The Official JKB Conspiracy Theory Thread

[The Internet]

Haven't read the official version. You're telling me that if I was to go read it it would say absolutely nothing about the impact having anything to do with the collapse?

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Thought this one was an interesting read

Apologies if it was posted already

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/09/10/2-year-study-confirms-world-trade-centre-7-brought-down-via-controlled-demolition/

Edited September 18, 2017 by Jambo_in_Hamilton

[jake]

Haven't read the official version. You're telling me that if I was to go read it it would say absolutely nothing about the impact having anything to do with the collapse?

 

But wait a minute.

You slag anyone off for not believing something you have not read.

 

Wow.

With cherrys on top.

 

The planes caused the fires which generated the heat which caused structural failure.

Nothing to do with impact.

 

Anyway you might want to read Jambo in hamiltons post.

 

Na probably not .

 

Honest to f*%$ .

 

Believe something you have not looked into is one thing but to try slag someone of who had read into it and doesnt believe it is hilarious.

 

Take a bow .

[The Internet]

When have I slagged off anyone? I've watched the footage and looked at the evidence and come to my own conclusions. No idea what you're even doing now.

[jake]

Thought this one was an interesting read

Apologies if it was posted already

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/09/10/2-year-study-confirms-world-trade-centre-7-brought-down-via-controlled-demolition/

 

 

Academics that surely must be living in lala land.

Or disgruntled ex employees.

 

And if not surely theyd have been assasinated.

 

How dare they disrespect the victims by actually investigating their murders through science and truth.

 

Good find jambo .

[jake]

Do you get some thrill by being a classless welt ?

 

How is it classless to question a lie.

 

This hole was created by a passenger plane and pierced a hole inches from the ground through a wall that combined with steel reinforcement was 3 metres thick.

[jake]

Wonder if all these people wear bacofoil for hats

 

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

[jake]

When have I slagged off anyone? I've watched the footage and looked at the evidence and come to my own conclusions. No idea what you're even doing now.

 

Aye ok then.

[Space Mackerel]

When have I slagged off anyone? I've watched the footage and looked at the evidence and come to my own conclusions. No idea what you're even doing now.

I know nothing about it and I read the Sun type post. [emoji16]

[The Internet]

[Bridge of Djoum]

Jake

 

In your post regarding ''patriots question 9/11'' if you look at the list of contributors at the very top is one Steve Pieczenik.

 

In 1992, Pieczenik told Newsday that in his professional opinion, President [George H. W.] Bush was "clinically depressed". As a result, he was brought up on an ethics charge before the American Psychiatric Association and reprimanded. He subsequently quit the APA

 

He calls himself a "maverick troublemaker. You make your own rules. You pay the consequences."

 

The role he played in the negotiations to bring about the release of Aldo Moro, an Italian politician kidnapped by the Red Brigades, is fraught with controversy

 

And just to really describe the individual we are dealing with here, how about this beauty....

In 2013, Pieczenik spoke on Alex Jones's radio show denying the Sandy Hook shooting ever occurred, labeling it a "false flag" operation.

 

 

Careful who you believe, Jake.

 

 

 

 

 

[Morgan]

I'm speechless.

[Space Mackerel]

Nope.

 

You got yourself through your own ignorance and lack of knowledge. [emoji16]

[Bridge of Djoum]

Number 3 on your list, Jake. Roland Dumas.

 

Let's see what he's been up to....

In May 2007, Dumas received a 12-month jail sentence (suspended) for funds he mis-appropriated acting as executor of the will of the widow of Alberto Giacometti.

 

In February 2015, Dumas suggested Prime Minister Manuel Valls was probably acting under Jewish "influence". During an interview on BFM-TV, Dumas stated that the prime minister "has personal alliances that mean he has prejudices...Everyone knows he is married to someone really good but who has an influence on him,

 

 

I love a bit of research.

[Space Mackerel]

Jake

 

In your post regarding ''patriots question 9/11'' if you look at the list of contributors at the very top is one Steve Pieczenik.

 

In 1992, Pieczenik told Newsday that in his professional opinion, President [George H. W.] Bush was "clinically depressed". As a result, he was brought up on an ethics charge before the American Psychiatric Association and reprimanded. He subsequently quit the APA

 

He calls himself a "maverick troublemaker. You make your own rules. You pay the consequences."

 

The role he played in the negotiations to bring about the release of Aldo Moro, an Italian politician kidnapped by the Red Brigades, is fraught with controversy

 

And just to really describe the individual we are dealing with here, how about this beauty....

In 2013, Pieczenik spoke on Alex Jones's radio show denying the Sandy Hook shooting ever occurred, labeling it a "false flag" operation.

