitational acceleration both consistent with the same model. You believe that shit and you claim rationality, poor deluded troll.

9-11 = False Flag

Boycott Oil

Hey Dave

You're my wife now Dave

So write it up in a scientific paper and get it published. If it is true, then it still stand up to peer review. You'll win a pulitzer if you are right about this.

You've had over a decade to do it. What are you waiting for? Do it now!

Obviously Dave you are an Authoritarian Follower.

I don't need a hierarchic academic system to rubber stamp what I know, there's nothing new here just the basic Laws of Motion.

Newtons Laws are in some ways counter intuitive, but not so difficult to understand, The Laws of the conservation of momentum and energy are more intuitive and a bit easier to understand.

You then do some emipirical measurement to find accelerations velocities, energies etc and you conclude that the demolitions were clearly not driven by gravity alone. In tower one a structure designed to support mg times a factor of safety of 3.8 offered 9% of the expected structural resistance of the design.

Feel free to not think that 9-11 was a false flag, that's fine with me. but saying people are irrational for thinking 9-11 was a false flag is a stupid argument. You think that the government are the only source of reliable information, clearly an irrational and deluded way of thinking especially in the case of WTC7,

So you tell me how a government body NIST which acording to you is the only source of reliable information managed to get a model to be consistent with a both a constant velocity and an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s.

Now when asked by engineers and physicists for the input parameters to their model you know the one that's consistent simultaneously with a 'constant velocity' and an acceleration at g, NIST refused the FOI, now isn't that in the spirit of scientific enquiry?

Now when something like that happens that is when what are supposed to be experts and authorities in their field say that their model is consistent both with a constant velocity and an acceleration at g (BTW in case you don't know acceleration means changing velocity so the two are mutually exclusive you can't have constant velocity with an acceleration, constant velocity means zero acceleration) Well draw your own conclusions, but there is something very stinky about the Science at NIST - In fact the Science of NIST isn't science because their theory cannot be verified or peer reviewed.

So I'd suggest that instead of telling people here what they should be doing and what they are allowed to think acording to the dictats of Dave you get on to NIST and try to get them to explain what you believe in, a model that is consistent simultaneosly with two mutually exclusive conditions.

Now as a rational person I don't believe that the NIST model can be consistent with two mutually exclusive conditions simultaneously. I prefer the U-Tube Science of physics teacher David Chandler. You can verify his results yourself - that's consistent with the Scientific method more so than the work of NIST which isnt science at all. That's government 'scientists' for you locked into an authoritarian hierarchy - they aren't free accademia isn't free it's a top down hierarchy and orders is orders no matter what you think.
.

It always amuses me to see people in the "troofer' movement try to use physics based evidence as 'proof' of their theories when even my second year students are able to correctly identify the flaws in their ideas. I know from a recent NUT conference that other Chemistry and Physics teachers have been using the events of 911 to show pupils how a misunderstanding of science leads to misconceptions and inaccurate views.




I do of course realise that this makes me a (..... insert your nemesis here.......) for most 911 types .

so what do you have to say on Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth?

ae911truth.org/

Smartarse intellectuals like youself need to realize what you're helping cover up. Check out wearechange if your oh so intelectual self hasn't already.

If you're legit, I look forward to a response.

They are wrong

>> Now as a rational person I don't believe that the NIST model can be consistent with two mutually exclusive conditions simultaneously. I prefer the U-Tube Science of physics teacher David Chandler. You can verify his results yourself - that's consistent with the Scientific method more so than the work of NIST which isnt science at all. That's government 'scientists' for you locked into an authoritarian hierarchy - they aren't free accademia isn't free it's a top down hierarchy and orders is orders no matter what you think.


I watched a David Chandler video.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5oQ2mTwa9s

David Chandler's video does some experiments where he shows that the apparent weight of an object changes when it falls. Fair enough. whatever.

However, he then suddenly brings in Newtons second law: Force = Mass X Acceleration.
This is where he completely fucks up --> Weight DOES NOT EQUAL Mass

Mass doesn't change. Apparent weight does. I "weight" approximately 75kg. If i jump off a tall building, my apparent weight will be less (as per his video). At terminal velocity my apparent weight will be 0kg. If i stand on the moon, my weight will be about 12.5kg. However, my "Mass" will always be 75kg. It will never change from 75kg

David Chandler attempts to prove his theory by replacing "weight", where he should of used "mass". Then claiming that the weight is changing, therefore the force is.

