The Official JKB Conspiracy Theory Thread

[jake]

Brian when i asked you for a list of engineers or any academics which support the NIST findings you didnt answer.

Can i tell you that worldwide 20 have supported its findings.

Its commonly accepted that the NIst findings are and coukd never be true.

[Space Mackerel]

Brian when i asked you for a list of engineers or any academics which support the NIST findings you didnt answer.

Can i tell you that worldwide 20 have supported its findings.

Its commonly accepted that the NIst findings are and coukd never be true.

A whole 20????

[jake]

I haven't looked for that, but I would have to trust the source.

 

There are only 2000 of varying degrees of expert that have signed a petition to get a new investigation, that is not a very large number.

 

Just because the NIST report is not 100% accurate and has flaws does not mean there was a conspiracy.

 

Missing planes, passengers and controlled demolition are not more likely than the narrative of the OV.

 

Its a bit more than flawed.

[jake]

Nothing in this post is actually true.

 

Here is a bunch of peered reviewed stuff.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014102961300432X

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613004380

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029611004007

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613002824

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X14001400

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X05001525

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13003076

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13000369

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000432

http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/structural-response-of-tall-buildings-to-multiple-floor-fires(fc11ff4e-f9e1-47ba-92fb-da1c4cadf722).html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473099000272

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473010000810

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29IS.1943-555X.0000028

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29215

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%2937

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28418%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291084-0680%282008%2913%3A2%2893%29

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/89250793/safe-sustainable-tall-buildings-state-art

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40753%28171%29136

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%2969

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29144

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=165759

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412848.222

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29208

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2245944

http://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/9789810771379/html/102.xml

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/h347k6271362654w/

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282004%2918%3A2%2879%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28336%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9445%282008%29134%3A11%281717%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29248

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29247

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000172

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28309%29

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?271799

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29142

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29124

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29322

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282005%29131%3A6%28557%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29234

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29310

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29181

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29138

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000279

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29143

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10694-012-0286-5

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412367.022

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29224

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413357.079

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41142%28396%2953

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000248

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%29254

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000256

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000446

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000443

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28307%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29203

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613000801

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/82475620/mitigation-progressive-collapse-multi-storey-buildings

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029606004974

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X07001459

 

Could post more but what?s the point.

 

It?s also not commonly accepted NIST could be true I?m not aware of single professional body coming out. Whilst many came out and supported it ASCE for example.

 

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

 

Whilst the actual report findings were collaborated under oath by experts in the field.

 

My conspiracy theory is conspiracy theory are money making scams that prey on people. It?s a modern religion.

 

Ah the ASCE .

Laughable give me a bit ill get back on this joke .

[jake]

Nothing in this post is actually true.

 

Here is a bunch of peered reviewed stuff.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014102961300432X

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613004380

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029611004007

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613002824

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X14001400

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X05001525

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13003076

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13000369

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000432

http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/structural-response-of-tall-buildings-to-multiple-floor-fires(fc11ff4e-f9e1-47ba-92fb-da1c4cadf722).html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473099000272

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473010000810

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29IS.1943-555X.0000028

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29215

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%2937

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28418%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291084-0680%282008%2913%3A2%2893%29

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/89250793/safe-sustainable-tall-buildings-state-art

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40753%28171%29136

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%2969

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29144

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=165759

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412848.222

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29208

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2245944

http://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/9789810771379/html/102.xml

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/h347k6271362654w/

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282004%2918%3A2%2879%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28336%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9445%282008%29134%3A11%281717%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29248

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29247

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000172

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28309%29

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?271799

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29142

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29124

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29322

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282005%29131%3A6%28557%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29234

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29310

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29181

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29138

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000279

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29143

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10694-012-0286-5

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412367.022

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29224

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413357.079

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41142%28396%2953

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000248

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%29254

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000256

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000446

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000443

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28307%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29203

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613000801

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/82475620/mitigation-progressive-collapse-multi-storey-buildings

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029606004974

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X07001459

 

Could post more but what?s the point.

 

It?s also not commonly accepted NIST could be true I?m not aware of single professional body coming out. Whilst many came out and supported it ASCE for example.