 

 

Careful who you believe, Jake.

Mind though, the Sandy Hook shooter was about 8 stone. Quite an arsenal he carried that day for a weedling [emoji16]

[Bridge of Djoum]

Mind though, the Sandy Hook shooter was about 8 stone. Quite an arsenal he carried that day for a weedling [emoji16]

Are you for real?

[jake]

Jake

 

In your post regarding ''patriots question 9/11'' if you look at the list of contributors at the very top is one Steve Pieczenik.

 

In 1992, Pieczenik told Newsday that in his professional opinion, President [George H. W.] Bush was "clinically depressed". As a result, he was brought up on an ethics charge before the American Psychiatric Association and reprimanded. He subsequently quit the APA

 

He calls himself a "maverick troublemaker. You make your own rules. You pay the consequences."

 

The role he played in the negotiations to bring about the release of Aldo Moro, an Italian politician kidnapped by the Red Brigades, is fraught with controversy

 

And just to really describe the individual we are dealing with here, how about this beauty....

In 2013, Pieczenik spoke on Alex Jones's radio show denying the Sandy Hook shooting ever occurred, labeling it a "false flag" operation.

 

 

Careful who you believe, Jake.

 

Im very careful about who i believe.

Ive based my views on this subject not on videos although i have used them once or twice to make a point.

I listed that link to show that more than disgruntled ex employees have something to say.

You have picked this one name.

 

What i would say is that often a voice who speaks out is suddenly defamed.

This perhaps has stopped many academics from doing so.

As an example a canadian journalist who exposed the bbc and others for their lies when reporting on Syria received negative storiez and insinuations .

 

She was telling the truth.

 

My views are based on the science .

I have expressed my own views on what i think happened and perhaps who was behind it.

They are just a guess.

 

What im in no doubt about is that 2 planes could not have brought down 3 buildings .

That a plane could not have penetrated the pentagon in the manner its said to have.

 

Theres so many glaringly obvious lies about this.

 

So if one man who set up the organisation i quoted has been suspended for saying president bush wasnt right in the head.

 

Id remind you he prayed with tony blair before unleashing a torrent of bombs on the people of Iraq.

[jake]

Also wings have you read JIHs link.

[Bridge of Djoum]

Im very careful about who i believe.

Ive based my views on this subject not on videos although i have used them once or twice to make a point.

I listed that link to show that more than disgruntled ex employees have something to say.

You have picked this one name.

 

What i would say is that often a voice who speaks out is suddenly defamed.

This perhaps has stopped many academics from doing so.

As an example a canadian journalist who exposed the bbc and others for their lies when reporting on Syria received negative storiez and insinuations .

 

She was telling the truth.

 

My views are based on the science .

I have expressed my own views on what i think happened and perhaps who was behind it.

They are just a guess.

 

What im in no doubt about is that 2 planes could not have brought down 3 buildings .

That a plane could not have penetrated the pentagon in the manner its said to have.

 

Theres so many glaringly obvious lies about this.

 

So if one man who set up the organisation i quoted has been suspended for saying president bush wasnt right in the head.

 

Id remind you he prayed with tony blair before unleashing a torrent of bombs on the people of Iraq.

More drivel. It's obvious that you are not capable of debate. 

 

I'd pay to see you sit in a bar in NY and behave like this. 

[Space Mackerel]

Are you for real?

Sandy Hook wasn't real. It was all about reigning in gun control.

[Bridge of Djoum]

Sandy Hook wasn't real. It was all about reigning in gun control.

I ******* detest you and your kind.

[Space Mackerel]

I ******* detest you and your kind.

Come on, there's a multitude of evidence that kicks the official line into the grass.

 

For the amount of weapons and ammo the guy actually carried that day is a joke for his body weight.

[Tazio]

Sandy Hook wasn't real. It was all about reigning in gun control.

You're quite a nasty individual.

[Space Mackerel]

You're quite a nasty individual.

Have you seen the police car video and the statements including timings from the police about them evacuating the kids?

 

Not one class went out across the whole school car park or playground. Weird.

[Maple Leaf]

Also wings have you read JIHs link.

Jake, bear with me for a minute.

 

When a crime is committed, investigators will look for three things:  a perpetrator, a method, and a motive.  If they accumulate sufficient evidence for those three factors, they'll be a long way toward solving the crime.

 

After 16 years of intense scrutiny, there is only one scenario that has been presented that addresses all three.  We have the perps ( a group of Islamic fundamentalists), we have a method (hijacked passenger jets), and a motive (hatred of US foreign policy toward Islamic countries).  Adequate evidence has been provided to support all three

 

That scenario is presented only in the official version.  People who question the o.v. can't put forward a reasonable alternative to even one of the three, let alone all three. 

