Gandhi G in da house
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 9,475
- Reaction score
- -24
- Country
- Location
A few skeptics don't prove a theory.
It’s Official: European Scientific Journal Concludes 9/11 was a Controlled Demolition
- Thread starter Thunder Bolt
- Start date
Hamartia Antidote
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 35,188
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
yeah is anybody actually reading things. The EU Journal has disavowed any connection with the Euro Physics News article.
"To Whom it May Concern:
Regarding the recent developments on social media, we would like to inform the public that neither the European Scientific Journal, ESJ, nor the European Scientific Institute, ESI have published content on 9/11 attacks.
Sincerely,
European Scientific Journal, ESJ
14.09.2016
Editorial Office"
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Judging from the posts in this thread, lots of people on PDF choose to trust such falsehoods.
Hamartia Antidote
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 35,188
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
Judging from the posts in this thread, lots of people on PDF choose to trust such falsehoods.
This is just a sneaky attempt by some conspirator to make it appear they had some prestigious peer-review of their theories. Luckily the journal put out a statement disavowing things.
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
BATMAN
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 29,895
- Reaction score
- -28
- Country
- Location
It’s Official: European Scientific Journal Concludes 9/11 was a Controlled Demolition
http://educateinspirechange.org/alt...-journal-concludes-911-controlled-demolition/
15-years after the attacks on September 11th, the European Scientific Journal, a publication of theEuropean Scientific Institute (ESI), published an article titled “15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses,” in which they analyze the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings. The results of their findings continue to indicate that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, and the fact that this controversial topic was covered by a publication that boasts aneditorial committee from reputable colleges and universities around the world (despite the article’s disclaimer), can be considered yet another small victory for 9/11 Truthers.
The study was written in collaboration by Steven Jones of Brigham Young University (now retired), Robert Korol of McMaster University – a Mechanical Design Engineer in the aerospace industry, Anthony Szamboti, and Ted Walter of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The highly-sourced study breaks down the scientific evidence while revealing the discrepancies in NIST’s official report, and we suggest our readers – especially the skeptics – read it in its entirety.
One of the most important testimonies on the collapse of the World Trade Towers that was brought to attention in the study comes from the head structural engineer of the towers, John Skilling. It is apparently not enough for skeptics to take the findings of thousands of architects and engineersseriously, but should a skeptic choose not to at least consider the expertise of one of the men who built the WTC towers, then they are purposefully remaining blind.
Every sort of catastrophe that can happen to a high-rise building has to be taken into consideration during the design and construction processes, including the impact of an airplane. According to a 1993report from The Seattle Times, the Trade Towers were analyzed years ago, after concern was raised over a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building. It was concluded at the time that the Trade Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
In a statement made to The Seattle Times by Skilling:
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side, however back in those days people didn’t think about terrorists very much.” He continues, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane)would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. The building structure would still be there. However, I’m not saying that properly applied explosives – shaped explosives – of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”
As stated in the study: “In other words, Skilling believed the only mechanism that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled demolition.” It should be pointed out, as well, that a steel-framed high-rise building has never completely collapsed from fire. And yet on September 11, 2001, three buildings supposedly collapsed in this manner, one of which wasn’t even hit by a plane.
It was on this latter point that the authors concluded their study. They state:
“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.”
This article (European Scientific Journal Concludes 9/11 was a Controlled Demolition) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.com.
Controlled Demolition Expert on 9/11:
http://educateinspirechange.org/alt...-journal-concludes-911-controlled-demolition/
15-years after the attacks on September 11th, the European Scientific Journal, a publication of theEuropean Scientific Institute (ESI), published an article titled “15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses,” in which they analyze the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings. The results of their findings continue to indicate that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, and the fact that this controversial topic was covered by a publication that boasts aneditorial committee from reputable colleges and universities around the world (despite the article’s disclaimer), can be considered yet another small victory for 9/11 Truthers.