 

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

 

Whilst the actual report findings were collaborated under oath by experts in the field.

 

My conspiracy theory is conspiracy theory are money making scams that prey on people. It?s a modern religion.

 

Care to perhaps read the later reports on the findings of your links.

Care to read up why they even after being debunked refused to correct them.

Just have a wee search.

See if you can beat me to it.

 

 

Fraudulent stuff which only reinforces the real laws of physics

[indianajones]

The recent weather storms battering the Americas coupled with the earth quakes in South America is undoubtedly caused by HAARP.

 

IMO of course.

[jake]

Heres a quick one lord bj.

 

I will post loads of links if you like.

But mines wont be fraudulent.

[jake]

https://www.istructe.org/forums?forumid=1&threadid=16515

[jake]

https://www.911tap.org/557-news-releases/464-questioning-asce-s-commitment-to-ethics-at-their-annual-conference?tmpl=component&print=1

[jake]

There was also a piece written that i shall try to find.

It claimed 99.9% of engineers and academics supported the NIST findings.

 

It also was a fraud.

 

You cannot ask people who understand the laws of physics etc to believe a impossibilty.

 

 

Doesnt matter if you dont believe in conspiracy you cannot believe the NIST report if you are a physics high school teacher let alone a professor.

[jake]

I can post plenty of links which shows the fraudulent nature of your links lord bj.

 

But whats the point.

[Space Mackerel]

Nothing in this post is actually true.

 

Here is a bunch of peered reviewed stuff.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014102961300432X

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613004380

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029611004007

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613002824

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X14001400

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X05001525

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13003076

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13000369

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000432

http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/structural-response-of-tall-buildings-to-multiple-floor-fires(fc11ff4e-f9e1-47ba-92fb-da1c4cadf722).html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473099000272

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473010000810

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29IS.1943-555X.0000028

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29215

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%2937

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28418%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291084-0680%282008%2913%3A2%2893%29

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/89250793/safe-sustainable-tall-buildings-state-art

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40753%28171%29136

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%2969

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29144

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=165759

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412848.222

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29208

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2245944

http://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/9789810771379/html/102.xml

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/h347k6271362654w/

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282004%2918%3A2%2879%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28336%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9445%282008%29134%3A11%281717%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29248

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29247

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000172

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28309%29

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?271799

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29142

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29124

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29322

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282005%29131%3A6%28557%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29234

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29310

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29181

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29138

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000279

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29143

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10694-012-0286-5

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412367.022

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29224

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413357.079

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41142%28396%2953

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000248

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%29254

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000256

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000446

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000443

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28307%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29203

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613000801

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/82475620/mitigation-progressive-collapse-multi-storey-buildings

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029606004974

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X07001459

 

Could post more but what?s the point.

 

It?s also not commonly accepted NIST could be true I?m not aware of single professional body coming out. Whilst many came out and supported it ASCE for example.

 

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

 

Whilst the actual report findings were collaborated under oath by experts in the field.

 

My conspiracy theory is conspiracy theory are money making scams that prey on people. It?s a modern religion.

Science Direct [emoji16][emoji16]

[jake]

You know one of my favourite sayings.

 

The truth shall set you free.

[jake]

Science Direct [emoji16][emoji16]

 

Ken whats funny the last bit about money making scams.

And the report he links is from an organisation questioned at its agm on its ethics.

 

Couldnt make it up.

 

Although they clearly did.

[jake]

Nothing in this post is actually true.