 

Believe me, I'm willing to listen to alternatives, but none have been forthcoming so far.  So until someone different says, "Here's who did it, here's how they did it, and here's why they did it," the o.v. is the only game in town, and all the chat about details is just wasted energy, imo.

[jake]

More drivel. It's obvious that you are not capable of debate.

 

I'd pay to see you sit in a bar in NY and behave like this.

 

Did you read J I Hs link ?

[jake]

Jake, bear with me for a minute.

 

When a crime is committed, investigators will look for three things: a perpetrator, a method, and a motive. If they accumulate sufficient evidence for those three factors, they'll be a long way toward solving the crime.

 

After 16 years of intense scrutiny, there is only one scenario that has been presented that addresses all three. We have the perps ( a group of Islamic fundamentalists), we have a method (hijacked passenger jets), and a motive (hatred of US foreign policy toward Islamic countries). Adequate evidence has been provided to support all three

 

That scenario is presented only in the official version. People who question the o.v. can't put forward a reasonable alternative to even one of the three, let alone all three.

 

Believe me, I'm willing to listen to alternatives, but none have been forthcoming so far. So until someone different says, "Here's who did it, here's how they did it, and here's why they did it," the o.v. is the only game in town, and all the chat about details is just wasted energy, imo.

 

I appreciate what you say.

 

Have you read JIHs link?

 

I did intend to leave this subject after id posted back to you.

And it seemed id been offensive to some.

But the remarks about me and others as some kind of nutjobs made me bite.

 

Im not going to reiterate why i think none of what the o.v says is scientifically possible.

 

But i do have to laugh at some of the comments (not yours) in retort to mine.

 

They're not even arguments .

Some even would pay to see me get a doing.

As if New Yorkers themselves are not comfortable with the o.v.

Dont forget it took the new york hispanic community amongst others to force the sham (the chairman of this said it was a sham) that was the 9/11 commision.

 

Anyway it seems JIHs link concludes through a 2 year study that what we were told did not happen in the way they said.

[jake]

JIHs link didn't say anything that hasn't been said before.

 

There is no evidence, none, of a controlled demolition of any of the three towers

 

Read it.

Then follow the link that spells out why the nist report is not possible.

Or not.

Up to you.

[Space Mackerel]

You mean the link to an hour long you tube video? No thanks.

 

You do realise that the site JIH linked to is looking for sensational stories so that you follow links to their site in order to gain money don't you?

 

Where is the physical evidence of controlled demolition.

Steel beams getting blown out 600 feet horizontally.

 

Mayor Rudi uttering the words "pull it" in relation to Building 7.

 

All 3 towers falling at free fall speed.

 

2900 architects saying it was.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jake]

You mean the link to an hour long you tube video? No thanks.

 

You do realise that the site JIH linked to is looking for sensational stories so that you follow links to their site in order to gain money don't you?

 

Where is the physical evidence of controlled demolition.

 

The site may be dodgy.

The academics who did the 2 year study are not.

Really theres no point if you cannot aaccept the facts based on well facts.

 

Scientifically mathematical undisputable .

 

The nist report asks you to disbelieve the laws of physics.

 

Your entitled to your view but please if you are to rubbish mine at least understand the case im in favour of.

[deesidejambo]

The site may be dodgy.

The academics who did the 2 year study are not.

Really theres no point if you cannot aaccept the facts based on well facts.

 

Scientifically mathematical undisputable .

 

The nist report asks you to disbelieve the laws of physics.

 

Your entitled to your view but please if you are to rubbish mine at least understand the case im in favour of.

I agree. The answer is in the Icke forum.

 

It was indisputably shown that the towers were destroyed by bombs and the images of the planes were projected onto the building by holograph.

 

The four planes themselves and the crew and passengers never existed.

 

This is absolutely indisputable and those who dispute it are paid shills.

[Sharpie]

I have watched a couple of times programs on television when no longer viable Las Vegas hotel/casinos have been demolished. The preparation, planning and manpower utilised is quite extensive.  This is on a structure that has been totally cleared of everything but the actual concrete and steel structure.  I repeat I am neither engineer,or architect, but I am a pretty good observer. From what I have seen in these demolitions I cannot help but feel that it would be impossible for the preparation required to bring down the two Towers, buildings that had security, thousands of employees, that no one would have seen activity that would have been extraneous enough to create some level of suspicion.

 

To obtain the cooperation of any employee to allow access would have also been wide, one helper would be totally insufficient, the numbers then would rise to a level where it was imminent that security would be breached.

