News -
News Releases By AE911Truth
|
Written by AE911Truth
|
Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:51 |
Cole exposes the false and conflicting claims made by OCT defenders like NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder |
Civil Engineer Jon Cole points out in his latest rapid-paced 18 minute video, 9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert, that many people, espousing the official account of the 9/11 WTC events and viewed as technical experts, have proposed a variety of conflicting theories as to why the WTC buildings collapsed on 9/11. What is interesting is that none of those theories supporting the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) obey the laws of physics or match the observed events. This innovative and well-researched video also presents a fascinating 9/11 narrative and compelling images that refute these official accounts of how the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 came down.
Some experts admitted that there were explosions in the Twin Towers, and others said there were none -- even though there are many eyewitnesses to these explosions.
|
Read more...
|
|
News -
News Releases By AE911Truth
|
Written by John-Michael Talboo
|
Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:03 |
Q. Isn’t it true that the signatories at AE911Truth represent only a small percentage of all architects and engineers worldwide?
Regardless of the hundreds of architects and engineers who have signed the AE911Truth petition demanding a new investigation, the evidence for the WTC controlled demolition stands on its own |
A. Those who raise this point often do so in an attempt to avoid dealing with the scientific evidence brought forth by AE911Truth. The real question should be, ‘Is the evidence that they are bringing forth factual and worthy of a real investigation?’ To that question, the answer is yes. It doesn’t matter whether there is one architect and one engineer, or 12, or 100, or 1,600, or 16,000. Those who question the premises offered because the number of adherents to those premises is deemed too small are engaging in a logical fallacy often referred to as an ‘appeal to majority.’
|
Read more...
|
News -
News Releases By AE911Truth
|
Written by Sandra Jelmi
|
Thursday, 10 November 2011 20:32 |
The new multi-language edition of 9/11: Blueprint for Truth is an excellent tool for our European supporters to enlighten the public |
It’s been two years in the making and it is finally here! The six-language European Companion Edition of 9/11: Blueprint for Truth arrives on the scene just in time to inform an eager European community of truth seekers. This DVD is now available in our online store in PAL format only,and will offer AE911Truth’s groundbreaking presentation on the WTC skyscraper demolitions – complete with voice-overs in Spanish, German, French, Italian and subtitles in Dutch.
|
Read more...
|
|
News -
News Releases By AE911Truth
|
Written by John-Michael Talboo
|
Thursday, 08 December 2011 18:36 |
Images like this one reveal that the squibs were not merely puffs of air, as they have the same hue and consistency as pulverized solid building materials |
Multiple analyses have shown that the ejection speed of the squibs was too high, at 100+ mph, to have been the result of air pressure. These are explosive speeds. They have also been clocked at 160 to 200 feet per second. |
Q: What caused the "squibs"? Could they have been just puffs of dust being pushed out of the Towers by falling floors? Are they visual evidence of explosive charges?
A: The isolated ejections 20-60 stories below the demolition front appear to be composed of pulverized building materials, including concrete. There was no known mechanism by which pulverized building materials being created up at the zone of destruction could have been transported so far down through the building and to the exterior. Air conditioning vents would not have tolerated such pressures, and there was no other "channel" in the building to deliver “compressed air”.
There is no reason, on the “dust puff” theory, for such blasts to be as isolated as they were. Massive air pressure which would delivered by the (missing) “pile driver” down through the elevator hoist ways and out through a given floor would have broken most or all windows on that floor – not created the highly focalized pin-point ejections that are seen on the videos. The breakage of one or two windows on a given floor would not have relieved enough pressure across an entire floor area to prevent the breakage of many other windows nearby.
|
Read more...
|
News -
News Releases By AE911Truth
|
Written by Melinda Coyle
|
Wednesday, 09 November 2011 20:00 |
Recently, I had the great fortune to have a revealing conversation with 37-year structural engineer Steve Dusterwald, one of more than 50 experts featured in the new AE911Truth DVD, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out.
Dusterwald grew up in Woodhaven, a middle-class neighborhood in the borough of Queens in New York. “After high school, I had a full four-year scholarship to Cooper Union College in Manhattan, a small school with an acceptance rate of about 8% of those who take the application test,” he said. Dusterwald was always interested in engineering; one of his favorite pastimes as a youngster was building with his erector set. Dusterwald remembered feeling that something was really odd about the way the WTC skyscrapers fell on September 11, 2001. “It did not fit what I know from my 37 years experience as a licensed structural engineer,” he said.
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Next > End >>
|
Page 55 of 127 |