 

Here is a bunch of peered reviewed stuff.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014102961300432X

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613004380

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029611004007

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613002824

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X14001400

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X05001525

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13003076

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13000369

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000432

http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/structural-response-of-tall-buildings-to-multiple-floor-fires(fc11ff4e-f9e1-47ba-92fb-da1c4cadf722).html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473099000272

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473010000810

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29IS.1943-555X.0000028

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29215

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%2937

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28418%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291084-0680%282008%2913%3A2%2893%29

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/89250793/safe-sustainable-tall-buildings-state-art

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40753%28171%29136

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%2969

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29144

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=165759

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412848.222

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29208

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2245944

http://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/9789810771379/html/102.xml

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/h347k6271362654w/

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282004%2918%3A2%2879%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28336%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9445%282008%29134%3A11%281717%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29248

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29247

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000172

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28309%29

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?271799

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29142

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29124

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29322

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282005%29131%3A6%28557%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29234

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29310

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29181

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29138

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000279

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29143

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10694-012-0286-5

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412367.022

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29224

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413357.079

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41142%28396%2953

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000248

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%29254

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000256

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000446

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000443

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28307%29

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29203

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613000801

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/82475620/mitigation-progressive-collapse-multi-storey-buildings

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029606004974

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X07001459

 

Could post more but what?s the point.

 

It?s also not commonly accepted NIST could be true I?m not aware of single professional body coming out. Whilst many came out and supported it ASCE for example.

 

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

 

Whilst the actual report findings were collaborated under oath by experts in the field.

 

My conspiracy theory is conspiracy theory are money making scams that prey on people. It?s a modern religion.

 

Nice long list though give you that.

 

Why do you think the ASCE came out with those lies.

 

 

Might want to have a wee look.

 

Not hard to find out.

[Space Mackerel]

Melting steel with petrol, whatever next? [emoji16]

 

You can tell your talking to the PlayStation generation sometimes. Does 4 star burn hotter than Unleaded?

[jake]

No yours will be YouTube videos, with little scientific foundation and absolutely no peer review ;-)

 

The links you provide are not evidence of fraud, Happy to receive clarity on which ones are fraudulent. Just pick the article and evidence of it being fraudulent. Not just a few engineers for truth disagreeing!!

 

What you is posted is disgruntled people not evidence of fraud. FFS one article even states they?re not questioning just the ASCE but the whole engineering profession!!!

 

Why do you not trust the ASCE for example but you trust seekers of truth or whatever they called? What about otgabisations such AIA, ICC, Stanford etc etc.

 

Believe what you want. However, this claim that no engineer etc believe official version is clearly a nonsense.

 

The ASCE report based its findings on false data.

They changed NIST findings so that the mathematics of the floors falling would add up.

 

Im using laymens terms.

Its not disgruntled anyone saying anything.

They used false data .

They refused to change that false data.

 

Shall i post more links.

 

And please dont make things up .

Ive posted one you tube video of a plane hitting a wall not as thick as the pentagons and a presentation by academics on why the wtc7 could not have fell as NIST told us.

 

I dont trust ASCE because they used false data and refused to correct it.

 

Honestly.

[jake]

I cant get my head round how people will go all out to try and prove a lie.

 

Its not about having an alternative.

 

What does it say if we all just accept something so blatantly wrong.

 

2 planes brought down 3 steel framed buildings .

Blootered in to dust and rubble.

In no time at all and virtual free fall and actual in almost its own footprint.

 

A passenger plane pierces a hole through a 3 metre thick reinforced wall

 

Theres another 40 anomolies thats listed.

 

Those two alone should be enough but apparently its me thats batshit crazy.

 

Lol

[jake]

Jake I also think you need to take jkb a lot less seriously.

 

Is that the way i come across?

[Space Mackerel]

No yours will be YouTube videos, with little scientific foundation and absolutely no peer review ;-)

 

The links you provide are not evidence of fraud, Happy to receive clarity on which ones are fraudulent. Just pick the article and evidence of it being fraudulent. Not just a few engineers for truth disagreeing!!

 

What you is posted is disgruntled people not evidence of fraud. FFS one article even states they?re not questioning just the ASCE but the whole engineering profession!!!

 

Why do you not trust the ASCE for example but you trust seekers of truth or whatever they called? What about otgabisations such AIA, ICC, Stanford etc etc.

 

Believe what you want. However, this claim that no engineer etc believe official version is clearly a nonsense.

My mates an engineer. 23 years in RAF. 10 as ground crew, 8 as an Air Engineer and 5 as a Loadmaster on Hercs. He?s served in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq quite a few times and thinks the attacks are a lot of pish, especially the Pentagon.