 

I also have a problem with the loss of life as part of this plot. This of course would have to be allowed for, but would the objective not have been achieved by having timed the detonations for night time hours. There would have been enough lives lost to shock, but the collapse of the Towers would have been the key factor.

 

How was the budget for this endeavour raised.  Was it public money that was diverted as a different project. Did the people who participated get a one time payment or is it continuing. If it had anything at all to do with the elected government and President of the time were the opposition part  of the plot, how could they not see discrepancies in spending etc.  I realise these are only my totally unsubstantiated points, I am sure if I were to spend time studying the 'net for experts who agree with me I could subtantiate my thoughts, but then they are still just my thoughts, from my eye witness evidence, from experience in criminal behaviour, and because I am too old, too lazy to plow through google etc to prove anything.

[jake]

I agree. The answer is in the Icke forum.

 

It was indisputably shown that the towers were destroyed by bombs and the images of the planes were projected onto the building by holograph.

 

The four planes themselves and the crew and passengers never existed.

 

This is absolutely indisputable and those who dispute it are paid shills.

 

Come on deeside.

Ive never once argued on those terms.

 

And ive had my moments but i try to show respect.

 

This latest study is not fanciful.

[jake]

I understand it, there are many more engineers and scientists who support the OV than don't. The ones who don't are relying on analysing video of the event and giving their own interpretation.

 

I will ask again, where is the physical evidence of a controlled demolition.

I will get back to you.

On break at work .

[jake]

I have watched a couple of times programs on television when no longer viable Las Vegas hotel/casinos have been demolished. The preparation, planning and manpower utilised is quite extensive. This is on a structure that has been totally cleared of everything but the actual concrete and steel structure. I repeat I am neither engineer,or architect, but I am a pretty good observer. From what I have seen in these demolitions I cannot help but feel that it would be impossible for the preparation required to bring down the two Towers, buildings that had security, thousands of employees, that no one would have seen activity that would have been extraneous enough to create some level of suspicion.

 

To obtain the cooperation of any employee to allow access would have also been wide, one helper would be totally insufficient, the numbers then would rise to a level where it was imminent that security would be breached.

 

I also have a problem with the loss of life as part of this plot. This of course would have to be allowed for, but would the objective not have been achieved by having timed the detonations for night time hours. There would have been enough lives lost to shock, but the collapse of the Towers would have been the key factor.

 

How was the budget for this endeavour raised. Was it public money that was diverted as a different project. Did the people who participated get a one time payment or is it continuing. If it had anything at all to do with the elected government and President of the time were the opposition part of the plot, how could they not see discrepancies in spending etc. I realise these are only my totally unsubstantiated points, I am sure if I were to spend time studying the 'net for experts who agree with me I could subtantiate my thoughts, but then they are still just my thoughts, from my eye witness evidence, from experience in criminal behaviour, and because I am too old, too lazy to plow through google etc to prove anything.

 

Would you say 6.5 trillion dollars was motive ?

[Sharpie]

Would you say 6.5 trillion dollars was motive ?

 

It could certainly motivate me, what does that figure relate to, is it what was spent, is it the profit from weapons and ammuniton used in the following wars,  how is that type of money hidden, or utilised without being questioned. Do you actually fully realise just how much money that is, trillions unbelievable. Again that amount would be known to a number of persons, how is the secrecy maintained, where did the investment money come from to accrue that type of profit.

 

I should qualify if you are commenting on my last post I was not trying to consider motive, I was more trying to understand logistics. Would it be posssible for you to offer who was motivated in this way, what they propose with the money, and how have they avoided identification. What is it now being used for.

Edited September 19, 2017 by bobsharp

[jake]

It could certainly motivate me, what does that figure relate to, is it what was spent, is it the profit from weapons and ammuniton used in the following wars, how is that type of money hidden, or utilised without being questioned. Do you actually fully realise just how much money that is, trillions unbelievable. Again that amount would be known to a number of persons, how is the secrecy maintained, where did the investment money come from to accrue that type of profit.

 

I should qualify if you are commenting on my last post I was not trying to consider motive, I was more trying to understand logistics. Would it be posssible for you to offer who was motivated in this way, what they propose with the money, and how have they avoided identification. What is it now being used for.

 

Sorry bob it was 2.3 trillion dollars.

Reported missing the day before 9/11.

 

I cannot offer answers bob.

That you would expect to be investigated properly which clearly it has never been.

As space alluded to the documentation relating to these missing trillions was lost.

By the destruction of that part of the pentagon.

 

 

 

The 6 trillion i mentioned is in fact the latest amount of money unaccounted for which has also went missing.

