Sidebar Sidebar
  • You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.

Scientific Evidence

C2

C2

Sr. Member
Aug 3, 2005
2,408
79
158
This is a somewhat long article that presents nothing more than scientific evidence that the WTC buildings were all brought down by a controlled demolition-style implosion, and completely refutes the hypothosis presented by FEMA, NIST, and the 9-11 commision that the towers fell as a result of impact and fire damage. It would take some time to read and review the referenced material, but would be well worth the insight.

The article is hosted by

Brigham Young University Physics department and cites many authorative references.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
 

s

Do plenty of research, dig deeply, and if you still honestly believe the towers were brought down by jet fuel - then they have you hook line and sinker and you will buy anything.
Oh yes, the mercury that is put into the vaccines is "good for you" and Depleted Uranium is harmless. :D

LoneWolf TN
 
My point above was that it was in fact NOT true that science proved a bumblebee cannot fly because it obviously can.The aerodynamic engineer that "proved" it used flawed calculations based on what he knew about the bees wings and preconceived notions of flight.Upon closer examination of the bee's wings and how they moved more understanding of what was really happening was obtained and the new info seemed to go against all other theories before and he was forced to admit that he was in fact wrong,obviously.One can use science and mathmatics to twist anything the way they want too.It can also be flawed. Next thing will be that GWB planted the explosives himself. :LOL: As far as DU goes,I agree it is never really depleted,at least not in your or my lifetime.
 
What is the point? It seems your example is set to discount the scientific evidence presented in the linked article. Again, your indifference is duly noted.

But I happen to believe that scientific evidence cannot be used "to twist anything the way they want too," not in whole anyway.

I recall a documentary on what you describe, and it was the advent of high speed motion photography that supplied the scientific evidence to discount the original hypothosis.

If you read all the content, along with the additionally linked material, with an open mind, your indifference may change. But in the mean time, enjoy it while it lasts.
 
under saddam hussein, iraqi oil was traded in euro dollars. what's the official international reserve currency around the globe? the "fiat" american dollar. you can't manage a global empire if the other players in the game don't want to use your money.

american hegemony can only be maintained if the oil in the fields of irag is traded for us dollars, not euros. you can't play "dollar diplomacy" in a world moving more and more toward a gold backed currency exchange. guess who else is trading their oil for euros and no longer using the us dollar? iran. big surprise, huh?

someone once said, and i'm paraphrasing, if the american people understood how the money system worked in this country there would be a revolution the next day.

but then again, you don't tell the american people that you're invading iraq because they don't want to play the game with the us dollar any longer. it then becomes necessary to invent an enemy and stage an event to get the sheep to back the game plan. they were thinking the same thing back in 1962 with Cuba and the northwoods document, albeit for different reasons.

weapons of mass destruction is a much more palatable justification for going to war. the american people know so little about how international finance functions that they would never be pushed into a war simply because some other country refused to trade their most valuable commodity for us dollars. add to that the fact that we had sold WMD's to saddam in years past, at least we had a chance of finding some of them.

to even sell them on the WMD they still required some motivational pretext before they could feel good about sending their loved ones off to some war in the mideast. 9-11 worked.

it's not the first time the american people have been fooled into trading blood for money and it won't be the last, even if they never wind up with any of the money. the love of money, after all, IS the ROOT of all EVIL.

either you sell your oil in exchange for the globally accepted international currency (us dollar) or we're going to come into your country and kick your ass. not a very "diplomatic" way of expressing it but that's as simple as it gets. that's our current foreign monetary policy in a nutshell.
 
That's right, freecell.

The answer is why would the US government blow up the WTC?

Can we connect the dots with the planes? And the terrorist pilots were trained to fly where?
 
d

Freecell has got part of it right on the money. But there are many factors why we are there - many only the Iron Heel know about. Afghanistan, OPIUM is a huge part of it. Why are we in the Middle East? Oil, Israel, weapons sales, opium, etc...
Why did building owner Larry Silverstien have building 7 "pulled"? Virtually no damage was done to building 7, but it was pulled by way of controlled demolition. Mr. Silverstien now owns the Sears Tower in Chicago along with a very secretive group of people.
For those who really want to know the facts about 911, go to www.infowars.com and order the best tape I have seen regarding 911. "911 Rise of the Police State". There are many other great tapes about 911 also. Michael moore's tape left out many very important facts, Moore is just one of their puppets working for the globalists, making it look like a left/right, Democrat/Republican thing - that phony left/right paradigm.

LoneWolf TN
 
Look at your timeline and think rationally...

That Silverstein would admit that officials intentionally demolished Building 7 is bizarre for a number of reasons. FEMA's report states that the cause of building's collapse was fires. Moreover, the logistics of rigging a skyscraper for demolition in the space of a few hours would be daunting to say the least, particularly given that demolition teams would have to work around fires and smoke.

An Overlooked Explanation
A third explanation is less obvious, but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein's statement was calculated to confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an alternative to the only logical explanation -- that it was rigged for demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people, who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse, nor the thorough illegality of such an operation. Thus the idea that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was planned in advance of the attack, and was, therefore, part of an inside job to destroy the entire WTC complex.

I do not believe that enough explosives could have even been trucked into the site within the time frame that the building was supposedly "pulled," much less figure out where to put the explosives and then actually place them throughout the building? Absurd!
 
s

That is the point, controlled demolition for a building that size takes many many days to get everything set up for the demolition. Larry Silverstein didn't just on a whim, decide to have the building pulled. It was planned and set up long in advance. Larry Silverstein is a major player in the New World Ordere attacks on our freedom and the military police state.

LoneWolf TN
www.infowars.com
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.


      Top Bottom
      Back