"none so blind....... " anyhow the evidence is in abundance, and posted here, but some people just don't want to see...... oh well .....
Still waiting for you to show me the science. All you have is incredulous opinion? .... oh well .....
so it is somehow not science to have measured the descent rate of WTC1, & 2 and found that they accelerated on the way down? it is somehow not science to have measured the descent rate of WTC7 and found 2.25 sec of gravitational acceleration? what?
No, it isn't. What you post above is misleading and false. You keep repeating it as though it were true, but it isn't.
What about the towers acceleration on the way down and WTC7 ... 2.25 sec of gravitational acceleration? You can prove these bits didn't happen? bring it......
The mainstream media was the first to assert that it was a terrorist attack by radical Arabs and yet they have provided NO proof of that at all.
The point of all of this, was to have PROOF that there was something VERY wrong with the official explanation of the events of 9/11/2001 and to that end, I submit the fact that the towers "collapsed" down at a rate 64% of gravity and that for 2.25 sec WTC7 fell at the acceleration of gravity and these facts do not seem to matter to some people, however they constitute compelling evidence to show that the official explanation of events is wrong!
I am curious sir. There is quite a sizable group of architects, engineers, and physicists that maintain something more than two planes crashing into 2 skyscrapers were involved in those 3 buildings coming down in the manner that they did. How do you see these credible men? I saw a video online of this group, and these men do not agree with you at all. While I do have a degree, it isn't in physics nor engineering, so I am not learned enough to question this group, who are credible men. Are you in a position, in your education, to question this group? I think one would have to be an architect of skyscrapers, or an engineer, with a good knowledge of physics. Can you debunk this group of professionals? And do you have the education to actually do that? Has there ever been a large building like number 7 that was brought down in the way 7 came down by fires? That wasn't a wood building? It doesn't help matters when many years after the gulf of Tonkin lie, that we found out it was a lie, and never happened. And that lie was used by LBJ to send me to Vietnam, where I lost a couple good friends. What this 9-11 and the truthers shows is that there are many people who no longer trust their gov't. Do they have a good reason not to trust, if one keeps the gulf of Tonkin lie in perspective?
What is the average IQ of those 2200 who don't believe in the official story? Why is it that some people who are not in a position to question those 2200 indeed do question them? And call them conspiracy nuts? I think we should test the IQ of those who can swallow the official story. Then test the 2200 hundred. It is hard to get 2200 of learned men to agree on anything, yet they agree on this. Does that matter? Obviously very little. I just wonder WHO is involved besides the radicals. For it was a really good job. I bet their IQs were higher than the 50 or 60. And it took other high IQs to see the truth.
I Please link or source the papers these gentlemen have presented to the scientific and engineering world regarding their research and the findings therein.
The record of the Toronto hearings is a very good place to start, however if you insist on getting your info formatted in a very specific way .... oh well ......
Wanting them to submit the proof of their claims in a scientific paper isn't asking anything special,/bob....it's the way it's DONE.
So it gives you an out, that is to totally ignore data that is not specifically formatted to your liking..... Thank U very much.
and you do not consider the published volume ISBN # 978-1478369202 - its in print, some public libraries have it. and its most certainly published data on the subject.
Your attitude is showing and WHY is it that you feel compelled to reject the very thing that you have been demanding, that is a written statement of facts from the "truth movement", and when presented with one, you don't like it. Whats up with that?
You haven't shown that what you posted is in any way the 'proof that I've been demanding'..I asked for individual papers my the '2000+ scientists who are part of the truth movement,NOT the minutes of the Toronto truther whinefest
Your problem is the format that the information comes in. If you had actually looked at the Toronto hearings info, you would see that it contains lots of FACTS, but because it doesn't come in the form of a paper published at Harvard or MIT, you reject it ..... so sorry, your loss in this matter.