 

Criminality bob.

Its endemic

Edited September 19, 2017 by jake

[jake]

http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html

 

Did the 2.3 trillion go missing ?

 

Yes or no.

[jake]

I understand it, there are many more engineers and scientists who support the OV than don't. The ones who don't are relying on analysing video of the event and giving their own interpretation.

 

I will ask again, where is the physical evidence of a controlled demolition.

 

First of all can you list the engineers who support the o.v ?

 

Your evidence for the o.v is the NIST report.

Which is without doubt debunked by the university of alaskas two year study.

 

 

You cannot say to me that because your version is complete nonsense that i have to prove not only that but what actually happened.

 

But if you want proper scientific answers it there in the link.

You choose not to.

 

Cant really do more can i?

[Maple Leaf]

I agree. The answer is in the Icke forum.

 

It was indisputably shown that the towers were destroyed by bombs and the images of the planes were projected onto the building by holograph.

 

The four planes themselves and the crew and passengers never existed.

 

This is absolutely indisputable and those who dispute it are paid shills.

I'm not sure if this post was intended to be taken seriously.  If so, it's the most outlandish post on the thread.

 

I dispute what you've posted, and I'm no paid shill.  It's unfortunate that you feel the need to insult people who disagree with you.

 

The four planes that were destroyed all had a unique registration number.  The detailed records of the construction of those aircraft will exist in the files of Boeing.  With those records will also exist records of the maintenance of those aircraft.  The maintenance schedule is dictated by law, and keeping detailed records of the maintenance are also a legal requirement.  Those records will exist at Boeing and the FAA.  Every flight, every take-off and landing for the duration of the aircraft's life, has to be recorded.  That is also a law.  Those records will exist at both Boeing and the FAA.

 

To claim that those aircraft never existed is nothing more than outlandish science fiction.  Before you ask, I haven't personally seen the records, but I know enough about the industry to know for certainty that they exist.  And no-one is paying me to post this.

 

You also claim that the passengers and crew of the four aircraft never existed.   I don't know what cesspit of a web site you picked that up from, but the owners of that site need their heads examined.  Barbara Olson was a well-known TV personality and political commentator.  I had watched her on TV on numerous occasions over several years.  She was on board flight 77 and was killed at the Pentagon crash.  To claim that she never existed is ludicrous beyond words.

[Geoff the Mince]

I'm not sure if this post was intended to be taken seriously.  If so, it's the most outlandish post on the thread.

 

I dispute what you've posted, and I'm no paid shill.  It's unfortunate that you feel the need to insult people who disagree with you.

 

The four planes that were destroyed all had a unique registration number.  The detailed records of the construction of those aircraft will exist in the files of Boeing.  With those records will also exist records of the maintenance of those aircraft.  The maintenance schedule is dictated by law, and keeping detailed records of the maintenance are also a legal requirement.  Those records will exist at Boeing and the FAA.  Every flight, every take-off and landing for the duration of the aircraft's life, has to be recorded.  That is also a law.  Those records will exist at both Boeing and the FAA.

 

To claim that those aircraft never existed is nothing more than outlandish science fiction.  Before you ask, I haven't personally seen the records, but I know enough about the industry to know for certainty that they exist.  And no-one is paying me to post this.

 

You also claim that the passengers and crew of the four aircraft never existed.   I don't know what cesspit of a web site you picked that up from, but the owners of that site need their heads examined.  Barbara Olson was a well-known TV personality and political commentator.  I had watched her on TV on numerous occasions over several years.  She was on board flight 77 and was killed at the Pentagon crash.  To claim that she never existed is ludicrous beyond words.

I'm surprised you thought he was being serious !

 

He was clearly going "full tinfoil"

[maroonlegions]

First of all can you list the engineers who support the o.v ?

 

Your evidence for the o.v is the NIST report.

Which is without doubt debunked by the university of alaskas two year study.

 

 

You cannot say to me that because your version is complete nonsense that i have to prove not only that but what actually happened.

 

But if you want proper scientific answers it there in the link.

You choose not to.

 

Cant really do more can i?

 

First of all can you list the engineers who support the o.v ?

 

Your evidence for the o.v is the NIST report.

Which is without doubt debunked by the university of alaskas two year study.

 

 

You cannot say to me that because your version is complete nonsense that i have to prove not only that but what actually happened.

 

But if you want proper scientific answers it there in the link.

You choose not to.

 

Cant really do more can i?

 

 

My personal suspicion of the official story  started when the the first NIST report was shown to be hastily put together and some holes in it were shown.That feeling has never waned.

