15 Years Later: New Scientific Paper in Reputable Physics Journal Argues 9/11 Was An Inside Job - Polidicks

[URL="http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/"]http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/[/URL] [quote=Article]WASHINGTON – For 15 years, there’s been a small band of investigators who have questioned the idea that the Twin Towers in New York City collapsed because of the intense heat and fires raging following two terrorist-directed plane crashes. But they have largely been dismissed as crazy conspiracy theorists. Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.” “Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities,” the four physicists conclude. Read more at [url]http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/#QPfd8gyktluJaMM3.99[/url][/quote] [url]http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf[/url] Article in question for those curious, choice quote: [quote=Paper]Conclusion It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities. [/quote]

something I've been thinking about; even if hypothetically the gov't did cause the twin towers to fall, what would they gain over doing so?

[QUOTE=ProfHappycat7;51047924]something I've been thinking about; even if hypothetically the gov't did cause the twin towers to fall, what would they gain over doing so?[/QUOTE] Um...9-11? (I honestly don't know)

the truth is out there....

[QUOTE=ProfHappycat7;51047924]something I've been thinking about; even if hypothetically the gov't did cause the twin towers to fall, what would they gain over doing so?[/QUOTE] War = Profit for defense contractors and arms manufacturers and anyone selling anything that could be used in a war from toilet paper to bombs. Larry Silverstein also profited billions from the tower's demise. He also admitted to pulling WTC 7 in an interview.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51047948]War = Profit for defense contractors and arms manufacturers and anyone selling anything that could be used in a war from toilet paper to bombs.[/QUOTE] It also led to billions of dollars of debt and the complete loss of public trust in the government. [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51047948]Larry Silverstein also profited billions from the tower's demise. He also admitted to pulling WTC 7 in an interview.[/QUOTE] Holy shit, no he didn't. The tower ultimately cost him billions of dollars, even more for the city. He isn't some insane mogule gathering money from the death of thousands, and no corporation is powerful enough to take town the most important landmark in NYC. Silverstein was losing money up until Freedom Tower was created and is a credit to the New York community.

[QUOTE=ProfHappycat7;51047924]something I've been thinking about; even if hypothetically the gov't did cause the twin towers to fall, what would they gain over doing so?[/QUOTE] The ability to start a war on terrorism which both lets them do whatever the fuck they want in the middle east and also produce a shitload of money for military contractors. If you produce guns and bombs and tanks you don't tend to make much money in peacetime. Being at war is profitable for a lot of people. I don't personally believe it's a conspiracy but there is a motive.

all the authors are old physicists and engineers going senile. i'm baffled at one thing, how could they have been accepted by the publication? i think one of the authors maybe Steven Jones may still have some kind of access to the site, even after been asked to retire early by his University.

This is going to be a fun thread.

"None of the other high rise buildings that had fires fell, so this one must have been a controlled demolition." How many of those other high rises had planes or building debris crash into them?

[QUOTE=OvB;51047967]This is going to be a fun thread.[/QUOTE] inside job lizardmen mj12 mj12 illuminati death camps chanel guillotines can you hear me running mike rutherford infowars.com

[quote]“It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11,” the researchers write. “Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001?”[/quote] I don't really want to waste my time with this bullshit article but I have to clear up this common stupid claim: yes, these three cases are the only know cases where a fire has leveled high-rise buildings. These are also some of the only know cases where high-rises have collapsed [i]ever[/i].

Anyone know of the reputability of the European Physical Society/Europhysics News as a journal? Are they super respected in physics? Or crackpots?

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51047961]It also led to billions of dollars of debt and the complete loss of public trust in the government. Holy shit, no he didn't. The tower ultimately cost him billions of dollars, even more for the city. He isn't some insane mogule gathering money from the death of thousands, and no corporation is powerful enough to take town the most important landmark in NYC. Silverstein was losing money up until Freedom Tower was created and is a credit to the New York community.[/QUOTE] Why would he buy a colossal asbestos liability with dwindling tenancy? Why would he take out a massive insurance policy on the towers for terrorist attacks just before 9/11 and go on to gain billions of dollars. Why did he not show up to his business meeting at windows of the world on the morning of 9/11? A Doctor appointment? ok. Lucky Larry.

Correct me if I'm wrong but are they considering that there was more than fire factoring into the collapses? Like, being hit by a commercial passenger plane.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51047981]I don't really want to waste my time with this bullshit article but I have to clear up this common stupid claim: yes, these three cases are the only know cases where a fire has leveled high-rise buildings. These are also some of the only know cases where high-rises have collapsed [i]ever[/i].[/QUOTE] I could have sworn a highrise was torched in Bosnia and collapsed.

The amount of people needed to cover this up without any leaks of any kind is almost impossible compared to a few men hijacking heavily fueled airliners and crashing them into buildings for both religious and geopolitical reasons.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048003]Why would he buy a colossal asbestos liability with dwindling tenancy? Why would he take out a massive insurance policy on the towers for terrorist attacks just before 9/11 and go on to gain billions of dollars. Why did he not show up to his business meeting at windows of the world on the morning of 9/11? A Doctor appointment? ok. Lucky Larry.[/QUOTE] Thank God we have internet geniuses like you to unravel literally the biggest fucking criminal action in recorded history, unveil the world's currently most succesful mass murderer and lift the veil from our eyes when every intelligence organization on Earth couldn't pin it on him. You did it. Now if only the FBI could use Google and discover the real truth! He'd be behind bars! Oh wait, the Illuminati would stop it, right? Silverstein earned 4.6 billion, he lost 7 billion in reconstruction. At the end of the day between building the new tower and all the other costs, he lost 10+ billion dollars. What a genius move by 'Lucky Larry', which only netted him several billion dollars in losses and the harassment from untold masses of insane truthers who can't be bothered to do the modicum of research or gather the least bit of common sense to dispel their conspiracy theories. I'm sorry if this is flaming but 9/11 brings out the loonies in my family and I've spent the last week doing nothing but debating every other person I see.