 

What would you say to him?

[SUTOL]

Melting steel with petrol, whatever next? 

 

Can you link to where that has been claimed? 

[Mark_Higg]

I've just booked seats for my NYC flights in December. Paid ?4.50 for 'September 11 Security Fee'.

 

Someone still making money

 

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

[Ulysses]

Sorry, I thought that was your opinion. Your posts are never very clear as to what you do think happened.

 

 

 

 

Being clear makes it difficult to keep indulging one's fantasies.

[andrewjambo]

A passenger plane pierces a hole through a 3 metre thick reinforced wall

 

Theres another 40 anomolies thats listed.

 

Those two alone should be enough but apparently its me thats batshit crazy.

 

Lol

Jake,

 

Help a fellow sceptic out - where is the evidence that the pentagon walls were 3 metres thick? I've tried looking but i can't find anything to validate that.

 

If the walls were 3 metres thick it must have taken one heck of a missile to cause the hole in the side of the pentagon.

[SUTOL]

Jake,

 

Help a fellow sceptic out - where is the evidence that the pentagon walls were 3 metres thick? I've tried looking but i can't find anything to validate that.

 

If the walls were 3 metres thick it must have taken one heck of a missile to cause the hole in the side of the pentagon.

 

 

The walls aren't and weren't 3 meters thick. 

 

The wall is 24" (or 19" depending who you read) thick, so 2 feet, not nearly 10 feet (3M).

[Space Mackerel]

Tell him to get better mates.

Shame he spent all those years abroad after 9/11 risking his life so you can be a wee dafty on an Internet football forum eh?

[Morgan]

I cant get my head round how people will go all out to try and prove a lie.

Its not about having an alternative.

What does it say if we all just accept something so blatantly wrong.

2 planes brought down 3 steel framed buildings .

Blootered in to dust and rubble.

In no time at all and virtual free fall and actual in almost its own footprint.

A passenger plane pierces a hole through a 3 metre thick reinforced wall

Theres another 40 anomolies thats listed.

Those two alone should be enough but apparently its me thats batshit crazy.

Lol

Don't normally get involved in this stuff but, where do these facts and figures come from Jake?

[Space Mackerel]

Your mate sounds a bit stupid, Understand why your mates now.

[jake]

Don't normally get involved in this stuff but, where do these facts and figures come from Jake?

 

Mostly i try and avoid the you tube stuff.

 

The internet.

And the findings of engineers and professors etc.

 

I have my own views which have no basis other than my opinion on the who and why.

 

But i cannot accept the official version because of the opinions of certain professionals.

 

Im going to really try staying of this now.

As i think lord bj had a point.

 

And i must have repeated myself a few times at least.

[niblick1874]

The post I posted a while back, as in the whistle blower from the CIA, is the explanation as to some of the who. The why was to get what they wanted starting with the Patriot Act. After that the list goes on and on.

 

Yes, they are that evil.

 

People may not realise it, but to believe the ov they are believing the likes of those behind the lies about the babies taken out of their incubators, thrown on the floor and left to die.

 

WMD

 

Maybe some should go back and have a look at the link I left. Most of it was known by some but the whistle blower joins the dots for everyone.

 

9/11 is not talked about in the link but if you watch it you'll get where I am coming from.

 

President Truman created the CIA, go look what he had to say when he realized the had gone rogue. I's out there.

 

JFK said he would shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces, fired the head of the CIA, made the famous speech about secret societies and was assassinated. The head of the CIA that he fired was then put in charge of the investigation that was meant to figure out who did it and how. There are many more very reputable people that have come out and said the same things.

 

Edit, carry on Jake. You are spot on.

Edited September 21, 2017 by niblick1874

[niblick1874]

Here is the link

 

?INCOMING.

 

??Do not view if you want to stay in your safe space.

 

 

 

Shipp held several high-level positions in the CIA. He was assigned as a protective agent for the Director of Central Intelligence, a counterintelligence investigator, a Counter Terrorism Center officer, a team leader protecting sensitive CIA assets from assassination, a manager of high-risk protective operations, a lead instructor for members of allied governments, an internal staff security investigator, and a polygraph examiner. He was tasked with protecting the CIA from foreign agent penetration and the chief of training for the CIA federal police force.