Utter bollox. The everyday term weight is confusing and actually unscientific because it is in Kg, which strictly speaking is not true. Weight is a force (Force = Mass * gravity acceleration). Things that are measured in Kg are really a mass.

David has either confused or exploited the everyday term "Weight" being in kilograms
Whereas in scientific terms, weight is in Newtons (a force), and it is Mass that is in Kg.

Since his who hypotheses is based on this flaw, the whole thing falls down after that.

Btw. there is a heck of a lot more that 1,600 architects and scientists in the world.

"Mass doesn't change. Apparent weight does. I "weight" approximately 75kg. If i jump off a tall building, my apparent weight will be less (as per his video). At terminal velocity my apparent weight will be 0kg. If i stand on the moon, my weight will be about 12.5kg. However, my "Mass" will always be 75kg. It will never change from 75kg

David Chandler attempts to prove his theory by replacing "weight", where he should of used "mass". Then claiming that the weight is changing, therefore the force is.

Utter bollox. The everyday term weight is confusing and actually unscientific because it is in Kg, which strictly speaking is not true. Weight is a force (Force = Mass * gravity acceleration). Things that are measured in Kg are really a mass."


Hmmm,

Strictly speaking Mass is energy.

The Mass of an object does not change unless it undergoes conversion or is dissipated. The weight of an object is simply a measure of an objects Mass but only in terms of other forces which act upon it. Measurements of weight are very ambiguous. The weight of an object changes according to where it is and what other forces are in motion around or through it. In absolutist terms, there is no such thing as attributes like weight or force or even velocity. There are only objects with Mass and everything else is a force acting, or not acting upon it.

I have no idea what happened to the building WTC7 but it certainly doesn't look like a building falling down of its own accord. Buildings like that are designed to stay upright...and they are built with the design in mind.

Its unlikely that a building can collapse like this given its design. Its unlikely for there to be a key stage collapse leading to the entire structure failing over such a short period of time.

I don't think it matters much about the science of things like Mass, Force, Velocity or Weight. These units working unaided and without interference completely free of outside intervention would have colluded to bring the building down in a much more natural way than we saw. Left unaided, these forces tend to be much 'messier'.

When you see natural forces behaving in this sort of fashion...it tends to be by unnatural design.

But of course, this is all a nonsense. Its ten years now and no explanation will be found nor any great revisions to the public understanding of it be made. We all know deep down that the politics of empire is of far more interest these days! Carrying on with this has no material benefit nor does it in anyway help with the situation as it now is. The 9/11 movement is now working against the truth and against the various movements as a whole.

Its time to call it a day and pass the baton on to a more qualified generation.

I think it's the level of conditioning the majority of people have been through. Luke rudkowski has ambushed Guiliani, Cheney, Karl Rove & lots more.. watch them scurry away like the rats they are.

If they had nothing to hide they'd deal with the issue there and then, instead of running away, avoiding the question using lawyers tactics, using private security to drag the reporter from the crowd....

Fuck man... open you're fucking eyes.

The twin towers and WTC7 did not come down because of airplanes, I have even seen small children watch footage of it and ask why the buildings fell down! no shit.

Watch Blueprint for truth by Richard Gage, then consider how you feel on it..

youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

"It is not the 9/11 movement which is the problem"

I think it is.

There is after an event like 9/11 a public need to get to the truth of the background to what happened, who was involved, where the resources came from. So the immediate narrative following 9/11 was one in which people were looking for answers. Those answers came from some unlikely sources and in some cases from people who were more lucky than anything else.

And so a narrative developed and like all things in this world, that narrative had the capacity to enter the wider public conscience. Keeping it out of the public conscience has obviously been a serious and high energy pursuit for some.

To explain the events surrounding and leading up to 9/11 you need to go back to the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the politics surrounding the US and Pakistan. Look there and you get the picture of what has happened. If the public were knowledgeable about that then things would be much clearer. But instead, the whole 9/11 'explanation' model has been heavily centered around physics and 'conspiracy theories' of which the 9/11 truth movement has been a big part. The public discourse has been therefore, the politics of the split. You either believe in the conspiracy theory or you don't.

Guess which side the Whitehouse, Downing Street, the megolamaniac media and the soothsayers and columnists have chosen? Guess which side they haven't? In order to qualify a position which is reasonable and logical, you need to create an unreasonable and illogical circus. The 9/11 'truth' movement is that circus.

So the 9/11 truth movement looks like a state run op designed to shephard the public away from a realistic understanding of what went on, how it came about...and who was involved.

