Ahmadinejad calls for UN 9/11 investigation

  • Thread starter Thread starter aadil77
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 215
  • Views Views 20K
Status
Not open for further replies.
Boaz said:
No offense, but all these conspiracy theories make me laugh.
Click to expand...


Do they tickle you as much as the passport that was found by WTC which survived the fire that burnt steel metal to a pulp and hundreds of odds of belonging to other passengers to allude to the culprits'/terrorist's identity?.. I also found that one exceptionally hilarious..

all the best
 
ChargerCarl said:
Vale lily, I would like to hear your explanation of what you think happened.
Click to expand...


There are plenty of websites dealing with that matter, how about you use google? can't be that hard to type the truth about 911 and see what comes up!

all the best
 
I tried, but I couldn't find any peer reviewed scientific papers written by structural engineers that contradicted the official events.
 
ChargerCarl said:
I tried, but I couldn't find any peer reviewed scientific papers written by structural engineers that contradicted the official events.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but that's not going to happened. Would those who did this then let it be made public? Use the organ in your body called the brain.
And this isn't a new scientific theory being suggested, to need peer review...
 
Last edited:
ChargerCarl said:
How convenient.
Click to expand...
If you think the US is so innocent, go look here, that's a bit more public and a place where you can start.. But since you're not competent enough, i'll paste the first few lines:

Project MKULTRA, or MK-ULTRA, was the code name for a covert, illegal CIA human research program, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence. This official U.S. government program began in the early 1950s.
Click to expand...
But wait.. this is probably conspiracy and lies no?

Alright son, i'll break some of it down for ya.
Firstly, tell me why the US government was paying the Taliban/Al-Qaeda millions during the 90s?.. Or why they joined in during the Russian invasion?.. Gave the Afghans $$$ and weapons.. but why? to "save" them?.. no. It was because they thought by getting rid of the Russians, they could put a puppet government there (which they did) and establish a stronghold in the middle-east, collecting oil, harvesting the poppy fields and keeping a watchful eye on Iran/Iraq and the rest of the Middle-East. When that didn't work out, and after the Russian invasion the Taliban were uncooperative, they started branding them "terrorists", with fake BS, like tapes of Bin Laden (who the CIA met on many occasions even while he was on the top 10 wanted list).. Eventually they did 9/11 and invaded and Iraq followed. I can pretty much guess you'll disagree with it all being the way you're programmed and manipulated, but don't say i didn't try and explain my point. Before you ask for "Peer reviewed sources", it's all over the net and around the world, wake up and search the truth.
 
Last edited:
ChargerCarl said:
I tried, but I couldn't find any peer reviewed scientific papers written by structural engineers that contradicted the official events.
Click to expand...

I haven't read any 'peer reviewed' articles from statisticians and structural engineers cementing the original claim either..

convenient!

all the best
 
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1372839 said:


I haven't read any 'peer reviewed' articles from statisticians and structural engineers cementing the original claim either..

convenient!

all the best
Click to expand...

I would post some however I'm not allowed to post links yet.
 
Google: "Why did the world trade center collapse? - Simple Analysis" by Zdenkek P. Bazant, Fellow ASCE, and Young Zhou

Also Structure Magazine and Popular Mechanics ran several pieces explaining it.

Also google the National Institute of Standards and Technology for their full explanation.
 
1328 verified architectural and engineering professionals
and 9918 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

must be exceptionally lazy? or perhaps a bad speller, given it was one of the first links that showed up in the search..

enjoy!
 
ChargerCarl said:
I tried, but I couldn't find any peer reviewed scientific papers written by structural engineers that contradicted the official events.
Click to expand...

There was a peer reviewed paper on thermitic material found at separate sites at the WTC collapse. The truth movement also has quite a few high profile people, including scientists, architects, etc.
 
ChargerCarl said:
Neither of those are published, peer reviewed papers.
Click to expand...
So who are the reviewing peers? George Bush?... Dick Cheney?.. I don't trust any "official" organisation, let's think back to the "Official" and "Independent" investigation that happened at the time of 9/11... Oh wait, it wasn't really independent after all..
Have a look here boy, is that molten steel i see?.. hmm.. surely it can't be caused by towers falling.. yup, looks like a detonation to me. Hmm now that i think of it, wasn't thermate found at the remains of WTCs?..hmmm...
 
Last edited:
ChargerCarl said:
Neither of those are published, peer reviewed papers.
Click to expand...

I doubt very much you know what peer reviewed means!
and it is published as in 'formally made public'

Are we concerned with stooges with unquestioning obedience or are with science? I understand you enjoy that cattle mentality, but an argumentum ad populum is hardly 'peer reviewed' or worthy of being dignified with a response!

all the best
 
Peer review means the paper is reviewed by other experts (peers) in the field. In this case, structural engineering.
 
ChargerCarl said:
Peer review means the paper is reviewed by other experts (peers) in the field. In this case, structural engineering.
Click to expand...
So i wonder whose the expert at blowing up towers around here.. why don't you go and ask Bush to review it, he seems to have a lot of skill.
Before you embarrass yourself even more son, not everything can be "Peer reviewed" or is, for that matter. I think you've used this new word you learnt today enough times already.. it's like asking people to review a rape case, wouldn't the "reviewers" be rapists or something?.. funny huh. Peace!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top