The study was written in collaboration by Steven Jones of Brigham Young University (now retired), Robert Korol of McMaster University – a Mechanical Design Engineer in the aerospace industry, Anthony Szamboti, and Ted Walter of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The highly-sourced study breaks down the scientific evidence while revealing the discrepancies in NIST’s official report, and we suggest our readers – especially the skeptics – read it in its entirety.
One of the most important testimonies on the collapse of the World Trade Towers that was brought to attention in the study comes from the head structural engineer of the towers, John Skilling. It is apparently not enough for skeptics to take the findings of thousands of architects and engineersseriously, but should a skeptic choose not to at least consider the expertise of one of the men who built the WTC towers, then they are purposefully remaining blind.
Every sort of catastrophe that can happen to a high-rise building has to be taken into consideration during the design and construction processes, including the impact of an airplane. According to a 1993report from The Seattle Times, the Trade Towers were analyzed years ago, after concern was raised over a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building. It was concluded at the time that the Trade Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
In a statement made to The Seattle Times by Skilling:
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side, however back in those days people didn’t think about terrorists very much.” He continues, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane)would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. The building structure would still be there. However, I’m not saying that properly applied explosives – shaped explosives – of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”
As stated in the study: “In other words, Skilling believed the only mechanism that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled demolition.” It should be pointed out, as well, that a steel-framed high-rise building has never completely collapsed from fire. And yet on September 11, 2001, three buildings supposedly collapsed in this manner, one of which wasn’t even hit by a plane.
It was on this latter point that the authors concluded their study. They state:
“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.”
This article (European Scientific Journal Concludes 9/11 was a Controlled Demolition) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.com.
Controlled Demolition Expert on 9/11:
BATMAN
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 29,895
- Reaction score
- -28
- Country
- Location
@MastanKhan please do read it thoroughly. They are also Americans and much more knowledgeable than the posters who know nothing about strength od a steel concrete structure and that of an aluminum airplane.
You may see now, those cut paste posters means diddly duck.
I link this thread here as well:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/london-fire-vs-9-11-fire.501792/
You may see now, those cut paste posters means diddly duck.
I link this thread here as well:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/london-fire-vs-9-11-fire.501792/
YeBeWarned
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2016
- Messages
- 17,194
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
fake News, Conspiracy Theory , Terrorist Sympathizer , Terrorist , Islamist , Fundamentalist , Extremist etc 
keywords in this thread until it get locked
keywords in this thread until it get locked
Saif-ud-Din Qutuz
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2017
- Messages
- 1,035
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
There is no doubt in that. US wanted a reason to invade Afghanistan. Then they had wanted to push the battle within Pakistan to destabilize China. It was growing at an alarming rate. US ended up spending trillions of $$$ but couldn't gain anything. Now Using India to destabilize China but again, won't achieve anything.
MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Hi,
Young man---it does not make any difference---if it was a controlled demolition or a fake stunt or a fraud or a deception---.
The main issue was that a christian army was going to invade a muslim nation---what did you do to stop that invasion---.
Hi,
Welcome to the forum---if your family and tribe was slaughtered and butchered by the american soldiers like it happened in afg---iraq libya syria etc maybe your answer would be different.
With 4.5 million dead muslims---40 million homeless muslims---4- major muslim nation destroyed / decimated---and pakistani idiots say that the " U S has gained nothing "---.
Tell me in what nursery fools like you grow up in---. Millions butchered by the U S military invasion and you are saying " couldn't gain anything ".
Dr. Abdul Basit
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2016
- Messages
- 334
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Can't agree more with you sir @MastanKhan
Investigating whether it was a controlled or uncontrolled incident ain't that much of importance,
but all our decision makers decisions and type of support to the killing machine should be held accountable and used to guide our responses in future....the perpetrator of millions killed is the US but these people aided by taking decisions that facilitated the manslaughter, and should be equally responsible
Investigating whether it was a controlled or uncontrolled incident ain't that much of importance,
but all our decision makers decisions and type of support to the killing machine should be held accountable and used to guide our responses in future....the perpetrator of millions killed is the US but these people aided by taking decisions that facilitated the manslaughter, and should be equally responsible
Similar threads
