Scumbag conspiracy theorist

Bashes the other side for lack of evidence

Has no evidence for his own theories

If you would understand physics then you would know that only a controlled demolition can bring down such steel structure in a free fall speed. Also notice that all 3 steel buildings were the first buildings in 100 years that fell due to fire !

When defending it against a loon it's not needed.

Also the onus is on him to prove his claim not us, and he has been name calling because this guy is basically a nutter. You'd know too if your head wasn't so far up yer arse in trying to look better than everyone by seeming the most rational.
Question is do YOU know physics? Or just what you've seen others claim on youtube and the net?

I'm not the one making absurd, and unprovable, claims. I, and a few others, have linked him to better sites to begin his investigations, and that's ALL that's required of us. The fact that he ignores that in the dogged belief HE is right is not our fault. We provided the first step for him, he refuses to take it.

I did my investigations into this by visiting the local world-class university, and asked about various 9/11-related engineering specifics. They showed me, patiently I might add, that what the so-called "Truthers" claimed was not just bunk, it was absurd bunk.

I would not deny Slash that joy for all the tea in China.

I have not studied physics, but you do not have to study physics to see the obvious.
But i can solve schrödinger equation or other differential equations that is no problem for me.

Actually in order to prove whether your claims are valid or not and not just accept them on blind faith you kinda do.

You are living in UK ?
I have studied at the LSE but i can tell you they are also no masterminds there.

Again, you're repeating blatantly false "Truther" propaganda, here.

They didn't fall JUST to fire.
They fell to massive structural damage, fire, and time.

That's just ONE.

Of course they didn't fall in free-fall. Have a look at the pictures of the collapse. Video would be better. UNEDITED by idiots, video anyway.

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed.

Edit : LSE? London School of Economics? HAHAHAHHAHHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! Try an engineering or Structural Mechanics school, then try again. PLEASE!

Now you use ad hominems against his information source.
Is it just me or is it sad we're the last two still arguing with him in here?

It is not just blind faith and what claims should i prove ?
Free Fall speed should be prove enough (alone) for a controlled demolition.

You can't just SAY things...you have to show proof of your claims that the buildings free fell, beyond people saying they did in youtube videos.

If you're interested in the subject, I'd forget the whole "controlled demolition" angle. It's impossible to prove or disprove it, and both sides of the argument have published so much unverifiable junk as "fact" that the idea is far too clouded to ever get to the bottom of properly, and the real evidence is long since gone.

Also, in my own humble and uninformed opinion, it doesn't seem too likely anyway.

There are lots of perfectly valid questions surrounding the event, though. My personal favourite is about how keen the American Government was to find out the truth behind 9/11, when they'd just been given such a great publicity boost for their own pre-planned agenda?

Here's a hint:

Amount of money allocated for the 1986 Challenger disaster investigation: $75 million
Amount of money allocated for the 2004 Columbia disaster investigation: $50 million
Amount of money allocated for Clinton-Lewinsky investigation: $40 million
Amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission: $14 million

Yup, looks like they weren't particularly interested in the details when there was nothing going on that a good war in a completely unrelated country wouldn't fix...

After all, they had some miraculously legible passports they'd just pulled out of the jet-fuel burned wreckage of the World Trade Centre and two Jumbo Jets that proved everything they needed to know. How handy!

again : NOT in free-fall. Not anywhere near free-fall.
http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/the_truth_about_9_11/post98

1 Those figures prove nothing. It might've been given elss funds because ti didn't need as much, or politicians were trying to cut spending.

2. We never said the gov't wasn't involved in the events around 9/11, just that the op's theories are crap about the buildings falling because the gov't wanted people dead to further a pending war.

3. Maybe something covered the passports and kept them from burning? It is plausible.