 

That there is  a lot of well respected and credible individuals from  various academic disciplines who do not accept the official version of events like the NIST report troubles me.

 

If the official version was that water tight  then why is there a respectable number of academics rejecting the official version. For me its not about how many reject it in comparison to those who accept the official version, its  rather  the fact that there are some who do reject it in the first place  is what bothers me. Surely if the official version is the holy grail then why do some academics reject it. 

 

Of course there will be charlatans out to make a fast buck, but outwith them there is still a respectable number of academics rejecting the official scientific version of 9/11. That is what bothers me.

 

 

 

Below is a copy and paste orgy.

 

 

 

Since 9/11, independent investigators including scientists, engineers, architects and other scholars have conclusively shown that the official story is largely false. Here is a brief summary of what independent researchers think happened on that day

 

• The damage and fires caused by the two planes that hit the Twin Towers did NOT cause those buildings to ?collapse.? Instead, the evidence shows that the Twin Towers were brought down by some form of controlled demolition. This evidence includes studies of the acceleration at which the towers fell, high-velocity ejections of massive steel beams, the presence of unexploded nanothermite in the dust, and the presence of the products of the nanothermite reaction, namely iron spherules, in the dust. There are many additional items of evidence that point to controlled demolition. See Summary of Evidence for the Twin Towers.
•  
• Despite the claims of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by means of a computer model whose details NIST will not reveal, WTC7 did not ?collapse? as the result of small fires. A period of free fall of about 2.25 seconds (105 feet) can only be explained if eight stories of the 47-storey building were suddenly removed by well-place explosives. Barry Jennings and Michael Hess witnessed pre-demolition explosions in WTC7 before WTC7 was said to have caught fire and before the Towers ?collapsed?. The destruction of WTC7 has all the features of a standard controlled demolition including fore-knowledge and even an overheard ?count-down.?

 

• Despite the claims of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by means of a computer model whose details NIST will not reveal, WTC7 did not ?collapse? as the result of small fires. A period of free fall of about 2.25 seconds (105 feet) can only be explained if eight stories of the 47-storey building were suddenly removed by well-place explosives. Barry Jennings and Michael Hess witnessed pre-demolition explosions in WTC7 before WTC7 was said to have caught fire and before the Towers ?collapsed?. The destruction of WTC7 has all the features of a standard controlled demolition including fore-knowledge and even an overheard ?count-down.?
•  
• Regarding the Pentagon, independent researchers all agree that ?hijacker? Hani Hanjour, an inexperienced pilot, would have found it very difficult to fly the observed final stage of the flight of the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon West wall. While many theories have been put forward as to what caused the damage and debris at the Pentagon, a series of recent papers by scientists show that the evidence is strongly in favor of a large plane, such as a Boeing 757, hitting the Pentagon, as witnessed and recorded by the overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses. However, the additional use of pre-planted explosives has not been ruled out at this time. These recent papers have been collected at Scientific Method 9/11 for study and discussion.
•  
• For Flight 93 that is said to have crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, the official story of passengers wresting control from the ?hijackers? and then crashing the plane due to lack of skill is seen as false. The physical evidence indicates that the plane was shot down and the debris scattered over a wide area.

 

Apart from a few lone academics, still active in their universities at the time, who have publicly voiced their opposition to the official story, academia has largely gone along with the official story with little questioning. Those who early expressed opposition include Steven Earl Jones who was placed on leave and elevated to Emeritus status in Physics at Brigham Young University; John McMurtry, professor of philosophy at the University of Guelph, Canada who was attacked by colleagues and faculty alike but retained his position; and William Woodward of the University of New Hampshire, who was similarly attacked by colleagues and state officials but was defended and retained by the university as coming under the banner of academic freedom.

 

Other academics working within their universities have successfully hosted both hearings of the evidence and seminars on selected 9/11 topics. For example, Hearings sponsored by the International Center for 9/11 Studies took place at Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada during September 8 ? 11, 2011 (see the Toronto Hearings). While these hearings were not sponsored by the University itself, faculty members at the College of Arts and Sciences in the University of Indiana in Fall 2011 did present university-sponsored 9/11 topics under the Fall Themester banner of ?Making War, Making Peace.? Some universities have informally organized groups that discuss and research 9/11, an example being the University of Waterloo 9/11 Research Group.

 

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/introduction.html#i911scit_WTC_evidence_summary

 

From the above this shows that this  is far from a tin foil hat only rejection of the official story as some would like to make out.  lol; 

Edited September 19, 2017 by maroonlegions

[Sharpie]

Sorry bob it was 2.3 trillion dollars.

Reported missing the day before 9/11.