9/11 'truth' is a phony and a lot of people have been caught up in it and retarded the public appraisal of this terrible event.

The greatest conspiracy of our time...might yet turn out to be the great fraud that was the global 'conspiracy theory'!

The only thing the 9/11 'truthers' ever got right...was that the US is guilty as hell and author of its own misfortune!

but i bet you haven't watched Blueprint for truth!

If people sit in a room by themselves, and for a couple hours delve into the goings on of 9-11, and get at both sides of the story, see what you think afterwards. If you've done this already and still believe it was terrorists flying a plane, I'd suggest applying for Mcdonalds or the likes..

If you 'just know the conspiracys are bullshit', it actually means you're batting for the new world order. There is a long history of false flag operations.

From FSD HQ>
EMERGENCY PROGRAM OVER-RIDE THIS IS NOT A DRILL
Out break of truth at Indymedia UK - send in anti-truth trolls to contain the out break ASAP.....
Sir yes Sir over and out....


PT->It always amuses me to see people in the "troofer' movement try to use physics based evidence as 'proof' of their theories

Oh does it? - clearly this physics teacher's use of language shows what a bigoted troll twit it is. Anyone that uses a word like 'troofer' is obviously a bigoted authoritarian idiot, at least it makes them easy to spot.

PT->when even my second year students are able to correctly identify the flaws in their ideas.

Oh yeah here we go typical troll 'hand wave' - notice the total lack of any scientific argument here to back what this anti-truth troll has to say. What has the troll to say? Just the usual troll vacuousness. 8 out of ten cats prefer...... even small children get it - the usual Eddy Bernays PR fare.

PT->I know from a recent NUT conference that other Chemistry and Physics teachers have been using the events of 911 to show pupils how a misunderstanding of PT->science leads to misconceptions and inaccurate views.

Mmm condoning lying to students not particularly ethical that is it? What do those teachers say about the NIST model for WTC7 the one that's simultaneously consistent with two mutually exclusive properties?, they believe in that shit do they troll huh?

PT->I do of course realise that this makes me a (..... insert your nemesis here.......) for most 911 types .

Nemisis? what a joker '911 types' WTF do you mean?. Is this the sort of thing you like to do troll? put everyone in their compartment,

Troll to Troll leader
"911 type MIHOP troofer Sir! What do I do Sir?"
Troll leader
"You're gona go out there and lie your ass off for the guvnmunt son them troofers is all terrorists"
Troll
"Sir Yes Sir!"

A sure sign of an authoritarian follower, compartmentalisation. It's the way they cope with cognitive dissonance the moral gap between what they're told to do and their core self.

PT->Physics teacher

Oh aye physics teacher - liar more like, I think you're bluffing flatfoot. Prove you are a Physics Teacher, Chandler has.

PT->me, the overwhelming majority of scientific opinioon [sic]v you
PT->They are wrong

More hand waving, notice not one iota of a scientific argument here just some false claim about "overwhelming majorities" same old, same old trolls. C'mon PT let's see the colour of your science and not this pathetic hand waving with highly dubious claims about 'overwhelming majorities' and pretending to be a physics teacher on an anonymous web site FFS it is quite pathetic.

+++++++++

Idiots->schoolboy error

By who? you?

Idiots->I watched a David Chandler video.
Idiots-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5oQ2mTwa9s

That is not a David Chandler video. What's up trolls are you short staffed at the mo, you all being sacked? No time to actually check who authored the video even less time spent understanding the content, you guys stressed?, the demands of your masters overbearing?

Idiots->David Chandler's video does some experiments where he shows that the Idiots->apparent weight of an object changes when it falls. Idiots->Fair enough. whatever.

David Chandler's video does some experiments? how does a video do experiments?
Fair enough?. whatever? WTF? LOL! what a clown!

Idiots->However, he then suddenly brings in Newtons second law: Force = Mass X Acceleration.
Idiots->This is where Idiots->completely fucks up --> Weight DOES NOT EQUAL Mass

There in your own words you contradict yourself - there's the second law which you say he 'then suddenly brings in' (as if the rate of introduction has anything at all to do with it! Oh and it was suddenly brought in Sir - therefore what? Corporal) and what does the second law (that he suddenly brings in) say dumb troll?

Mass = Force / Acceleration, so obviously mass does not equal weight (or force). Look troll an acceleration is involved mass=m Weight=mg and Force=ma Newton's Second Law as you say he brings it in, he knows what it's saying, Weight does not equal mass.