[QUOTE=Glitchman;51048012]The amount of people needed to cover this up without any leaks of any kind is almost impossible compared to a few men hijacking heavily fueled airliners and crashing them into buildings for both religious and geopolitical reasons.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;nqbUkThGlCo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo[/video]

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048042][video=youtube;nqbUkThGlCo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo[/video][/QUOTE] "I don't care about the reality of the situation so here is some youtube video I found that doesn't actually prove anything. Take that!" :goodjob:

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51048044]"I don't care about the reality of the situation so here is some youtube video I found that doesn't actually prove anything. Take that!" :goodjob:[/QUOTE] Doesn't it at least raise a few questions even to a layman such as yourself?

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048049]Doesn't it at least raise a few questions even to a layman such as yourself?[/QUOTE] Mostly questions about who's been feeding their babies paint chips.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048049]Doesn't it at least raise a few questions even to a layman such as yourself?[/QUOTE] I'm the layman, despite the fact I actually just sourced numbers to you and you have done absolutely nothing besides throw out videos and conspiracy theories that have been debunked a thousand times. Sure, it raised questions when I first saw it. "How did that building fall?" I asked, so I looked it up! "It fell because a fucking sky scraper fell on it and then it lit on fire," I read. That's sensible! But wait, there's more? "IT FELL BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ILLUMINATI JEWISH LIZARDMEN PUT DEMOLITION THERMITE CHARGES IN THERE AND BLEW IT UP AT THE SAME TIME THEY FLEW PLANES INTO THE TWIN TOWERS AND DETONATED EXPLSOIVES IN THERE AT THE SAME TIME TO COLLECT INSURANCE MONEY!!!" I read. "That's fucking stupid!" I said, and after doing enough research to confirm my thought, here we are.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048049]Doesn't it at least raise a few questions even to a layman such as yourself?[/QUOTE] How do you feel about the moon landing? Similar debate with a similar amount of evidence

[video=youtube;6iUq8V2-fD8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iUq8V2-fD8[/video] relevant

Why is it so hard to believe having a giant fucking 400 ton metal tube rocketing into a building at several hundred miles per hour is enough to fuck up the structural integrity of a building with massive weight?

It wasn't the government, it was the Patriots.

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51048061]I'm the layman, despite the fact I actually just sourced numbers to you and you have done absolutely nothing besides throw out videos and conspiracy theories that have been debunked a thousand times. Sure, it raised questions when I first saw it. "How did that building fall?" I asked, so I looked it up! "It fell because a fucking sky scraper fell on it and then it lit on fire," I read. That's sensible! But wait, there's more? "IT FELL BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ILLUMINATI JEWISH LIZARDMEN PUT DEMOLITION THERMITE CHARGES IN THERE AND BLEW IT UP AT THE SAME TIME THEY FLEW PLANES INTO THE TWIN TOWERS AND DETONATED EXPLSOIVES IN THERE AT THE SAME TIME TO COLLECT INSURANCE MONEY!!!" I read. "That's fucking stupid!" I said, and after doing enough research to confirm my thought, here we are.[/QUOTE] a skyscraper did not fall on it, you know that, it was hit by a small amount of debris and a few floors caught fire. Watch the video. The fucking building goes into a perfectly symmetrical freefall. I guess controlled demolition companies went out of business after 9/11 because, apparently, all you have to do is start some random fires in a steel frame highrise and it will go into a freefall straight into its own footprint. I guess that the building code for highrises must have been seriously amended right? ...right? [editline]13th September 2016[/editline] Also I'm not saying I know who did it, that's not my point. Nor is it the point of the OP.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048079]a skyscraper did not fall on it, you know that, it was hit by a small amount of debris and a few floors caught fire. Watch the video. The fucking building goes into a perfectly symmetrical freefall. I guess controlled demolition companies went out of business after 9/11 because, apparently, all you have to do is start some random fires in a steel frame highrise and it will go into a freefall straight into its own footprint. I guess that the building code for highrises must have been seriously amended right? ...right? [editline]13th September 2016[/editline] Also I'm not saying I know who did it, that's not my point. Nor is it the point of the OP.[/QUOTE] Did you know that objects dont go from solid, to liquid, to gas, like some kind of jump cut? Its a gradient. No, the fires werent enough to MELT the steel, but its likely they were hot enough to reduce the strength of the steel as it gets less solid as it heats up. Now add in debris hitting the shit out of the framework and heat warping, there you go. [editline]13th September 2016[/editline] Hell the video you yourself posted shows part of the building falling before the rest. Which as we all know, additional debris falling on an already damaged framework does wonders for its integrity.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51048087]Did you know that objects dont go from solid, to liquid, to gas, like some kind of jump cut? Its a gradient. No, the fires werent enough to MELT the steel, but its likely they were hot enough to reduce the strength of the steel as it gets less solid as it heats up. Now add in debris hitting the shit out of the framework and heat warping, there you go.[/QUOTE] On this point: [video=youtube;FzF1KySHmUA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA[/video] How many times does a person have to be shown they are wrong before they realize they don't know what they're talking about?