 

I cannot offer answers bob.

That you would expect to be investigated properly which clearly it has never been.

As space alluded to the documentation relating to these missing trillions was lost.

By the destruction of that part of the pentagon.

 

 

 

The 6 trillion i mentioned is in fact the latest amount of money unaccounted for which has also went missing.

 

Criminality bob.

Its endemic

Och I am not going to make myself a criminal for 2.3 trillion, chicken feed. Also I appreciate your information on criminality would never have thought of that.

Edited September 19, 2017 by bobsharp

[jake]

I understand it, there are many more engineers and scientists who support the OV than don't. The ones who don't are relying on analysing video of the event and giving their own interpretation.

 

I will ask again, where is the physical evidence of a controlled demolition.

 

No they are not relying on video evidence.

The video i asked you to watch is an explanation in a lecture setting.

There will be ive no doubt a published report.

They explain fully why the NIST report cannot have happened.

 

Sorry for delay on evidence of demolition.

Im at work .

Skiving at moment as i type.

 

I doubt i could personally offer such evidence though.

Only to say that my recollection is that traces of nano thermite were found at the crime scene.

Im pretty sure the NIST report confirmed this .

I ask again which engineers have publicly backed the NIST report.

I think we know why they may be afraid to question it.

 

 

The video i asked you to watch is a presentation of a two year study.

 

Anyway Brian.

 

I dont think we will agree .

 

 

 

 

We could be batting back and forth for a while on this.

Edited September 19, 2017 by jake

[maroonlegions]

First of all can you list the engineers who support the o.v ?

 

Your evidence for the o.v is the NIST report.

Which is without doubt debunked by the university of alaskas two year study.

 

 

You cannot say to me that because your version is complete nonsense that i have to prove not only that but what actually happened.

 

But if you want proper scientific answers it there in the link.

You choose not to.

 

Cant really do more can i?

 

 

Here are some links  you might find interesting.

 

 

 

 

Pentagon - Flight 77

These papers are in order by the date when they were first listed elsewhere or received by us, with the most recent first.

Clicking a paper's title opens it in a new window.

 

Clicking Discussion opens the paper's discussion history in a new window.

 

David Chandler, "g-Force and the Pentagon Plane," 2017.

First Listed: 08/27/17 ? By: David Chandler ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

John D. Wyndham, "Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate," October, 2016.

First Listed: 10/07/16 ? By: John D. Wyndham ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

Victoria Ashley, David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, Jim Hoffman, Ken Jenkins, Frank Legge, and John D. Wyndham, "The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted," April, 2016.

 

First Listed: 04/29/16 ? By: John D. Wyndham ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

John D. Wyndham, "The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues - A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman," March, 2016.

First Listed: 04/12/13 ? By: John D. Wyndham ? Revised: 03/04/16 ? Discussion

 

John D. Wyndham, "The Pentagon Attack: The Event Time Revisited," March, 2013.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: John D. Wyndham ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

Frank Legge, "The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus," June, 2012.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: moderator ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

John D. Wyndham, "The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact," April, 2016.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: John D. Wyndham ? Revised: 03/21/13 (V2) ? 04/24/16 (V3) ? Discussion

 

 

Frank Legge and David Chandler, "Addendum to The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis ?," December, 2011.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: moderator ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

 

Frank Legge and David Chandler, "The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path," September, 2011.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: moderator ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

 

Frank Legge and Warren Stutt, "Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path...," January, 2011.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: moderator ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

David Chandler and Jon Cole, "Joint Statement on the Pentagon" January, 2011.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: moderator ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

 

Frank Legge, "What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth," January, 2015.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: moderator ? Revised: 01/11/15 ? Discussion

Edited September 19, 2017 by maroonlegions

[jake]

I'm not sure if this post was intended to be taken seriously. If so, it's the most outlandish post on the thread.

 

I dispute what you've posted, and I'm no paid shill. It's unfortunate that you feel the need to insult people who disagree with you.

 

The four planes that were destroyed all had a unique registration number. The detailed records of the construction of those aircraft will exist in the files of Boeing. With those records will also exist records of the maintenance of those aircraft. The maintenance schedule is dictated by law, and keeping detailed records of the maintenance are also a legal requirement. Those records will exist at Boeing and the FAA. Every flight, every take-off and landing for the duration of the aircraft's life, has to be recorded. That is also a law. Those records will exist at both Boeing and the FAA.

 

To claim that those aircraft never existed is nothing more than outlandish science fiction. Before you ask, I haven't personally seen the records, but I know enough about the industry to know for certainty that they exist. And no-one is paying me to post this.