Obviously you are deliberately misrepresenting that video (not by David Chandler), you are lying about it What it actually says is that as WTC1 accelerates uniformly then the structure must have been removed/destroyed first and the experiments that he does support this - because if the falling block was doing the destruction it would decelerate which it doesn't, uniform acceleration only is what is observed in WTC1. He uses Newton's Second Law to explain this. It's a valid explanation.

As he explains weight is equivalent to force or mass times acceleration. He never says Weight equals mass and neither does Chandler - you are a spin doctor and a liar, well what do you expect from the anti-truth trolls? lies of course.

Idiots->David Chandler attempts to prove his theory by replacing "weight", where he should of [sic] used "mass". Then claiming that the weight is changing, therefore Idiots->the force is.

Again the same misrepresentation of Chandler, i.e. a lie, you are lying through your arse - Chandler teaches Physics he's not going to make an error like that and obviously he doesn't.

Yep the anti-truth are out and about again funny how 9-11 always brings out these lying authoritarian twit trolls, I guess anyone with any wit knows that the NIST theory cannot hold water and so only the stupidest trolls are prepared to take it up, I dunno I'm just speculating.

Idiots->Btw. there is a heck of a lot more that [sic]1,600 architects and scientists in the world.

And of course you know what they're all thinking don't you? and I bet you think they're all with you and your government on this one don't you?

The standard of trolling is falling, 'Idiots' is right, it must be all those cuts in budgets that and the falling standards in the education system, keep 'em stupid, frightened and only capable of giving answers to multiple choice questions.

Troll off Trolls

Anti the anti-truth.

THIS HAS BEEN AN EMERGENCY OVER-RIDE OF YOUR LOCAL BROADCAST NETWORK- NORMAL PROGRAMMING WILL RESUME SHORTLY - ALL WE REQUIRE IS YOUR CONCERN AT THIS TIME - THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION

Physics teachers were always smarmy cunts in my personal experience anyways! If the status quo was that cannabalism was accepted, physics troll would be telling us all how tasty his sarnie is

"Physics teachers were always smarmy cunts"

That may be true, I have no idea if I am however throwing insults at me makes no difference to the facts. The buildings fell in line with Newtonian Laws of Motion, there was and is no evidence of explosives used, the chemical composition of heated steel changes and weakens.

The 911 'Truth' movement's biggest weakness is its inability to understand or recognise simple schoolchild science.

PT->The buildings fell in line with Newtonian Laws of Motion,

Care to explain how a structure WTC7 designed not to fall down (a building) fell through itself (the path of most resistance) at free fall acceleration?.
Care to explain how a structure WTC1 fell through itself destroying itself whilst accelerating at a uniform `70% g, at no time decelerating?

PT->there was and is no evidence of explosives used,

Yeah right only for those with their eyes and ears tight shut

Read this Physics Teacher

 http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples

A selection of Firefighter testimony

Richard Banaciski, 9110253 South Tower:
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions...Not thinking that this building is coming down. We just thought there was going to be a big explosion, stuff was going to come down. [pp. 3-4]

Gregg Brady, 9110184 North Tower:
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.

Frank Campagna, 9110224 North Tower:
That's when it went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down. I turned my head and everybody was scattering.

North Tower:
...we don’t even get to the back of the building. We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I’m like holy shit, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again.Then I said shit and everybody started running... [p. 29]

Roy Chelsen, 9110475 North Tower: [He gets out of the NT and then this happens.]
All of a sudden we heard this huge explosion, and that's when the tower started coming down. We all started running. [pp. 8-9]

I finally got through on my phone to my father and said, ‘I’m alive. I just wanted to tell you, go to church, I’m alive. I just so narrowly escaped this thing.’ He said, ‘Where were you? You were there?’ I said, ‘Yeah, I was right there when it blew up.’ He said, ‘You were there when the planes hit?’ I said, ‘No, I was there when it exploded, the building exploded.’ He said, ‘You mean when it fell down?’ I said, ‘No, when it exploded.’

And there's a lot more.

PT->the chemical composition of heated steel changes

No it doesn't the mechanical properties change not the chemical composition, is anyone going to believe that you are a physics teacher when you spout garbage like this?

I don't think so

PT->The 911 'Truth' movement's biggest weakness is its inability to understand or recognise simple schoolchild science.

Hand Waving again not one iota of physics just the usual hand waving.

Just troll off you useless twit.

PT->Physics teacher

Prove it David Chandler has.