Mr. Shipp functioned as program manager for the Department of State, Diplomatic Security, and Anti Terrorism Assistance global police training program. He is the recipient of two CIA Meritorious Unit Citations, three Exceptional Performance Awards and a Medallion for overseas covert operations. He is the author of From the Company of Shadows?CIA Operations and the War on Terrorism.

[Morgan]

Mostly i try and avoid the you tube stuff.

The internet.

And the findings of engineers and professors etc.

I have my own views which have no basis other than my opinion on the who and why.

But i cannot accept the official version because of the opinions of certain professionals.

Im going to really try staying of this now.

As i think lord bj had a point.

And i must have repeated myself a few times at least.

Thanks for reply

[jake]

Thoughts

 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/entire-volume-of-cia-files-on-lee-harvey-oswald-set-to-be-released-in-october-has-gone-missing/5609684

[Space Mackerel]

Thoughts

 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/entire-volume-of-cia-files-on-lee-harvey-oswald-set-to-be-released-in-october-has-gone-missing/5609684

Wouldn?t surprise me. Mind when the kiddy fiddling files went missing here not so long ago.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681838/Westminster-child-sex-scandal-Finally-Home-Office-launches-inquiry-alleged-abuse-possibly-dating-decades.html

 

BJ will dismiss this though [emoji16]

[Space Mackerel]

And some more.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11935056/Victim-testimonies-permanently-deleted-by-child-sex-abuse-inquiry.html

 

Lucky this wasn?t reported by global research though, all credibility would be lost [emoji16]

[jake]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch

 

Im aware that its politically motivated.

However theres not much information from the msm .

Who of course are above reproach to you.

You might have tried reading the article .

 

Bottom line is that once again important files go missing.

 

After previously been accounted for until its time for their release.

 

Can you tell me which news outlet you trust?

[Riddley Walker]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11

 

This has a full list of rebuttals to each part of the conspiracy theory. Certainly reads a lot more convincingly than some of the half-baked stuff coming from people with no knowledge of what they're talking about.

[jake]

Jake do believe in every conspiracy theory? For example do you believe the moon landings were faked?

 

I quoted a link about missing papers from files that were supposed to be released.

 

Just because ive not believed the o.v

And because ive posted a link to this does not make me believe every conspiracy theory.

 

Just i suspect because you believe the o.v of 9/11 you dont believe everything you read in the papers.

[niblick1874]

The post I posted a while back, as in the whistle blower from the CIA, is the explanation as to some of the who. The why was to get what they wanted starting with the Patriot Act. After that the list goes on and on.

 

Yes, they are that evil.

 

People may not realise it, but to believe the ov they are believing the likes of those behind the lies about the babies taken out of their incubators, thrown on the floor and left to die.

 

WMD

 

Maybe some should go back and have a look at the link I left. Most of it was known by some but the whistle blower joins the dots for everyone.

 

9/11 is not talked about in the link but if you watch it you'll get where I am coming from.

 

President Truman created the CIA, go look what he had to say when he realized the had gone rogue. I's out there.

 

JFK said he would shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces, fired the head of the CIA, made the famous speech about secret societies and was assassinated. The head of the CIA that he fired was then put in charge of the investigation that was meant to figure out who did it and how. There are many more very reputable people that have come out and said the same things.

 

 

Edit, carry on Jake. You are spot on.

 

Jake.

 

Not sure if you have seen this. For me, it's the double take moment and ties in with the above post, along with the one about the whistle blower.

[jake]

I only asked because you linked to a different conspiracy on a site dedicated to publishing conspiracy stuff of the most extreme nonsense.

 

So you do believe we went to the moon then?

 

I don't believe everything I read in the papers ( I actually don't read the papers anymore) and I certainly don't believe everything published outside the "MSM" designed to generate traffic and income.

 

The moon landings imo were faked.

As for the site i linked i didnt check it tbh.

What i was highlighting was the missing documentation regarding Oswald.