 

You also claim that the passengers and crew of the four aircraft never existed. I don't know what cesspit of a web site you picked that up from, but the owners of that site need their heads examined. Barbara Olson was a well-known TV personality and political commentator. I had watched her on TV on numerous occasions over several years. She was on board flight 77 and was killed at the Pentagon crash. To claim that she never existed is ludicrous beyond words.

 

He was having a go at me mate.

 

Haha i was cheesing at first thinkin you were sticking up for me.

[Maple Leaf]

I'm surprised you thought he was being serious !

 

He was clearly going "full tinfoil"

 

 

He was having a go at me mate.

 

Haha i was cheesing at first thinkin you were sticking up for me.

Oops.  Colour me stupid.  

 

Sorry deeside.

[deesidejambo]

I'm not sure if this post was intended to be taken seriously.  If so, it's the most outlandish post on the thread.

 

I dispute what you've posted, and I'm no paid shill.  It's unfortunate that you feel the need to insult people who disagree with you.

 

The four planes that were destroyed all had a unique registration number.  The detailed records of the construction of those aircraft will exist in the files of Boeing.  With those records will also exist records of the maintenance of those aircraft.  The maintenance schedule is dictated by law, and keeping detailed records of the maintenance are also a legal requirement.  Those records will exist at Boeing and the FAA.  Every flight, every take-off and landing for the duration of the aircraft's life, has to be recorded.  That is also a law.  Those records will exist at both Boeing and the FAA.

 

To claim that those aircraft never existed is nothing more than outlandish science fiction.  Before you ask, I haven't personally seen the records, but I know enough about the industry to know for certainty that they exist.  And no-one is paying me to post this.

 

You also claim that the passengers and crew of the four aircraft never existed.   I don't know what cesspit of a web site you picked that up from, but the owners of that site need their heads examined.  Barbara Olson was a well-known TV personality and political commentator.  I had watched her on TV on numerous occasions over several years.  She was on board flight 77 and was killed at the Pentagon crash.  To claim that she never existed is ludicrous beyond words.

Interesting - firstly it was a joke.

 

But secondly, over on Icke they actually believe it to be true.

 

Heres how it goes............

 

I say that the passengers and the planes never existed.

 

Now you please prove that they did.

 

You can't.     Every bit of evidence you give that they existed I will ignore and say it was fabricated by the ptb.   The person that you quoted was in on it and has disappeared and is paid by the Govt to never show their face again.  Or they may have been killed to keep them quiet.

 

This is why you will just bang your head against CTs forever, which is what you are doing.

[jake]

 

Here are some links you might find interesting.

 

 

 

 

Pentagon - Flight 77

These papers are in order by the date when they were first listed elsewhere or received by us, with the most recent first.

Clicking a paper's title opens it in a new window.

Clicking Discussion opens the paper's discussion history in a new window.

 

David Chandler, "g-Force and the Pentagon Plane," 2017.

First Listed: 08/27/17 ? By: David Chandler ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

John D. Wyndham, "Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate," October, 2016.

First Listed: 10/07/16 ? By: John D. Wyndham ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

Victoria Ashley, David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, Jim Hoffman, Ken Jenkins, Frank Legge, and John D. Wyndham, "The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted," April, 2016.

First Listed: 04/29/16 ? By: John D. Wyndham ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

 

John D. Wyndham, "The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues - A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman," March, 2016.

First Listed: 04/12/13 ? By: John D. Wyndham ? Revised: 03/04/16 ? Discussion

 

John D. Wyndham, "The Pentagon Attack: The Event Time Revisited," March, 2013.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: John D. Wyndham ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

Frank Legge, "The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus," June, 2012.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: moderator ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

John D. Wyndham, "The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact," April, 2016.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: John D. Wyndham ? Revised: 03/21/13 (V2) ? 04/24/16 (V3) ? Discussion

 

 

Frank Legge and David Chandler, "Addendum to The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis ?," December, 2011.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: moderator ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

 

Frank Legge and David Chandler, "The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path," September, 2011.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: moderator ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

 

Frank Legge and Warren Stutt, "Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path...," January, 2011.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: moderator ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

David Chandler and Jon Cole, "Joint Statement on the Pentagon" January, 2011.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: moderator ? Revised: n/a ? Discussion

 

Frank Legge, "What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth," January, 2015.

First Listed: 03/21/13 ? By: moderator ? Revised: 01/11/15 ? Discussion

 

 

Nice one buddy

[deesidejambo]

Oops.  Colour me stupid.  

 

Sorry deeside.

No worries!

 

There are even more outlandish theories on Icke.        It was the reptilians in UFOs that hit the towers.