You are quoting sources, individuals and websites all of which have been debunked and disproved time and time again by individuals with more experience than I. The basic rules of science are there for all to read and hopefully understand, in tragedies like these science is our friend, it helps explain the horror of the event away from the emotion. That science shows us clearly the key facts which are

: The buildings fell in line with the Newtonian explanation of falling bodies - Full Stop

: They fell because the steel structure had been weakened by the fire fuelled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel - Full Stop

: There were no traces of any explosive substance found including Thermite - Full Stop

To use a phrase you seem to be fond off, any disengagement with these facts is "hand waving"

PT->You are quoting sources, individuals and websites all of which have been debunked and disproved time and time again by individuals with more experience than.

Oh! so 'schoolchild physics' is too much for you eh troll.

I haven't quoted a web site k? I've quoted the oral testimony of FDNY firefighters who were there on the day and suggested you read a paper about the un reacted aluminothermic material found in the dust, for that to be 'debunked' a word you hand waving anti-truth trolls like to use, would require a paper written to refute or disprove it's findings no such paper exists. What we have are reports from the USGS and FEMA etc that confirm and support these findings and not the other way round.

Hand waving is what you are doing, what I'm doing ids showing you evidence of explosives that you say doesn't exist, and that's just the tip of the ice berg of evidence that supports the hypothesis that explosives were used. What you do is then hand wave by saying "it's all been debunked" which is a lie. How do you debunk the oral testimony of FDNY firefighters that were there on the day?

You are a liar and a hand waver an authoritarian fool.

PT-> The basic rules of science are there for all to read and hopefully understand, in tragedies like these science is our friend, it helps explain the horror of PT->the event away from the emotion. That science shows us clearly the key facts which are

What a totally vacuous statement that is. Yeah those buildings were brought down in controlled demolitions that's what a study of the Empirical evidence and analysis using Newton's Laws and the Laws of the Conservation of energy and momentum tells us.


: The buildings fell in line with the Newtonian explanation of falling bodies - Full Stop

Erm at free fall through the path of most resistance (WTC7), yeah right that's possible with no additional energy input FFS this is no Physics teacher just an anti-truth lying troll


: They fell because the steel structure had been weakened by the fire fuelled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel - Full Stop

Erm No jet fuel in WTC7, the jet fuel burned off pretty quickly after impact, the temperatures were not high enough to weaken the steel sufficently to compromise the structure. Mr Full Stop

: There were no traces of any explosive substance found including Thermite - Full Stop

A LIE.

PT->Physics teacher

As I said prove you are a Physics teacher and not the anti-truth trolling liar you obviously are

Obviously my many years studying and teaching physics have all been in vain. Clearly you have an understanding that transcends mine. With the vast amount of information you have I suggest you write a paper than can be peer reviewed by individuals and prove me wrong - I look forward to reading it.

You'd better watch it PT with your pants in such a raging inferno from you lying your legs might lose their structural integrity and you might collapse at free fall through your own anus.

Reasons why Physics teacher is not a Physics Teacher

He says things like this

PT->the buildings fell in line with the Newtonian explanation

in line? the Newtonian explanation? You loosely use terms like this when teaching do you? why haven't you been sacked yet? you managed to hide from OFSTED inspections?

PT->there was and is no evidence of explosives used,

Erm oh aye! Even when presented with actual evidence this 'scientist' denies its existence, not exactly conforming to the scientific method there are you PT

PT->the chemical composition of heated steel changes

Hmf? you a Physics teacher? pull the other one!

PT->The basic rules of science.

basic rules? WTF? you'd better not be saying shit like that to your pupils. You should be sacked.

PT->in tragedies like these science is our friend, it helps explain the horror.

How exactly does science, explain 'the horror'?

Science explains the natural world and not 'horror' an emotional and subjective human response to an event.

'Holy shit there's Godzilla he's horrible'
'Don't worry my dear Newton's laws explain the horror'

Clearly you are no Scientist, and Clearly you are no Physics teacher, you are a liar, a merchant of disinformation, an authoritarian follower who wouldn't know a critical thought if it ran up to you and kissed your sorry authoritarian arse.

Am really looking forward to that peer reviewed paper of yours that proves me wrong.

Any indication on when you will be producing it and making fools of all of us because I would hate to think your 'evidence' is based on everything you have listed above ?

Or is it ?

As my pupils say - You are a twat Physics Teacher :-)

9-11 = Inside job

Go on let's have the benefit of your hard earned knowledge,

Have we correctly used the 'Newtonian Explanation' - 'in line' with 'the basic rules of science' to 'explain the horror' Mr Bullshit man?