 

If you have information which shows thats not true then fine.

 

You state you dont believe everything outside msm designed to generate traffic and income.

 

I take it that you're not aware that msm also wishes to generate ratings and income through traffic.

 

Im not going to defend the site i quoted but i shall ask you what i asked lord bj.

 

Which media outlets do you suggest we trust ?

[jake]

Jake.

 

Not sure if you have seen this. For me, it's the double take moment and ties in with the above post, along with the one about the whistle blower.

 

He is also one of two presidents assasinated that had something else in common.

[The Internet]

I've never met anyone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job (to whatever extent) and didn't also believe the moon landings were faked.

[Riddley Walker]

The moon landings imo were faked.

As for the site i linked i didnt check it tbh.

What i was highlighting was the missing documentation regarding Oswald.

 

If you have information which shows thats not true then fine.

 

You state you dont believe everything outside msm designed to generate traffic and income.

 

I take it that you're not aware that msm also wishes to generate ratings and income through traffic.

 

Im not going to defend the site i quoted but i shall ask you what i asked lord bj.

 

Which media outlets do you suggest we trust ?

Re your last sentence I think the best thing to do is read from a variety of sources and come to your own conclusions.

 

Your honesty and directness on this thread has been quite refreshing compared to others who hold similar views to you and I've enjoyed your posts. However I feel you've been guilty of being sucked in by CT websites peddling stories with no substance and which if you look at the counter-arguments are often proved immediately false.

[deesidejambo]

The moon landings imo were faked.

As for the site i linked i didnt check it tbh.

What i was highlighting was the missing documentation regarding Oswald.

 

If you have information which shows thats not true then fine.

 

You state you dont believe everything outside msm designed to generate traffic and income.

 

I take it that you're not aware that msm also wishes to generate ratings and income through traffic.

 

Im not going to defend the site i quoted but i shall ask you what i asked lord bj.

 

Which media outlets do you suggest we trust ?

You have just shown yourself to be a diddy.  The moon landings happened.

[jake]

Re your last sentence I think the best thing to do is read from a variety of sources and come to your own conclusions.

 

Your honesty and directness on this thread has been quite refreshing compared to others who hold similar views to you and I've enjoyed your posts. However I feel you've been guilty of being sucked in by CT websites peddling stories with no substance and which if you look at the counter-arguments are often proved immediately false.

 

I have been guilty i admit of sometimes posting stuff i should have checked out a bit more.

Think maybe its when i feel im getting slagged of more than argued with.

 

Ive said before but i like arguing haha.

 

I read your last post and found it a good read although i have not got through it all.

There are some points i will come back on.

 

It was a bit uncomfortable though i admit.

[Sten Guns]

Worrying. Seek help.

[jake]

Ok. There is no point in debating with anyone who thinks the moon landings were faked, my experience of that is that they will believe everything is a conspiracy.

 

There is massive evidence that we went to the moon, it is actually a provable fact, no need for opinion.

 

Och your just saying that.

 

Conspiring against me with everyone .haha.

 

I dont actually but you are right i do tend to view the news and look at it as the opposite.

Not always but sometimes its more truthful in the end.

 

The moon landings was a wind up.

[jake]

You have just shown yourself to be a diddy. The moon landings happened.

 

Deeside.

 

I wished i was into the moon landing stuff.

Id find it amusing as your posts seem quite angry with me.

[jake]

Worrying. Seek help.

 

Self medicate mate.

 

Cant trust doctors if your a nut now can you.

 

Lol

[Maple Leaf]

 The moon landings happened.

Of course they did.  

 

The US space program, starting with Mercury, evolving into Gemini then ultimately Apollo, involved hundreds of thousands of people and was completely open to cameras and journalists.  Watching launches and recoveries in the 1960s was fascinating TV viewing.  There was never any attempt to hide anything.

 

Six missions were successful in putting 12 different men on the moon, who brought back vast amounts of rock.  Those rocks were distributed to labs around the world where they were analysed.  Without doubt, the rocks came from the moon.

 

Anyone who thinks the moon landings didn't happen is being silly.